Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Rfc: What word or words should describe the person responsible for the 2017 shooting in the opening sentence?

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.

---

There have been a number of recent attempts ([1][2] [3]) to modify the wording of the lead, and a little discussion here. What word or words should describe the person responsible for the 2017 shooting in the opening sentence? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Strong preference for Stephen Paddock, which is direct, avoids the need for verbal acrobatics, and matches the use of the shooter's name in the opening sentence in 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, University of Texas tower shooting, and Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. We are an encyclopedia rather than a tabloid style investigation program, and don't need to structure the article as a mystery. If consensus is with an indirect form, slight preference for shooter over gunman. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
• Strongly support Stephen Paddock in the opening sentence. There is no reason to present information in the order that it was discovered by investigators or released to the public. –dlthewave ☎ 04:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support for current version [4] where Paddock is named in the second sentence. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Prefer the current version, with "a gunman opened fire" in the first sentence and "64-year-old Stephen Paddock of Mesquite, Nevada" in the second sentence. This formulation was developed through discussion because people wanted to include his age and hometown. That was too much information for the lede sentence, and was very awkward when added as a standalone sentence. So the current version was the best way we could come up with to cite that information along with the first mention of his name. I would be OK with replacing "gunman" with "shooter". Actually I think "a shooter opened fire" is awkward and would stay with "gunman." There is no need to strive for inclusive language - he WAS a man. Some of the recent changes suggested "sniper" (inappropriate, that suggests accurately targeting a single person, rather than blindly spraying fire) and "assailant" (ugh). --MelanieN (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

P.S I would ask the people who want to use "Stephen Paddock" in the first sentence instead of gunman: please show us how the first two sentences should read in that case - keeping in mind the question I raised here about including his age and residence somewhere in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Shooter or gunman, no preference betwixt the two. Date, act, location, method, number of victims is enough to hit the reader with in the first sentence. O3000 (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• Shooters or gunmen, There are reports of multiple shooters.--Jane955 (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

There are also reports that dinosaurs helped build the Pyramids. WP:FRINGE O3000 (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Are there reports that the dinosaurs did this mass shooting? that would be more logical than blaming it on an old man with no motive. By the way, are we going to ignore the helicopters flying around before and after the attack and their possible involvement?--Jane955 (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll just leave this evidence of the conspiracy here. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Strong support for the current version per Somedifferentstuff and MelanieN. HastyBriar321 (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support using his name as the noun in the opening sentence. (invited by the bot) This provides information; the other terms are redundant and so do not provide information. North8000 (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2017 (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.

LVMPD Report released

LVMPD just released their preliminary investigation report which would have details that can be used to clarify parts of the article as well as some supplemental information. I'm not going to have time anytime soon to go through it myself, but hopefully others can use it. https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Documents/1_October_FIT_Report_01-18-2018_Footnoted.pdf GaidinBDJ (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The main thing that caught my eye was on pages 6-7. This says that "two LVMPD officers were in the security office of the Mandalay Bay handling a call for service reference two females who were in custody for trespassing. The officers heard the radio broadcast of gunfire at the Route 91 Harvest Festival. Both officers, along with security personnel, exited the security office and responded towards the Las Vegas Village. As they were making their way through the casino, security personnel advised the officers of an active shooter on the 32nd floor of the hotel. The officers then directed security to escort them to that location. The officers and security personnel entered the Center Core guest elevators and were again advised the shooter was on the 32nd floor. The officers made a tactical decision to respond to the 31st floor and take the stairwell to the 32nd floor." This seems to confirm reports that ordinary police officers were on the 32nd floor around the time of the shooting, but they did not attempt to enter the room where Paddock was firing out of the window. Page 7 says that due to the possibility of an explosive device in a food service cart outside the room, a decision was made to breach the door with explosives. Again, this confirms that the room was not entered until the SWAT team arrived, although Jesus Campos had identified the area around Room 32135 as the likely location of the shooter. It's still unclear exactly what happened at around the time of the shooting, but the two LVMPD officers on patrol did not attempt to enter Paddock's room and waited for the SWAT team to arrive. As for a motive, there is nothing much new in the report. It points out that nothing previously known about Paddock would explain why he did something like this. There is a possibility that he was depressed over his gambling losses, but the report says "He was indebted to no one and in fact paid all his gambling debts off before the shooting." (page 53). The photo on page 81 confirms that the distance from Paddock's window to the stage area is nothing like the quarter of a mile that has been quoted in some media reports. It is probably around a thousand feet, although the report does not give an estimate, which is a pity.-♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Charge against Haig for "Armor Piercing" ammunition

This is more of a WP:COMPETENCY update. For those unfamiliar with the law, regulations and rules regarding such things. First, "Armor Piercing" ammunition is illegal only for handguns. Manufacturers of rifles have made "handgun" versions of .308 rifles by removing the stock. That technically makes a .308 round a potentially handgun round. As stated in the probable cause statement into the bullet component of the round, the component is designated as armor piercing, not the ammunition. The same "Armor Piercing" round in 5.56mm/.223REM is readily available as M855 62gr, steel core penetrator rounds (see Walmart for the M855 ammunition with same "armor Piercing" penetrator [5] and M855 article. they are not illegal and widely available as sporting ammunition. Armor piercing hangun ammunition was outlawed to protect officers from handgun runs that could penetrate their Class II and class IIIa vest. Any center fire hunting rifle will penetrate this class of vest regardless of whether it is armor piercing. It's the main difference between military and police body armor. The Probable Cause statement does not mention the .223 versions as they are not illegal. Second, ATF will not license a "gun show only" manufacturer, dealer, seller, etc as an FFL licensee. It is ATF policy that regardless of how much money a person makes at gun shows, they are not "in the business" and are therefore ineligible to receive a license. The probable cause statement specifically calls out sales conducted at his house (which can be a location the ATF would grant a license). Our article is accurate with what the ammunition maker was charged with but background information above is needed to note why .308 caliber and not 5.56mm/.223 caliber was mentioned (that ammunition was likely fired during the shooting but .308 was not). The .308 caliber rounds and sales from his house are the elements of the crime alleged and this knowledge should direct further updates. Also, in a quirk, the same AP bullet could have been used in a .30-06 cartridge which has no commercial handgun maker and it would be legal. --DHeyward (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@DHeyward: The only indication of AP rounds in the report indicates that they were used in rifles. I've changed the para to use (what appears to be) the wording of the charge; this doesn't imply that armor-piercing rounds were illegal in and of themselves, but that Haig's operations were unlicenced. Good enough in the absence of RS analysis/coverage? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't have objection to the article. The charge was "manufacturing armor piercing ammunition." They charged both for personal manufacture as well as for sale. "Armor piercing ammunition" is legally defined in the definitions section as only handgun ammunition. Selling at a gun show doesn't require a license, neither does manufacturing at home. The point of law they are arguing in the charging document is the location of sale at his home (not legal like a gun show if he's making money). The other technical point is that it's the bullet, not the ammunition that is being isolated as a handgun round. See USC 921 17 for definitions. By selling at his home and not just gun shows, he is "in the business" (it's blanket ATF policy that "only selling at gun shows is not in the business" whence why that tidbit is important). The mention of "tooling" speaks to the other requirement for being a manufacturer (assembly is not "manufacturing" per ATF directive and is different for each department). There's a glaring charge missing which is failing to register under ITAR which is required by law for manufacturers of ammunition. It's missing because the differences in what the State Department calls manufacturing and ATF calls manufacturing are different ("manufacturing" is not statutorily defined) and both departments claim they use the dictionary definition but they conflict. The conflict would mean charging under both would invalidate criminal charges per SCOTUS (I expect this would be a defense if it makes court and would limit to a civil fine). The point I was making was only to provide background for those that follow and write additional prose about the key elements needed. It's a different way to think and understand what reliable sources are saying w.r.t. the documents they are interpreting (people see "armor piercing" but miss "home", handgun, and manufacture when those are much more key to prosecution).. Prosecutors and defense attorneys are notoriously tight lipped which is obvious given the 3 month lag in reporting. I expect more statements will come forward especially handgun and "manufacturer." --DHeyward (talk) 08:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the background - lots of nuances. (The charge sheet is at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4365750-Douglas-Haig-Charge.html). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The reports also confirm that Paddock had tracer ammunition that he bought from Haig but did not use it during the shooting.[6] This fits in with eyewitness and video coverage of the incident. The conspiracy theorists have said "why do none of the videos show tracer fire?" and the answer is that Paddock did not use it during the attack, although he had the bullets in the room with him. Investigators believe that the incendiary ammunition was intended to set the fuel tanks at the airport on fire, but failed. The article should be updated to make clear that the tracer ammunition found in the hotel room was purchased from Haig.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2018

Hello, The Las Vegas Metro Police Department recently released a preliminary report which provided a complete list of the firearms found in Stephen Paddock's two hotel rooms (the report can be found here here and the relevant pages are 42-43). In short, this list contradicts the one found under the "weapons" subcategory. I'm suggesting you change "23 guns, including four DDM4 rifles, three FN-15 rifles, one AR-15 rifle with forward front grip, one .308-caliber AR-10 rifle, one AK-47, at least one made-to-order LMT rifle, and a Smith & Wesson M642 .38-caliber revolver" to the following: "24 firearms: 1. Colt M4 Carbine (AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. Front sight only.) 2. Noveske N4 (AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 40 round magazine. EOTech optic.) 3. LWRC M61C (AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. No sights or optics.) 4. POF USA P-308 (AR-10 .308/7.62 with a bipod, scope and 25 round magazine.) 5. Christensen Arms CA-15 (AR-15 .223 Wylde with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. No sights or optics.) 6. POF USA P-15 (AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. No sights or optics.) 7. Colt Competition (AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. No sights or optics.) 8. Smith & Wesson 342 AirLite Ti (.38 caliber revolver with 4 cartridges, 1 expended cartridge case.) 9. LWRC M61C (AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. EOTech optic.) 10. FNH FM15 (AR-10 .308/7.62 with a bipod, scope and 25 round magazine.) 11. Daniel Defense DD5V1 (AR-10 .308/7.62 with a bipod, scope and 25 round magazine.) 12. FNH FN15 (AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. EOTech optic.) 13. POF USA P15 (AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. EOTech optic.) 14. Colt M4 Carbine (AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine.) 15. Daniel Defense M4A1 (AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. EOTech optic.) 16. LMT Def. 2000 (AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. No sights or optics.) 17. Daniel Defense DDM4V11 (AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip. No magazine. EOTech optic.) 18. Sig Sauer SIG716 (AR-10 .308/7.62 with a bipod, red dot optic and 25 round magazine.) 19. Daniel Defense DD5V1 (AR-10 .308/7.62 with a bipod and scope. No magazine.) 20. FNH FN15 (AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. No sights or optics.) 21. Ruger American (.308 caliber bolt action rifle with scope.) 22. LMT LM308MWS (AR-10 .308/7.62 with a bipod and red dot scope. No magazine.) 23. Ruger SR0762 (AR-10 .308/7.62 with a bipod, scope and 25 round magazine.) 24. LMT LM308MWS (AR-10 with a bipod, scope and 25 round magazine.)"

I'm advocating this change because: - it's a direct quotation from the most reliable available source. - the current list is inaccurate

    - 24 guns were found in Paddock's hotel rooms, not 23
    - none were AK-47's
    - 8, not 1, were .308 caliber AR-10's
    - 14, not 1, were .223 caliber AR-15's

Hope I formatted this correctly - first time contributing to the project. Thanks, and keep up the good work! Leon181 (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC) Leon181 (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Partial revision done. Neither the cited source nor LVMPD mentions AK-47, nor gives a weapons count. DonFB (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Correction: the cited CBS News source states 24 weapons. I see no explicit mention of a weapons count (23 or 24) in the primary LVMPD source. DonFB (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Just a matter of accuracy; a DDM4, DD5V1, LMT, etc, etc, are not all 'AR-15's that is merely the gas actuated mechanism, and lower receiver. These are very different rifles in practicality. Many thousands of rifles use AR lowers. This would be kind of like calling your Ford Fiesta a Volvo because it has a Volvo engine in it that year. When the rest of the vehicle is entirely different, it's named something different, and sold as something different. There are no '14 AR-15's or '8 AR-10's, this is just an instance of significant lack of understanding of basic firearms knowledge. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 16

27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Missing citations.

Hi. I noticed some missing / wrong citations that are hindering my research. Specifically pertaining to ISIS.

The terrorist group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) claimed that Paddock was their "soldier" and that he had answered Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's call to attack coalition countries.[72] ISIS provided no evidence for its claim, and had previously released multiple false claims of responsibility for incidents with which they had no connection.[73][74] On October 9, 2017, the FBI declared that Paddock's attack was not linked to international terrorism.[75]

73 and 74 just link to articles generally claiming it's 'false' but don't show any evidence that they have ever 'previously released multiple false claims of responsibility' in fact, so far I have found no evidence they have ever actually claimed a terrorist who wasn't in some way inspired by them or in contact with them which is very uncommon for a terrorist organisation (and the motivation for my writing on the subject) - I was wondering if that statement is true, which I am skeptical of given their track record, perhaps whoever wrote it could add evidence that they have 'released multiple false claims of responsibility' - as I and I am sure many others would love to hear about it. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

ISIS has a long history of dubious claims of responsibility. The Orlando nightclub shooting, 2016 Nice attack and Manchester Arena bombing are all examples of this. The sourcing doesn't make this sufficiently clear, but ISIS would turn up for the opening of a fridge door if they thought that it would get them some publicity.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Internet vs. internet. To capitalize or not to capitalize.

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([7][8]). 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

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

LVMPD has released bodycam video of the police operation inside the hotel.[9] 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)

Victims list

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)

High Incident Project

This should be included:

• A 4chan pol thread which some conspiracy theorists claim predicted the incident beforehand.[10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4898:80E8:1:B947:D137:3AC6:6282 (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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 shooting → 1 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

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

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_6xjtdKbWM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.250.248.212 (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oC1WPCxMy8

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

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGPeaQEZvaE

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

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKY3ATH-8C0

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)

4chan thread

Re this edit. I removed it per WP:DUE because there is no evidence that the police gave it any serious credence as a prediction. It is also misinterpreting the source to say that the prediction had "surprising specificity" when it was vague and got key details wrong. It is a routine hobby for users of 4chan to make predictions of this kind as a trolling prank. Here is what the source actually says: "look i feel bad for some of you on this website. so i'll let you in on a little secret. if you live in las vegas or henderson stay inside tomorrow. don't go anywhere where there are large groups of people. also if you see three blacks vans parked next to each other immediately leave the area. you're welcome." This is routine 4chan shitposting which some people have elevated to a level which it never deserved. It is nowhere near the "OMG what an accurate prediction" stage that some people have claimed. In any case, it was posted back in September 2017 to coincide with the anniversary of 9/11, so it is blatantly bending the truth to claim that it was predicting an event in October 2017.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Move refs to reflist at end?

Hi, I'm thinking of moving the refs to the reflist to assist with source consolidation and confirmation (a bunch of the sources are from the chaotic early period, and may not entirely agree with later findings), and to keep the body of the text cleaner. Any objections? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Personally I prefer inline citations. List defined references have to be done just right, otherwise they do not show up properly and produce formatting errors.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP and MSNBC video

The video File:Las Vegas Shooting Now Becomes Deadliest In US History - Morning Joe - MSNBC.webm was previously linked from the Aftermath section, but I just removed it. We've carefully scrubbed both this article and Stephen Paddock of the name of his partner (except in a few source titles, which is unavoidable). However, the thumbnail of the video (and presumably thus the content) has not only her name but also her picture, front and center. Do we really need this video? ansh666 20:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that early media reports about the shooting made claims about his partner's involvement that were not supported by subsequent investigations.[11] There is a WP:BLPNAME issue, but police were satisfied that she did not have any knowledge in advance of what Paddock was going to do.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Changing "similar rate of fire to a fully automatic weapon"

I think we should either remove this or make it plain what the firing rate is for each weapon. They are not "similar" at all. A bump stock allows an AR-15 to shoot roughly 400 rounds per minute. Automatic rifles shoot upwards of 1200 rounds per minute. Let's be accurate or not include the information.

NationalInterest16 (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, looks like bump stocks can fire between 400-800. Looks like the 1,200 you mention is for a mounted machine gun, not a fully automatic rifle. Perhaps you have better sources. O3000 (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd9y8hHMUag https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/us/bump-stock-las-vegas-gun.html I haven't seen one single source demonstrating a firing rate of 800RPM. The vast majority of sources show 7-9 seconds. The only one showing 9 seconds is the NYT article where they analyzed the Vegas shooter. There are quite a few automatic rifles that shoot over 1000RPM. Here is one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KRISS_Vector.

NationalInterest16 (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the definitions. That weapon is called a sub-machine gun. It's also an example of one. I'm sure weapons exist that are faster than using bump stocks. But, for all practical purposes, this seems similar to me. Interested in other views. O3000 (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

A submachine gun is the same as an automatic rifle/machine gun in how they operate. The reason for differentiating is based on the caliber of the rounds they fire. Fully automatic weapons have a completely different firing system than semi-automatic weapons, which is also why the firing rate is usually over 2x faster than a semi-automatic rifle equipped with a bump stock. For all practical purposes, there isn't one similarity between a bump stock and an automatic rifle. Do you have any sources demonstrating an 800RPM firing rate for a bump stock? NationalInterest16 (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

How about analogous instead of similar. O3000 (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I suppose that would be an improvement, but I would think someone still needs to demonstrate aspects in which the two are similar. If rate of fire is the only metric, wouldn't a bump stock be more similar to a semi-automatic without a bump stock than to an automatic? I just think it's best if we are precise with our wording. NationalInterest16 (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

No,I would not say a bump stock is more similar to a semi-automatic without a bump stock than to an automatic for practical purposes. O3000 (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

If the practical purpose of a gun is to fire bullets, a gun with a bump stock shoots 7-9 RPS, a semi-auto without a bump stock shoots 5-9 RPS, and a automatic shoots 15-20 RPS wouldn't it follow that a bump stock is more similar to a semi-automatic for practical purposes? Additionally, given that all the internal components remain the same and the motion of the trigger remains the same, this would also make it more similar to a semi-automatic. What if we solve the problem by changing it to read "at a rate of fire of 9 rounds per second" and then we use the NYT analysis as a source. This is what the wiki article on bump stocks does. NationalInterest16 (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

So, basically sounds like you're saying a bump stock is useless. That is certainly not what comes across from reading sources about this article. The effect of a bump stock is to convert a semi- into a fully-. That's the point made by sources and should be the point made by the article. O3000 (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I think this is becoming unnecessarily complicated, with too many variables - an "automatic weapon" could have a firing rate of anything from 400rpm to 6000rpm. As per O3000, the point of the statement "similar rate of fire to a fully automatic weapon" is to show that previously unattainable rates of fire can be achieved by the use of a bump stock. In that respect the statement is fine as it is. Chaheel Riens (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that a bump stock is not similar to a fully automatic weapon in the rate it fires, the manner it operates, or in any other measurable way. It would be more accurate to say "a bump stock can increase the rate of fire." However, it is also true that a bump stock is almost completely useless for all tactical purposes. It reduces aim, does not increase fire by any real useful amount, and is prone to failure. But that is not the point, the point is that a bump stock absolutely does not make a weapon fully automatic. NationalInterest16 (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I think I should also note that the statement "previously unattainable rates of fire" is also false. Any semi-automatic weapon can fire the exact same speed without a bump stock. A bump stock is not a necessary component to "bump fire" a gun. So, you might as well say a semi-automatic is similar to a fully automatic because they both fire fast. NationalInterest16 (talk) 05:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

See Rate of fire. Paddock modified a semi-automatic rifle to give it a rate of fire similar to what it would have had in fully automatic mode. This is not strictly the same thing as a machine gun, as others have pointed out.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I guess I'm just questioning the need to compare it to an automatic weapon. I think someone who is reading this article will come away with the impression that a bump stock can turn a semi-automatic weapon into an automatic weapon. Again, the same rate of fire can be achieved without a bump stock. Automatics fire much faster and more accurately and they use a different lower. For example, no one says a model T is similar to a Ferrari even though they both have four wheels... Don't we have a responsibility to be accurate with our information? NationalInterest16 (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a gun expert but think that the current wording is broadly correct. Bump stocks are designed to get round the legislation which prevents a US citizen from owning a weapon that can fire in true fully automatic mode. Although it lowers the accuracy, it wasn't a problem for Paddock as he was firing into a large crowd.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Broadly correct other than being completely wrong in every sense. As per my other comments, there is not one related component between a bump stock and an automatic weapon. The firing rates are not the same. A semi-automatic can be "bump fired" without a bump stock. The firing mechanism is not the same. The design of the lowers is not the same. The movement of the trigger is not the same. The firing pin is not the same. To use my Model T example again, you're saying that installing racing slicks makes it effectively the same as a dragster. Here is some material to aid with understanding the differences https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RdAhTxyP64 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1nqRcAsZAE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd9y8hHMUag NationalInterest16 (talk) 06:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

There is a good explanation of bump stocks on YouTube here. For an average person, firing the semi-automatic rifle with the bump stock looks and sounds a lot like fully automatic fire, but it isn't because the gun is simply using its recoil on the shooter's upper arm to reload itself. My guesstimate is that the bump stock in this video achieves 400-500 rounds per minute, although this would not be possible without reloading the clip numerous times.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think that video depicts the action of a bump stock well. I agree that someone who is not familiar with guns could be fooled into thinking that a semi-auto with a bump stock is an automatic. Hence the necessity about making the differences clear, not muddying the waters. A good shooter can easily do 400 RPM; an expert can do 600. This also can be confused with an automatic, until you see/hear how a real automatic sounds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf31EZ9gAJk I'm not trying to be difficult, but I think we could easily eliminate confusion by simply stating "at a higher rate of fire than the average shooter." Or "at a cyclical rate of 450 rounds per minute" and link to the Wikipedia article about rate of fire that you cited earlier. Lastly, these weapons use a magazine not a clip. NationalInterest16 (talk) 08:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

"(A) cyclical rate of 450 rounds per minute" - you mean similar rate of fire to a fully automatic weapon? As per my previous statement, I think it's becoming needlessly technical for the layman, and comments such as "these weapons use a magazine not a clip" are perfect examples of how pedantry can get in the way of a simple explanation. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The man in the video refers to it as a clip here so I guess he's wrong too. It looks like many people get it wrong.[12]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

We Wikilink bump fire stocks. No reason to burden this article with minutia. O3000 (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

A simple explanation that's wrong. A clip is used when a gun has a built-in magazine. I am not sure how many times I need to point out that 450 RPM is NOT similar to a gun that shoots 1200 RPM. A regular semi-automatic can shoot 450 RPM. I also don't see how it's being needlessly technical to say "that increases the rate of fire for the average person." Why tell people something that is blatantly wrong. Regardless, I'm also not sure how explaining the rate of fire is too technical. I don't go around to the wiki articles about applied mathematics and talk about how they need to cut out all the formulas because a layman doesn't understand NationalInterest16 (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

If you don't understand it by now, you probably won't at all. Some fully automatic weapons have an rate of 400rpm, and a bump stock can increase the rate of a semi-automatic fire to 450rpm - ergo a similar rate of fire to a fully automatic weapon. The problem with your suggested change is that "average person" is a vague term in itself, and there is nothing inherently wrong with the existing text. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you cite me one automatic rifle that has a rate of fire of 400RPM? Regardless, we are talking about the average and the average for automatics is well over 600. If we can compare random numbers and declare them similar, how come we don't say "the number of people killed was similar to the number that died in the WTC attack" instead of citing the exact number who died? Obviously I use this as a ridiculous statement to show how misleading it is to compare a bump stock to an automatic weapon. Additionally, if we can make comparisons based on a peculiarity, you could also say that bump stocks don't increase the rate of fire at all, because there are some people who can shoot just as fast without one. It seems the best course of action, if we cannot add in the correct information because it would be too complicated for people who don't understand guns, would be to just remove the entire statement and let people read about the rate of fire farther down in the article. Lastly, no other wiki article about bump stocks is comparing their rate of fire to that of an automatic, so why is this article the exception? NationalInterest16 (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is not about applied mathematics, it’s not about the WTC attack, and it’s not about bump stocks. Your analogies don’t work. If this was an article about bump stocks, we would give details about bump stocks. It ain’t. O3000 (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Then let's cut the "which" statement out altogether. I agree that the article is not about bump stocks. However, that is not a license to be misleading about them. Having that line in there is not adding anything to anyones understanding of the attack, bump stocks, automatic weapons, or firearms in general. NationalInterest16 (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The use of bump stocks is all the more important as this event was the catalyst for their ban. Minor details about the devices are unimportant in this article. The fact that they provided the ability to increase the carnage is. You may disagree with this. But, we follow reliable sources reporting on this event. O3000 (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide any of these reliable sources? All of the sources I've read (not shoddy articles by journalists) clearly demonstrate the reasons why bump stocks significantly decrease the tactical advantage of firearms. Hence the reason why no police agency or military has ever used these devices. So no, the bump stocks did not increase the "carnage". Again, how many videos/sources do I have to provide showing that the firing rate of a semi-automatic is not significantly greater than a semi-automatic without a bump stock? Additionally, an AR-15 has a maximum effective firing rate of 45 RPM, not 300, not 400, not 600. This is what the actual user manual for an AR-15 says. bump stock effectiveness, why bump stocks are pointless. Again, the purpose of this discussion is not to talk about whether they should or should not be banned, it's to discuss the misguided notion that they fire similarly to an automatic. The article still will still explain that bump stocks were used in the shooting and are the catalyst for the ban. It would simply read "The incident is the deadliest mass shooting committed by an individual in the United States. It reignited the debate about gun laws in the U.S., with attention focused on bump fire stocks, which were found on 12 firearms in Paddock's hotel room." This eliminates any confusion, shortens the sentence, explains that bump stocks were used/the catalyst for their ban, and people can then read about the rate of fire farther down in the article. NationalInterest16 (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

In this article the subsection titled "Gun control discussion" contains several references to reliable sources that address the issue you're debating. The sources include: NY Times ("devices designed to allow semiautomatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles"), CNN ("the devices allow semi-automatic rifles to fire more rapidly, similar to automatic weapons"), CNBC ("transforms a semi-automatic rifle into a weapon capable of firing hundreds of rounds a minute") and AP ("allow semi-automatic weapons to fire like machine guns"). I slightly revised the lede section of the article to both address your concern and to fairly reflect what the sources I show here have reported. You could respond with your opinion about my editing change and the sources it is based upon. DonFB (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that's significantly better than what it was before, and I think it is perfectly fine to leave the lede as you've written it. I'm not really sure what those sources are using for the basis of their reasoning in stating a bump stock fires at a similar rate to an automatic. Again, I believe I've provided several concrete numbers showing that the rate isn't similar, and that a bump stock has no relation at all to the way an automatic fires as pointed out here. But the way you've written it should work fine and at least won't give people the completely misleading impression that the previous version did. NationalInterest16 (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Glad you're amenable. You have a few years here, but not sure if you've looked carefully at wp:V and wp:RS, which explain in detail how Wikipedia uses and assesses sources. I recommend a looksee. The source you linked could be used in a related article, such as Bump fire or any of the Gun control or similar articles. DonFB (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Dictionary.com says that "similar" means "having a likeness or resemblance, especially in a general way".[13] This is how the word is being used here. A bump stock is not the same thing as fully automatic fire, but the sources make clear that it is designed to create an effect that mimics fully automatic fire.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

You still have not demonstrated one way that a bump stock resembles an automatic firearm. There are lots of things that are similar but shouldn't be compared to each other. A horse is larger than a dog but you wouldn't say a horse is similar in size to a building just because it is more similar than the dog is. News articles can point out whatever they like, but that doesn't make them correct. An automatic is fired in a completely different way. There is no relation between the firing mechanism of an automatic and a piece of plastic. You also didn't bother to provide any reasoning for reverting the changes. NationalInterest16 (talk) 07:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The point is trying to give a summary of what reliable sources have said. There is a duck test here because a bump stock does allow firing at 400-500 rounds per minute even though it is not the same as fully automatic fire. I doubt if the people who were killed or injured were worried about the exact functioning of the gun.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but in this instance it doesn't swim like a duck, look like a duck, or quack like a duck. A semi-auto without a bump stock can also fire 400 RPM. The vast majority of automatics are well over 600 RPM. I'm not sure what your statement about the people who were killed has to do with anything. I doubt they care whether there was a bump stock at all, given that a bump stock significantly decreases the tactical effectiveness of a rifle. Semi-autos are nothing like automatics, they do not have the same cooling capacity and are much less capable of maintaining sustained rates of fire. NationalInterest16 (talk) 07:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

There is another issue with bump stocks in the article. Farther down it states "that included fourteen AR-15 rifles (all of which were equipped with bump stocks and twelve of which had 100-round magazines)". How can all fourteen AR-15 rifles have bump stocks if there were only twelve bump stocks? https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/04/us/bump-stock-las-vegas-shooting/index.html NationalInterest16 (talk) 07:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Paddock fired 1100 rounds in around ten minutes, so the effective rate was around 110 rounds per minute. This was an unusual mass shooting, because the reduced accuracy was not a real issue when he was firing into such a large crowd. To be honest, I can't see why there is such a problem with saying that a bump fire stock produces an effect similar to fully automatic fire when numerous reliable sources have said this. As ever, the lawyers have become involved, and Slide Fire Solutions announced in April 2018 that it would no longer manufacture bump stocks.[14] The previous NPR story says "Bump stocks are modification devices used to accelerate a gun's shooting rate so it fires like an automatic weapon — almost as fast as machine guns, which are largely outlawed." Slide Fire Solutions is facing a class action complaint from victims of the Las Vegas shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Accuracy is not the only problem with bump stocks. Bump stocks are also highly unreliable, cause jams, and rarely fire continuously. But "similar effect" ends up being misleading because a semi-automatic also can fire in rapid succession in the exact same manner as a semi-automatic with a bump stock. The most important difference is in the way the gun operates, which is not similar. By stating that a bump stock makes a semi-automatic similar to an automatic, it sounds like a. standard semi-automatics cannot fire as quickly as those equipped with bump stocks, and b. bump stocks give a semi-automatic firearm the capability of an automatic, all of which is not factual. I think extra precision is required here due to the massive amount of false reporting by "reliable" news sites who don't seem to have a competent grasp on how firearms operate. Hence why over and over again they will report that the "AR" in AR-15 stands for Automatic Rifle, that automatic rifles are legal, that bump stocks make semi-automatics fully automatic, that an AR can fire 600 RPM, etc. At the very least, we don't need to add to the confusion in this area by repeating the nonsense that bump stocks on semi-automatics have any resemblance to automatics other than that they both fire bullets quickly. IF you actually read the text of the statute about machine guns, it makes the differences between a semi-automatic and an automatic very clear. NationalInterest16 (talk) 08:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

With regard to your comment above starting with "There is another issue..." - I think you're misunderstanding the statement? It says (as you've quoted) that all 14 AR-15s were fitted with bump stocks, and that 12 of those 14 also had 100-round magazines? Where is the issue?

Also, that's a helpful CNN link, as it contains statements such as: "devices that enable a shooter to fire bullets rapidly, mimicking automatic fire", "Bump-fire stocks allow semi-automatic weapons to simulate automatic fire", "convert a weapon into something that is like an automatic gun", and "accessories that accelerate a semi-automatic rifle's rate of fire to that of an automatic weapon". In fact, the article is chock full of references and comments that a bump-stock rpm has a similar rpm to a fully automatic. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The police report says 14 AR-15s and 14 bump stocks. The CNN article says 12 bump stocks. Which is correct, the CNN report (and multiple other news websites that reported the same thing) or the police report? But I give up. Clearly, facts are not important in this discussion. We'd apparently rather use the opinion of a journalist, who has no supporting evidence for their wild claims rather than the actual congressional statute defining what an automatic weapon is and the actual proven rate of fire for automatics vs bump stocks. I guess the lesson here is that if tomorrow CNN and the New York Times both write reports claiming the sky isn't actually blue, Wikipedia will use them as the source over actual evidence. Or maybe we'll say that because "up" and "down" are both directions, they are similar. Personally, my vote is that we might as well change that sentence in the lede to read "which is similar to a Hellfire ICBM platform" and then we'll just claim that the comparison is valid because both are weapons, fire things, and do so in rapid succession. Maybe we'll also then say that it's minutia to claim anything else, or that the layperson can't possibly be asked to understand the real numbers. NationalInterest16 (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, you convinced me. I'll change the lede to: "which is similar to a Hellfire ICBM platform" as per your suggestion -- unless you wish to take back your rant, assume good faith, and deal with Wikipedia guidelines. O3000 (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The Final Investigative Report shows photos of 14 different AR-15 rifles fitted with bump stocks, and several AR-10s without (page 96 onwards).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Given that none of those articles provide any substantiating evidence for their claims, they are opinions. Maybe you want to recheck wp:RS because I'm fairly sure that using the opinion of a journalist to make a "factual" statement in the lede is poor practice. Notice that in the wiki article about automatic firearms, it says "contrast" not "similar" when comparing automatics to semi-automatics Automatic firearm. Here's another one semi-auto vs full auto news report detailing the actual firing rate compared to an automatic and here's the actual definition of an automatic In no manner does a bump stock make a gun fully automatic, nor is it similar to one in it's operation. Given that CNN and many other websites have continuously provided incorrect information about firearms here yes it happens so often that there have to be additional articles written about the ridiculous claims by news organizations about firearms, so it seems to be that if we are to stay in line with wp:rs then we should not be using these opinions as primary sources in the lede of a major page. NationalInterest16 (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

You're using Daily Caller as a source to prove CNN is not RS? This discussion is going nowhere. O3000 (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm trying to point out that when CNN (or any news website) states something that isn't backed up by actual evidence (and in this case runs counter to the actual evidence), then it is just their opinion and not worthy of inclusion in the lede. We don't include rumor, gossip, or opinion about external events unless we are going to attribute it to CNN. Perhaps you want to change the lede to say "which CNN says makes a semi-automatic similar to an automatic." But then I believe, according to the rules, we should also give equal mention to the many other sources that say the complete opposite. It's hardly encyclopedic to include unsubstantiated opinion pieces from news outlets and represent those opinions as facts. NationalInterest16 (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I was disappointed that you deleted text from the lede after you replied to me that "I think it is perfectly fine to leave the lede as you've written it... the way you've written it should work fine." I guess you changed your mind. Your basic objection seems to be that bump stocks do not actually change the mechanical functioning of semi automatic rifles. That's true, and this article does not state that such a change occurs. You further assert that reliable sources, including NY Times, CNN and AP, are giving an "opinion" in their reporting about the similarity of bump firing and automatic firing. That is your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but you have provided no source which explicitly supports your claim of "opinion" in regard to the reliably sourced reporting about bump firing in this specific event. The Daily Caller article you linked says of the AR-15: "That weapon’s maximum rate of fire is at best 45 rounds a minute," which actually supports reporting by reliable sources that bump fire "simulates" or "mimicks" the much more rapid firing of an automatic weapon--hundreds of rounds per minute. I recommended you look closely at wp:V and wp:RS; I also recommend you look closely at wp:OR, Original Research, and give attention in that policy to the prohibition of Synthesis. DonFB (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Don, I was not the one who reverted your change, I deleted the text after the other editor reverted it back to the statement that was false. Webster's definition of an opinion is a "view not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." Which pretty well covers the source used in the lede, which is simply stating a claim that bump stocks can fire at 800 RPM. This is not even possible given that an AR-15's maximum cyclical rate of fire is 600 RPM in perfect conditions. Additionally, I have now provided several videos and supporting sources demonstrating what the actual rate of fire for a bump stock is. I also provided an NYT article that analyzed the Vegas shooting and determined that the shots were being fired at 9 rounds per second. Again, I would be perfectly fine with the lede as you wrote it, or a lede that makes it clear, although a bump stock can sound like an automatic, the firing rate is not similar and neither are the mechanics. The Daily Caller article is talking about the maximum effective rate of fire. AR-15s (and other semi-automatics) cannot fire quickly for long periods of time before they melt. A bump stock does not change this, the gun's practical rate of fire is still limited by the physical characteristics of its design. The AR-15 user manual also states that an AR-15's maximum effective rate of fire is 45 RPM. As I've pointed out before, you can "bump fire" a semi-automatic without the use of a bump stock. The only purpose of the bump stock is to make the gun more stable while it is bump firing. It does NOT increase the rate of fire. I am interested to hear what other editors think about this topic. NationalInterest16 (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

You deleted text wholesale after another editor removed the word "somewhat." Show a reliable souce that explicitly says a bump stock "does NOT increase the rate of fire." Not your personal deductions, conclusions and technical wormholes; an explicit reliably sourced statement. This article does not say anything about 800 rpm. In the face of a host of reliable sources that use words like "similar," "mimick," and "simulate" you continue to Synthesize personal conclusions about the topic, based on your readings of law, technical manuals and broad-brush condemnations of mainstream sources from the likes of Daily Caller. You have presented not a single source that explicitly supports your personal opinions about the content of this article. I urge you to read wp:SYN. DonFB (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

You're right, this new article you used as the source does not mention the rate of fire at all. That was the previous source. I did not realize you also changed the source to the CNN article. Why are we comparing the rate of fire in the text to an automatic when the text in the article doesn't compare the two? It says "Bump-fire stocks allow semi-automatic weapons to simulate automatic fire but 'do not actually alter the firearm to fire automatically'." I would be perfectly happy if we just paraphrased that in the article. CNN at least is adding the qualifier, so everyone is aware it isn't actually automatic fire. I've now linked to this video about five times, it's not my fault if you don't watch it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd9y8hHMUag&t=121s This is by a news agency that demonstrated the significant difference in rate of fire between a bump stock and an automatic. And here is an article stating exactly what I have now pointed out at least a dozen times "A bump stock doesn’t turn a semi-automatic into a fully automatic, nor does it allow a gun to fire any faster than it already could." -- here Here's another article that demonstrates how you can bump fire a gun WITHOUT a bump stock. here. It would logically follow that if you can do it without a bump stock than a bump stock is not increasing the capacity of the weapon to fire any faster. And here's another article pointing out that you can fire just as fast without a bump stock here. So just to sum up: 1. Even the CNN source states that a bump stock does not make a rifle automatic and does not increase the rate of fire. 2. A bump stock is not necessary to bump fire a weapon. 3. A bump stock does not actually enable a semi-automatic to fire any faster than it already could. NationalInterest16 (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I made no change to the sourcing; the Oct 5 CNN ref at the end of the lede was already present when I modified the text. That CNN ref uses the phrase "enable a shooter to fire bullets rapidly, mimicking automatic fire" and (as you quoted), "Bump-fire stocks allow semi-automatic weapons to simulate automatic fire." The existing phrase in the lede is: "similar to a fully automatic weapon." Where is the problem? DonFB (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

There's a problem because the rest of the sentence is eliminated: "but do not actually alter them to fire automatically." Currently, the lede makes it sound as though the bump stock "enabled" paddock to fire his weapon like an automatic. 1. As I've already pointed out, it is not necessary to have a bump stock to fire quickly, therefore the word "enabled" is incorrect because he would have been able to do it anyway. 2. The bump stock does not make the gun any more similar to an automatic, it may "simulate" the general motion of an automatic, but it is still far from an automatic. And as mentioned in the links I previously provided, you can achieve the same motion without a bump stock. The statement could be revised to read "which Paddock used while firing rapidly but not automatically." Perhaps you could word it more eloquently than I can, but I hope you get the gist of what I'm trying to point out. I'll be interested to read what the WP:Firearms editors have to say on the subject. NationalInterest16 (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed: "It reignited the debate about gun laws in the U.S. and focused attention on bump stocks, which Paddock used to help him fire shots in rapid succession, with a result compared to automatic weapon fire." DonFB (talk) 05:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I've left a request at WP:FIREARMS requesting interested experienced editors review and (if necessary) suggest a reliably sourced alternative that continues to provide a simple useful comparison for the lay reader without getting bogged down in technical nuances such as loss of accuracy which may rightfully belong at bump fire stocks but is irrelevant here. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 21:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The rate of fire article may be helpful. The more widely available figure is the cyclic rate of fire determined by the firing mechanism. The less available but more meaningful is the effective rate of fire considering the need to change empty magazines and melting barrels. In response to the request for a figure matching the reported bump stock rate of fire, the M1918A2 Browning Automatic Rifle could be conventionally configured for a cyclic rate of fire of 350 rounds per minute. The effective rate of fire of most magazine fed automatic rifles of the world wars was in the vicinity of 200 rounds per minute for a few minutes, and then varied according to how easily one could change barrels or other malfunctioning parts. Johnson, Melvin M. (1944). Rifles and Machine Guns. New York: William Morrow and Company. pp. 119–176. Thewellman (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Don, your proposed change does seem to cover everything accurately. Potentially we could tweak the last part to be a little less wordy: "...in rapid succession, resulting in comparisons to automatic weapon fire." Yours would also be agreeable if you prefer it over my wording.

Thewellman, would you agree that the sources seem to show that a bump stock cannot increase the effective rate of fire or cyclical rate of fire? A section of this book examines a Vice interview with the man who originally decided whether bump stocks should be legal. He concluded that bump stocks are not necessary to bump fire a gun, cannot be defined as machine guns, and do not increase the weapon's effective rate of fire. NationalInterest16 (talk) 06:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

There is a very good source in the article here, which is What Is a Bump Stock and How Does It Work? from the New York Times. This concludes that Paddock fired around 90 shots in 10 seconds at one point, considerably faster than the Orlando nightclub shooting. Nobody has said that a bump stock is the same as fully automatic fire because it isn't, but when used correctly it is similar and approaches the rate obtained by automatic fire.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to assume good faith here, but I've now linked/mentioned that article about 5 times in this conversation and you now bring it up as though you've just discovered it... Regardless, 9 rounds per second is not equal nor similar to 15 rounds per second. Additionally, it still does not address the main contention, which is that the bump stock did not "enable" Paddock to fire any faster than he could have without one (we just had a lengthy discussion about the vast number of sources that make it clear a semi-automatic can be bump fired without a bump stock) Furthermore, comparing this shooting to the pulse nightclub is completely irrelevant due to a impossible-to-calculate number of factors that could affect how many rounds each shooter fired. NationalInterest16 (talk) 07:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has said that a bump stock makes a semi-automatic rifle fire faster. The shooter holds his finger in a fixed position and the recoil then fires the gun again. The real question raised by the Las Vegas shooting is whether bump fire is intended to bypass the spirit of the law, namely the May 1986 ban on fully automatic weapons. But we're starting to go round in circles on this and fresh input is needed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Behavioral Analysis Unit report

The Behavioral Analysis Unit of the FBI has published a report into the shooting.[15] It says there was no ""single or clear motivating factor" to explain his actions, other than a possible desire to follow in the the criminal footsteps of his bank robber father." Further coverage here, saying that Paddock's actions were inspired by obtaining "a certain degree of infamy via a mass casualty attack". In other words they drew a blank, and didn't get much further than the LVMPD in finding a clear motive. Thank you, Sherlock.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Descriptive superlative in lede

I have replaced] the factual statement that this shooting was the deadliest mass shooting in American history. RekishiEJ has removed it, expressing a belief that using superlatives when reporting a mass shooting easily makes the emotionally disturbed more likely to fantasize about committing larger "deeds". Whether or not that is true, and whether or not that is a noble idea, I believe that we do our readers a disservice by omitting a key fact from the lede of the article. I would ask that RekishiEJ get consensus for this removal before attempting to enforce it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, WP:NOTCENSORED clearly applies here. Many reliable news stories covered this angle, and it not our job to worry about what disturbed people might do with the information.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, although Poynter claims that when reporting a mass shooting, superlatives like “the deadliest mass shooting ever” can be used in news stories (but not in teasers and social media posts), since they could possibly lead to contagion (cf. [16]), such statements in such stories should be as few as possible, since a psychologist says that most mass shooters left notes claiming that they wanted to commit "larger" deeds, and they were influenced by news media' mentions of the number of casualities.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It is WP:OR to imply that Paddock was deliberately trying to break the record set by Omar Mateen in Orlando and there is not enough sourcing to say this. We just don't know why Paddock did it, but we do know that he committed the worst single gunman mass shooting in US history and it would be wrong not to mention this fact.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I concur with Ianmacm's comments above and above. Wikipedia is not censored. There are many similar crimes written about here; the articles are not sanitized and should not be. DonFB (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@DonFB:Well, although such information should not be sanitized actually it should be de-emphasized as much as possible, meaning it should not be included in the lede.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC) modified a bit 14:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

List of the victims

I reverted the latest addition of all the victims, in table format with names and hometowns. I am under this impression this has been discussed multiple times with consensus not to include a list of the victims. Am I correct? Some previous discussions about whether to include a list of the victims: [17], [18], [19]. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course it has been discussed. And of course you are removing information that is prominently found in sources. We don't bring value to readers by displays of discernment. We bring value by the inclusion of an abundance of accurate information that reflects that which is found in most good quality sources. Bus stop (talk) 04:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

We've all had our two cents on this and the consensus was not to have a full list. It would add no real value to have a contextless list.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The reader doesn't care that we are discerning. The reader cares about information. "It would add no real value to have a contextless list." And if we added "context" wouldn't that be construed as memorializing? I think this is a perfectly good example for how this sort of information can be included. It is minimalistic in how it is displayed. But it is informative. Bus stop (talk) 06:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Just because information can be found in sources does not by default mean that it has to be included. That is what discussion is for, and as pointed out - discussion has happened multiple times and always been not to include the list. Can you provide any new reasons why the list should be included - reasons that have not been covered in the past? Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to those supporting process. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens—we don't have to look pretty. We don't have to look tasteful. We don't have to look discerning. These sorts of concerns are superficial concerns. I don't think we are primarily concerned with our appearance. Our aim should be to create articles that are jam-packed with relevant information—that should be our overriding concern. We should reflect the majority of good quality sources. The best quality sources enumerate the identities of the lives lost. And 90% of our own similar articles include the victim names. Why should we at this juncture overturn longstanding practice? Why at this time is it important that we omit this information? Is there some insight that you have into this question that past editors did not have? Bus stop (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

For the multiple excellent counters to arguments about precedent in other articles, including the vast majority in which the lists have received little or no discussion, search for "90%" at Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting/Archive 2#RfC: Victim names. The 90% number largely represents the effective equivalent of democratic voting by editing, and it falls dramatically when you look at articles where the issue has received significant scrutiny in recent years.[20] It falls so far that nobody can claim that it represents a community consensus for the lists. Attempts to reach a consensus in community venues such as the Village Pump have repeatedly failed, despite arguments about precedent, and there could be little clearer evidence of the absence of a community consensus for the lists. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Regardless, attempts to challenge the results of prior discussion without significant new argument are generally considered disruptive. Finding new ways to word the same old thing is not "significant new argument". ―Mandruss ☎ 15:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep list of victims

1. Because it honors the recording of history, and 58 names is not too many. ApexUnderground (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
2. According to No Notoriety, news outlets should not focus more on victimizers than victims so that contagion will become less likely to happen. Although Wikipedia has been no news medium, actually it has been extremely popular on earth, thus it should have social responsibility not to cause contagion when giving info about a particular mass shooting. We keep the name of the offender in this article, thus we should keep list of victims as well.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
3. They are the dead in this story about death and Las Vegas, nobody disputes that, decent stories explain "who" as a natural goddamned matter of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete list of victims

Remove table formatting and superfluous info from list

Inclusion of the "High Incident Project" under conspiracy theories section

I think the most pressing conspiracy of the entire event was that an anonymous 4chan user seemingly predicted the shooting almost an entire month in advance. My contribution was recently removed by @Ianmacm:, saying: "This was almost certainly routine 4chan nonsense and the "prediction" was vague. The police gave it no serious credence". Well, if police disregarded it, why not just add that to my contribution instead of completely erasing the most pressing conspiracy theory from this event from this article? Conspiracy theories aren't supposed to have credibility. They are disavowed by the authorities and media at large, which is why they are theories. That's what the section is for. I believe this should be re-added to the article. Can we get any consensus? Ghoul flesh • talk 20:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Unilad is a sensationalistic tabloid unsuitable for use as a reliable source; that leaves only Snopes' debunking as a source, and if the only reliable source you can find is a Snopes debunking, the material doesn't really meet WP:DUE. What you or I think is "the most pressing" is not really relevant; what is relevant is what reliable sources say. We intentionally omit many things from the encyclopedia precisely because they lack credibility. We aren't a compendium of every nonsense thing said by a troll on the Internet at some point in time. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

It's a bit like saying that Nostradamus predicted the shooting by overinterpreting some vague crap that he wrote. If you look at Talk:2017_Las_Vegas_shooting/Archive_13#4chan_thread, it's clear that this was never intended to be a prediction of the Las Vegas shooting, despite what some people claimed. As I said, it fails WP:DUE because no mainstream source considered it important.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Motive in the lead section

The Amaq News Agency is a propaganda outlet for ISIL and would claim responsibility for anything to get publicity. Per WP:LEAD and WP:DUE, its claim to be involved in the Las Vegas shooting is of little more than passing interest. In this edit I am wary of scarequoting the official investigation, by implying that it is wrong in some way. It's clear that the official investigation could not find a clear cut reason why Paddock did it, although you can spend all day in the blogs looking at wild theories as to why he might have done it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Why not echo "ISIS claims responsibility" in the lead?

We do it for officially unconfirmed reports in Paris, London, London Bridge, Colombo, Quetta, Aden, Quetta again and basically anywhere in Syria. We don't have to say the FBI believes them. We should rather say the FBI thinks they're full of it, as many reliable sources do in stories directly featuring the only widely-proffered motive this case has ever seen. When we just say undetermined, it leads one to believe nobody knows. ISIS may be a lot of things (many universally unappealing), but they/it is/are neither nobody nor nothing.

If fucking Donald Trump even remotely suggested buddy was "maybe, I don't know, mentally ill and standing his ground or something", you know it would be here, right? Same level of fame, same lack of proof, same history of habitual lying. What's the difference? Not in a rhetorical false equivalence way, like comparing Jefferson to Xerxes, but rationally, as grownups and woke netizens. How is a Trump tweet about a foreign suspected terrorist different from an Amaq telegram about a suspected foreign "soldier of the Caliphate"?

Tomato, tomahto, as they say in Magnanville. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD should summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. The ISIL angle was given little more than a passing mention by the MSM, because these people would attend the opening of a fridge door to get publicity. There is no reliable evidence that Paddock converted to Islam, this is stuff best left to the blogs.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

"Passing mention", my sandy vagina! CBC raised its grim spectre after the Danforth shooting and MSN fanned the embers this past June first. Technically in the past, but what is dead rarely dies when it comes to historical unfinished terror news business. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Is there any serious evidence that Paddock converted to Islam? It looks like a case of nature abhors a vacuum. Find a gap, then fill it in. The LVMPD ruled out a political or religious motive within days, because nothing in Paddock's background suggested this. I'm wary of suggesting that ISIL is the missing piece in the jigsaw puzzle, as this is an exceptional claim. If the motive is unclear (which it is) the article should not be afraid to say so.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Can we at least take a tip from Toronto Police Services, and bump these sketchy has-beens up from amongst the kooky also-rans in "Conspiracy theories" to "Investigation", like a lead real investigators did determine never truly was? Roughly equating international terrorist organizations with alternate history communities is insulting to both camps. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

For what it counts, my version did say the motive was unclear, despite the ISIS claim officials officially discounted. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Also make like a rebooted Michael Stipe and consider this: If a lone wolf submits to the will of Allah alone, does it make a sound? Leave a footprint? Raise a red flag? Would your police know your faith if your surviving family didn't? (Hypothetically, of course.) InedibleHulk (talk) 07:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Number of dead

Re this edit: it is reported in the news today that "the sister of a woman injured in the 2017 mass shooting at a Las Vegas Strip hotel says the woman has died."[21] However, it is now such a long time since the shooting that it is questionable whether this can be seen as one of the deaths caused directly by the incident.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

If she died of her injuries as is being reported, she should definitely be included in the death toll, but I don't see any official sources yet so we should probably wait. For example, James Brady died in 2014 as a result of injuries he sustained 33 years earlier, and his death was ruled a homicide. Johndavies837 (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

There is additional sourcing here; the problem is that the official death toll still stands at 58. While the death of Kim Gervais is sad, there needs to be some medical and legal opinion on whether it can be seen as part of the death toll.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree we should wait until there's an official source which says her death is the result of her injuries. Right now we have only heard from her sister, and we don't know if she had any other medical conditions. Johndavies837 (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the death of Kim Gervais is in some way linked to the injuries that she received at the festival, but from a pure medical and legal viewpoint it isn't as clear cut as it looks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The San Bernardino County Coronor has released a statement: "Kimberly Gervais, a 57-year-old resident of Mira Loma, was a victim of the shooting that occurred on October 1, 2017, at the Route 91 Harvest music festival in Las Vegas. Kimberly suffered spinal injuries during the incident and was convalescing at a nursing facility in Redlands. On November 15, 2019, she was brought to the Redlands Community Hospital, where she was declared dead at 4:51 PM. The San Bernardino County Sheriff – Coroner Department, Coroner Division, will be performing an autopsy to determine the cause and manner of death." So it's too early to include her in the death toll. Johndavies837 (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Flagging potential violation of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability

I am flagging this edit as problematic because it updated the casualty totals to reflect numbers not in the news sources cited. I propose to roll back the casualty numbers to the last reliable numbers published by the news media. At some point, someone needs to do the research to identify and cite more recent news articles that reflect the final casualty numbers from the final investigation report, but I don't have the time to do that right now. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The Final Report says on page 19 "Approximately 869 people sustained documented physical injuries. Of those who sustained injuries, FIT was able to confirm approximately 413 gunshot or shrapnel injury victims. Approximately 360 victims sustained injuries other than gunshot or shrapnel injuries. Approximately 96 people were identified as having sustained an injury, but the type of injury sustained was unable to be confirmed." This is a reliable source and it differs only slightly from the figure given in media reports.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Gunshot wound location statistics

Re: [22][23][24][25][26]

For the editor who hasn't been around long enough to know better, discussions are not held by re-reverts and edit summaries. That you disagree with a WP:BRD reversion is NOT a valid reason to revert it. See the nutshell at WP:BRD: "If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus."

For the editor who has years of editing experience: Given your pattern in this area, you are risking a sanction for disruptive editing. Reversion upon reversion is not a means of !voting. I am restoring status quo ante pending consensus to include this new content.

As I said in the edit summary of my BRD revert: What possible relevance of the completely random locations of gunshot wounds?? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

+1, as I said here, it doesn't add much value or context.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)