Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting/Archive 7

Article title change
I strongly suggest changing the title of this article from "2017 Las Vegas Strip Shooting" to "2017 Las Vegas Strip Massacre". This event was literally, by definition, a massacre ("an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people" or " a deliberate and violent killing of a large number of people", etc.). Using the word "shooting" is a very inaccurate represenation of the magnitude of this event. It's like calling a hurricane a rainstorm. Further, the majority of mainstream media outlets have been describing it as a massacre, not a mere shooting. TV news coverage has overwhelmingly used the word "massacre" in their program titles. So, if there is an experienced editor who agrees with me and is familiar with the process of proposing an article title change, please do so. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:D8E:D6F3:A7EA:C247 (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We go by reliable sources. Although Wikipedia is not a source, you might read massacre for some background. Massacres are generally carried out by political actors and not lone individuals. Objective3000 (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I am fully aware of reliable sources, thus my reference to "mainstream media outlets". And I am not talking about a content change; I'm talking about changing the article title. Here's just a sampling (there are hundreds) of mainstream media outlets calling it a masscre, including the primary Las Vegas newspaper: Las Vegas Review-Journal, ABC News, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Newsweek, NPR, Reuters, CNN, and AOL. So, contrary to your implication that massacres are not carried out by lone individuals, I beg to differ with your opinion. And so do hundreds of top-tier newspapers and TV networks. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:D8E:D6F3:A7EA:C247 (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Those call it the Las Vegas massacre, not the Las Vegas Strip massacre or the 2017 Las Vegas Strip massacre. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * In any case, we should let the dust settle before considering any article moves (renames). Objective3000 (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's been four days. Traditionally, the dust settles about now. I like "shooting" for precision, but "Las Vegas massacre" is catchy and true in a general sense, so I'm Neutral. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Typically perhaps. But, we don't yet have a motive. Objective3000 (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Objective, a motive is absolutely unnecessary to know this was a massacre. A person shooting indiscriminately from 32 stories up at a crowd of over 20,000 unsuspecting and defenseless people, wounding or killing over 500 of them, is miles beyond a typical shooting. And Hulk, the issue at hand with regard to the title change is simply word choice: shooting vs. massacre. Far more credible, mainsteam media outlets are using massacre than shooting. In any case, I appreciate the input from both of you. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:D8E:D6F3:A7EA:C247 (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Could be waiting a while on that. We still don't know why Barbara Spencer didn't like Mondays, and she's been alive for almost 40 years since. During this time, many (if not most) mass killers have taken their secrets to the grave. Is there a reason to wait for a motive before choosing another name? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hulk, I know this is off topic but thanks for giving me a good laugh! I needed that. You're a funny guy. Also, I had meant to ask the same thing (about why in heaven's name a motive would be needed to make a title change), but forgot in my previous comment. I also had intended to point out that Paddock's motive may never be known. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:D8E:D6F3:A7EA:C247 (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It always takes a while to agree on the title for an incident like this. That's why the article is currently move-protected. I don't think the "dust has settled" quite yet, with new revelations every day, and hundreds of edits to this article every day. But within a few days, maybe on Sunday so that it has been a week, I plan to start a conversation to narrow down the potential titles, and then use that to launch an RfC about the title. For now I will continue to collect this kind of suggestion so that I can include it in the list of "possibles" for the preliminary conversation. I think we need to do this in an orderly way, to prevent chaos, and so that what we come up with can be considered definitive. --MelanieN (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Melanie! That's all I was seeking. A productive debate with (hopefully) lots of input. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:D8E:D6F3:A7EA:C247 (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there would be more support for 2017 Las Vegas shooting which would fit our style and precedent a lot more. I would not be averse to 2017 Las Vegas massacre but we would need to see this nomenlature in more sources to justify it. As for the removal of "Strip" in the name - the entire "Strip" has very little to do with this shooting - the tragedy happened to be at the very end of the Las Vegas Strip. I know the obsession with the name was about the fact that it happened in "Paradise" vs "Las Vegas" but we really should move on from that. For example, the November 2015 Paris attacks happened in the suburb of Saint-Denis as well as Paris, but we use the most recognizable name. The D.C. sniper attacks of 2002 happened almost entirely outside DC in the suburban areas of Maryland and Virginia, yet we all know it and refer to it as the "D.C." attacks. Title of this does not have to be pedantic about geography and jurisdiction and must yield to WP:COMMONNAME policy. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 16:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The official name has been announced as "1 October" - the digit 1, not the word 1. I have accordingly submitted an official move request for this. CycloneGU (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * We use the Common Name on Wiki. Is the common name of these killings "Las Vegas massacre"? FOARP (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it may take some time to determine the COMONNAME as the names used by the press may take time to converge. Personally, I hope massacre is not that name. As you can see from List of events named massacres, massacres are generally at the hands of government or mobs. Objective3000 (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's becoming very clear what the common name is: 2017 Las Vegas Massacre (with the word "Strip" stripped from the current title, which would be fine with me. We must not forget, though, what's most important is the common name of the event combined of course with adhering to Wikipedia's naming conventions (WP:TITLE and specifically WP:NCE). The clear plurality of highly reliable media sources are using the word massacre over shooting, and "Las Vegas Massacre" is being used more than any other full term. Although it's clear from your multiple posts that you really dislike the word massacre in this instance, it's precisely by definition what this event was, and reliable sources are using it more than any other name. Yes, massacres can and have been carried out by lone gunmen. It's a high bar, but this event has easily reached it. Look at every dictionary you can find for the definition of massacre, then look at all the reliable media coverage. I don't think any reasonable person can look at this event and honesty say it was not a massacre. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:D8E:D6F3:A7EA:C247 (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Neutral: The press conference calling this "The 1 October Shooting Incident" is now up on YouTube:. For what it's worth, the Umpqua Community College shooting also occurred on October 1 (2015), and was referred to as "the October 1 shooting at Umpqua Community College". Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That is beyond stupid. No one has ownership of a shooting, no one person or entity can claim to be the sole naming authority of a tragedy. The common name of an event like this is derived from what reliable sources refer to it as. Also, as it is an event that took place in the United States, we would never refer to it as "1 October" anything. TheValeyard (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The discussion concerning this proposed move has been snow closed below. Please don't rehash it here.  (Also, as an aside, I can only speculate that the Las Vegas Tourism Bureau or Chamber of Commerce is behind any effort to promote this name, in order to get "Las Vegas" as far removed from the event as possible.)  General Ization   Talk   22:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to note, the official name of the event announced today by the Clark County Chairman is "1 October", period. Not "1 October shooting" or "The 1 October shooting incident" or anything like that, just "1 October." --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also note, that's said to be the official name for investigators. Since we're not investigators, it doesn't apply to us. It's just another usage to consider with the rest. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

After reading WP:NCE, which instructs in the majority of cases for an event to use the where, when, and what descriptors in the title, such as the 1993 Russian constitutional crisis, I have another thought regarding an allowed exception to that guideline that I hope everyone will keep an open mind about: We may not need the year in the title; only the where and what. Per NCE, there are "some events that are so immediately identifiable that the date is not needed in the article title", such as Chernobyl disaster, Virginia Tech shooting, and Charlie Hebdo shooting. There have been other notable shootings in Las Vegas, although none even close to the magnitude of this one, but if the title of this article is changed simply to "Las Vegas Massacre", the common name per the plurality of reliable sources, most readers would instantly know what event it's about, whether it's now or 20 years from now. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:D8E:D6F3:A7EA:C247 (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of shooter in death total
Is disgusting. It is also against facts as he killed himself after his attack ended. --Khajidha (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It’s the standard in Wikipedia, the standard in reliable sources, and the English language. Also, it’s not contrary to the facts. If you don’t think any deaths after the attack “ended” should be counted, then we couldn’t count any of the injured in critical condition that subsequently die. Objective3000 (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not the standard in the English language as I was taught. Sources i heard on the day were given as "x killed by a gunman who later shot himself", so it's not the standard in all sources, either. And any critically injured individuals who later died were shot during his attack, therefore they count. His death came from a shot fired after he had ceased attacking.--Khajidha (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Too bad. You're welcome to change the standard, if you like. Dschslava  Δx  parlez moi  16:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The infobox already includes an appropriate clarification. It says "Deaths: 59 (including the perpetrator)", and I would support inclusion of similar clarifying language in the lead section. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That language has been used every time we cite a number. If it isn't there at the moment it's because someone removed it. But whether or not we like including the shooter in the numbers, we are stuck with it. That is the way these things are always reported. After all his death was a result of the mass shooting incident, whether he killed himself or was killed by police or however it happened. That is the way the numbers go into the (shudder) record book. --MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Paddock was shot and killed by Paddock during the same several minutes the rest were, with one of the same weapons, from the same place. He was the final victim, not a bonus, like those who kill themselves in jail later or die by police. Not an innocent victim or a hapless victim, of course, but every bit as dead. The only strangeness I see is saying "excluding" in one spot and "including" in another. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

A few points: 1) If sources always say "59 including the shooter" them we have the option of saying the exact same or saying "killed 58 before killing himself", 2) how would one go about changing consensus?, 3) you have a strange definition of victim of you consider him a victim. --Khajidha (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You may think "suicide victim" strange, but it's quite common, if you Google it. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * We aren’t here to insert our personal feelings. And, we shouldn’t say killed 58 before killing himself as the death toll may increase from any who might succumb to wounds. Also, why would we choose to ignore reliable sources? Objective3000 (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We might also avoid saying he killed 58 because the coroner has said only most died from gunshot wounds. There's a case to be made that a heart attack, tripping or trampling could be linked to the panic caused by the sounds of gunfire made by Paddock, but it's indirect. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Cause of injuries
I read yesterday or the day before, that some injuries were caused in the melee as people tried to escape, rather than by them being shot, but can;t find the source. Does anyone have one, please? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This article states "Others were trampled or were injured jumping fences." WWGB (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Some of the dead also weren't shot to death, but the coroner doesn't say here what killed them or how many they were. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

No doubt some of them where injured trying to escape rather than by gunfire but it would be very hard to determine how many were injured by gunfire and how many weren't — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:6C4C:E7E0:C4CE:F23D (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC on ISIS claims
Since we've still got slow edit warring and discussion about this, I think it could be helpful to open a formal RfC. The question is thus: should the ISIS claim that Paddock was ideologically influenced by the group be included in the article? If the consensus ends up being yes, there will also probably need to be a discussion about how much detail, but we can cross that bridge if/when we get there. Thanks, ansh 666 19:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose. It is a claim with no evidence, made by a radical islamic terrorist organization, rebutted firmly by law enforcement. ValarianB (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per WP:BDP. Contentious material about a recently deceased person involved in a particularly gruesome crime should not be included. The source is a terrorist organization that has made false claims like this in the past and is considered dubious by the FBI. The material could cause harm to the family, and only benefits ISIS. Objective3000 (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Trump is made of contentious claims, and contends here that Paddock was evil, terrible, sick and demented (and benefits from it). Anonymous people call him quiet, solitary and unfriendly. When a dude kills more people at once than any American has, it naturally comes with a bit of bad press. Is an association with ISIS really worse than being evil, terrible, sick, demented and unfriendly? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:39, October 3, 2017 (UTC)
 * Claiming "BDP" is ridiculous. We are saying the man killed 58 people.  By contrast, very roughly 50,000 ISIS fighters in Iraq were estimated by the UN to have killed 18,000 people and 30,000? outside killed 1,200 people in attacks.  That's less than a murder per capita.  Saying this man was in ISIS (a) is a very mild thing compared to what he actually did, and (b) would at least suggest some kind of reason for his actions, which is almost too kind.  Bottom line: if we're going to have an article that says a man killed someone, then respectable "BDP" is to allow a free-ranging discussion of all potential motives under discussion.  We aren't even saying he was in ISIS, only providing readers with the knowledge that ISIS tried to claim him.  Which is, if nothing else, a fair commentary on his behavior. Wnt (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Include Highly notable, well covered claim. Wikipedia is not censored. We can state refutations, skepticism, or affirmations – as whichever may this develops. This should be noted even if 100% refuted (along with the refutation). As of present, it is too early to call (has not been refuted by law enforcement yet – but has not been confirmed either) Icewhiz (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Forgot to comment myself, so Oppose per WP:BDP, as I argued much earlier. There is zero encyclopedic benefit in including this information in the article along with the possibility of harm to relatives or other associates, so there is no place for it in this article. ansh 666 20:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per and .  General Ization   Talk   20:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Include True or false, the fact that the planet's top boogeymen have posited a theory on why he did it is true. And well-sourced. And possibly vital to understanding (unless they're lying). It'd seem particularly stupid to omit their claims if we kept similar hearsay from his neighbours, classmates and whatnot. They have no evidence for their stories, either, and are basically nobody next to a group with a well-documented history of planning and inspiring attacks of this sort. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, October 3, 2017 (UTC)
 * Besides, every time this bit is deleted (about seven times now), it's readded by a new person, without detail beyond ISIS claims responsibility. I've repeatedly had to clarify this same clickbait headline. If we left the true story, it could just stay there (that sounds too simple, now that I've typed it). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:25, October 3, 2017 (UTC)


 * EDIT: Support as it is now. Before it was given undue weight – it's a very peripheral element of this story, similar to the internet hoax section. The current treatment seems OK FOARP (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Wikipedia does not publish the claims of terrorist organizations, especially when the claim cannot and has not been verified by any other entity. WP:BDP is policy here, there is no wiggle room here on the question of the harm done to a recently-deceased person, friends, and family by publishing claims of terrorism ties when the claim is so badly sourced. The cries of "not censored!" above are absolute rubbish. TheValeyard (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your first claim is rubbish. We hear from ISIS or Amaq here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. There are more, but this is boring. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:57, October 3, 2017 (UTC)
 * In every one of those topics, authorities have corroborated ISIS' claims of responsibilities with these things we like to call "evidence" and "facts". You and the gaggle of new users who keep revert-warring this nonsense into the article are doing do on the basis of ISIS' say-so alone. Apples and oranges. Don't address me again with this sort of nonsense, please. And if you're bored, find another topic area to much around in. TheValeyard (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's also rubbish, or at least not noted in those topics' articles. And I'm not part of a new gaggle, I've been sorting out facts from "facts" in this topic area since Aurora in 2012. Sorry to bother you. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, October 3, 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose ISIS routinely claims to be associated with violent acts that they have no connection with. It doesn't help the reader understand the shooting or its effects. –dlthewave ☎
 * Oppose It's free publicity for terrorists based on an unsubstantiated claim. If the latter changes, there's always time to add it later. Scaleshombre (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Current version tells: The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant claimed Paddock was their soldier, inspired by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's call to attack coalition countries. No evidence to this has however been found. The FBI said "we have determined, to this point, no connection with an international terrorist group."[39] Police have not described him as a terrorist.... I think this is fine, exactly as WP:NPOV requires. This is just a well sourced and important, but unferified claim. We should keep that description. Was he actually "ideologically influenced by the group" (RfC question)? No, this is not sourced, and correctly not included on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually I have deleted the first two sentences because they were unsourced. If you would like to restore them, with sources, feel free. --MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind, they've been restored. --MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Beat [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_Las_Vegas_Strip_shooting&diff=803546921&oldid=803546801 you] to it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:27, October 4, 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose – ISIS would claim responsibility if a major tornado hit Oklahoma. This is all for political gain as right now they are being squeezed out of the Middle East. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment – I like the version of this currently in the article. It briefly addresses the claim and explains that it's baseless. I would agree with the argument that we should not give these evil losers publicity and credence, however this has been reported by reliable sources and it's been refuted already, so a quick mention doesn't seem harmful. I would move it to the "hoaxes and misinformation" subsection, though. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support — ISIS's claim has been widely covered in the media, making it a notable reaction. Of course we should also include statements by law enforcement or terrorist experts and give it due weight. FallingGravity 05:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Includewith caveats that investigation continues and no proof has been found to back up the IS claim --mentioning that the IS claim happened or that rumors circulated of IS responsibility claims, but not saying IS did commission/inspire/support the act. Report the claim without endorsing it. Not-including it would by now seem like PC POV after there has been such media coverage. Cramyourspam (talk) 05:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Include It has been noted in the media that ISIS doesn't willy nilly claim credit for anything that goes boom, but when they do it usually turns out to be accurate. 47.137.183.192 (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, can you please post some examples of media sources that indicate that ISIS doesn't often claim credit and when they do it's usually accurate? Because what the majority of sources say is the exact opposite of what you said. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The majority of sources conflate ISIS claims with Amaq claims, distorting this answer. Amaq releases the standard line for every attack by a Muslim in a coalition state, regardless of anything and offering no further information. It's quite rarer for ISIS to release an official statement, distinguishable by a logo, name and religious talk of martyrdom, glorious mercy and the like. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose – WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There’s no encyclopedic benefit in adding information about a fallacious claim by the group which is deemed absolutely unrelated. JahlilMA (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Update to Weak Include under exactly current condition which the news is put into ‘hoaxes’ section so that contextually it is framed in the appropriate way. JahlilMA (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose – In comparison the wide breadth of coverage of this event, the few sources covering the ISIS claim is relatively small. NickCT (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Include What he have now is appropriate in size and in treatment, with the claim's credibility (or lack of) being thoroughly assessed. This has received as much coverage as many other things we include, and it is likely to be one of the things our readers are curious about or want more information on. To simply suppress it would raise more questions than answers. --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No Include – but, I think it's absurd that we ARE for including literal fake news, but not this. ISIS claims should be put on the same level as other probably fake news and misinformation. Which is to say, perhaps a bare mention but no details. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  14:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I think it's fine as long as it's clear that it's an opinion from ISIS rather than actual fact, it's worded nicely as is. South Nashua (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Include Islamic state claims with a caveat investigation continues and no proof has been found to back up the IS claim.FBI have only said we have determined, to this point they have not ruled the Islamic state fully yet and the cause for the shooting is still not known Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Include. This is mostly a notable "reaction", but it also is part of the investigation.  You could say "X, Y, and Z said there was no link to international terrorism, dismissing claims by ISIS that it was responsible."  And to be sure, it is not out of the question that authorities would falsely deny ISIS involvement in a case where it can plausibly be done, at least temporarily, simply to deny the organization the credibility boost it would get from a large attack.  I'm not saying it isn't much more likely ISIS is lying; they are not exactly known for ethics... the point is, readers should be given a complete picture, not just All The Facts That Wikipedia Think Are The One Right Answer And Nice To Print. Wnt (talk) 05:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Include - It has received plenty of coverage, though I understand the rationale to exclude. Particularly that lending even a little bit of credence to a claim that has been heavily refuted by law enforcement could potentially have consequences for living family members, etc. However, if the claim is properly contextualized and treated similarly to other hoaxes or unsubstantiated claims, there is no reason to exclude it given its prominence in reporting. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Include in hoaxes section. It's well covered.  PizzaMan  ♨♨♨  19:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Include a very breif mention with the appropriate caveats. It has been mentioned in multiple news stories and whether factual or not is part of the wider story. AIR corn (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Include very briefly BUT followed directly about materal that refutes it thoroughly Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
It has absolutely been refuted by law enforcement, who said there are no links to any international groups. Quote from the current version of the article: The FBI, however, determined that Paddock had no connection with international terrorist groups. ansh 666 20:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See, that was the problem with the edit you quoted from: it paraphrased the FBI statement in a way that gave a completely false impression. The FBI did not say "he had no connection with" such groups. They said they had, at this point, no evidence that he had such a connection. That paraphrase made it sound as if they have refuted it, which is incorrect. A while ago I replaced the paraphrase with the actual quote from the FBI, but there has been a fair amount of edit warring over that sentence and I'm not sure what it says now. If it says anything other than "we have determined, to this point, no connection with an international terrorist group." - then it is quite possibly misleading. --MelanieN (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not a refutation, but rather a lack of evidence and skepticism of the claim. At this point law enforcement has not advanced a motive or a belief system of the shooter. It is fair to say this claim has been met with great skepticism (however the claim regarding Omar Mateen was as well) – however it was not refuted. In any event even if refuted (if and when they discover the actual motive) – this will still be a highly notable claim.Icewhiz (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC) Note – IS did not claim they directed the attack – but rather that they "inspired" the attacker (i.e. per Amaq he was loosely affilated and shared idealogy but was not in IS chain of command) – this is a claim that is difficult to refute without establishing an alternative motive.Icewhiz (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We only publish verified information that is supported by evidence. We do not include a claim just because it has not been refuted. –dlthewave ☎ 21:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The claim by IS, via Amaq, is confirmed (and widely reported by RS). Whether they are lying or not is a separate matter (doubts dhould be stated per RS) – however when a significant global actor makes a claim – it is notable just because they made the claim. In a case with no or few claims even signIficantly less notable orgs making a claim would be notable.Icewhiz (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * We publish reported information. The only evidence we use is a reliable source's testimony. Your seond claim is true. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:06, October 3, 2017 (UTC)
 * Everything depends on importance/notability of the claim. A lot of claims on pages have been denied or refuted, but we still include them, and rightly so. There are whole pages about notable but refuted conspiracy theories or important pseudo-scientific subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * A fringe claim by a radical Islamist group does not belong in the article. TheValeyard (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, no. Please check WP:FRINGE. We have a lot of materials about fringe theories and claims because a lot of them are notable and well sourced. They simply must be described on our pages as "fringe", disproved, unverified, unproven, etc. - whatever RS tell. That one is currently unverified/unproven. My very best wishes (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

We had the following in the article: The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant claimed Paddock was their soldier, inspired by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's call to attack coalition countries. United States security officials say that no evidence of this has been found. No sources were cited. I have removed it, temporarily; we can't have something this inflammatory in the article without any sources. If someone wants to restore it with sources, temporarily while this discussion goes on, that is OK with me. --MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it was sourced in the very same ref that was used on the page, i.e. here. Welcome to rephrase though. My very best wishes (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

We currently have the information in TWO places in the article: Perpetrator and Reactions. The items are completely duplicative, same wording and all, with the Reactions article having a little additional information about how ISIS makes false claims of responsibility. One of the duplicates should be removed. I am going to remove it from Perpetrator and (pending the outcome of this discussion) retain it in Reactions.--MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Now that it's a reaction, does anyone dispute that it's the most widely covered and deeply analyzed reaction in the section? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:29, October 4, 2017 (UTC)


 * A stage has been reached where if the article didn't mention the ISIL claim, we would be having talk page discussions every day about why it was not in the article. We all seem to be agreed that the claim is baloney (so do law enforcement) but it is mildly notable that ISIL is now so desperate for publicity that it will make claims like this.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Isn't that why some articles have those FAQ-style sections, to more efficiently deflect the bad, perennial edit requests? ValarianB (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I would be quite happy to remove this per WP:NOTNEWS and the article wouldn't really suffer, but it has already been removed and put back several times, hence the RfC.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * FBI have only said  we have determined, to this point there rule has not yet been ruled out.They have not yet found the cause for the shotting.Hence feel the ISIS claim should be there.Unless FBI finally rule it out.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No WP:RS states that the Islamic State are not involved at this point.Even this and this does not say so they only say that ISIS made 2 false claims in the past.No can deny them at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This isn't a discussion about whether the claim is fake. This is a discussion about whether the claim should be included in the story, but with the appropriate weight for a likely-false claim. FOARP (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

"It was evening when the shooting occurred"
Re this edit: I don't know why someone is desperate to have it, because there are different time zones in the USA and saying that "it was the evening" is pretty meaningless as the evening stretches from 6 PM to midnight anyway. Other articles about mass shootings don't do this, and it is way too vague and confusing in the opening sentence. Sandy Hook doesn't say that Adam Lanza did it "in the morning", it correctly says that he entered the building at around 9:30 AM local time.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing it here to discuss. Yes, there are different time zones. It wasn't evening everywhere. It wasn't October 1 everywhere, either. Does that mean we can't give the local date? Identifying it as evening at the location (i.e., dark) helps people to picture the scene and understand the context. In what way is it confusing? (BTW I have already gotten one "thank" notice for restoring it.) --MelanieN (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I see you have taken removed it again, and inserted the time "at about 10:05 p.m. PDT" instead. I'll be interested to see which way of doing it people prefer. --MelanieN (talk) 05:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and just in case anyone gets the wrong impression: the article did not say "It was evening when the shooting occurred" or "It was the evening", although you put them in quotes. The lede sentence actually said "On the evening of October 1, 2017..." which you changed to "On October 1, 2017..." --MelanieN (talk) 05:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it will be interesting. There are obvious problems with WP:RELTIME here. If an incident lasted only a few minutes, it doesn't make sense to use words associated with extended periods of time such as morning, afternoon or evening. It's hard to point to any article about a mass shooting that falls into this trap. If it was 10:05 PM local time, the reader can do the math and work out that it was going to be dark.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep the evening mention. This is puzzling to me - "the reader can do the math." Why would we leave them to do that? We should keep the "evening" lead that has been there for days and the vast majority of editors have seen fit to keep there. It sets the scene and it is indeed significant that this event happened in the evening/night in terms of the chaos and aftermath of the event. If you're talking about when the iPhone went on sale, then it's true time of day is not relevant. But this as an event that occurred in a physical locale, and the environment in which it happened – when it was dark – is most certainly a level of detail that is interesting and merits inclusion. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 10:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's completely non standard for mass shooting articles. It is vague and woolly, and giving the exact time is much better. Do we have to explain that morning = light and evening = dark as well?-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The exact time is definitely better. I've always known "evening" to be from 5 to 9. I know at least two (crazy) people who think "night" starts at 8. Everybody agrees 10:05 is 10:05. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that the article ought to begin "On the night of October 1, 2017" and not "On October 1, 2017...". Sure, the exact time is stated a few sentences later, but this important enough to known the instant one starts to read the article. It gives immediate context. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, User:ianmacm appears to have, multiple times, removed it from stable versions where "evening" or "night" existed for a long time. Therefore, it seems that "evening" or "night"  should stay in the article until ianmacm, per WP:BRD, gets consensus that it should be removed. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed it mainly per WP:RELTIME and the reasons that I've given on numerous occasions. I can't understand why some people are so desperate to have this when it is so non-standard and doesn't help a reader's understanding. The shooting lasted ten minutes. It didn't last all morning, all afternoon, all evening or all night. End of.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A possibility would be to move the timeframe from the second sentence into the first sentence on one side or the other of the date. The inclusion would appear more natural under the current structure than under older versions. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 05:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:RELTIME does not seem to apply here. We are talking about an event that happened at night. That won't change.


 * Including something in an article that visitors want to read supersedes the want to be consistent with other articles.


 * Nobody is desperate. We just think visitors would be served best by having that "night" fact up front. It was dark. It was an evening concert. That is a big part of the setting and context.


 * Respectfully, I am not at all convinced by your reasons to omit "night" or "evening" from the first sentence.


 * Best wishes,


 * Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If we say the actual time, people will know it was dark and know what time it was. Calling it "night" is only half as good. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi InedibleHulk. If everyone prefers it, I would be fine with "On October 1, 2017, at around 10 p.m.,..." although it is a bit numbery and police-reporty. The setting "night", with the actual time a sentence later, considering it uses words more than numbers, is perhaps better. Come to think of it, "evening" indicates dark but not after midnight, while, "night" is broader and includes 2 a.m., so maybe "evening" is best. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Units overload
Can we agree that we should try to keep the prose readable and succinct? This type of thing needs to be avoided: "Two of Paddock's bullets traveled 2,000 feet (610 meters) to hit a 43,000 U.S. bbl (5,100,000 l; 1,400,000 U.S. gal; 1,100,000 imp gal) aviation fuel tank" -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 19:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's been fixed. --MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I added that conversion, but  I agree that that string of units, which appears to be the default, was too much. 220  of  Borg 03:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

"Hundreds" of rounds
Calling the number of rounds fired "hundreds" is a bit odd given the rate (90 in 10 seconds... 280 in 31 seconds...) and sustained duration of fire (ten minutes, with over 500 victims, plus 200 bullets through the door). Does anyone have a reliable source that states thousands were fired? Can this just be treated as obvious? ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 10:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not at the moment. It's quite possible that he fired over 1000 rounds given the array of weapons, and this should be easy enough to ascertain from the number of empty cartridge shells in the hotel room.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * More than odd. Based on the simple math, it would be very hard to believe it wasn't at least 1,000. I've been thinking the same things for days. I know a lot of reliable sources allude to the thousands of rounds he had available, but so far haven't found sources confirming he actually fired at least 1,000. If we're wrong, then it's because when you're firing from 32 stories up into a jam-packed crowd of over 20,000 people in an open field, you're going to hit someone on almost every shot. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:D8E:D6F3:A7EA:C247 (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It cannot be "treated as obvious" as it would venture into original research. It is unlikely but possible that fewer than 1,000 rounds were fired - multiple victims per round, and many of the injured could have been a result of the stampede or trying to escape, and not from the shooter's bullets themselves. Hundreds is the only WP:V number we have for now, but folks are welcome to find info that would back a different number. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 19:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There's the possibility of simple maths (RS indicate at least 482 bullets fired) as an exception to NOR. There's also quite a few sources that support "thousands of rounds" — it's just that their reliability is suspect since the figure doesn't appear to be reflected in news sources who would (be likely to) have correspondents in Vegas (see ... and of course ) ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 23:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Good job at least finding a reliable source (Bismarck Tribune) that actually says he fired thousands of rounds. Unfortunately, it's not a top-tier source and they give no indication whatsoever as to where they got that information. My hunch is that they just read or heard from hundreds of other sources that the guy had thousands of rounds available and misstated it as if they were rounds fired. They're clearly an outlier. Your second and third sources (East County Magazine) are duplicates. The last source (Daily Mail) is unreliable because it's a tabloid. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:D8E:D6F3:A7EA:C247 (talk) 05:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Restoration of note re NYT bump stocks source
I've removed the duplicative reference, which is a little non-standard but still meets WP:V, and restored the note regarding the NYT's bump stock article since it is not just used as a reference for content in the article, but illuminates how a bump stock operates both mechanically and in terms of its firing pattern -- information which enhances understanding of the event, and which I (personally) needed to search for; the animation makes things far clearer than any static picture or text, as does the audio. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 13:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * There are too many footnotes in the article. The normal practice is to have citations, not footnotes.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The advantage of separating notes and references is that they are functionally different for a reader. References are things that the majority of readers should never need to or want to look at; they are there to justify the inclusion of text in the article. Notes are there to provide further information ad explanation on a topic, and should be flagged as such because the expectation is that readers may need or want to look at them. In this case, the notes (should) point at material for which there aren't freely available equivalents that can be incorporated into the article. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 14:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Footnotes should be used sparingly. There is a lot of blather in the footnotes that should be expressed in the more usual form of text and citations. I can't recall any article about a recent mass shooting which has acquired so many footnotes to explain things to the reader.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's reasonable to remove footnotes which are otherwise covered (for example, possibly Note a) and/or edit text down to maximise information with minimal words. If, however, you hold that explanatory notes should intermingle with citations, then we'll have to agree to disagree (and get wider feedback for consensus?). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 15:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

How about this animation? It has been in the Bump fire article.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've moved your post down from a previous section -- hope you don't mind. Thanks for creating. Adding a coloured circle to represent the fingertip might make the action more explicit. Now that you've added it to the bump fire article, it might not be necessary to include the animation in this one, but perhaps add it in anyway and see what folks think? The NYT article is still useful due to the demonstration of firing patterns but the note could be shortened. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 04:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ...added to the Logistics section with the wording tweaked -- please review. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 05:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the addition of the image. I don't mind if the image is removed from this article. I added a fingertip to the image as you suggested.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to add list of victims and their profiles from Los Angeles Times under "See also"
I propose to add the following list of the victims and a brief profile of each from The Los Angeles Times to "See also": http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-las-vegas-shootings-victims-list-20171002/.  Gary Henscheid (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Depends what you mean by "profile". I would agree to nothing more than name, age and state/nation of residence. There is no benefit in cluttering the article with stuff like "teacher", "grandmother" or "avid swimmer". WWGB (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not the point of a "See also" section. A "See also" is supposed to link to relevant, previously unlinked Wikipedia articles, and nothing else. (WP:SEEALSO is the page dictating this). Even if that wasn't the point of a "See also" section, Wikipedia is not a memorial, and as such we don't list individual victims of a tragedy if they do not pass WP:BLP and/or WP:N. Sky  Warrior  03:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * By "see also" you mean that we would just have a link, and people would go somewhere else (the LA Times article) to see the list? I see no problem with that, and in fact think it's a good idea. And the list can include whatever the LA Times saw fit to include. But it should go under "external links" rather than "see also". And I'd like to clarify that you aren't proposing to have it as text in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I missed that. If it goes ahead, it should be a subsection of Casualties. I am not invoking WP:OSE but there are victim lists at articles like Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Orlando etc. I have no doubt it will eventually happen here too. WWGB (talk) 03:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally I'm not a fan of this, and some people are citing WP:OTHERSTUFF. It doesn't help with an understanding of the shooting to list all of the victims' names and can have WP:BLP issues for the surviving relatives.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 04:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether you're a fan of them or not, lists of victims - either in "See Also" links or with lists embedded into the articles themselves - appear to be a standard feature for these kinds of articles at this point. As others have already noted, this is one of the few mass-casualty events that does not have such a list. I suppose that, past a certain number of dead, the list could become too unwieldy, and could be opposed on those grounds. But then again, even 9/11 has a a number of these lists - including an article devoted entirely to casualties, and a list just for emergency personnel killed that day. If these lists get to be included elsewhere, then they should also appear here. Moreover, I think lists like this do help people understand the shooting, by showing the human scale of the tragedy. Ereb0r (talk) 02:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)User:Ereb0r

Now I oppose adding such a list, but this appears to have been discussed before. As such, I have started a discussion over at the Village Pump concerning these list of victims, and I invite anyone interested to participate. Sky Warrior  04:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

After reviewing the above comments, I agree that any such list would better fit in a Casualties subsection, or perhaps under external links as suggested by MelanieN, but not under See also. Gary Henscheid (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I added a link for this to ext. links days ago. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * We generally do not include a list of all victims unless there is a justification. Since none was given, I would oppose listing them all or creating a stand alone article on it. Anna's external list should be sufficient and accomplishes the same thing.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Strongly support inclusion into native article People are citing other stuff exists because in this case, it was particularly relevant. There was an actual RfC regarding the victim's names on the Pulse shooting article, and it was found in favor of inclusion. Not to mention that it reliable sources including the Las Vegas Coroner has released the names. We would essentially be mirroring the reliable sources at that point. Many more reliable sources have released the names. It would only be a BLP issue if the names weren't widely released/circulated, which they clearly are. Not to mention that it looks in poor form to solely elaborate on the psycho-killer rather than say the names of the people he's killed, the actual victims here. Tutelary (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * NOTMEMORIAL is applicable. The killings were impersonal, unsequenced and chaotic; the victims (with the exception of Campos) had no interaction with Paddock; and consequently there appears to be no reason to include particular actions that most victims or survivors took, and nor to include their names. The external link to the list/bios is more comprehensive what can be included here. I note that the four terrorist incidents this year with death tolls over 100 don't have a victim list. And that's not just a bias against non-Caucasians, ref the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing or November 2015 Paris attacks ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 20:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * One hundred is where I draw the "too many" line. 58 names, ages and hometowns isn't so much to remember, and remembering basic info like this isn't memorializing. Recalling their hobbies, interests and circles is where I draw that line. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)