Jump to content

Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Please discuss big lead sentence changes

@Anthony22: - Can you please discuss your repeated editing of the lead sentence here before doing it again? For events such as this, we typically avoid an awkward "echo" in the wording that you keep introducing - "The Las Vegas Strip Shooting was a mass shooting" (emphasis mine). -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Anthony22, can you also please elaborate on your comment that "'on the evening of October 1, 2017' is the wrong way to start the article"? That's a perfectly encyclopaedic way of starting an article, while the current one, "The Las Vegas Strip Shooting was a mass shooting that occurred..." is clumsy and repetitive, essentially a WP:BOLDAVOID-style sentence without the bold. Also, this event will arguably go down in history simply as 'the Las Vegas shooting', making your edited sentence even less necessary. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I guess you didn't notice this, but I changed the wording from "mass shooting" to "mass killing," and somebody reverted it back to "mass shooting." Therefore, I am not responsible for the awkward "echo" in the wording of the lead sentence. A lot of people make errors when they revert and/or modify text. I still think that opening an article's lead with "on the evening of October 1, 2017" is silly terminology. Also, there is a lot of false and inaccurate information in this article.

One of the problems with Wikipedia is that fact that there are too many people doing the editing, and some people don't know what they're doing. I'm certain you've heard the expression that too many chefs spoil the soup.

It's ironic that this incident occurred in Las Vegas, which is the gambling capital of the United States. The people who went to the music concert were gambling in a way that they never could have imagined.--Anthony22 (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Chalk me up also as someone who thinks "The Las Vegas Strip shooting was a mass killing" or anything along those lines is awkward and not a good way to start the article. Per WP:LEADSENTENCE, the title of the article does not have to appear in the lede sentence and often doesn't. See, for example, 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting or Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. You may think there are too many chefs here, but there are not many of us at this article who "don't know what they're doing", and Wikipedia does work by consensus. As for the "false and inaccurate information in this article", please point it out so we can correct it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and I see you also objected to "by a single shooter". That discussion is above, see #"by a single gunman". --MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Take a look at the "Perpetrator" section. The following statement appears: "According to police, he acted alone with no known motive." I changed the wording to say that the police were speculating when they said that Paddock was acting alone and without a motive. Somebody disagreed with me and reverted my edit. If you follow the news, you know that Paddock's girlfriend is a person of interest in the case. There could have been more than one person involved, and Paddock might have had a well-defined motive. The person who reverted my edit didn't know what he/she was doing.--Anthony22 (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I've re-added the original lead sentence as it fits better with the style we have established for these types of articles. Also, I'm assuming good faith, but I found your comments about the victims in poor taste. I hope that will be the end of it and that you'll comply with WP:CIVIL. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The opening section doesnt match with the chronology below

the opening section says this:

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

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

That's a good point. Can you suggest a better wording? --MelanieN (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Hm, I agree that it doesn't seem to describe the event well. How about this, longer but more descriptive, borrowing language from the Shooting section: "After firing into the crowd for about 10 minutes, police approached Paddock's hotel room but retreated when he fired at them through the door. An hour later, police breached the hotel room with explosives, finding him dead with an apparently self-inflicted gunshot wound." ansh666 19:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I like that. Except that the opening clause needs work; it sounds like the police fired into the crowd for 10 minutes. --MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
How about keeping it simple – I added "extended confrontation with police" and left it at that. This is the summary lead, and all the details don't need to be up here -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN: - Reworded to address your concern. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Good solution. Let's leave it at that. --MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Just saw this - oops! I originally had "Paddock" as the subject of that sentence. If the police were firing into the crowd for 10 minutes that would be an entirely different story, I'm sure. ansh666 06:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Domestic terrorism in the United States / Terrorism in the United States

This event is mentioned at Domestic terrorism in the United States. Should it be? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Similarly, this event is mentioned at Terrorism in the United States. Should it be? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Not at this time. Removed. Objective3000 (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I say it should be. Bobherry Talk Edits 16:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
What policy or conduct of government did the act attempt to change? It has to fit the definition. Objective3000 (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree If the POTUS and/or FBI mentions it (AFAIK they haven't yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do in a few days), then it should be as part of those articles without question. ConCompS talk 22:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

How can this possible not be terrorism under Nevada law? Check the definition of "Act of Terrorism" 1(a) under Nevada law. NRS 202.4415:

  • 1) “Act of terrorism” means any act that involves the use or attempted use of sabotage, coercion or violence which is intended to:
  • (a) Cause great bodily harm or death to the general population; or ...

Act. Check. use of violence. Check. Great bodily harm to general population – 600 casualties, check. Death to general population, over 50 dead, check.

Someone explain to me how this doesn't meet an act of terrorism under Nevada law User:Objective3000? Nfitz (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This question could be answered with a pointed observation on the alleged perpetrator's skin color and religious (or lack thereof) background, but I digress. For now, the NY Times has an interesting piece on labels, Terrorizing if Not Clearly Terrorist: What to Call the Las Vegas Attack?. TheValeyard (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
This is a rather weird definition of terrorism. In the UK, terrorism is defined as "the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause." Investigators in Las Vegas have pretty much ruled this out. Under Nevada law, the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre would have been an act of terrorism, although it is better described as a mass shooting by someone who had easy access to a gun.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 23:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Nfitz, you omitted the rest of the definition. It requires a political goal. What was the goal? Objective3000 (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
In Nevada, it's as simple as that. Coercion or violence, not coercion through violence. And you can only ride a ski lift drunk if it's moving mostly downhill. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:46, October 3, 2017 (UTC)
User:Objective3000 I left out the bit after the "or". There's no political or any other goal needed under Nevada law, other than killing or wounding lots of people. If this doesn't meet that criteria, what does? User:Gdeblois19 why have you reverted without addressing here? Nfitz (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the value of pointing to Nevada's specific and unusually apolitical, legal definition of "act of terrorism" in order to label this as such, particularly when the authorities have explicitly stated that they've found no evidence of links to any terrorist organizations and when there has thus far been no evidence of motive at all. We should not be jumping to such conclusions. -- Hux (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Clearly, as the perpetrator was a) white, b) not Muslim, and c) not black or brown, then it qualifies as a "lone wolf attack" and is therefore not terrorism! Contrast this to, for example, 2015 Leytonstone tube station attack (wherein a mentally ill man attempted to stab three people with a breadknife), immediately labelled as a terrorist attack. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

In Leytonstone, "the suspect was reported to have declared, "This is for Syria, my Muslim brothers" and shouted, "All your blood will be spilled". This was a crossover incident caused by a combination of mental problems and some half-baked political or religious ideas. Investigators in Las Vegas knew who had done it almost immediately and told the world's media with confidence that his motive was not religious or political. I'm not sure if we're ever going to know why Paddock did it on that particular day. This was also a problem with Charles Whitman. He was known to have some mental problems but it wasn't possible to produce a clear motive.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Quite, I don't see much value in Bastun's estrogen induced public self-flagellation about the evils of being a white male. As has been stated above, at the moment, we don't know the perps motivation. "Terrorism" is a very specific thing; it has to have a political motivation, be an indiscriminate attack against the general public, with the aim of forwarding a political agenda by causing fear and anxiety in the general public. That is why Anders Breivik is classified as a terrorist, alongside Islamic State and Al-Qaeda. At the moment this is what we call it in the article; a [[mass shooting], which will probably end up classified in a legal sense as mass murder. Claíomh Solais (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Dude. You followed me here from another two articles just to get a personal attack in? What are you like... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

We always defer to local use of language in such articles. This is a Nevada article, so we should use Nevada terms. Perhaps not necessarily for such infoboxes and categories – but the article should note that this is considered an act of terrorism under Nevada law. Now, we'd need a good secondary source for that; and if I can figure it out, maybe international media can too. Gosh, 440,000 Google News hits. Must be a good one in here ... https://www.google.ca/search?q=nevada+law+act+of+terrorism&lr=&hl=en&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXge24jNXWAhVj34MKHfv7BnoQ_AUICigB&biw=1600&bih=779&safe=active&ssui=on Nfitz (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

We do? Where is the guideline for that? It’s not an ENGVAR issue. We can’t just ignore non Nevada sources in any case. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, b'y. We certainly be seeing it occurring in the Canadian articles. There bes hints of it in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles#Historic sites, but nothing clearly defined. There bes also use of regional Canadian English variants such as Quebec English and Newfoundland English in local articles. P'raps I's assuming too much.
How it's used colloquially in Nevada though I don't know ... but a simple Canadian English definition of terrorism does cover a single massive event of murder, with no particular motive – and if 600 casualties doesn't qualify, I don't know what does. That all being said though, I think what's been added has covered it. At least until we can figure out some motive to all this ... as there isn't particular evidence of mental illness – though I've been trying to ignore the foreign news coverage. One the other hand, how different is this from other US attacks we identify as terrorism such as the Bath School disaster or the unsolved Wall Street bombing – although there's probably enough evidence to link that to the extreme left. Nfitz (talk) 06:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
You know thought that we need reliable sources for such a claim. I've removed the cats from Bath School Disaster, but the Wall Street Bombing could probably be sourced. Doug Weller talk 13:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, we need the sources. Just talking it out at this stage. No point searching for something that one won't find. And a stray comment might lead to a thought. Sorry - brainstorming engineers can be a bit like a writer's room sometimes. Nfitz (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Standoff, confrontation or the like

There seems to be some contention around this sentence - "After firing into the crowd for almost 11 minutes and following a standoff with police, he was found dead in his hotel room with a self-inflicted gunshot wound." Some have pushed back saying there was no "standoff." This timeline of events appears to support the idea of a confrontation and/or standoff. [1] Please discuss here, thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The subject is already under active discussion above, under the heading #the opening section doesnt match with the chronology below, why not continue it there? I just proposed a substitute sentence there. I guess if we are moving to this new section, what I proposed was "He fired into the crowd for almost 11 minutes, fired at police when they approached his hotel room, and eventually was found dead in the room from a self-inflicted gunshot wound." --MelanieN (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the edit-warring. The last I read (12 or so hours ago) was the security guard was not in the company of police when he was shot in the leg through the door and shooting had stopped by the time police arrived outside the room, with Paddock presumed dead. Hence, I asked for a source, which User:Fuzheado supplied on my talk page. I've added it to the lead. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
One of the puzzles is why, although police were at the hotel door at 10:25 PM, they didn't enter the room until 11:20 PM. An obvious possibility is that they were worried that the room was wired up with explosives. There is no evidence that there was an extensive gunfight, or police negotiators being called in. The evidence suggests that Paddock had been dead for some time before police entered the room. Maybe they were just being ultra-cautious. If he had still been firing on to the crowd at 10:25 PM, they would have had to enter the room as quickly as possible whether they liked it or not, but there were no shots on the crowd after 10:20 PM. Based on this timeline, Paddock could have been dead for over an hour before police entered the room. Like Adam Lanza, Seung-Hui Cho and numerous other mass shooters, Paddock seems to have made a decision that he wasn't going to be taken alive.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
This new timeline from the LV sheriff explains a lot. [2] Seems like the police spent a long time clearing the floor and making sure there were no additional shooters or that he was hiding somewhere. -- Fuzheado | Talk 08:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, what the police did here is standard practice for a lockdown situation. Although it's counterintuitive, they were in no hurry to enter the room as long as the shooting had stopped. Police are now saying that he planned to escape [3], but it's hard to see how someone on the 32nd floor could have done this after the hotel security guard, named as Jesus Campos [4] had correctly pinpointed his location. He left a note, not described as a suicide note, and it will be interesting to learn what it says.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
The timeline that User:Fuzheado provided to support the "standoff" claim (published 2:16 AM 4th October) has now been significantly contradicted by later LV sherrif statements, as described in the timeline Fuzheado linked to just above (published 8:34 PM 4th October). The last shot was fired two minutes before police arrived on the 32nd floor. I'm not sure what the right language is here, but you can't have a standoff with a dead man, so I've removed the "standoff" claim from the lead again. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, it's looking more and more like Paddock was dead by the time police were on the scene.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the timeline from the LV sheriff makes a lot more sense now, and I've updated the body of #Shooting with this info. The lead could contain something about the shooting at the guard instead of standoff, but it also works fine the way it is now. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

"Automatic weapons"

I removed the speculation on automatic weapons as later reports indicate "bump "fire" or "crank" weapons. For the technical distinction, a bump fire weapon is a rifle that replaces the the trigger reset with the shoulder so that the firearm hammer is released when the rifle is pulled back into the shoulder. It's the same principle as releasing the trigger and pulling it again. The required physical reset make it a semi-automatic firearm. The other speculation that the weapons had a crank is also semiautomatic as the crank i required to be moved to release the hammer. While resembling a Gattling gun, the mechanism is just recreating the act of a trigger pull. There is the possibility he had machine guns, but no reliable sources have said so. I believe the entire ordeal lasted 70 minutes. Bump fire and crank fired weapons are not automatic weapon and are still considered semi-automatic weapons as each shot requires a physical act. --DHeyward (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The current estimate is that the shooting lasted at least ten minutes [5], also confirmed by videos of the incident. Unless the police were asleep, it's unlikely that it lasted 70 minutes.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
The police radio recordings (on Broadcastify) say that the shots ended by 10:18pm and the first call was at 10:07pm. So 10 minutes is a good estimate for the actual shooting. The room was breached a little after 11:00pm and he was found dead when they entered. But the radio archives are behind a paywall, so I've no idea how to locate a citable source. GaidinBDJ (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
The length of time that shots were fired may be less than 70 minute but it was at least 70 minute from shot fired until they breached the room and the gunman killed himself. And no, they were not asleep and that comment is beneath contempt. [6] [7]. --DHeyward (talk) 06:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
We seem to have been at cross purposes here and I wasn't trying to be rude, sorry if it came across that way. Some shootings have produced the claim that the police didn't act quickly enough, such as the Virginia Tech shooting, but in Las Vegas the police seem to have acted as quickly as they reasonably could in the circumstances.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
@DHeyward, Parsecboy, and Dragons flight: Yes, a lot of this has been discussed earlier in the #Weapons section, or permalink here: Special:PermanentLink/803603031#Weapon. We should still have something that describes that it had the "firing rate of an automatic weapon" which doesn't necessarily say he used an automatic weapon. Facts are still coming through, but it seems more likely it was a device like a bump fire stock or trigger crank that gave automatic-like capability. So rather than throw out an entire section, I would recommend rewriting it with this qualification/observation. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, new photos of two of the weapons used show a bump fire stock, and a double-stack extended magazine, likely holding up to 100 rounds. [8] -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
The magazine is a Surefire double stack, holding 60 rounds. I have one of those. As others said, it might be one of the 100 round versions but they usually start jamming in use.Heyyouoverthere (talk) 06:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't see the bump fire stock in the pictures. Usually they are easy to spot because the stock and handle merge. The rifle with the scope has the safety in regular fire position, not bump fire (and scope cover on?). The EOTech rifle does seem to have the larger magazine but looks pretty vanilla stock. I tend not give much weight to report of "automatic fire." There are just as many "air brakes", "fireworks" and other similes that just don't stand up. Also, bump fire isn't faster than short reset triggers but it gives non-competitive shooters the short reset experience without training to follow the trigger. It's gimmicky but not automatic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs)
The second rifle (with the EOTech) very clearly has a Slide Fire stock. The first rifle is a stock-looking .308 Daniel Defense. Parsecboy (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Parsecboy, the rifle fitted with the EOTech clearly has a bumpfire/slidefire stock on it, although I can't testify as to the specific make. The magazine on that rifle is conspicuously large, and appears to me to be a mag5-100 manufactured by SureFire, although it could be a copy thereof. Lastly, while first rifle in the video is clearly an AR-15 variant, and does appear to be chambered for a round larger than .223 Remington/5.56x45mm NATO (i agree it is most likely .308 Winchester/7.62x51mm NATO) I don't see how you can positively identify the rifle as being manufactured by Daniel Defense without seeing the rollmark on the lower receiver. Ein.vögelchen (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Can't tell by the photos if it is the 60 or 100 version, but if the later, the shooter would have found it to be unreliable. Had one for a while but would lead to jams near the end of it. Ended up swapping it to someone for an EoTech and then sent that EoTech in when they were being recalled and before the recent settlement. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 06:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
If you look at stills like this one, you can clearly see the DD5V1 logo stamped on the side of their uppers. Not to mention the distinctive Daniel Defense stock and grip the rifle has on it, and if you know what you're looking at, that's clearly a proprietary DD rail. See here for instance. Parsecboy (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
You're right, that looks like their handguard interface, I totally missed that. I was focused on the 'Tornado' furniture, which of course can be purchased and installed on any "Mil-Spec" receiver. Ein.vögelchen (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
@Parsecboy, DHeyward, and Ein.vögelchen: - Some news sources are now naming the exact weapons – (LA Times) - "Paddock had four Daniel Defense DDM4 rifles, three FN-15s and other rifles made by Sig Sauer." And (Boston Globe) - "Sig Sauer MCX" -- Fuzheado | Talk 22:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
He had expensive tastes. It seems the news is still missing the DD5 version. --DHeyward (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
The victims say that there are noise of automatic weapons, but why people don't add "modified" in front of the gun's models? It's obvious that Steve Paddock obtains some weapons such as AKs. --Iagen0509 (talk) 08:20,4 October 2017 (UTC)

@DHeywood is the DD5 the weapon Paddock left at home? Iagen0509 (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Yes, we picked that up last night and that is what is in the article now: 58 victims plus one shooter = 59. --MelanieN (talk) 05:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article was correct at the time I wrote this, but some major news outlets were still saying "59 victims", so I wanted to record the Sheriff's verbatim quote, for posterity. I was transcribing this from television (recorded and played back), so I just wanted to put it somewhere. The Sheriff himself had said "59 victims" one day earlier, which is why so many news sources had it wrong. Fluoborate (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible Chicago attack

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

Didn't show up, "officials" said. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
They don't even know why he started shooting at Las Vegas. Speculating on other venues seems far fetched at this point and unrelated to this topic. He stayed at a lot of hotels. --DHeyward (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Right.--MONGO 17:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
This was also another possibility:

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

and in Boston by Fenway https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/las-vegas-shooting/las-vegas-gunman-scouted-locations-boston-chicago-officials-say-n808011 Victor Grigas (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Keep in mind, "scouting" and "doing online research about" hotels is just a scary way of saying he Googled them. Have you ever considered booking a hotel online? What was your motive? I get that his one major crime in 64 years happened at a hotel, but that doesn't retroactively mean the prior lifetime was about anything more than not sleeping outside with the riff-raff. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Though yeah, August wasn't long ago. Might be worth a mention, presuming he was already mad. But don't call it possible or potential; it 100% can't happen now, even through time travel. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

List of performers at the Chicago concert

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

For no reason, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
You might compromise by linking List of Lollapalooza lineups by year#2017 to "in Chicago". I'm not sure how to link to the exact sub-section, because it's just called Lollapalooza. But it's probably doable. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
The Life is Beautiful acts seem as pointless for the same reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

There is something to be said for doing it both ways, as long as we make it clear which we are doing. The 59 total including the gunman's own death is the "one for the record books" that is being and will be cited as the number of fatalities caused by this shooter. On the other hand, under "casualties" or "victims" or whatever we call that section, it seems proper to exclude the shooter and list 58. --MelanieN (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Included seems the norm in both WP and the media. I always thought there was too much focus on exact numbers anyhow. Who knows how many people’s lives will be shortened. Objective3000 (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Fatalities had reached 60 by Oct.3, with another death due to the shooting.Parkwells (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I found only one reference online for a new death just now – a local Fox News channel. And that reference seemed to spread confusion again about whether the cited total includes the shooter or not. Let's wait for reporting from national sources. BTW if we move someone into the "dead" column do we subtract one from the "injured" column? --MelanieN (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Technically he was a victim of his own shooting – he did apparently shoot himself, after all :). And no, MelanieN, wait for reliable sources to update first. They could have found a dead body somewhere that wasn't previously accounted for, however unlikely. The injury count is always "at least" anyways, so it's probably still going to be accurate unless it was exactly that number. ansh666 17:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
They say "at least" with the number of injured but the number actually went down due to certain people being counted more than once — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlt152152 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2017

Please insert the following under "4 Perpetrator"

According to a 3 October 2017 article[9] in the Las Vegas Review-Journal "Records from the Nevada Prescription Monitoring Program obtained Tuesday [3 October 2017] show Paddock was prescribed 50 10-milligram diazepam tablets by Henderson physician Dr. Steven Winkler on June 21 [2017]... Diazepam is a sedative-hypnotic drug in the class of drugs known as benzodiazepines, which studies have shown can trigger aggressive behavior. Chronic use or abuse of sedatives such as diazepam can also trigger psychotic experiences[10][11]..."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This guy is clearly a Big Pharma shill. Keep the information on the psychotropics.Reganjon12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Please don't question my motives or assume bad faith on my part. I would point out that diazepam has been off-patent for decades and it has no budget for advertising or lawyers or Wikipedia shills. Certain on-patent medications do have a budget for Wikipedia shills, but I assure you, I am not on that payroll and diazepam does not have any budget for those shenanigans. Fluoborate (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I have deleted the sentence. If nothing else, it definitely violates WP:Verifiability because the information was obtained from the Nevada PDMP in an illegal way. It cannot be verified without breaking the law unless a law enforcement official or a doctor who actually treated the shooter wishes to release this information. The name of the person who violated privacy laws and released this information has not been released, and I do not trust an unnamed person who illegally accesses law enforcement databases. Also, everything I said before about fear-mongering and drawing conclusions from extremely limited information is still true. Fluoborate (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Agree. It's also carried by a lot of poor sources and doesn't seem to have hit the top sources. Plus, all drugs have side effects, including aspirin. Objective3000 (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jason Aldean in the lead

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

Agreed. It doesn't fit nicely, is undue weight, and also hinders the time from being incorporated into one of the earlier sentences. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 12:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I liked it there in the old lead, but I don't like a few things about the new lead. Still think it's worth noting there, somehow, just like we mention Ariana Grande in Manchester, Great White on Rhode Island or Eagles of Death Metal in Paris. The headlining act is kind of like a setting. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I just moved the 3rd para above the second, but I reckon that the massacre sentence could go higher. In that case, Aldean might fit better... "On October 1, 2017... => The massacre occurred... => Over a period of about ten minutes... => The incident is the" ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 12:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

No mention of bullet holes in aviation fuel tanks

610 meters from the hotel room were airport fuel tanks that bullet holes have now been found in. cite: [1] and local [2] Diggera (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The original story was in the Las Vegas Review-Journal [12] and is worded as "a source says", which is something of a red flag for Wikipedia. Who was the source? It's possible that some bullets did hit these tanks, either deliberately or by wild firing, but there needs to be clearer sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/stephen-paddocks-australian-girlfriend-marilou-danley-still-a-person-of-interest/news-story/e7d25905a726178465e9c5941e46faa9
  2. ^ https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/the-strip/las-vegas-strip-shooter-targeted-aviation-fuel-tanks-source-says/
Now done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

ISIS misinformation

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

No reason having been given, I've moved it back. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Since there's no indication it's a lie, I've moved it back to Reactions. That's not to say it's true. It's just unproven, either way. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Hasn't this been disproved to the best of our abilities, though? While there may *technically* be some doubt, wouldn't it be wiser to err on the less inflammatory side (which happens to coincide with remarks from law enforcement agencies) and put it under the misinformation header to be moved only when we have evidence that suggests otherwise? 207.222.59.50 (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

I take it your purpose here is to suggest adding a sentence about the bump stock issue to the lede? --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with this change as it was implemented. This is likely to be a lasting debate and certainly deserves mention. I modified the section header a bit so anyone else who may want to discuss can find it without ctrl+F. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

No need to use the same noun throughout the entire article. In fact, mixing up the wording is good. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Agree. And let's not forget "perpetrator". --MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Let's also not forget his surname and pronouns. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 6 October 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Snow close, not moved. Fuzheado | Talk 21:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


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

I also want to be perfectly clear that the official name will be just "1 October", so treat this as you wish. "1 October" redirects to "October 1", hnce why I keep "shooting" in the request. CycloneGU (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
The name is the official name given at the press conference. I would think, given that this will be the official name of the incident, we ought to match the official name given by the Clark County Commissioner himself. CycloneGU (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
In reply to this, as it's a fair question: the official name of the incident has been announce to be "1 October". We can name the article as anything including this (such as "1 October (2017 Las Vegas shooting)"), but the important detail is that "1 October" is the official name and should be part of it. CycloneGU (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

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

I did not think it premature, but if you think that's still the case I will have to accept your judgment on that. CycloneGU (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. As I said, there have been many proposals. I can see that you think this is the obvious choice for the title, but that will have to be decided by discussion and consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
P.S. Please understand, I'm not expressing an opinion for or against this or any other proposed title. I intend to remain as a neutral referee here, to try to have the title decision made in an orderly way by discussion and hopefully consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Belated comment (the discusssion was closed)

If the "October 1 Shooting" is indeed an official name of the event assigned/used by Clark County Commisionner (as claimed by user "CycloneGU") it should perhaps be (somehow) mentioned in the article - e.g. "2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting (named on [...] as '1 October Shooting' by [...] during the [...] press conference)." (If actually supported by reliable sources.) - but that naming itself is certainly not sufficient for the requested move.-2A00:1028:83BE:4392:CD2E:3148:E44A:F906 (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

"Articles that may be too long"

Why is this article listed under that category? If anything, it's fairly sparse, especially wrt to the incident itself and the victims; compare with the length of the article on the previous deadliest US mass shooting -- the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. Ereb0r (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)User:Ereb0r

Resolved
 – Concur. Removed the template.
-- Fuzheado | Talk 23:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

NBC News: “during a period when Paddock’s car left the hotel garage, one of his key cards was used to get into his room”

Original source: https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/las-vegas-shooting/las-vegas-massacre-investigators-probing-whether-others-were-gunman-s-n808431

NBC has since removed that text from the article, but it is quoted in other articles that link to it:

https://www.google.com/search?num=50&source=hp&q=%E2%80%9Cduring+a+period+when+Paddock%E2%80%99s+car+left+the+hotel+garage%2C+one+of+his+key+cards+was+used+to+get+into+his+room%E2%80%9D&oq=%E2%80%9Cduring+a+period+when+Paddock%E2%80%99s+car+left+the+hotel+garage%2C+one+of+his+key+cards+was+used+to+get+into+his+room%E2%80%9D&gs_l=psy-ab.12...1697.1697.0.4698.3.2.0.0.0.0.0.0..1.0....0...1.2.64.psy-ab..2.1.118.6..35i39k1.118.XdggDle64DE

71.182.240.147 (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

That link brings up a slew of conspiracy sites. Objective3000 (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Contradictory

This is contradictory. From the "Shooting" section:

At 10:17 p.m., the first officers arrived at the front door to Paddock's suite. By 10:26 p.m., a group of police reached the shooter's floor and placed it in lockdown.[1]

Sources

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Newsweek was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Did the first police officers arrive at 10:17 or at 10:26? Can somebody look into the sources and resolve this? --MelanieN (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done Source from two days later had updated official timeline. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 00:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Avoid parentheticals

In the Casualties section, the first part of the opening sentence should be changed from "Fifty-eight people (excluding the gunman) were killed..." to "Fifty-eight people, excluding the gunman, were killed..." Parentheticals should always be avoided unless absolutely necessary. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:D8E:D6F3:A7EA:C247 (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_Las_Vegas_shooting/Archive_5&oldid=1136474908"