Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting/Archive 8

Mixing alcohol with Valium
There was previous discussion at this talk page about whether to mention he was taking Valium (Diazepam), and there was no consensus to include that info because Valium is a common drug that a lot of people benefit from without adverse effects. But taking Valium in combination with alcohol is another matter entirely, because it can truly cause disaster, and is strongly discouraged by doctors. Paddock was emphatically combining these two substances. The Stephen Paddock article now says this:

So, I advise that Valium should not be mentioned in this article except in combination with alcohol, and that combination absolutely should be mentioned. The last cited source about Paddock specifically mentions this combination.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Diazepam has been around for over half a century and is one of the most frequently prescribed medications in the world. I don’t think anything should be in the article that has a hint of speculation. Objective3000 (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no speculation as to whether he was drinking alcohol and taking Valium, nor any speculation that they are not supposed to be combined.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * First, he was prescribed 50 pills in June and 50 last year. Is there any indication he was taking it recently, or is this speculation? Secondly, you are advised to avoid alcohol with most drugs; because it makes dosage determination more difficult and could result in respiratory arrest with a depressant. That doesn’t mean you’re more likely to spend months planning a mass shooting and decades buying weapons without anyone noticing any difference in your behavior. Thirdly, there were over one billion Valium pills prescribed in one year alone. I’m certain a huge number were taken with alcohol without causing mass shootings. This is pure speculation. Patience. Objective3000 (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Combining valium with alcohol creates a risk of "making the user even more sleepy, confused, disoriented, and vulnerable to accidents or injuries", says the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. See   Is there any indication that the prescription prohibited refills?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * None of which involve carrying out a complex, murderous plan -- rather the opposite. And, the NIAA probably says that about Rice Krispies.:) Seriously, listen to any TV ad about any drug. The last third of every ad mentions a huge number of side effects. Look at the side effects of Tylenol. We don’t even have a tox screen yet, so we have no reason to believe he took any Valium. And now, you're speculating about refills. Let's act like an encyclopedia and add info that is highly likely to be relevant ten years from now.Objective3000 (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that valium alone would not be worth mentioning now. But the possible combination of valium with alcohol is supported by reliable sources, and is much more relevant than a lot of stuff already in this article, like "he married and divorced twice".  There's no proof that divorce causes mass murder, right?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there are any RS that say he was on Valium. As for married and divorced twice, I don't see why that is in the article. Hardly unusual these days. Objective3000 (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think "married and divorced twice" can be in the article. It is part of a group of facts: "Court records show he married and divorced twice. He had no children. His younger brother and others who were in close contact with him described him as an ordinary man with no apparent religious or political affiliation." I think those sentences say a lot with an economy of words. The reader can be expected to want to know such facts. There is human interest in material of this nature. Bus stop (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. Although, since we can’t get rid of Stephen Paddock, probably belongs there instead. Objective3000 (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * According to a psychiatric expert who was discussing Paddock, "You can actually make someone less empathetic with Valium. So that's why I've not been a fan of them for many years....When you start someone on them, it's really hard to get them off". That's from the unreliable The Daily Mail but I think that source is reliable for a direct quote.  I'm not suggesting to add this to the Wikipedia article, but the point is that Valium is not something that's easily stopped.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail is not RS for yesterday's weather. I have no interest in armchair psychiatry. That's beyond speculation. We don't even know that he's been taking Valium. We have no tox screen. Speculation on top of speculation. (Incidentally, that psychiatrist has received a great deal of criticism.) Objective3000 (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, forget about Daily Mail and Amen. Benzodiazepines are considered to be addictive, especially in individuals who have a "drug-seeking" behavior; a physical dependence can develop after a few weeks or months of use. See &#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is also true of coffee. No RS says he was even on this drug, much less addicted, much less it had anything to do with the incident. I'm done. Objective3000 (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, let’s see if anyone else thinks mixing Valium with alcohol is no more addictive or dangerous than a cup of coffee.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Guys, this isn't a forum. If enough reliable sources state that this might be part of why he did it, we could probably include it. Otherwise please drop it. Doug Weller  talk 18:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but it's already included and states without RS that he was using it. Objective3000 (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Then it should be removed. Right now it appears we are pushing this as a cause. Doug Weller  talk 18:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What is "it" that should be removed? The possibility that Paddock mixed valium with alcohol, or any mention whatsoever of valium?  Dozens of sources discuss the latter, and yet it is now removed from this article.  I'll now go on record as saying it's extraordinarily silly to mention his alcohol use but not mention his valium use, both of which are discussed by plentiful reliable sources.  It seems to be a "cause" to omit any mention of valium in this article, IMHO.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Leave it out. Remove the whole thing. Rumor and speculation and synthesis. We do know he was prescribed Valium - but only 30 50 tablets in 2016 and 30 50 tablets in 2017; we have nothing at all to suggest he was taking regularly or using it at the time of this incident. These allegations/hints/attempts to make a linkage are nowhere near well enough supported to include. There is only vague sourcing in the Independent (after saying their information is according to "others who crossed paths with him in recent months", they actually cite one used car dealer for despondency and nobody all for "smelling of alcohol"). The Business Insider simply gives some basic facts about Valium, adding "the link between diazepam and Paddock's actions is tenuous at best". The Daily Mail is not reliable. We are left with nothing worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If it hasn't already already been deleted, I'm going to. --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The autopsy will tell the story soon enough. But his alcohol use is well-documented in reliable sources, as is his Valium use.  Any connection between the two has not been discussed much.  The Valium use is at this point more of a biographical fact indicating anxiety, but lots of sources cover it.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Obviously, if the coroner does report alcohol or any drugs in his system, that will settle the question and we will include it. But "he was prescribed a few Valium pills a few months ago", linked per WP:SYNTH with "somebody said he smelled of alcohol" but no indication of who - that's just baloney. If he was a drinker, that should be easy to establish; wouldn't some of the casino people he dealt with during his gambling have come forward to say so? Anything, you say his alcohol use is well documented in reliable sources; can you provide one? That might be something we could include. --MelanieN (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding alcohol:
 * “KALLIE BEIG, STEPHEN PADDOCK’S HAIRSTYLIST: HE SMELLED DRUNK AGAIN IN MORNING, GOT MARILOU’S TRIP 2 MONTHS AGO”, Inquisitr (October 6, 2017).
 * “Others who crossed paths with Paddock in recent months described him as despondent and smelling of alcohol.”The Independent (October 7, 2017).
 * “Kallie Beig, who worked at the Great Clips in Mesquite, Paddock’s hometown, told CNN exclusively that she had cut Paddock’s hair at least three times over the past three years, and that every time he had come in, always early in the morning, he had smelled of strong liquor.”, CNN (October 6, 2017).
 * ... other players noticed he always had a drink with him ... Gamblers say they saw Stephen Paddock playing video poker with a 'constant stream of booze' by his side when he was a guest at VIP tournaments.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Anything. The CNN reference at least cites a real human. The Daily Mail has more detail, particularly about his drinking while gambling. It would be good to be able to put that into the section about his gambling, but I don't think we regard the Daily Mail as a Reliable Source, do we? --MelanieN (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, if Daily Mail is problematic, the New Zealand Herald has an article vouching for and re-publishing the Daily Mail article. The NZ Herald has the largest newspaper circulation of all newspapers in New Zealand.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The source is still the Daily Mail. Surely all these fellow-gamblers and casino hosts must have talked to some American sources with decent reputations? --MelanieN (talk) 02:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If the NYT quotes the Daily Mail, then of course we can quote the NYT. Same here.  And please stop calling me Shirley.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, Shirley, that was actually pretty easy. New York Magazine, The Las Vegas Review-Journal, - there are planty of sources calling him a heavy drinker. We should add this. In fact I will. --MelanieN (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ It's amazing what good sources can do. --MelanieN (talk) 03:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Independent and CNN are perfectly respectable sources, and so is the New Zealand Herald, but I give you credit for some good google-fu Melanie. I searched for alcohol and booze and "drinking problem" but neglected to search for "heavy drinker".&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

"by a single gunman"
User:Falkirks: You inserted the qualification "by a single gunman", with the edit summary "Changed intro to describe as "deadliest by a single gunman" for accuracy)". I have removed it because none of our sources add that qualification; they just say "deadliest American shooting". I have seen one or two qualify it "deadliest in modern American history." What is the reason you feel this "single gunman" qualification is needed? --MelanieN (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I will try to find a source later after things settle down in the article. I'm just trying to be precise about the relationship between the death toll of this shooting and that of Wounded Knee Massacre and Lawrence massacre, which were in the USA, but executed by multiple gunman. Some articles use "modern US history" (as is mentioned above I think), but I think "modern" is a much weaker qualifier than "single gunman".  Falkirks Talk   04:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I actually find it confusing, because most people assume we are comparing it to other modern mass shootings, where one or a few individuals set out to shoot lots of people. So the qualification makes one try to think, "what was the more deadly mass shooting with two shooters? Columbine, maybe?" They don't think to compare this type of incident to the very different situation of shootings by armies or in warfare. (Surely dozens of Civil War battles would qualify if we are going that route.) --MelanieN (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You both make sense. Hopefully, reliable sources will come up with clearer language over the coming days. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Howard Unruh in 1949 is often regarded as the "first modern mass shooter." He was nuts and killed over ten people in the space of a few minutes, which required the use of a gun which could fire more rapidly than anyone had in the 19th century.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * For some precedent, see Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting/Archive 2 and the Wounded Knee section, too. Nothing was really settled, but history's neat. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:32, October 3, 2017 (UTC)


 * In that discussion, someone pointed to the page views for Wounded Knee massacre. It's worth checking that stat now. It seems a lot of people are questioning this claim, particularly in relation to Wounded Knee. 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting eventually settled on the following: "It was both the deadliest mass shooting by a single shooter and the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in United States history." There is imprecision in both "single shooter" and "modern" but neither is false. The language we presently use is false by one reasonable reading, so I think we do need to make a change. I prefer "single shooter" or "single gunman". --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to "by a lone gunman". [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=803599494&oldid=803599481&title=2017_Las_Vegas_Strip_shooting] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't really like that either. I continue to think that "single gunman" or "lone gunman" qualifications make people think there must have been some other, more deadly modern mass shooting carried out by two or more people. And IMO the modern lone-gunman situation is not at all comparable to massacres carried out by soldiers. So I still prefer the modification "modern U.S. history." But I think I am probably outvoted here, particularly because the "single shooter" format has been stable at the Orlando nightclub article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. One final thought: I have not yet seen a single Reliable Source (or even an unreliable source) qualify the word "deadliest" by adding "by a single shooter." If there are no sources using this formulation, isn't it Original Research for us to do so? --MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that there isn't a specific, widely accepted term for these kinds of shootings. Mass_shooting uses the term "public mass shooting", which is probably what corresponds closest in the literature to this kind of shooting. However, this term isn't really used in the coverage of this topic. By qualifying "mass shooting", I think it could be construed as OR, but it's really just trying to refer to the same thing that the media are referring to, just with a little more precision. – FenixFeather  (talk)(Contribs) 03:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. It's still my opinion that these modern "mass shootings" are so different from massacres carried out by armies that they are not comparable, and it is not necessary to qualify that this was "the worst mass shooting - well, but of course the Civil War was worse". --MelanieN (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. I'm still waiting to be shown a single Reliable Source, one, that lists this case as "the deadliest by a single shooter" or "lone gunman". I have seen one or two sources say "in modern American history" but most simply state deadliest without qualification. So that's what Reliable Sources do. Comparing it to military massacres is Original Research in my book. --MelanieN (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. Thanks for pointing out the link Mass_shooting. It proves my point exactly. It talks only about "modern" shootings and doesn't even mention Wounded Knee or the Civil War. I think we are way out of line to be insisting that those military massacres should be included under the category of "mass shooting". --MelanieN (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * More evidence: Category:Mass shootings in the United States by year only goes back to 1929. Category:Mass shootings in the United States likewise includes only modern shootings. We are completely out of line with WP practice when we pretend that the term "mass shooting" is reasonably applied to actions by armies in the 19th century. Such things are listed under Category:Massacres committed by the United States, Category:United States military killing of American civilians, Category:United States military war crimes, and the like.--MelanieN (talk) 06:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that it should say "single gunman" since there have been deadlier shootings that involved multiple people.Rlt152152 (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm persuaded by your argument and happy to drop "lone gunman/single shooter" and replace with "in modern US history" if that's what you'd prefer, User:MelanieN. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've found a meta-article on why most sources have been saying "in modern US history". This article, for example, features a correction where they added the qualifier "in modern US history". According to that first article, the corrections were a a result from a reminder from National Association of Black Journalists that mass shootings such as the Tulsa race riots, which had caused over 300 deaths. Thus the struggle of trying to find a qualifier/term that captures the idea of "mass shooting" more precisely. I'm not the biggest fan of "in modern US history" because it's basically code for "after it became socially unacceptable to kill black people", but "lone shooter" doesn't particularly capture the idea of a "modern" mass shooting either, since San Bernadino, for example, was done by two shooters. However, "worst mass shooting by a lone shooter" here is accurate and I feel like something that describes the nature of the shooting is more precise than the vagueness of what "modern US history" is. The only issue is that most sources right now are either discussing the terminology or using the "in modern US history" qualifier, though I have found one source that uses the "single gunman" terminology. – FenixFeather  (talk)(Contribs) 08:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Slightly tangential to this discussion, but I noticed you reverted my MOS:GNL edit from "lone shooter" back to "lone gunman". Isn't it better to follow MOS, even if the sentence is a little awkward? Although very few women have participated in mass shootings, San Bernardino, for example, involved a shooter who was a woman. – FenixFeather  (talk)(Contribs) 02:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And it's been reverted back to "lone shooter". I really hate "deadliest mass shooting by a lone shooter" for stylistic reasons. But I hear you on the "-man" thing. How about "deadliest mass shooting by a single individual"? (And of course - this linguistic awkwardness is yet another reason for my preferred wording, "in modern American history" or "in recent American history".) --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Someone else changed it back to "lone gunman" in the interim, so I'm guessing the awkwardness doesn't go over too well with most people. I've changed it to your suggestion; hopefully it doesn't continue to toggle back and forth. – FenixFeather  (talk)(Contribs) 07:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Also slightly tangential, but if we're not saying "modern US history", we don't need to say "in US history". Just "in the US" or "in America". Everything's in history, by default. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Apart from Brenda Spencer, women aren't very good at this sort of thing. However, we have to use gender neutral language nowadays. Also, words like "modern" and "recent" are clearly discouraged by WP:RELTIME because they are so vague and woolly.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The current wording is not supported by the given citations. The ABC News article just talks about modern shooting in the United States, and the New York Times article just says it's "one of the deadliest mass shootings in modern United States history." If most WP:RS just say "in modern U.S. history", then maybe we should just leave it at that, instead of adding our own qualifiers. FallingGravity 20:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That's been my point all along: it is WP:Original research for us to use the qualifier "by a lone gunman" or "by a single person" or anything similar, when Reliable Sources are not doing it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * At the same time, as InedibleHulk suggests, saying "in modern/recent US history" violates WP:RELTIME and is really just an excuse for news sources to sensationalize. If we can't find a reliable source that is precise and specific about what "deadliest mass shooting" means then maybe a sentence doesn't need to be there at all. Just say that it surpassed Orlando in terms of deadliness; plenty of sources mention that, and that's unambiguously true. – FenixFeather  (talk)(Contribs) 21:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No can do. Virtually every reliable source calls it deadliest. It's in every story. It has to be in our lede. We can't omit it just because the sources don't define it to our satisfaction. --MelanieN (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If FenixFeather's suggesting as I do, she has no problem with "deadliest". Just rather than tack on a so-obvious-it's-useless "in history" or begging-the-question "lone", we suggest tacking on the not-so-obvious previous record-holder it bumped off. "Deadliest since" is pretty common fare in these articles. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not "deadliest since"; that only works if the "since" incident was more deadly than this one. I have seen "surpassing the previous..." which works But I just don't see why we aren't willing to say what all the Reliable Sources are saying. --MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Because "in modern history" is uncomfortably vague. In any case, there's a source now that uses the "single gunman" terminology as well as saying that this shooting surpassed Orlando's, so I think we're out of OR territory now. – FenixFeather  (talk)(Contribs) 05:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've read multiple sources discussing why "modern" is such an important qualifier here. I'm not sure the best way to resolve this, maybe an WP:RfC? FallingGravity 06:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Many of the incidents mentioned in the Time article were carried out by more than one person, or had a racial element, or both. The Hells Canyon Massacre is another example not in the Time article. While these incidents were undoubtedly tragic, they aren't the same as a modern mass shooting by a deranged individual with a rapid fire gun. The 19th century USA was not known for its high standard of racial tolerance, and racial massacres were sadly commonplace. The problem is WP:RELTIME, because saying "modern" or "recent" doesn't explain in detail why some people want comparisons to be made with 19th century incidents.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2017
It says 59 ppl died, but below it says 58 ppl died. Gkswh (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)change the 59/58 (deaths)
 * 58 plus the shooter himself. The article makes distinction between those he shot at from the window, and the ultimate body count.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Article review
I can’t pleasantly edit for a few days but I can review. Here's a dump of issues and thoughts (please reformat, split and/or respond inline as desired): Lead
 * "The wording of “killing 58 and injuring 489": He killed and injured a lot of people, his actions resulted in that many deaths and injuries, and he’d probably be legally responsible for the lot (IANAL), but did he actually kill 58 and injure 489?
 * ✅ - Changed to "leaving 58 people dead and 489 injured" so that it can accommodate the fact that he directly injured or killed those number of people. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 18:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "thousands of rounds"was sourced further down to Australian website news.com.au. Much like many other sources (See earlier TP thread) there's no evidence that this is reliable in this case. Is there am official statement or US source with likelihood of a correspondent in Vegas which can be used yet?
 * ✅ - I've changed the number to "hundreds" in the lead and below, based on better sources stateside - CNN and NBC . A single Australian source that is the only one to claim thousands should be treated as inferior. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 18:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Between..." doesn't approximate the time, unlike in the infobox and article.
 * Why the use of "hotel room", when "suite" was used earlier? Could "there" be used instead?
 * I think it could, so I did. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Background Shooting Casualties Perpetrator Aftermath and reactions
 * "a technique": it wasn't just a technique, but also required equipment
 * The source from Oct 5 used states that officials had not confirmed what Paddock used
 * The distance mismatches with the article, because different sources provide different measurements between different points. There was an article that specifically provided a distance to the LVV stage, and that might be the best reference to use because it is specific
 * The map is rather indistinct, and the two pins are jammed down the bottom. Can a more zoomed in/centred map be used/provided? The two fuel tanks are due east of LVV road
 * The weapons listed are a small fraction of those in the suite. Were they the only two weapons (or weapon types) used? Were they both used?
 * There's been a lot of back and forth other the including/excluding for deaths. What about wording it something like "59 (58 victims; 1 perpetrator)"?
 * break between "mass shooting" and "murder-suicide" instead of the comma to stop it breaking at the dash?
 * Align distance with infobox
 * Different sources list Mandalay Bay Road and/or (East) Hacienda Road for the roads on either side of the intersection. Is it all MB Rd? (Did the road get renamed at some point?)
 * Should the fact that the Strip is not in Las Vegas proper be included?
 * Should Las Vegas Village have an article? Its sibling site Las Vegas Festival Grounds does
 * Should this section be called "Events" or "Timeline of Events" instead? Would this section be clearer as a timeline of events?
 * The first paragraph of the Attack and counter-operations section reads as background
 * Should the content in the Logistics section move up? Other similar articles don't invert the chronology. Currently information on Paddock's preparatory activities are scattered through multiple sections.
 * Citation overload on Paddock's death. One RS should suffice
 * How many didn't die from gunshot wounds, and what was their cause of death?
 * If the article were resequenced, information on his preparatory activities including scouting other concerts would better fit with logistics, etc.
 * A week on, has anything else happened with the stock prices of firearms manufacturers?
 * "bump stocks" vs "bump fire stocks" – need to standardise on one.
 * I've had a look at this one - "bump stocks" vs "bump fire stocks" - and the Bump fire article itself uses both interchangeably. I've gone for "bump fire stocks" as it includes the full article title in the term.

~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The term "bump fire stock" is more proper, and is used by the industry. I've changed the article to reflect this. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 18:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Fuel tank paragraph
1) At 56 words and 300 characters, it seems disproportionality weighted based on it's encyclopedic value.

2) It also seems misplaced. As the bullet holes weren't found until later, it might fit better in the aftermath section.

So, I'd suggest cutting it down and moving it. Any objections?

Bob drobbs (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the length is appropriate but agree that it should be moved down. It would fit well in the logistics section, since sources mention that he apparently knocked out a second window to target the fuel tanks. Eventually it will become clear whether this was a significant part of his overall plot. –dlthewave ☎ 03:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem out of place where it is now. Also, the paragraph is much better than before, when it was laden with measurements and unit conversions. I don't see a real need to make a major adjustment. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 20:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Police believe that Paddock acted alone and have not yet determined his motive,
is it so that the police will decide on the motive of a criminal? 144.41.3.22 (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * See the above section. There obviously isn't going to be a trial of Paddock because he is dead, and the article says that police haven't been able to find a motive so far, beyond pretty much ruling out that he had a political or religious motive. A full report will appear in due course, but who knows, there may always be unanswered questions, just as there were with the University of Texas tower shooting.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, police always look for a motive. For example, a man is murdered. They would check if his wife had life insurance.This attack was an "over kill", only someone with a lot of hate and anger could have done it, someone like....ISIS. No motive? well then...maybe he didn't do it.--Jane955 (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My personal impression is that the motive has to do with his gambling losses and/or gambling addiction but at this stage this is WP:NOTFORUM. Brandmeistertalk   17:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Wait for more info
How about delete this article until things settle down a bit, since Wikipedia is not the right place for still-developing stories, nor is it the place for anti-gun propaganda - this event did not "re-ignite" any debate, it is simply the latest political tool for those who already wanted to ban all guns. The whole left-wing view is easily summed up as seen on a funny T-shirt my sister has: "GUNS KILL PEOPLE. Just like cars drive drunk, pencils misspell words, and spoons make people fat." Rm -rf --no-preserve-root forward-slash (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2017
The article states both that he checked into hotel on 25th and on 28th. Pick one. 173.176.75.184 (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Done -- Most sources say 28th. The more recent sources say they now believe 25th. Changed to 25th. May need a new ref for the 25th, but should probably wait for a more definitive statement. Objective3000 (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw something somewhere (sorry, don't have time to search for it) that he initially checked in to a different room, asked to be moved, and was moved to the 32nd floor corner suite a few days later. That might be the source of the confusion, if I am remembering it correctly. --MelanieN (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Archives disappeared
The name of the article changed from 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting to 2017 Las Vegas shooting and so on the talk page. The archives prefix need to be adapted to the same prefix as the current name. Talk:2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting/Archive 1 and so on need to be fix. Sokuya (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Fixed. --MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Zero likelihood that gunfire would ignite fuel tanks.
“One of the bullets penetrated the tank and the other lodged in the tank's outer shell, but the fuel did not ignite or explode.[31]” is in the current shooting section. The same source cites an expert stating that there is almost zero likelihood that gunfire could ever have ignited the fuel tanks in the first place. This seems like it should be mentioned here. 1.125.106.123 (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This must have been deleted at some point. I went ahead and added it. –dlthewave ☎ 12:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed it here - with the edit summary of "seems somewhat superfluous. Additionally the article suggests that he fired upon the tanks deliberately: "used his Mandalay Bay hotel room to fire bullets at the circular tanks" - which is not the case, I think."
 * I don't even think it's necessary to point out that the fuel didn't ignite or explode. This is patently obvious from the fact that it didn't happen, and if it had the consequences would have been enormous.  WP:BLUE seems broadly applicable here, even though it mainly refers to the need to not source the obvious.  Not stating the obvious is equally true here.
 * Additionally, the source seems to put more weight on two bullets that most likely struck the tanks unintentionally than the eventual location of the other few hundred rounds - that is inside people. But that's just me.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Another Review-Journal article reports that he broke two windows in the suite, one with a view of the fuel tanks and another in line with the concert. The Review-Journal is a local paper that covered the shooting heavily, so they have several articles like this that deal with a specific facet of the event without emphasizing the fatalities. Many readers might assume that jet fuel would explode when shot at. However I'm OK with holding back until we have better-sourced information about the significance of the fuel tanks. –dlthewave ☎ 17:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

New reports today he used incendiary rounds, not sure if those are the same as "tracer rounds" which were also previously reported. http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/10/us/las-vegas-shooter-incendiary-rounds/index.html 130.36.63.131 (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

"1 October"
I find it disappointing that this is not part of the article prose when the Clark County Commissioner gave it as the "official" name of the incident. While I got beaten down by references to various guidelines when I suggested it should be part of the title for that very reason, at the very least it needs mentioning in the prose, possibly (I say "possibly") in the head portion of the article. CycloneGU (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Politicians do not and cannot give official names (article titles) for an encylopedia. Reliable sources do that (based on prevalence of usage). As far as using it in the "head portion of the article" (the lead), that section should only be used to highlight the most important content in the body. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree that "1 October" should be in the article in some proper way.
 * The addition to the "Aftermath" section
 * The Wikidata alias has been added.
 * One issue is that the label is not used much in major media outlets. Right now "1 October" – using a date as the colloquial label – is not getting the traction of "9/11" or 7 July 2005 London bombings.
 * ✅ Added to article and to Wikidata alias -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 14:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Campos was shot first
So it appears that the security guard was shot BEFORE Paddock opened fire on the crowd. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-vegas-shooting-20171009-story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.219.175 (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is in the article now. --MelanieN (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is fascinating, because it is completely at variance with what police first told the media. The part about Paddock being traced by a smoke alarm going off seems to have been wrong as well, as Campos' presence on the 32nd floor before the shooting at 10 PM is now reported to have been due to an unrelated incident with an open door alarm. The conspiracy theorists are having a field day with this. The article may have to look at why early police accounts were so wobbly. There may also be wild allegations against Campos that violate WP:BLP, people are doing this already in the blogs.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 06:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The information from the police must have been pure conjecture. The conspiracy theories aren't going to go away now. Ikmxx (talk) 09:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * All of which goes to WP:RECENTISM. Objective3000 (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Suggest a line within the misinformation section concerning the previous event timeline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:154:C103:FE90:AC20:E69B:CA75:37AA (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also why would not the police go directly to the correct floor if casino security called the shooting in and why did they not go directly to the correct room where some 200 rounds had been shot through the door? We need to find the info and update the article which is misleading. Patapsco913 (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What part of the article is misleading? The LA Times article suggests there could have been a breakdown in communications, and it appears the first responders weren't aware of Campos' injuries. FallingGravity 18:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If Campos immediately reported that he was shot to security at 9:59 and security called the police and an ambulance, why would the police be dispatched to the 31st floor? The article reads: "Officers eventually spotted multiple flashes of gunfire in the middle of the Mandalay Bay, on the northern side, and responded to the hotel. At 10:12 p.m., two officers on the 31st floor reported the sounds of gunfire on the floor above them.[15] The first responders met Campos on the 32nd floor at 10:18 p.m.; he directed them to Paddock's room." Something is missing.Quote from the WP article "The updated timeline raises new questions about the law enforcement response to the shooting rampage. Even as Paddock began firing on the crowd — firing for 10 minutes — police did not know that the security guard was shot until they arrived on the hotel’s 32nd floor, Lombardo said. Campos alerted hotel security of the situation, Lombardo said, but police hunting for the gunman were not aware of the shots fired at the guard. A representative of MGM Resorts, which operates the Mandalay Bay, did not respond to a request for comment Monday evening." Washington Post: "Las Vegas gunman shot security guard minutes before massacre, police say" By Mark Berman October 10, 2017Patapsco913 (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Who knows? The hotel and 911 received numerous calls identifying multiple floors. Can you imagine how many cell phone calls they got from a concert with 22,000 attendees? This isn’t the least surprising given the situation. O3000 (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Security would have called the police and ambulance (Campos was shot at 9:59) before the concert shooting began (10:05). This article says "Between the time that Campos was shot and Paddock began shooting, Campos notified authorities of what happened, which Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Undersheriff Kevin McMahill said Friday was “absolutely critical” as it gave police Paddock’s exact location." Then why were they dispatched to the 31st floor.Fox News: "Mandalay Bay security guard was shot six minutes before Las Vegas gunman began shooting, police say" By Nicole Darrah October 10, 2017 Here is the actual audio from the police.National Public Radio: "LISTEN: Amid Chaos In Las Vegas, Police Dispatches Reveal An Evolving Response" by COLIN DWYER October 4, 2017] which seems to confirm our story. I just find it odd that a security guard is shot and notifies casino security who notifies the police and ambulance and then the police go to the wrong floor especially when the security guard was shot at with 200 bullets. Would not all police in the area get a notice that someone was shot nearby.Perhaps they use different frequencies?Patapsco913 (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We've never seen any evidence that an ambulance was called for Campos. He can't have been injured too badly since he (according to earlier reports) helped to evacuate the other guests. And the hotel security, even if they did immediately notify police that shots had been fired in the hotel, had no reason to think that it was somehow critical to let the police know what room and what floor. But the bottom line is: for those who can remember 9/11 it's not the least bit surprising that there were communications foulups, misreporting of times, one organization not knowing what the other ones knew, no central coordination by anybody. That kind of thing is unfortunately pretty much the rule at mass catastrophic events like this. --MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Mandalay Bay has released a statement disputing LVMPD's reported timeframe. According to Mandalay Bay's statement, S/O Campos was shot less than 40 seconds before the shooter started firing on the crowd and the 9:59pm time was from an incorrect time manually put into a report.  They also mention that LVMPD was on property when the shots were initially reported.  I'm not sure how to work this into the existing report of the timeline, but the story is here for whoever wants to try. GaidinBDJ (talk) 07:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This isn't going to go away, because some of the victims' relatives were furious over the suggestion that there was a six minute delay when nothing was done after the shooting in the hallway. Obvious potential lawsuits here, and at least one has already started. There now seems to be an impasse in which the hotel and the police cannot agree on what happened.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Police now agree with Mandalay Bay's timeline. 130.36.63.131 (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Paddock had access to and used the hotel's service elevator
This info should be added somewhere within the "Shooting" section. It is an important fact pertaining to how he managed to bring all the weaponry into the hotel. Here's a way it can added:

According to the local Las Vegas news, "Sources being briefed on the investigation confirmed Paddock had access to and used Mandalay's service elevator in the days leading up to the attack. Use of the service elevator there is a perk for high rollers, which not every casino company allows"

KTNV Channel 13 Las Vegas TV news report, October 10, 2017 - see the first minute:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibKvcwa6MIg

Steve Wynn said it as well on Fox News on October 8, 2017 (link skips to 7:00, watch for a minute) -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxBZPCfJvMc#t=7m

108.30.97.200 (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Apparently a guest has to be accompanied by a member of staff in the service elevator, they can't use it on their own and it is accessed via a part of the hotel not normally open to the public. This is interesting, particularly if it helps to explain how Paddock was able to bring half a van load of weapons into the room where he was staying. However, at present the sourcing doesn't say explicitly that he brought in the guns by this method.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 15:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * They do say he brought in ten or more suitcases. If that is how they were packaged he could easily have brought them in through the lobby and the normal elevators. Sudden thought, I wonder how they know how many suitcases he brought in? Surveillance video? Bell staff assistance? --MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Early on, I had visions of Paddock bringing a huge number of suitcases into the hotel lobby and arousing suspicion while he was doing this. It now appears that he was so well known at the hotel that he more or less had the run of the place. There must be extensive CCTV in the resort and I suspect that the hotel owners know by now how and when Paddock brought in the guns. If it turns out that he used the service elevator, on top of the room being a comp, there are going to be some red faces at the Mandalay Bay Hotel.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, a massive number of cameras, although most Strip hotels do not have hall cameras. But, also 24 elevators, several entrances, and massive foot traffic. O3000 (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And it's not likely he brought them all in at the same time. He had plenty of time. --MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Aside from those additional details and follow-up questions, can someone add that confirmed information (quoted in the line I wrote, with the 2 citations) to the "Shooting" section of the article? It's a highly relevant part of how he managed to do what he did. 108.30.97.200 (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We don’t know that it’s relevant without a source saying he used them for this purpose. The service elevators can be quite busy in large Strip hotels as they are generally used for room service and cleaning staff. Some Strip hotels also use them for luggage. O3000 (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's very relevant if it turns out that he brought in the guns and ammo through the service elevator, but if you look at the sourcing at the moment, it doesn't say this. I have a gut feeling that he may have brought in some of the guns and ammo through the service elevator, but we'll have to wait and see, per WP:NORUSH.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Vague "sources" cannot definitvely say whether Paddock had access to or used the service elevator. May need to wait on more official investigation. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 14:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The service elevator access seems like perfectly reasonable detail to add. Remember, we don't have to understand and decide the fundamental truth of everything; it's sufficient just to report the facts and let the readers figure.
 * Personally, I don't get what the big deal is supposed to be about the ten suitcases. Hotels have those funny carts with the brass ball on top just so people can move lots of luggage.  Hotels have one person check in with a family's belongings every day.  Hotels are scarcely in a position to count how many times a person comes in with suitcases but doesn't leave with any.  If you can make the point sound like anything but a plaintiff's talking point I'll be amazed. Wnt (talk) 16:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree - Las Vegas is a town for the largest conferences and trade shows in the U.S. That someone would be hauling several large bags on wheels would not be out of place at all on any given day in the hotel. . -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 22:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

58 killed, 546 injured
Casualty count has changed again as per the most recent News Conference - October 13, 2017 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h-CqdhmvtI starts at 3 minutes 45 seconds onward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.79.105 (talk • contribs)


 * 546 was one of the more commonly reported injury figures for the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack, too. Not saying that should be in either article. Just a bit neat. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the effort. But, please don’t suggest we look at YouTube videos posted by unknowns. See WP:IRS. O3000 (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Second section. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is the same news conference posted by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gs9hIufmAo starts at 3 minutes 30 seconds @ InedibleHulk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.79.105 (talk • contribs)


 * You need to put the @ in the brackets to ping me. And you don't need to ping me. I believed you. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * .***.**.***: 1. Please sign your posts. It's important. 2. If you forget to sign, someone else may helpfully add an "unsigned" message for you. Please don't remove that. Thanks. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to sign my posts with my IP address thanks. I want it to be private :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.79.105 (talk • contribs)


 * There is no IP address privacy at Wikipedia for unregistered or logged out users. Your address is shown in the history of this page for every one of your edits, no mattter what you do. If you want to conceal your IP address, register an account and log in. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Added list of victims with full names, should ages of victims be included?Blysbane

Warning template?
Is there a template that can be added to the top of the article that warns readers that there is an ongoing investigation, and that article contents may change as new information is released? Template:current event doesn't seem suitable. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 06:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, but generally speaking there are no disclaimers in articles. Frankly I'm amazed that the police and the hotel still haven't been able to come up with an entirely convincing timeline for the event, in particular the shooting in the hallway and when or even if the police were notified about it. There are enough regular editors looking at the article to ensure that it is up to date with the latest media coverage, but there are still many unanswered questions (how did Paddock bring in the guns, did he use the service elevator, what did the police mean by "planned to escape" etc).-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just read MGM reported that Las Vegas Police and armed Mandalay Bay security were in the hotel and responded when Schuck reported Campos had been shot. Implies the hotel did not notify police because the police were already there. In the rush to get a story out to the public, the police and the media out out incomplete info, which has to be revised as the actual timeline is built. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 02:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

New Mainstream-Media-reported evidence and clarifications
Paddock was allowed access to service elevator:

http://abc7chicago.com/sources-vegas-gunman-had-access-to-service-elevator-as-perk/2517488/

Interview with Stephen Schuck, maintenance worker ("Today" show, Oct 11, 2017):

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

Las Vegas SWAT interview, no apparent head injuries to Paddock:

Dave Newton: I didn't see any apparent wounds to his head. But I did see a lotta blood that had come outta his mouth.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/las-vegas-officers-describe-storming-shooter-stephen-paddock-hotel-room/

Details of Stephen Paddock's autopsy reveal his brain was normal, no signs of disease. This also implies his brain was intact during autopsy suggesting the cause of death was gunshot wound to chest:

http://www.newsweek.com/autopsy-las-vegas-gunman-brain-fails-find-abnormal-report-682704

MGM disputes the newly changed official narrative, claiming that the 'revised' narrative does not match up with the facts:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/10/mgm-resorts-disputes-police-timeline-for-las-vegas-shooting.html

and http://www.post-gazette.com/news/nation/2017/10/12/Official-says-Las-Vegas-hotel-didn-t-report-gunfire-to-police-until-after-Stephen-Paddock-opened-fire-on-festival-crowd/stories/201710120196

Jesus Campos was notoriously difficult to actually speak to about any of this. Fox news announced they had an interview with him, scheduled for yesterday night. Jesus Campos disappeared before the interview:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/13/las-vegas-security-guard-jesus-campos-disappears-moments-before-tv-interviews.html

Jesus Campos now missing:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4978254/Vegas-guard-disappears-moments-talking-press.html

108.30.97.200 (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Quite a bit of this has already been discussed. The conspiracy theorists are fascinated by the fact that Jesus Campos has not turned up in public to give any sort of interview. Maybe he has been advised by his lawyer to keep a low profile rather than to say anything that might set off further controversy.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 04:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)