Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

States where all of the victims came from

Do we really need to run down every last U.S. state every last victim came from? I feel like the only states that are noteworthy of mention would be Nevada (the state where the shooting took place) and California (the state where a VAST majority of the victims came from). Love of Corey (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The article currently says "Six were from Nevada, 35 from California, 13 from other states (Alaska, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Iowa, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Utah, Washington state, West Virginia), and four from Canada." Agree that this doesn't add a great deal of context to the shooting. The popularity of the music festival meant that most of the victims were not actually locals, but a complete list may not be necessary. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Love of Corey—I would prefer the inclusion of Alaska, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Iowa, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Utah, Washington state, West Virginia, provided the information is accurate. Whether it is included or left out, our article is not going to make sense of the incident that transpired in the subject of this article. I simply err on the side of providing the reader with an abundance of reliably sourced and relevant information pertinent to a topic being addressed. Bus stop (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The information, if accurate, is pertinent, and there is no policy-based reason for excluding it. Either list all of the states, or none of them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

But what does that really add to the article? That content is borderline-WP:MEMORIAL, since only one or two victims each came from those states. Love of Corey (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:MEMORIAL is not applicable here. WP:MEMORIAL's purpose is to tell us not to create articles on non-notable deceased people. Bus stop (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

So what would this be, then? Love of Corey (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

How could WP:MEMORIAL possibly be construed to mean that the names of the states from which the victims hail should be omitted? You are going out on a limb to apply policy where it does not apply. WP:MEMORIAL is not even specifically about victims. WP:MEMORIAL pertains to any decedents. Bus stop (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Then how come I keep seeing it being brought up during discussions about including victims' names in any mass killing article? Love of Corey (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

"Then how come I keep seeing it being brought up during discussions about including victims' names in any mass killing article?" Grasping at straws. Bus stop (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

These are all the talk page discussions that brought up WP:MEMORIAL and WP:NOTMEMORIAL in some way or another:

• Sutherland Springs church shooting
• Thousand Oaks shooting
• 2019 Virginia Beach shooting
• Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting
• 2019 El Paso shooting
• 2019 Dayton shooting #1 and #2

And, of course, this very article.

I'm not grasping at straws here. Love of Corey (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The commonsensical understanding of WP:MEMORIAL is that articles should not be created about otherwise non-notable people for the purpose of memorializing them after death. Bus stop (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• May I point out that the debate is about the inclusion of 12 words? This is hardly something that makes or breaks the article. If we mention the places where multiple victims from, then we should mention all the places that victimes come from, if it's at the expense of a mere 12 words. After all, knowing the places where multiple victims come from doesn't improve the article to any great extent either, it's all just in the interest of presenting the facts. That we're spending this amount of time on this is ridiculous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  Surely you know that at en-wiki no issue is too minor to debate endlessly about. This one is just getting started. But of course no editor is required to be a party to it, and I'm sure you know that too. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Certainly, but, as I'm sure you're also aware, not being involved would be used against me, as in "Well, where were you when other editors were discussing this?" What I'd like is for editors to see at some point that (1) They're mistaken, or (2) The argument is going to go against them, and gracefully withdraw from the discussion so that it can die out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm a strong believer in stating your position and getting out unless you see something that changes your position, for most situations. I'm doing that here. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Well maybe that's a overstatement. I often participate in a little back-and-forth before getting out, and two days doesn't seem excessive even for something so minor as "12 words". So I can't fault anybody for over-discussion here—yet. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I think what Bus stop very accurately called "Grasping at straws" is excessive and worthy of comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

It is also off-topic. (It never occurred to me that WP:MEMORIAL would be invoked in defense of omitting names of states.) Bus stop (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

You're probably not aware of the irony there, BMK. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Nope. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Police increase the official death toll to 60

Reported here. This follows criticism that the official death toll did not include the two women who died from their injuries.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

time period

Usually a time period is at the beginning and the end of an event. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Only when there is ambiguity over the start. It's clear from both article and context that this was not a long drawn-out siege and that the two times are in the same meridiem. I personally would advocate changing to the 24-hour clock, as that avoids any potential for this sort of nonsense. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree that the additional p.m.'s are unnecessary in context. Disagree that 24-hour clock would be an improvement, as a significant fraction of readers have no idea what 22:05 means. It's basically military and computer jargon, and modern computers usually give you the option. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

These edits were reverted because it seemed unlikely that any reader would be confused and think that the Las Vegas shooting took place over a 12 hour period. I had a look at Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting for comparison and all of the times are am and pm, not 24 hour clock which some people dislike. A statement like 9:35 – 9:40 a.m. should be interpreted as a five minute period. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems pretty conventional for measurements in general (e.g. 12–18 ft) No need to repeat units. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

"2017 Route 91 Harvest Festival shooting, Las Vegas" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 2017 Route 91 Harvest Festival shooting, Las Vegas. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 6#2017 Route 91 Harvest Festival shooting, Las Vegas until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

"By an individual"

"The incident is the deadliest mass shooting committed by an individual in modern United States history" surely isn't the best wording, is it? It's not the deadliest committed by an individual, it's the deadliest, full stop. Throwing "individual" in there seems like an unnecessary qualification of the statement and implies that there have been deadlier shootings by more than one person. Not sure if "modern" US history is required either, but that one seems less problematic to me. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. It came about because some people asked "What about the Wounded Knee Massacre?" or similar incidents. Personally I don't think that events like these qualify as mass shootings in the modern sense of the word, but this CNN source describes the Las Vegas shooting as "the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history", which implies that there were deadlier mass shootings in the past history of the United States. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

456 injuries from panic?

How does panic cause injuries? Can we elaborate on what this actually means? The article says 411 were injured from gunfire or "shrapnel" (which should probably be changed to fragments), but says nothing about the majority of injuries. Was this an egress panic/stampede situation? A crowd crush? Was this a failure of crowd safety procedures? I don't know what happened, but I'm baffled that this article is silent on the majority of injuries, other than the lede saying they happened in the ensuing panic. Dcs002 (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The August 2018 final report says "Approximately 869 people sustained documented physical injuries. Of those who sustained injuries, FIT [LVMPD's Force Investigation Team] 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 where the word shrapnel comes from. It's hard to be more specific when the sourcing does not go into details. The non-gunshot injuries were probably an assortment of injuries sustained during the situation following the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It is not difficult for me to see how panic causes injuries. Panic at football games, rock concerts, and during visits to Mecca have resulted in horrific injuries including death. Note that people trying to escape didn't know which way to run and may have run into blind alleys or entryways, or dangerous stairwells (dangerous to a panicked crowd). People may have been shoved, trampled, knocked down, or jammed together. 97.113.40.136 (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

change in the introduction

What are thoughts about removing the times in the introduction? Unless I am mistaken, I do not see any times in other introductions in shooting articles. Thanks! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that the current wording is okay; it isn't helpful to cite WP:OTHERCONTENT. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

This suggestion was taken care of! 161.77.227.47 (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Including victims' names in the article

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.

---

Should all of the victims' names be included in this article? Love of Corey (talk) 02:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Given how recent RfCs to include victims' names in Atlanta, Boulder, Oxford, Buffalo, and Uvalde resulted in the consensus to include the names, I've decided to revive the topic here for reevaluation. Do note that the last RfC for Las Vegas victims officially ended with no consensus, not with a consensus.

To this end, I will be pinging the participants of the last RfC for Las Vegas: @Mandruss: @Objective3000: @Nihlus: @Blysbane: @Fuzheado: @InedibleHulk: @WWGB: @Signedzzz: @Ianmacm: @Hydronium Hydroxide: @FOARP: @Chaheel Riens: @Knowledgekid87: @Natureium: @Cramyourspam: @Pincrete: @Jane955: @RekishiEJ: @FallingGravity: @DonFB: @Dlthewave: @Tutelary:

I will also ping the participants of the most RfC at Buffalo to prevent the same discussion from technically happening again: @Elli: @Locke Cole: @Cullen328: @Jim Michael 2: @ProcrastinatingReader: @WikiVirusC: @North8000: @Veggies: @Qwaiiplayer: @ArvindPalaskar: @Kpddg: @Dumuzid: @ThadeusOfNazereth: @Mz7: @TrangaBellam: @Iamreallygoodatcheckers: @Khajidha: @JoePhin: @GenQuest: @Macktheknifeau: @Jayron32: @Joseph A. Spadaro: @Jjjimg: @Chesapeake77: @Amakuru: @Seggallion:

Love of Corey (talk) 02:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Support inclusion - I would support the inclusion of the victim names. It is information a reader may want and their is no policy reason to exclude. Due to the larger amount of names, it may be better in some kind of organized list rather than in prose. WikiVirusC^(talk) 02:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Support As with the Buffalo discussion, provided that there are sources to back it up, I'm for giving the names of the victims WP:DUEWEIGHT which I believe at least warrants a mention. Due to the number of victims, consensus for the best way to format it would need to be reached (a table similar to that at Virginia Tech Shooting seems reasonable). Also obviously we're talking about the names of the 61 people killed, not the 867 injured. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support for dead, as usual, per public knowledge. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Support inclusion per my comments at other discussion; there is no reason to hide this information from our readers so long as it is reported in reliable sources. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support inclusion The usual reason for excluding is NotMemorial, but it's an unconvincing argument that loses to the goal of encyclopedic coverage. If we can show the names of all the passengers of the Titanic, including both survivors and victims, we can show a list of the 60 victims of this calamity. DonFB (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Your argument about the Titanic is a fail. The victims are not listed in the article Titanic, they are listed in an entirely separate article Passengers of the Titanic. The names of the 1503 dead do not clog up the main article. Now, if you want to create an article Victims of the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, go right ahead. WWGB (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm encouraged you don't oppose inclusion in principle. Yes, I know the Titanic list is a separate article, and I would not object to having a standalone list article for the shooting victims. I don't think that's necessary, though, because a 60-name list is not an undue amount of additional text. My overarching reason for inclusion is to support the goal of making Wikipedia the encyclopedia of record, to borrow a phrase often applied to the NY Times. Many reliable sources include the names, and as a go-to source for information about a vast range of topics, so should Wikipedia. DonFB (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• Exclude. The names of the 60 victims are meaningless to almost all readers. Insertion serves no other purpose than space filling. Relevant demographic information, such as age, gender and home state, is already in the article. Where will this zeal go next? Listing all the victims of 9/11? WWGB (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  I've told you 61 times, my zeal fades at one hundred names. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  My zeal ends when List of victims of the artery clogging potential of the Big Mac turns blue. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. As for WWGB's concern with zeal, larger lists of victims can always be WP:SPLIT into a list article. — Guarapiranga ☎ 04:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with that, at least it does not bloat the main article. WWGB (talk) 07:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• Exclude. The names of the 60 victims are meaningless to almost all readers. To those who for whom the names are not meaningless, they are almost certainly redundant, but we have no way of knowing whether the naming would or would not be welcomed by them, so should err on the side of respecting the privacy of those unwantedly in the public eye. I cannot see any encyc purpose whatsoever to naming, but of course demographic info should remain and while some naming sometimes helps narration, a list of names is pointless IMO. I've been on the losing side of almost every discussion on this topic (though I haven't participated in any recent ones), but no one has yet to come up with an argument for inclusion AFAI can see except that the info is usually in the public domain already. The victims always had names! Does that really need recording? Pincrete (talk) 05:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  Have you ever stopped to consider why neither the universal right to privacy nor any specific privacy laws of the United States apply to the dead? I have. It's a fairly troubling conclusion, aye, but one most living people either immediately or eventually accept. You ever look at old census records? One day, barring societal collapse, our survivors will be free to look at ours (if not our search histories), whether we once would have wanted that or not. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  Editors decide the norms of WP, based ultimately on their own judgement. What on earth do either the (lack of?) privacy laws of the US or even the societal/media norms of the US have to do with that? They do/don't do something so we must/mustn't either? Pincrete (talk) 03:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: I've said no to this before and thought that previous consensus was against having a full list. It wouldn't add anything significant to the article. I'm disappointed that someone has used WP:OTHERCONTENT to say "if we have it in article A, we must have it in article B as well. This is not a strong or valid argument.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support for all the reasons I've given at prior discussions. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: For the same reasons I opposed before. What improvement does it add to the article? More importantly, why is this article worse than those that do include victim names? WP:OTHERSTUFF exists for precisely this reason. I believe we are looking at this argument the wrong way round - because this article does not include a list of names - and is no worse for it - we should instead remove names from all other articles. After all - this article doesn't include names, ergo all others should follow suit. Isn't that the basic argument being applied to include names? Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  Quoting your previous oppose in full for the record here:

  Oppose - for most of the reasons above, but the victims of the shooting are not notable for anything other than being victims of a shooting. What purpose is there to include their names, other than to commemorate them - which is essentially what WP:MEMORIAL is intended to avoid, even if it isn't directly phrased to include victims? Most of the arguments to support seem to be based on OTHERSTUFF - "Because other articles do so". This is a circular argument:
  "Why does Orlando nightclub shooting have a victims list? - Because Virginia Tech shooting does so."
  "Why does Virginia Tech shooting have a victims list? - Because Orlando nightclub shooting does so."
  "Why doesn't 2017 Las Vegas shooting have a victims list - all the other articles do?"
  What does their inclusion add to the article, or to turn it on its head - what is the article lacking without the list? (Apart from "The list"?)

  The victims are WP:RELEVANT to this event and integral to it. If the perpetrator had gone into an empty field and shot hundreds of rounds into the side of a hill we wouldn't have an article on it. It's precisely because these victims were murdered that we have this article, and that they're notable and relevant in the article on the event. Not including the victims gives WP:UNDUE weight to the perpetrator, which is even worse in this instance as not only is the article almost entirely focused on details of the event and the perpetrator, but we've apparently gone so far as to give the perpetrator their own article (for which they absolutely do not deserve one being notable for only this event). This is a violation of WP:NPOV. Your assertion of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is definitely important, but is irrelevant in this argument as it is simply being used as a tertiary justification. If the only justification was that other articles list the victims, your point would be valid. There are numerous reasons to include the victims. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  (e/c, somewhat redundant now but) this article about dead people is worse than many other articles about dead people because it only addresses Where they died, Why they died, When they died and What killed them. There are supposed to be Five Ws, not four, four is objectively less informative. Your rhetorical argument needs no rebuttal, and you know it. But erasing widely sourced Who from multiple independent sources in even one already bettered article about dead people would violate WP:NPOV's most obvious rule. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for quoting my rationale from before. I believe it sums up eloquently why the victims should not be named. Victims may be relevant as a group entity - ie you can't have a mass shooting without them - but are they notable as individuals? Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support Inclusion: Elements within articles only need to follow content guidelines. People involved in articles do not have to be notable to be included in an article. There are no content guidelines that requires an article to exclude victims. If length of a list is a concern, I remind people that Wikipedia formatting includes the sortable, collapsible, H:TABLE function. One example exists in the Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks page. As long as the list can be cited using what consensus views as reliable sources (which doesn't require notability or WP:GNG for each victim or the list of victims) there is no legitimate reason to oppose the inclusion of such a list. I disagree with the "not a WP:NOTMEMORIAL" argument because WP:NOTMEMORIAL is about the "subject of Wikipedia articles" and thus irrelevant for the content of a notable article. "Other articles don't have victim names" is WP:OtherStuffExists and isn't relevant. WP:VL is a misguided opinion piece whose first line incorrectly asserts that WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies to content of notable pages. The "relevance" of the victims of an article about their being murdered is quite obvious high, because without victims there is no event and no article. Lastly, neither WP:VL or WP:Relevance have any force or consensus as specifically stated at the top of each of the pages. They are not Wikipedia Policy or Guideline and have not been vetted by the community.Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support Inclusion: it is standard to include names of victims on "shooting" pages like this, the identity of the victims is always inherently relevant, and unless I'm mistaken, we're already including some names. Others above have also listed an avalanche of WP conventions that support inclusion. It's a real no-brainer. Joe (talk) 09:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion, per WP:IINFO, WP:LOWPROFILE, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. That we could find references to some bit of information is not sufficient justification that we must include it, and in many of these cases, little value is added to such mass-casualty articles by adding lists of victims. --Jayron32 11:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Jayron32: Let's tackle these one at a time:

  • WP:IINFO: To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. The context is, of course, everything else about the event. The information about the victims is no way indiscriminate, in fact, it is well sourced (from many different, independent, sources) and directly relevant to the event this article discusses.
  • WP:LOWPROFILE: An essay about WP:BLP1E, but as this isn't a BLP concern, the statements contained within are irrelevant (and it's an essay, so has no policy or guideline status to boot).
  • WP:NOTMEMORIAL: 4. Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. Very clearly states it is about not creating articles to memorialize victims. It takes no position on simply including them in articles documenting events that made them notable.

  The actual policy/guideline based reasons to include them are WP:NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE, as the article (and the article on the perpetrator) clearly create an imbalance with the almost total lack of information about the victims of the event. Objectifying the victims by only referring to them in dry statistics minimizes the actual loss that took place. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion. The victims aren't what make the article encyclopedia worthy, as horrible as it is to say. There was nothing individually special about the victims, and they weren't even specifically chosen. They were people who had the extremely bad luck to be in the wrong place in the wrong time.50.201.228.202 (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• Include where it makes sense to include (eg in a narrative description of what happened), but no list of named casualties per se. Wikipedia is not a memorial website per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and is not just going to include pure lists of victims. Particularly, lists of names that are reliably sourced may be found for a wide-number of mass casualty situations (e.g., the Falklands war) such that encouraging a general policy of inclusion would lead to articles that are nothing more than lists of names of casualties. However, all the victims may be named in narrative format when describing what happened so long as there is sourcing for this. FOARP (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support inclusion My views on the subject has not changed much since 2017. The subjects did not go to the concert with the understanding they were going to be victims, let alone dead. The lists of names have been published in reliable sources. There is no shortage numerous of RS, including the coroner. (same links I used in 2017). I do not believe that the inclusion of names and ages would be WP:UNDUE weight. Unfortunately, they were part of the event and part of the story that an encyclopedia should tell. Tutelary (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  It also seems there are anniversary articles on the victims (see the extended discussion below). It's definitely clear the victims notability has extended far beyond just this incident alone. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support Inclusion: Notable, newsworthy, public knowledge, honors victims, encyclopedic Cramyourspam (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion of names of victims. A list of names of randomly-shot strangers would be of no relevance to over 99% of readers. No-one's going to read the list & find out that their best friend was killed & that's why they haven't heard from them since 2017. Victims' names being in many other articles doesn't mean it's good practise. Some media sources including the names doesn't mean that we should. They often include various info about victims to sensationalise in order to gain more readers/viewers & profit. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:IINFO. It is sufficient to include only the details of the death and injury tolls, including where the article explains (without names) where two victims were reclassified. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support if all names are included in a few media, which I am sure they are. The policy is that as long as content has significant coverage then it can be included.Lovewiki106 (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Sources (extended discussion)

To be clear, the victims are well documented and covered in our reliable sources (see WP:RSP for perennial reliable sources). In fact, there are sources still covering the victims years after the event with entire articles devoted to them. Below is a sampling:

• Gomez, Alan; White, Kaila (2017-10-08) [2017-10-06]. "Here are all the victims of the Las Vegas shooting". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2022-05-28 suggested (help)
• "The lives lost in Las Vegas". The Washington Post. 2017-10-06. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2022-05-28 suggested (help)
• Shapiro, Emily; Jacobo, Julia (2021-10-01). "Portraits of the Las Vegas massacre victims". ABC News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2022-05-28 suggested (help)
• "Remembering the 59 Slain Victims of the Las Vegas Concert Massacre, 3 Years Later". People (magazine). 2022-05-23. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2022-05-28 suggested (help)

Given the widespread coverage of the victims (and ongoing coverage at that), their omission is a glaring WP:NPOV violation, giving undue weight to the assailant and the event itself over those without whose lives being lost made the event notable in the first place. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

This sounds like WP:MEMORIAL territory to me, which points out that individuals who have lost their lives must still meet notability requirements. The point here is were any of the victims notable for anything other than being killed at this incident? Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:MEMORIAL is about creating entire articles as tributes to non-notable individuals. Simply stating who the victims are in an article documenting an event that would itself not be notable without them is decidedly not a memorial. Relevant quote: 4. Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. Full disclosure: I am not a relative, friend or acquaintance of any of the victims. Again, the relevant policy here is WP:UNDUE. The point here is were any of the victims notable for anything other than being killed at this incident? Which policy or guideline is the basis for this requirement? How do you have an article documenting an event and leave out the half of the event that made it notable in the first place? —Locke Cole • t • c 07:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Which policy or guideline is the basis for this requirement? - Everything in the project is subject to notability. As to your question of How do you have an article documenting an event and leave out the half of the event that made it notable in the first place? - quite easily. See 2017 Las Vegas shooting. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Every topic to which every article is devoted must be notable. But not "everything" in the project must meet that requirement. As has been much noted in discussions on this and other articles, the people, places, events, things, etc ("everything") mentioned in articles, other than the main topic, are not "subject to notability". To the question: "were any of the victims notable for anything other than being killed at this incident?" the answer is: probably none were. And none need be, because policies/guidelines don't require that. DonFB (talk) 09:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad you finally wikilinked something. My question is: do you actually read these policies before claiming they cover something they clearly don't? Let me draw your attention to WP:NOTEWORTHY (part of WP:N), which says:

Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or listsThe criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of lists that restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight, balance, and other content policies. For additional information about list articles, see Notability of lists and List selection criteria.

As you so helpfully noted in your edit summary, competence is required, one of those is basic understanding of our policies and guidelines and being able to interpret them and apply them. Are you certain you're equal to that task? Because you just linked to something that literally said the opposite of what you were claiming. If you need help understanding our policies and guidelines and want to have more insight, I'm here to help you correct your misunderstandings. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, been away from the topic a while. Due to my incompetence, you'll have to clarify something for me. You seem to be insisting that notability is not required for inclusion in an article. As per your offer, can you explain your thought process there? I may have linked to the wrong article - which only says that the specific guidelines don't apply, not that there are no guidelines at all - but I'm pretty sure that due weight, balance, and other content policies will also require a modicum of notability for each individual above and beyond their victim status. But hey - bring on your expertise. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens: Sorry I missed this. As per your offer, can you explain your thought process there? Notability determines whether an overall subject is worthy of inclusion (in this case, the 2017 Las Vegas shooting). The content of the article beyond that is adjudicated by WP:NOTEWORTHY. WP:DUE, WP:BALASP, etc. don't mention notability IIRC but rather how to make sure articles aren't unfairly written or provide too much coverage of only part of the subject (while omitting or severely tapering other relevant aspects). WP:BALASP does mention being careful of recent events being in the news, however the victims in this instance are central to the event even being notable, which I think helps tip the scale towards inclusion. Excerpt from WP:BALASP: An article ... should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. With most of these types of events the victims will oftentimes receive individual or group coverage on their own. In this case in particular, we see that the victims are covered even years after the event itself. My general rule of thumb with regard to mass shooting articles is to try and maintain WP:DUE weight for the victims proportional to the overall incident. Currently most of our articles at least name them (note the update on those statistics), with a subset of those going into additional relevant details (how they handled themselves during the incident, for example). I know our sources often memorialize the victims, and while I don't necessarily support full memorials, I wouldn't object to some light details if enough of our sources do so as well. I feel like that will be a harder discussion due to wanting to keep the article encyclopedic (and that is definitely not what is being proposed here). I don't know if any of that helps, but I genuinely hope it did. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

It certainly did help, thanks. What you're basically confirming then, is that the victims need to be notable and/or noteworthy? And by that, I presume that due weight should consider whether their notability is gleaned from instances other than the shooting itself? Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I will presume to respond here, not in place of, but supplemental to anything Locke Cole (or anybody else) wants to add. In short, no, the above does not confirm that victims need to be either Notable (GNG) or noteworthy. Their only qualification for inclusion in the article by name is that they were the victims of the mass killing. Their names should be included, in my view, as a matter of encyclopedic completeness of the article. If readers, for any reason, want to know any or all of the names, Wikipedia should be a place where they can find that information about this historical subject. DonFB (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Hm, I've just noticed that the discussion is moving goalposts somewhat, and I hadn't realised. There are essentially two different questions being asked here - the main one is "should we list all victims", which I am against, for reasons stated many times above. However I will not deny that in some cases some of the victims subsequently become notable as an extension of the event that propelled them into the public eye - for example David Hogg had no notability prior to the Stoneman shooting, but there's no denying his notability right now, nor likely notability for the future as per WP:RECENT. But that does not extend to all victims, and that is what I am against as a broad implementation of WP:MEMORIAL - which is what it always comes back to, and to insist that inclusion in an article doesn't need to be notable is blatantly inaccurate, not matter how you dress it up. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

[T]he victims need to be notable and/or noteworthy Not notable, and only noteworthy in the definition detailed at WP:NOTEWORTHY. Like it or not, the victims of events like this are integral to the event itself, equally as much as the perpetrator. Their relevance, and their often equal treatment in our sources, demand we balance our coverage by acknowledging them with more than just dry statistics. (From your other reply to DonFB) [T]o insist that inclusion in an article doesn't need to be notable is blatantly inaccurate I'm sorry to seem like we're going round in circles, but this is quite literally what WP:NOTEWORTHY says in its section header: Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles. It's not even up for debate IMO. As to WP:MEMORIAL, see WP:NOTNOTMEMORIAL (which is really just a re-hash of most of this, but tl;dr: MEMORIAL applies to creation of entire articles for not-notable people, which is not something being discussed here). —Locke Cole • t • c 15:31, 27 June 2022 (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.

Post-closure note

Ive opened a discussion on the wider topic of including lists of victims here. nableezy - 21:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2022

This is a request to remove the 2 redlinks from the Preparation section. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: Leaving one per WP:REDDEAL - FlightTime (open channel) 22:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2023

You missed that there was one victim from Iowa.--4.4.31.182 (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done: Carly Kreibaum, 33, Sutherland, Iowa.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2023

The number of deaths is 58 and the number of injured are 815 112.198.69.181 (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

The current numbers of deaths include the perpetrator and two who died later. Injured is an estimate. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The official death toll is now 60, see Note a) at the foot of the article. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2023

I would like to make a request for somebody to do something about Source #5 (Duke Center for Firearms Law). Nowhere in the source does it say that the Supreme Court declined to hear the case regarding constitutionality of the bump stock ban. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

There are three options. 1) The source is replaced with a different source. 2) The source and its surrounding text is removed entirely. 3) The surrounding text is revised to match what the source says. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 01:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Tollens (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose merging Stephen Paddock into 2017 Las Vegas shooting. I think that Stephen Paddock is not notable without the 2017 Las Vegas shooting; and, therefore, the content in his article can be merged into its own section within this article. While the Stephen Paddock article is well-written and even received a B classification, much of the content is unrelated to what makes him arguably notable and thus I think can be condensed into a section instead of its own article.Geeky Randy (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Merge – Paddock is not notable outside of the 2017 Las Vegas shooting and therefore the content of his article can be condensed and contained within this one.Geeky Randy (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Geeky Randy, Please see WP:PROM#How to propose a merger. You need to add the template to the two article pages per item 2, and will need uninvolved editor assistance per item 3 given that Paddock is B class. There should also not be different proposal sections at each page -- there should be a single discussion section (the template will link there from each article), so you should strike one of your proposals and !votes and just provide a reference to the other section.

Also, given the no consensus results at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephen Paddock and the more recent Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gypsy-Rose Blanchard, and that Paddock is more difficult to merge into this article without overwhelming it, I suspect that this merge proposal would be unlikely to succeed. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Hydronium~Hydroxide! Since this is a proposed merge instead of proposed delete, I'm going to give this a try. I appreciate your help. Geeky Randy (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger Discussion

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.

---

Request received to merge articles: Stephen Paddock into 2017 Las Vegas shooting; dated: January 2024. Proposer's Rationale: I think that Stephen Paddock is not notable without the 2017 Las Vegas shooting; and, therefore, the content in his article can be merged into its own section within this article. While the Stephen Paddock article is well-written and even received a B classification, much of the content is unrelated to what makes him arguably notable and thus I think can be condensed into a section instead of its own article. Discuss here. Geeky Randy (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Merge – Paddock is not notable outside of the 2017 Las Vegas shooting and therefore the content of his article can be condensed and contained within this one.Geeky Randy (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Paddock's case is one of the most bizarre in the history of crime and deserves an article solely due to the sheer lack of a motivation investigators have been able to find. The fact that we know so little of why he did it makes him notable and distinct from other mass shooters. It's also a pretty good article as is. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose – Paddock doesn't meet the criteria for deletion on WP:BLP1E as he had a substantial and well-documented role in a significant event. NAADAAN (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose – Where do we draw the line? Should Timothy McVeigh article be deleted because he is not notable outside the Oklahoma City bombing? What about all the 9/11 hijackers – each one has their own page – Do we delete them to because they aren't notable outside 9/11? Omar Mateen page exists as does Nikolas Cruz outside their related crime/massacre: Orlando nightclub shooting and Parkland high school shooting. Many other examples as well. Sadly, Paddock is notable in his own right because of the massacre. Inexpiable (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Where's the line drawn now? There are also plenty of massacres where the perpetrator doesn't get their own article. Is it based on word count or some sort of other criteria… or is it currently subjective and we aim to keep it that way? Geeky Randy (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

In my experience as I edit a lot of these kinds of articles, it tends to basically work out to this with mass murderers having separate articles from their crimes: is it an extremely high profile case, and is there substantial content that would be undue to include on the main page? Which is, of course, pretty subjective. But Paddock and his horrific crime are famously bizarre, mysterious, and high profile to the degree that it warrants a separate article. Why he is the way he is is inherently related to his claim to notability: a lot of criminology focuses on the reasons driving these people.

So, I oppose a merge. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2024 (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.

Requested move 10 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

---

2017 Las Vegas shooting → Route 91 Harvest festival shooting – The proposed name is used about as commonly as the current title in news articles about the shooting, but distinguishes the article from the 2014 Las Vegas shootings, and other shootings in Las Vegas, more effectively than simply putting the year in the title. It would also be more accurate as Paddock specifically targeted the festival. MountainDew20 (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. I believe the existing title better satisfies at least four of the five guidelines of WP:TITLE than the proposal. To wit: Recognizability,Naturalness,Precision,Concision,Consistency. The proposal may have a slight edge in "precision", pedantically speaking. Nevertheless, I don't believe most readers and editors think of "Route 91" or "Harvest Festival" when they think about this event; I believe they think of "Las Vegas". DonFB (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: Poor suggestion, "Route 91 Harvest festival shooting" is obscure. The current title is ok and within Wikipedia naming guidelines for mass shooting articles..--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - as per Ianmacm's argument. Poor alternative title referring to a location that's practically unknown outside America compared to Las Vegas. Given the number of shootings in America, titles need to be as clear and obvious as possible. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think Chaheel has a really good point. Most people look up the 2022 Top's Shooting as just the "Buffalo Shooting" and I think that principle applies here as well. If I knew nothing about this, I'd probably just look up "Las Vegas Shooting 2017". Furthermore, I believe that the current title fits under guidelines, and isn't too vague or too long.

MemeGod27 (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: Too long and i would say a very large majority of people trying to find the article on this shooting would just search "2017 Las Vegas shooting" rather than "Route 91 Harvest festival shooting"

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.

"A killer on floor 32" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect A killer on floor 32 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 20 § A killer on floor 32 until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2024 (2)

Add COAST GUARD Petti Officer Traci Huddleston to RECIPIENTS OF AWARD FOR BRAVERY for receiving THE COAST GUARD MEDAL FRO HEROISM. source - https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/03/27/petty-officer-awarded-first-coast-guard-medal-2012-heroism-vegas-shooting.html Lakeclear (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Melmann 17:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2024

Add Petti Officer Traci Huddleston to AWARD RECIPIENTS having received the Coast Guard Medal for Heroism. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/03/27/petty-officer-awarded-first-coast-guard-medal-2012-heroism-vegas-shooting.html Lakeclear (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 Already done - see below. Jamedeus (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2024

On one of the date sections it says the shooting happened 6 years ago, when in fact it happened 7 years ago 2600:1010:B141:69EF:70:B3B8:480F:5AC9 (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It happened in October 2017, which is not yet 7 years ago. RudolfRed (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Constitutionality of Bumpstock ban still under review

The lede says that the constitutionality of the bumpstock ban was under review until SCOTUS declined to hear "the case" in 2022. In fact, a challenge to the DOJ's redefinition of the term "machine gun" (Garland v Cargill) was heard by the 5th circuit in 2023 and the en banc panel ultimately rejected the DOJ's interpretation and the ban was overturned within the states under the 5th circuit's jurisdiction [2]. SCOTUS heard the case in 2024 and are yet to issue a ruling. 2603:8080:E500:161F:B87B:9FCC:FAD9:23D6 (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

They just ruled.

some of the code is broken

i do not know how to fix it 2A01:E0A:163:2E60:E4ED:DB22:98E5:7A70 (talk) 13:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? I looked at the HTML and the article and couldn't see any obvious errors occurring.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)