Jump to content

Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 14

Varying Sounds Of Fire Were NOT From Echo

Resolved
 – No edits made - not a reliable source

Acoustic analysis that shows different numbers of shots, from different distances [11:27] -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbWa23FvdXk

108.30.97.200 (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Some joker on youtube is not a reliable source. TheValeyard (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

CBS News: Worker warned hotel before Las Vegas shooter opened fire on crowd

As reported on October 11:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/worker-warned-hotel-before-las-vegas-shooter-opened-fire-on-crowd/

108.30.97.200 (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Is this really not worth adding to the article? I simply removed the word "Wednesday" with an ellipsis:

"A maintenance worker said [...] he told hotel dispatchers to call police and report a gunman had opened fire with a rifle inside the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino hotel before the shooter began firing"

108.30.97.200 (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Article title: Preliminary survey

This has been open long enough to get significant input. It has become clear that there is consensus to use the year "2017" in the title, and to use "Las Vegas" as the location. There is a difference of opinion about "shooting" vs. "massacre". I am going to move the page to "2017 Las Vegas shooting" and start an RfC about the wording "shooting" vs. "massacre". --MelanieN (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Now that a week has passed, it may be time to think about a permanent title for this article. it's currently move-protected as "2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting," but that's not any kind of preferred or official title; protection was simply necessary to stop the move-warring that always happens during the early stages of something like this. I'd like to see us come up with a consensus title for this article, hopefully in an orderly and collaborative way. I'm suggesting that we use this "preliminary survey" to narrow down the choices, and then take the top contenders to an RfC. (Unless, of course, consensus is reached during this preliminary survey. I can dream, can't I? 0;-D )

So the purpose of this survey is to narrow down the proposed titles to a few, which I will take to RfC after this discussion seems to have run its course. Titles proposed up to now for this article have included the following; feel free to add more.

  • 1 October
  • 1 October shooting
  • 2017 Las Vegas shooting
  • 2017 Las Vegas massacre
  • 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting
  • 2017 Las Vegas Strip massacre
  • Las Vegas massacre
  • Las Vegas Strip shooting
  • Mandalay Bay shooting
  • Mandalay Bay massacre

It appears there are four issues under debate here: whether to start the title with "2017" or not; how to identify the location; whether to call it a "shooting" or a "massacre"; and whether to use an entirely different format such as "1 October shooting". Let's break these out separately; please state your preference and sign your comments. You can explain briefly why you have that preference, but please do not get into extended or threaded discussion here; save that for the RfC. MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Include the year or not?

  • Yes – Sorry to say, Vegas experiences a lot of shootings, albeit not on this scale. Objective3000 (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • No - As WP:NCE tells us, the year is unnecessary "when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it". Based on this, the title "Las Vegas massacre" (my preference) has no need for the year. However, any title that includes "Las Vegas shooting" would necessitate the year since there were other notable shootings there. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Per Wikipedia tradition, WP:NCE is sufficiently hedged and self-contradictory to be useless to us, providing as much guidance to include the year as to omit it and then advising us to go talk about it. Thanks, NCE, but we could have talked about it without that "help", and each of us will simply cherry-pick the parts of you that support what we already want. NCE gives two examples of including the year even though it's not required for disambiguation, then says that the year can be omitted "when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it". I submit that both of the example events, in historic perspective, could easily be described without the year. What are editors thinking when they write this stuff? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Look at [1]. Click on 2017, then 2016, etc. You’ll note that the year is usually included. Objective3000 (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Then you agree that NCE is useless to us? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
NCE is certainly worth reading, although the first section is of little help at this time. And, a convention is defined as how something is usually done – not an absolute. We won’t know for a while if this will result in a momentous name like Bloody Sunday etched in history. Objective3000 (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
"Per Wikipedia tradition, WP:NCE is sufficiently hedged and self-contradictory..." According to whom? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
It was my opinion. Quite obviously. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Saying "per Wikipedia tradition" is quite obviously not an opinion. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
True, unless the title uses "massacre" or mass shooting instead of "shooting". 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes There are a few other Las Vegas shootings and the year will help readers tell them apart. Short-term media coverage doesn't include the year because there's only on Las Vegas shooting in the news right now, but they typically do include the year when referring to older events. –dlthewave ☎ 22:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
True, based on your reasoning. I pointed this out earlier. But read my comment just above this one. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Shooting or massacre?

Shooting is not euphemistic at all. In fact, it’s important to understand what shooting can mean with available, civilian guns these days. Objective3000 (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it is a classic example of a euphemism. What "shooting" means in this instance, by its magnitude, is a massacre. When a person who has dozens of guns and thousands of rounds available fires indiscriminately from a high floor in a skyscraper into a crowd of tens of thousands of unsuspecting, defenseless people in an open space, at night, it's a massacre. Dictionaries say so and so do a huge percentage of the media who are reporting on it. This is about degree as in a drizzle vs. a downpour vs. a thunderstorm vs. a hurricane. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
See the analysis below - a spot check of news organizations and Google News results show that massacre is sometimes used, but not commonly used. Our own musings about the label are WP:OR if we go against what reliable sources say. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
"Massacre" has been used in a high percentage of stories by top level reliable sources, and on every major news network. So, it most certainly is used commonly. One editor here just pointed out that "FOX News does call their entire section covering this as 'Las Vegas Massacre'". I believe Nightline and Face the Nation are also embracing the term. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
We need to see the math before the "high percentage" claim can be supported. I have done a preliminary snapshot below, for popular mainstream sources, that shows it hasn't really broken through a 50% threshold. In fact, it was me who mentioned that FOX News dedicated its section title to "massacre." But it's hard to take them with the same seriousness as reputable news organizations. ABC Nightline has been consistently using "massacre" which is a strong data point. But CBS Face the Nation mixes massacre with shooting, attack and rampage. As mentioned before, I think it's best to retitle by removing "Strip" and giving it some more time to figure out "massacre." -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
"Unique" meant "distinguishable and recognizable". As seen here. Catchiness isn't mandatory, but it doesn't suck. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Forty reliable sources agreeing on "massacre" are already linked below. Every opinion needn't reiterate this. New points to consider are fine, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
No, read my comment on confirmation bias below that. If you go out looking for X, you will find X. Doesn't mean that X is the most common or the most accepted term. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
And as I clearly explained to you, I didn't "go out looking for X". I went out looking for X (massacre) and Y (shooting). So you should stop repeating it simply to bolster your viewpoint. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
"Shooting tells you a gun was used, but doesn't suggest necessarily that anyone was killed". Very good point, Tom. I alluded previously to the euphemistic nature of the term "shooting" but from the perspective of the event's magnitude (and per reliable sources). 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 03:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Shooting - The vast majority of the coverage refers to it as such. At least the coverage I've been exposed to. Maybe someone can make one of those fancy Google graphs to evaluate whether that's just my media diet talking. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Shooting - The vast majority of reliable sources still opt for shooting or attack, without using massacre. But this could change as time goes on, so I'm not averse to change as reliable sources change their terminology. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Shooting is a good generic descriptor. –dlthewave ☎ 22:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Generic is precisely why "shooting" should not be used. It doesn't come close to describing the magnitude of the event, as supported by a huge percentage of reliable sources. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Shooting - contrary to what people claim, I haven't seen "massacre" used extensively in any reputable news sources (i.e. not tabloids or partisan media). We don't need sensationalism in article titles. ansh666 18:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Location?

Different format?

Your preference for the best title

I agree with Fuzheado. I believe there will be overwhelming consensus for not including "Strip" in whatever title is chosen. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, the end of The Strip has been moving for decades. Objective3000 (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I suppose "2017 Route 91 Harvest music festival shooting" would be more accurate, but probably too long. I still think it's a little weird to not be more specific though. Most other shootings tend to be referred to by the venue where they occurred, eg Sandy Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 06:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
"Anything else appears to be uncommon or nonobvious." That's simply not true. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Las Vegas massacre - The "Las Vegas massacre" is overwhelmingly the name used by the vast majority of mainstream newspapers, news networks, Sunday morning TV talk shows, magazines, etc, thus making it the common name. A distant second is the "Las Vegas shooting". The year (2017) is completely unnecessary because, as WP:NCE explains, the year is not necessary "when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it". When readers see "Las Vegas massacre", they will know exactly what the article is about without the year (although I wouldn't be strongly opposed to including it). The word "Strip" should definitely not be part of the title; almost no mainstream media use it and the specificity is needless. Anyway, there are literally thousands of highly reliable, mainstream sources from top-tier media outlets using Las Vegas Massacre. Here's a sampling of the literally thousands of stories that refer to the event as the "Las Vegas massacre", which include ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, Denver Post, Washington Post, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Los Angeles Times, The Hill, Miami Herald, Salt Lake Tribune, Philadelphia Inquirer, San Diego Union Tribune, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Newsweek, NPR, and many, many more: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40. The title "Las Vegas massacre" is not only the common name among the vast amounts of media coverage, but it also fully complies with Wikipedia's naming conventions and perfectly summarizes the subject for reader clarity in a succinct manner. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Interesting research – I would not be averse to calling it "massacre" at some point in the future. I did a Google search as you did, but you have to be cognizant of the confirmation bias problems in your methodology - "I went out seeking X and I found a lot of X!" Rather, I sampled the first page of news results and the front page stories of a few prominent US news organizations. At this point, it does not seem to be the commonly used title from news organizations in the US. Here's what I found:
  • If you do a raw Google News search on "Las Vegas" and see what comes back, and analyze the headlines for what label is used primarily to refer to the incident. Here's what I found from an incognito brower (ie. not logged in to Google and no cookies). You're welcome to re-test for confirmation [3]:
    • 8-9 mentions of the construction "shooting"
    • 3-4 mentions of the construction "massacre"
  • If you check some prominent news organizations today (NY Times, CNN, WSJ, Washington Post) here's what you'd see if you saw a front page story about the incident, brought up the story, and searched for shooting or massacre:
    • CNN front page [4] - use of word attack and shooting; no use of word massacre
    • CNN [5] - shooting, no massacre mention
    • CNN [6] - mass shooting, no massacre mention
    • CNN [7] - mass shooting, no massacre mention
    • CNN [8] - shooting, Las Vegas concert massacre used in video title
    • CNN [9] - shooting, no massacre
    • CNN [10] - shooting, massacre used multiple times
    • NY Times [11] - shooting, no massacre
    • USA Today [12] - shooting, no massacre
    • WSJ [13] - shooting, no massacre
    • Washington Post [14] - shooting, then massacre
FOX News does call their entire section covering this as "Las Vegas Massacre" so they seem like they are embracing this title, but the vast majority of reputable news sources seem to be holding back for now. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
"...you have to be cognizant of the confirmation bias problems in your methodology - "I went out seeking X and I found a lot of X!" Actually, I sought both "massacre" (X) and "shooting" (Y), and only read the headline of each of the over 1,000 stories I browsed. I only considered headlines that actually named the event, and only from undisputably reliable, mainstream media outlets. Using these specific guidelines, I found that massacre was used considerably more than shooting. I then randomly chose 40 of the sources to present here to verify their use of the phrasing since a couple other editors falsely implied that the term "Las Vegas massacre" has rarely been used in the media. Your interesting but limited search used different criteria that looked at more generalized content and did not focus on headlines. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
You should also be aware that Google results differ by person. For example, if you have previously searched using the word massacre, and then make a search without that word, Google may still be more likely to display articles using the word. Google attempts to learn your interests and customizes searches to the individual. In any case, Google searches aren’t very useful for determining preponderance in RS since there exist so many, many echo-chamber sites. OTOH, Google is enormously useful at looking at what we know to be RS. Objective3000 (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@Objective3000: Exactly. That's why I was careful to use a browser's incognito mode so as not to bias the results coming back in a major way. (Google still uses IP and geodata to affect results, but to a lesser degree than if it knows your own personal info). @2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D: - I still don't find you're proving your point. One, I find it difficult to believe you went through "over 1,000 stories." Two, I showed my specific math and I don't seem to see the same from your work. Three, if we're talking about WP:COMMONNAME you don't need exhaustive research for this. In fact, one can be fooled by syndication and repetition which isn't a new editorial voice but just provides a copy of existing stories. Might we reach a compromise for now -- there seems to be popular support at least for removing "Strip" so we can act on that now. We can wait a week or so to examine the "massacre" label. -- Fuzheado | Talk
"I find it difficult to believe you went through "over 1,000 stories." Based on that rude comment, I am no longer interested in anything you have to say. You're in complete denial about the overwhelming usage of "Las Vegas massacre" by mainstream sources. Fortunately, you will not be deciding this issue. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually, my comment was a kind way of expressing skepticism about the number. I'm open to being convinced. Regardless, showing your math would help. Otherwise, what you've given doesn't provide the proof of what is "common" in the context of the news coverage. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Is there a dictionary (or something) that supports this suggestion? By my understanding, anyone can massacre. When implicating the government, theorists typically say "operation" instead, I find. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
No, it’s more of a convention. If you look at List of events named massacres, you will see a very large number of massacres. Nearly all (if not all) are at the hands of gov’t, religious leaders, or mobs. Objective3000 (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Certainly not all. The Bat Mitzvah massacre, Kandahar massacre and Dolphinarium discotheque massacre therein were one-man jobs. No (apparent) government support. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Two were religious-based terrorist acts and the third by a Staff Sergeant during wartime, albeit not an authorized act. (Neither was the My Lai Massacre.) Even in these cases, they tie into political/religious acts. Objective3000 (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Nothing religious about the two, aside from a tendency to view Palestine as something about Jews and Muslims, rather than oppression and revenge. No man is an island. Even Paddock has ties to groups which are associated with things. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Whether you call it about religion or oppression and revenge, they were either political and/or religious based acts. Objective3000 (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
"Massacre suggests the government was behind it..." To you, perhaps, but not to dictionary authors or the massive number of mainstream media outlets who have settled on "massacre". You're failing to acknowledge what most of the major newspapers and many of the TV news networks have named this event. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't care what the majority of newspapers call it. I care what the majority of the top reliable resources call it. And, I don't see them using the word massacre. Objective3000 (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
First, I said "massive number of mainstream media outlets", which means all media. Second, I didn't say "the majority of newspapers"; I said "most of the major newspapers", which of course are highly reliable sources. But if you don't understand that what the majority of major newspapers call it would be an important consideration when determining the event's common name, then you should bow out of this conversation. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, I guess you done tol' me. Objective3000 (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments

My vote is to close this discussion. The current title is good enough. Any other title will be, at best, a marginal improvement, not worth the many pages and hours that will probably be spent to get there. Toohool (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

What he said. At least for a month. Objective3000 (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
There have been so many suggestions for a rename here, I assumed there was a lot of interest. If there isn't, that's fine with me and I will just keep the page protected at this name, at least for a while. --MelanieN (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Understood. Problem is, even if we go through this process at this time, and come to a conclusion, will the suggestions stop? Objective3000 (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Good question. I appreciate your input and will wait a few days see how others feel. --MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
It's also worth bearing in mind that Wikipedia articles are not newspaper headlines. We don't have to use something from the newspapers.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Waiting a few weeks or a few months will not change anything, except to frustrate the large number of editors who want to discuss and settle on a title. It will do more harm than good. The name that media outlets assigned to this event was already determined within a few days, as was the case for previous horrific events. So it's time to pick a name. Whether the decision is made now or later, subsequent preferences and suggestions will never completely stop, so that should not be a factor at all. Interest and participation is at a peak right now, which will encourage substantial and productive input. So let's follow WP:NCE and get this thing titled. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
It should also be noted that page title is only a small part of Google’s search algorithm. There is no need to spend time worrying about search engines finding the article. They will. Objective3000 (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Might we reach a short term compromise? - There seems to be support for at least removing "Strip" from the title. So I propose we at least move it to 2017 Las Vegas shooting and evaluate the massacre label after next week when we have time and distance from the immediate crisis aftermath? -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
There does seem to be a strong trend right now toward "Las Vegas" over "Strip", also toward including the year, but I don't like to draw any conclusions about a survey-type question until at least 48 hours have passed. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I prefer Strip as it actually was on the LV Strip, not in LV. But, I won’t fight over it. Saving my energy to fight against massacre.:) But, I’d wait a few days. I hear it’s some sort of holiday here in the States. Objective3000 (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
It's Thanksgiving in Canada today. I should probably thank everyone who's helped this article. Thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
While you may prefer Strip (and I fully understand why), relatively no high level reliable sources are using it in their naming of the event. The overwhelming consensus by print and electronic media is simply Las Vegas. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 02:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

wp:RECOGNIZABLE: "[the] article title is a natural language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article: as such the article title is usually the name of the person, or of the place, or of whatever else the topic of the article is. However, some topics have multiple names, and some names have multiple topics: this can lead to disagreement about which name should be used for a given article's title. Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the criteria listed above." My comment would be that the article title should not be subjected to preferences of contributors only, neither it should be an "official or preferred title" (whose official, by whom preffered, anyway? This is kind of difficult, especially with events.) but the title should reflect the most common one in the English-language reliable sources. - -2A00:1028:83BE:4392:FC27:ED7D:844B:6E89 (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Hoaxes

User:WWGB removed a paragraph about right wing conspiracy theories, basically saying WP:IDLI. I wonder if anyone has any valid policy-based objections to it. zzz (talk) 07:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

218 words based on one source, Mother Jones (magazine)? See WP:DUE. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. It's thinly disguised Trump bashing from a fringe source. WWGB (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Can you explain why you think that? zzz (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
"conservative columnist Wayne Allyn Root, who has opened Trump rallies in Las Vegas" ... "Right wing radio pundit Alex Jones, who Trump has praised for his "amazing" reputation" etc. Why does Trump need to be mentioned in either of those contexts? If Root and Jones are criticised, why bring Trump into the matter peripherally? There is no indication that he supports their comments on this topic, so why bring him into it? WWGB (talk) 12:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Because it explains their "links to the White House", which is the whole point of mentioning them at all. This is what is unusual about the LV conspiracists, their significant following and their links to the White House. I thought that was clear. The first sentence of what you reverted says exactly that. Also, explain why you think Mother Jones is "fringe", I have not heard this before. zzz (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Some of the language could be toned down but the text itself is fine. Volunteer Marek  17:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Leave it out. It's some columnist's opinion/synthesis, presented as fact in Wikipedia's voice. --MelanieN (talk) 08:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Trump video

Anybody think we need this on the article or that it adds anything? I can't recall seeing presidential soundbites being placed on any other gun killing articles and I'm not sure what it would add to the article. Other thoughts? --John (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. This video shows the leader of a country in which the worst mass shooting has occurred. The leader's comments are worthy of viewing by anyone in this country or around the world.Television fan (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
There's a moving, speaking Barack Obama likeness in Boston Marathon bombing, which is sort of about shooting. I don't think it adds much. Readers can read a transcript faster than they can hear a speech. Might help blind or illiterate people, though. It doesn't exactly hurt, especially as, on second look, someone has deleted the transcript citation. One or the other should stay, I say. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
For the same reasons I stated above, I would support adding the Obama video to that article.Television fan (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Might help blind or illiterate people; I don't disagree, although there are screen readers that blind people can use nowadays. Wikipedia is primarily a text-based medium, and this small theoretical utility is outweighed by the suspicion that we are giving a politician a platform to make expedient capital from the death and suffering of others. I feel very strongly that this should be removed. Obviously if there are other examples involving other politicians I would feel the same way there too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John (talk • contribs)
Giving politicians a platform to capitalize on shootings is the main purpose of reactions sections. Granted, in text, the quotes are normally few and cherrypicked. But, unlike a video, they're not as easy to skip entirely. Trump's thumbnailed face is a stronger association to this atrocity than his Wikilinked name is, though. I suppose I'll object to it. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
There are Obama videos in the articles for the Boston Marathon bombing, the Orlando nightclub shooting, the 2015 San Bernardino attack, and the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and a Bush soundbite in the September 11 attacks article; they each add to the readers' understanding of the event as they add an unedited historical document of an important leader's reaction to the event, something which deserves to be noted These precedents mean that the Trump clip should stay. - MagicatthemovieS
We don't work by precedent but by utility to our readers. --John (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
The only Obama I see in any of those three is a still frame in the Orlando one. The San Bernardino one makes me want to buy a blue iPhone. I can't even tell what I'm looking at in the Sandy Hook tree trunk without clicking away from the article. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I see John's been deleting. Now there's precedent to keep and keep out. I can see why we don't work that way. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of precedents, unedited video of the POTUS responding to the attack still adds to the "Reactions" section of the page and does not constitute anyone benefitting from the tragedy. - MagicatthemovieS
Trump benefits by having his face and voice attached to this Presidential-like reaction and not to the goblin-like one. I suppose I wouldn't object if Hurricane Maria#Criticism of U.S. government response had an unedited video, too. People will still remember this one better, because it happened later, but it would go a little way to presenting a site-wide neutral point of view of the man. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
So including a video of an actual Trump speech violates NPOV because it makes him look "presidential" (I think it's a pretty average blah speech myself)? Let's add the Trump speech to this page and then someone can add a Trump video to the Hurricane Maria page.- MagicatthemovieS
They're supposed to be blah. That's what makes it exceptional. Normally, he ignites some sort of media firestorm. If we've only the decent and average speech in full, we'd seem to be painting him a decent and average President. That said, I haven't checked everything that Trump's responded to. If you can find at least one disaster article with a non-blah reaction video, you can probably win my support. You have to go first because you're newer. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Is the video of Trump on the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations article serviceable? - MagicatthemovieS
Nah, words are wind. Words about words are...whatever's less than wind. Actual disasters, not PR disasters. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Are you aware of any videos where Trump reacts in an unflattering way to a disaster? _ MagicatthemovieS
Unite the Right rally has three, but you can't use them as bargaining chips, because I just took them. I suppose you could add the fourth and final one. Things usually work better in threes, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
So Wikipedia has three videos where Trump makes unflattering speeches in regard to disasters, yet we can't have one video where he makes a blah speech? - MagicatthemovieS
I don't make the rules. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
side chitchat. --MelanieN (talk) 08:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Actually, everything you have said in this thread is your own opinion - your own rules. What can I do to appease you? - MagicatthemovieS
It's too late to flip my opinion now, but I'll abstain from declaring it in bold letters below if you can guess what's less than wind before midnight. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Um ... breeze? What do I win? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
−You win a trout. Breeze is a gentle to moderate wind. No more hints! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Google says that question is unanswerable. Just like you to start an unwinnable contest. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
That's just Google personalizing. If it knows you don't know, it won't tell you, you know? There's a perfectly fine and concrete answer, and it's the top result if you phrase the question right. Googling a riddle is cheating, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
side chit-chat. --MelanieN (talk) 08:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sometimes it isn't. Pincrete (talk) 10:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Even in the fictionless science world, it sometimes blows back. But these exceptions only prove the rule. And Spin proved Trump is three steps away from Kansas. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hoaxes and misinformation section

Enough of this conspiracy mongering. This violates WP:NOTFORUM and several other Wikipedia policies. --MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved
 – Not done - no credible reason given for section deletion. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The entire section is completly POV and should be deleted!!! There are reports of shooting from a lower floor and anyone can see the gunfire. You don't know what is fake and what is not. Discussions on alternative media is not "fake news". If anything the main stream media reports fake news. It is clear by now that it wasn't a lone shooter. At this point we don't know the truth, people should be encouraged to ask questions. Anyway, can we please delete this section?--Jane955 (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

No per WP:REDFLAG, WP:FRINGE etc. I'm not sure why you are clear that "it wasn't a lone shooter". Personally I am puzzled by some of the questions which remain unanswered, but the gaps shouldn't be filled in with material from blogs, message boards etc. The problem is that the police have drawn a blank on the motive and didn't give entirely clear and consistent briefings to the media in the first few days after the shooting. Two blogs, three opinions. You can't say "it was a hoax" and "it wasn't a lone shooter". This is the principle of explosion and the article shouldn't fall for this fallacy.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
The point is, don't call "fake news" any media source that is not mainstream. The alternative media interviews gun experts, witnesses and does a great job. Of course the conclusions they reach may be false. In my opinion, he didn't even shoot one shot. It looks like an FBI sting where he played the role of an arm's dealer. The deal went bad, the clients (possibly ISIS) found out about the sting and decided to carry out the attack immediately. (You can see in Spain, when their plan was foiled, they went to plan B) Of course this is my opinion and yes, you can have 1000 opinions. The article is probably 90% fiction.That's ok, but don't call people who are searching for the truth "fake". --Jane955 (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
If you had 1000 different opinions, there is a good chance that 999 would be contradictory and run into problems with the principle of explosion, which is why there would be little point in listing them in the article. The "alternative media" has a long history of saying that events like this are false flag operations and hoaxes. Some people have worn out their keyboards saying this about Sandy Hook. It's inevitable that some people would say this about the Las Vegas shooting, but the usual policies like WP:DUE apply here. I'm puzzled about where Paddock got all his money from, as he was known as a regular high roller in Las Vegas on the video poker machines.[15][16] Arms dealing and money laundering have been suggested, but it is still early days. One possibility is that Paddock played the video poker machines with a 99% payout so that if the IRS asked where the money had come from, he could say that he had a lucky day at the races. It's well known that some people use Las Vegas in this way, and the sums of money that Paddock was capable of spending in Las Vegas are well beyond someone with a comfortable retirement lifestyle. Casinos are supposed to report people to the authorities if they think that money is being stuffed into the machines in order to disguise its origins, but they often don't. Paddock wasn't an Arab sheikh, but he had a lot of money for someone who wasn't.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
In the 2017 Congressional baseball shooting mainstream media put on stock photos of AR-15 rifles and had experts speculate on that assumption when in fact the gun used turned out to be different make, model, country of origin. All speculation should be kept out of the article whether mainstream or alternate media. Talking heads/blogging fingers asking experts "what if" then reporting theoreticals as facts is clutter. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
No idea how this is relevant to anything but... OK. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia's job to tell the truth or echo the mainstream media? (never mind...I know the answer) Anyway, the only thing we know is that there were shots fired from that building. We don't know who the shooter is. Also, its been confirmed that there were multiply shooters which means that the mainstream media is lying. Right now I am thinking that Paddock was a weapons' dealer.(possibly working for the FBI) That would explain all this money.--Jane955 (talk) 03:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Snopes debunked this already. The "second shooter" was a blinking light that was visible on footage from before the shooting. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 05:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I didn't see videos of blinking lights before the shooting. Also, there are sounds of multipal shots and many witnesses testified to gunfire from different directions, even from ground level.--Jane955 (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Echoes, ricochets, reflections, repeats through the audio system, witness biases, confusion, possibly even civilians shooting at perceived sources in an open carry state. When someone throws a punch in a bar, there will be five different stories of what happened. With 22,000 people at a concert, you’ll hear an enormous number of different stories. Can we keep the conspiracy stuff off these pages? Objective3000 (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Several videos prove without a doubt that there were multiple shooters from multiple locations with multiple kinds of weapons with different shooting frequencies. For example the video of the taxi driver that parked in front of the Mandalay Bay hotel. That Wikipedia doesn't mention this just shows that it has become a government propaganda outlet. Ich901 (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Ich901, I completly agree with you! Anyway, this video shows muzzle flashes on the Lower Floors Of Mandalay Bay--Jane955 (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
False - the second/other shooter hypothesis has been debunked. Please, look at the Snopes article again - you will notice that a video shot during the "God Bless America" (it pans over to the right) shows a blinking light from the same general area. Las Vegas is full of blinky things. It's also full of mirrored surfaces. That something like this could mistaken for something that it is not is not surprising. Snopes-- Fuzheado | Talk 20:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I looked at Snopes. Well, its Vegas, there are lights everywhere but there is a video on their page. (I'll share the link) that shows gunfire only from the lower floor. I guess they must have covered the window after the shooting because the holes are only seen above. Shooter On 4th Floor Not 32nd--Jane955 (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Well then, the Wikepdia policies need to be changed. If the US becomes a police state are we going to follow the narrative they dictate? how far is this going to go?--Jane955 (talk) 02:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I know emotions may run high on this, but for the sake of all parties involved, I suggest moderation on this issue; the actions I see here border on WP:TENDENTIOUS; there is no need to go invoking "police state" comparisons, or making demands in an article's talk section about rewriting Wikipedia's rules of conduct (WP:VENUE). Scriblerian1 (talk) 07:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Make a new section about conspiracy reports regarding the Las Vegas shooting Blysbane (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Blysbane

No thank you. Not unless they become noteworthy enough to be reported on by multiple reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
A conspiracy section will get deleted, because Wikipedia (like the main stream media)want to control the narrative.--Jane955 (talk) 03:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The original timeline wherein Campos was shot after the crowd was fired on and allegedly interrupted further homicides should be listed within the misinformation section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scriblerian1 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The article included misinformation - it claims there was only one shooter. 47.137.183.192 (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
We require reliable sources before we can add claims. O3000 (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Orlando shooter's name

In the "Casualties" section, I think there's absolutely no need to include the Orlando shooter's name. The last paragraph ends with "...excluding gunman Omar Mateen". I suggest changing it to "excluding the gunman". That paragraph is solely about a death count comparison of Las Vegas and Orlando, not the shooters. If you want, you can wikilink "gunman" to Mateen's article, but it's not even necessary since the article itself is already wikilinked in the same sentence. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_Las_Vegas_shooting/Archive_9&oldid=1136474931"