Talk:Stephen Paddock/Archive 3

Why is Paddock's girlfriend who is widely named in media not named here?

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

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/10/03/new-details-emerge-about-las-vegas-shooter-stephen-paddock-and-girlfriend-marilou-danley/?utm_term=.ed4babf66813 Washington Post: Who is Las Vegas gunman's girlfriend Marilou Danley? ]Bachcell (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * She was not involved in the attack, we are all mindful of WP:BLP, no benefit to the article in naming her. WWGB (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * At some point it becomes part of the story when there is so much in-depth coverage by reliable sources. Naming her at this point I think it would be strange not to. -- Green  C  18:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I support the point made by User:GreenC. Four weeks have passed since the attack. One particular paragraph in the WP:BLP policy begins to gain considerable more weight now as the time goes on (quote): The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiation of the People notable for only one event guideline (WP:BIO1E) when compared with this policy (WP:BLP1E) ... Danley does not have an article, and probably won't have one. However, the media interest in her story, including her highly publicized return to the US as well as her subsequent meetings with the police and her testimonies have received so much coverage already that leaving her name out can no longer be justified. Our self-imposed silence becomes awkward under such circumstances.  Poeticbent  talk  19:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * She is otherwise a nobody except for her involvement with Paddock. Naming her lends absolutely no insights and serves no useful purpose, and simply referring to her as one of the common non-proper nouns applicable to her is completely appropriate..  Marteau (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't address the magnitude and persistence of coverage in reliable sources. We are directed by the sources foremost within the guidelines which do allow for 'nobodies' to be named. -- Green  C  21:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't deny the encyclopedia guidelines and policies allow for naming her. And I don't deny there are plenty of reliable sources which DO name her. I am simply of the opinion that an encylopedia has a different mission and different prosaic style than a newspaper or a news report, and I see no reason for an encyclopedia to name her.  And yes, I know that editors prefer to weigh usage in news source as an allegedly objective means of dictating our style, but again, I'm not an advocate of slavishly following guidelines on matters of style when our mission is different from that of for-profit news sources; sources which often pander to the morbid curiosity of their readership rather than serve the more noble purpose of supplying its readers with information they should know. Marteau (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Also see Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 24. WWGB (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

This is becoming increasingly controversial (someone just re-added her name). Because it comes down to opinion, might need tn RfC to avoid endless churn. -- Green  C  00:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Based on WP:BLPNAME, her name has already been widely disseminated and not intentionally concealed, so I don't see what the issue is with putting her name in the article. Also the news sources points to her name directly in their headlines. If there was an effort to not do that among the more reliable news sources, then please replace the existing "gossipy" news articles with those better quality ones. but I'm seeing coverage of her name in Reuters, Associated Press, CNN, The Guardian, so I'm afraid the genie's out of the bottle. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 00:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC) updated 00:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I read the Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 24 and I see what the problem is: they want us to make up our minds here first. So, it looks like we might actually have to take this to RfC for the sake of argument, and stick to whatever comes out of it. Both sides of our discussion have valid points. We need a second pair of eyes.  Poeticbent  talk 02:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC: should girlfriends name be stated
Should the girlfriends name be stated; or referred to as girlfriend. Example

"Support" means state the name; "Oppose" means don't state the name. Green C  12:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support due to the magnitude and persistence of coverage in reliable sources. We are directed by the sources foremost within the guidelines which do allow for so-called 'nobodies' to be named. Per WP:BLP --  Green  C  12:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. The cat is out of the bag. Per WP:BLPNAME - "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated...". She is also not loosely involved - she lived with him, got cash transfers, etc. In this case the name is so widely repeated that there is no point in Wikipedia not naming the GF.Icewhiz (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Paddock's girlfriend had no involvement in the Nevada shooting, she is not guilty of any crime, and adding her name to the article does not enhance the reader's understanding of the matter in any way. I urge editors to read WP:BLPNAME in its entirety before deciding whether inclusion of her name, in perpetuity, is of any benefit to the Wikipedia project. WWGB (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as this is an article about Paddock's life and not just the shooting, so multiple paragraphs and sentences in Personal life discuss "his girlfriend". The reliable sources are some of the most prominent press agencies (Reuters, AP) which place Danley's name and picture up front on their articles. This isn't like the person's kids or a court order to remain anonymous; perhaps that may come out later. Note that the supposed prostitute seen with him the night before does have that kind of BLP "remain anonymous" protection: name is not released, already cleared of not being involved.   Danley's not being indicted or anything but seeing how Paddock dealt with his last bit of finances and spent his time adds to his biography. As with Kato Kaelin, who lived with OJ at the time of the shooting, was not involved, and George Holliday the guy who filmed Rodney King, who is used for the BLP example, her name could warrant a redirect without going into detail on her specific life. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 14:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per WP:BLP1E, we should not have an article if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. WP:BLPNAME states The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. I would argue that it provides no additional support for a reader's understanding to include her name. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose--not just for all the reasons, but also because why? What does it add? What kind of curiosity thirst are we trying to slake? Drmies (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: reliable sources use her name in full, including Washington Post, which covers an FBI questioning. Per WP:BLPNAME: "The names of...any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." Information is relevant to the subject, as the WP source also provides some info about Paddock sending her to the Philippines as a way to spare her. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see why that means we should name her. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - I don't see the issue here, her name is now known so privacy concerns are moot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * They're never moot. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In this case regarding her name. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Serves no encyclopedic interest. The argument that we must stylistically follow the news media because they are reliable and that's how we do it here is, in my opinion, fallacious.  We often do not follow the lead of news agencies... see, for example, how we do not call Ahmed Mohammad's clock an 'invention' nor do we call him an 'inventor' despite widespread usage of such terms in reliable sources.  We do not explicitly mention allegations of prostitutes urinating on beds at the behest of Trump in the Donald Trump–Russia dossier article despite widespread citation by reliable sources; instead we refer to it obliquely as an issue of Trump's "sexual and financial dealings in Russia".  Clearly, the argument put forth often by editors that "our hands are tied, brah... we have to do as majority of the sources do" has exceptions, and that editors and editors acting in concert with consensus can and often do things stylistically different than the preponderance of for-profit news agencies, and I think this should be one of those instances. Marteau (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If the relationship isn't relevant or significant to the biographical article, why are there multiple sentences about their life detailed in the article? Why is her place of origin listed? Is the relationship alleged or not? Do we need details on nine cruise ship travels? I would expect just a single sentence like other BLP's Personal life sections, like X is married to Y who is (occupation). They have two kids.  End of story. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't say their relationship isn't relevant. It is.  I'm directly addressing the RFC, which is whether or not to use her name, and my assertion is that our calling her his "girlfriend" is perfectly fine for our encyclopedia. Given that you seem to completely misunderstand the purpose of this RFC, you might want to revisit your rationale  in support.Marteau (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's relevant to his biographical article, and not to the 2017 Las Vegas shooting article. She doesn't need to be mentioned in the shooting article. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Article uses "girlfriend" four times in that section, and then in the picture caption provided in the infobox. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 22:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose name adds nothing of value to understanding the event, there is currently no indication that she as an individual is in any way significant. Pointless, per policy and everyone else. Pincrete (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't care how many news sources say her name, Wikipedians are not journalists, no matter how many of us think we are. The news media reports one way, but we do it for encyclopedic purposes. I'll ask what Drmies did: "what does it add"? Privacy issues may not bother the media but should always remain critical to us.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:LOWPROFILE; gf's role in the event was not significant (i.e. almost none at all), so there's no need to include her name. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This isn't about the event, this is about his biographical article and the personal life section. Unless you're going to merge this article into the event one? AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 03:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per what SarekOfVulcan, Marteau, and TheGracefulSlick have already voiced. Bardoleg (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the readers'understanding of Paddock is not enhanced in any way by using her name rather than the more general term girlfriend. Same reason we're not naming his mom. They are both alive and neither was a participant in this event; both are clearly not notable per WP:INHERIT. John from Idegon (talk) 05:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per WP: RECENTISM, WP:LPI, and general BLP, including what SarekofVulcan said above. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Entirely normal and benign to mention the name of a romantic partner in a biography. Note that arguments about BLP1E etc. are completely invalid, since no one is arguing that Danley herself is notable (i.e., should have her own article). Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. (Please ping me if you desire a reply here; I don't want this page on my watchlist.) --BDD (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per BDD. Please note that there's a pattern developing here as far as voting preference. A number of Wikipedians who vote "Oppose" mention the article "2017 Las Vegas shooting" in their rationale rather than the biography of "Stephen Paddock". Here are the names and phases used by some of us. WWGB: Paddock's girlfriend had no involvement in the Nevada shooting, she is not guilty of any crime – Pincrete: name adds nothing of value to understanding the event – K.e.coffman: gf's role in the event was not significant – John from Idegon: both alive and neither was a participant in this event. A good reason for naming Marilou Danley in our own article on the life of Stephen Paddock is the plethora of sources we've been carefully omitting due to the fact that her name is in the titles of these reports. Her significance is highlighted in our article already in a number of different ways, including by the gift of US $100.000 Paddock wired her to the Philippines. That's a lot of money for someone with no name. It is interesting to look at the reports written not right after the massacre but later, when she was no longer a person of interest. Hannah Preston on October 11 wrote: Danley is not seen as a suspect at this point in the investigation since she was in the Philippines during the planning and execution of Paddock’s actions. However, she is still a prime witness to the life of Paddock.  Poeticbent  talk 16:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose BLP1E. I also would recommend that Wikipedia just do her a personal "favor" and leave her name out of it for a year or so. L3X1 (distænt write)  13:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, we're not discussing whether or not Danley should have her own article (i.e., the B in BLP). Now, if she contacts the Wikimedia Foundation and requests such a "favor", I think we could do that; there's precedent for that. --BDD (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Struck out BLP1E on that technicality. L3X1 (distænt write)  16:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per BDD. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - WP:BLPNAME and err on the side of privacy. The name adds absolutely nothing to a reader's understanding of the article's subject. Don't bother with WP:BLUDGEON responses, I've read all the Support arguments and am unconvinced by them. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - absolutely. Her name is still circulating internationally in MSM.  Atsme 📞📧 14:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Whatever the media does (even if it's coming from reliable sources of information) is trumped by Wikipedia's rules on relevancy and, above all, personal privacy, since this is about living persons. -The Gnome (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, essentially per BDD. I'll first note that WP:BLP1E is strictly about when articles on people are allowed, and WP:LPI clarifies the meaning of BLP1E. No one here is saying that Marilou Danley should have her own article, so arguments citing those two pages are incorrect. The proper section of BP to look to is WP:BLPNAME, which says that When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context.. Marilou Danley's name has not only been widely disseminated, she's been the main subject of multiple, in-depth pieces by reliable sources, including those weeks after the event. Her name has not been intentionally concealed, and omitting it would lead to a significant loss of context, given how much focus was put on her, and the established facts of her relationship with Paddock, which are already extensively detailed in the article. BLPNAME should absolutely protect the type of people whose only mention in a biographical article would be a short, probably one sentence statement such as "X, the girlfriend of Y, said..." such as the name of Paddock's brother, who is mentioned despite actually having no connection to the shooting. BLPNAME should not preclude someone like Marilou Danley, whose has widely been covered in connection to the event, because it is not an absolute ban on including a non-charged/suspected individual's name.
 * In addition to the above arguments for having the name, I would also point out that Marilou Danley and people related to her have been the subject of conspiracy theories about their involvement in the actual shooting, which well-sourced information on Wikipedia which explicilty mentioned her name would help counter.  Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the name already is, in fact, mentioned in the article, in the references section, there for anyone to see. It is in the title of two references: "Marilou Danley, Las Vegas Gunman's Girlfriend, Says She Had No Idea" and "Las Vegas shooting: Marilou Danley knew nothing about plans for attack, lawyer says". That negates the argument that not naming her in the text somehow protects her privacy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you really not see the difference between naming a person in the main body of an article, and their name appearing incidentally within 80+ references at the bottom of the article? WWGB (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course there is a difference. I never suggested there wasn't. I simply noted that the name of Paddock's girlfriend is, in fact, already mentioned in the article, that anyone interested can find it out with no difficulty at all, and that this makes the argument that her privacy is being protected by not otherwise naming her ridiculous. Not mentioning her name more prominently may conceivably prevent someone who doesn't care what her name is from discovering it, but those who do care can find it with no trouble. The cat is out of the bag, as they say, so you are doing the woman concerned no favors by trying to censor her name as much as possible. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Result
The RfC ended with expired time, with 13 oppose and 9 in support. There was no official close. I personally don't see a path to an official close of support, at best it will be No Consensus ie. leave the name out per BLP abundance of caution. If you disagree, feel free to request an official close. I think it might be looked at again in the future as the case reveals new information. -- Green  C  14:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


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

Give Las Vegas Shooting Section more prominence in the article?
Should the Las Vegas Shooting section be given more prominence in the article? The Las Vegas Shooting section is being taken over by other sections like his personal life. It seems most people would visit this page because of the 2017 Las Vegas Shooting. I would guess that Stephen's personal life section is larger than the personal life sections of all his victims combined. You would think his personal life is more notable than all of theirs. I know Wikipedia's rules are that victims are rarely notable but maybe the rules should change. It seems the loss of the Las Vegas concertgoers lives is what brought people to this article in the first place. I vote to close this article as not notable. If it can't be closed, I vote for it to be drastically reduced in size. This could be done by taking out most of the information on his personal life. Murderers should not get to have expanded personal life sections just because they killed a lot of people. Synesthetic (talk) 04:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Pursuant to the idea of not enhancing the fame of a mass murderer I question whether including a photo of that mass murderer is appropriate or worthwhile. It certainly isn't at all necessary. SkookumDog (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It's particularly useful to know anything about his personal beliefs. We can learn from sorting out these pieces of various mass murder puzzles. Santamoly (talk) 07:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Assault rifles don't need bump stocks
There's an inaccuracy in this article. The AR-15s were not assault rifles - if they were, they'd have selective fire and thus would not need bump stocks. What is meant here is assault weapon.--3family6 (<u style="color:black">Talk to me &#124; <small style="color:purple">See what I have done ) 21:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2018
A warning attached to the recording of the shooting warning that some may find the footage disturbing. Benbradshaw (talk) 09:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Iffy★Chat -- 11:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 15 July 2018
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 02:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Stephen Paddock → 2017 Las Vegas shooting perpetrator – Subject is notable only for this one event. Although a separate article might be warranted, his name need not be the title of it. The cachet of a self-titled wikipedia article will only encourage more such acts. AndyBloch (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENCY with other articles such as Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, and Dylann Roof. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral, but CREATE REDIRECT from suggested title. Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENCY WereWolf (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The purpose of Wikipedia is to report facts, not to change the world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support There are many examples where the killer is not mentioned in the article's title. The page contains a long life story about the guy.  There are very little details about the life stories of the people who died in the article.  We are focusing more on the attacker and in a way providing motivation for these kinds of shootings to keep occurring.  It even says in the article that he thought some blood had to be shed to inform the public about the dangers of gun control.  This article is getting his message out.  The lives of the people who died are not being read about.  We are not being affected by the messages of their life stories.  The article is promoting the attacker and encouraging a repeat to occur.  It is almost glamorizing his life choices.  Many people will want to emulate him because of it.  I know this view won't win but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway.  "The idea is that kids bully to gain status and power."  "If you can get the bystanders to focus on the victim and not the bully, then bullying isn't a very rewarding thing to do."  These ideas are from the following article on how Finland combats bullying: https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/11/health/finland-us-bullying-prevention-trnd/index.html  Wikipedia is one of the few vehicles the masses have to voice their views.  It is not just here to report facts.  Otherwise we would let the families of the victims add facts about the lives of the victims to the article too.  However, doing this would be flagged as 'not notable'.  The status quo is to say that only the life of the attacker is notable.  I bet IBM Project Debater agrees that we should focus on the victims and not on the attacker.  Here's a video about IBM Project Debater which is an AI that can debate humans pretty well:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naQujxmg9gg  In fact, I would go one step further and say that the article should be merged with the 2017 Las Vegas Shooting article or redirected to it.  When I google 'Stephen P' guess who comes up first?  Instead of giving Stephen P his own page we can do what was done for Esteban S and redirect to the incident.  Stephen P is not notable for anything else besides the shooting per Wikipedia guidelines.  Synesthetic (talk)
 * Oppose per User:Rreagan007. An exceptionally notable person, not low-profile. Titles are neutral placeholders, not a "cachet" or prestigious honor. -- Green  C  01:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose History records names and as such so should an encyclopedia. Very bad people get recorded in history too. Killers can become notable. Moralizing is not our job. GuzzyG (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per McVeigh. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per WP:FORK and as to the title, WP:WHITEWASH. This seems like tearing down statues to me. John from Idegon (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The current practice of using the names of terrorists and mass murderers (famous only for one event or series of events) as the title of articles about them is contrary to Wikimedia's values, and the rules mentioned above should be ignored. Needlessly publicizing their names encourages copycats, changing the world for the worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyBloch (talk • contribs) 06:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI, this is the nominator voting twice. GuzzyG (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose, but a redirect is a good idea. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 19:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Vegas Shooting (download for analysis).webm

"...smelled of alcohol from early morning..."
"Leading up to the Shooting" Section: My issue is with the word "from", as it sets the Reader up to expect a "to", i.e. "...from early morning to (whenever)", which the Article does not deliver. Better options include "frequently in the morning", "occasionally in the morning", "sometimes", etc... or whatever. Also in terms of readability, the Reader would expect the conveyance that this was unusual in some way; outside his normal behavior.Tym Whittier (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

BuzzFeed and Stephen Paddock as a Trump supporter
In this revert it was asserted BuzzFeed is not reliable. Despite the tacky name they are an award-winning news agency that has broken many important stories. They are a reliable source, known for journalistic integrity, editorial control and investigations. The point of the inclusion is to flesh out the biographical details, both the news source and the person they quote are reliable sources. It important to counter the well-known conspiracy theory narrative that Paddock was anti-Trump and targeting Trump supporters, enough material for this to be its own section if needed I can happily expand on it. Since there is some concern about a single source I've added a second source coming from a different person, the Sheriff investigating the case. -- Green  C  01:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * keep.

BuzzFeed News had by 2018 won the National Magazine Award[9] and the George Polk Award[10], and been a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize[9][11] and the Michael Kelly Award.

Requiring a second source would be asking something out of the norm. Bojackh (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you and BTW it's not outside the norm for a second source, one is provided to Newsweek coming from the investigating Sheriff that confirms the ex-wife is not making it up. There are other sources. What makes this important is the right-wing conspiracy theorists who in the days after the shooting said he was anti-Trump and targeting Trump supporters, the article really should address this (the conspiracy and reality). --  Green  C  02:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Bump fire Stocks
"All fourteen AR-15-type rifles were outfitted with bump fire stocks that allow semiautomatic rifles to fire rapidly, simulating fully-automatic gunfire." Except that's not what they do. this can easily be fixed by "All fourteen AR-15-type rifles were outfitted with bump fire stocks that allow someone who knows how to operate them to fire rapidly, simulating fully-automatic gunfire." but that would involve admitting that a leftist talking point is a lie, and thus it won't happen. Every lie steals, and for the victims of LVMB, this lie steals justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.10.167.21 (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grgfKJT4Z48 That, is Jerry Miculek. The running joke (that might not be a joke now) is that his finger is evidence in the bump stock ban lawsuit. Watch the video, he clearly struggles with the device at first (don't count the jams). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.10.167.21 (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

About pages on mass murderers
I thought the standard thing now was to have these Wikipedia pages be named after the year and location of the massacre and not give mass murderers their own Wikipedia page for doing these acts? For example if you google search for Elliot Rodger Wikipedia you are directed to a page called 2014 Isla Vista killings. Just wondering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by House Tules (talk • contribs) 10:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There is - 2017 Las Vegas shooting. Paddock himself has been deemed notable enough for his own article.  If you disagree with that, nominate it for deletion, preparing your rationale as you do so.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Citation needed
Paddock is said to be an American atheist at the bottom of the page. A citation is needed for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.31.243 (talk) 11:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It was posted on 10/8/2018, on the word of Paddock's wife. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.31.243 (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Stephen Paddock LVMPD Mugshot.jpg

Deleted photo

 * I've searched for, but not found, a discussion about removing the (presumed) LVPD photo of Paddock from the article. I don't mean the file deletion discussion; I mean the editorial decision, if there was one, to withdraw it from the article. It can qualify as Fair Use and, in my opinion, it has significant encyclopedic value and should be restored to the article. It remains available online, or could be undeleted. Comments? DonFB (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, no reason the photo should have been deleted as far as I can tell, someone should reinsert it. Yodabyte (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)