Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

ISIS misinformation

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

Hg - Titre de Référence in the blood of suspected perpetrators.

The simptomes point to 10 microg./L.

(*Hg - mercure)A Merkel (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any WP:RS for this. Objective3000 (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Describing Alex Jones as "far-right" projects a biased POV

The term "far-right" is inherently pejorative and is used to attack anyone who believes in nationalism. According to Wikipedia's article on Far-right: "The term is often associated with Nazism, neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist or reactionary views." Alex Jones has never promoted Nazism, fascism or racism, so the use of this term to describe him is dishonest and inaccurate. Oren Balaban (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Alex Jones' organization features extreme reactionary views. The list is an "or" list, not "and". A far-righter can be extremely reactionary without being extremely fascist, by your definition. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:44, October 3, 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We just follow reliable sources. Technically, this is sourced to the Alex Jones article and WP is not an WP:RS. But, we could just copy the sources. WP:RSN is the place to debate such. Objective3000 (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

On the converse is CNN biased to the left and if so what would you base that on? We cant go by our own opinions here on what puts an entity on x political spectrum. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it, since the source used only called him the famed sort of conspiracy theorist. Wikipedia holds extreme views on calling people famed, so I didn't. Maybe that makes me sheeple, but meh. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:20, October 4, 2017 (UTC)

I have restored it, using the exact wording that opens the Alex Jones (radio host) article. Include the citations from that articles lede if you wish, but this is pertinent and relevant to a sub-section that discusses fake news and misinformation. Alex Jones is noted as a primary purveyor thereof. TheValeyard (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I removed the whole damn thing for being unsourced. That apparently wasn't self-explanatory enough. The problem is the whole damn thing's a quote. And the quote isn't in the source. It's not even attributed to anyone. It's just there, being fake. Is this an inside joke? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:49, October 4, 2017 (UTC)

I have no real string feelings one way or another but since it has been removed back and forth feel that we need some kind of consensus here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I feel it straight-up violates a pillar of Wikipedian law, and I'm allowed to revert you. I feel so strongly I almost know it. But OK, let's see where this goes. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:15, October 4, 2017 (UTC)

• What a bunch of bullshit--and now this, Medeis? It is common practice to introduce people--like American president Donald Trump, NRA president Wayne LaPierre, Rush drummer Alex Peart, and far-right radio host Alex Jones. Plenty of readers have no idea who this person is, so mentioning what he is makes for better readability. That he has an article--we're not going to ask our readers to flip back and forth for basic information. ""far-right" is inherently pejorative"--I don't even know if that's true, but denying that Jones is far-right is ridiculous; Oren Balaban, if someone doesn't want to be called far-right, they shouldn't espouse far-right ideas. User:Inedible Hulk, it violates nothing: "far-right" is in this case established by reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Quotes, particularly in this article, need to be cited. It should be removed until a source is provided. –dlthewave ☎ 02:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

This guy gets it. Nobody cares about far-right anymore. It's this "Communist takeover of the country" stuff now. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, October 4, 2017 (UTC)

Yeah go ahead and remove it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Regardless, it shouldn't be controversial to describe him as a conspiracy theorist. He's literally made his fame by spewing unfounded, false and outright insane conspiracy theories. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I Googled the quote and found that "nearly every far-right rally so far in 2017 has featured an impassioned speaker who warned of an impending Communist takeover of the country." Can we list them all, or is Alex Jones their collective mouthpiece here? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:50, October 4, 2017 (UTC)

Suggest we remove him. The guy thrives on attention and his opinion here, as bizarre as it may be, is simply not notable enough for inclusion.--MONGO 02:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The closest thing Googling his name and the quote gets me is PrisonPlanet saying Bill Ayers "wanted to kill millions of Americans who resisted a communist takeover of the country." It's a story about domestic terrorism and the far-right, but it's from June 14, 2010. This article (ours) is the second result. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:02, October 4, 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. What are you trying to argue? What are you Googling and why? "American far-right radio show host and conspiracy theorist" is incredibly well verified, with five sources in our article. MONGO, the problem here is that millions of people believe that stuff he spouts, and thus it becomes important. Personally I think we should give people like him and his opinions as little airtime as we can but we have decided that WE ARE THE NEWS, and so we can't really get around it: The Daily Beast, Salon, GQ, Newsweek are pretty reliable. Oh god, "Deep State" is responsible. Sheesh. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

"Communist takeover of the country". Where does it say Alex Jones said this beside Wikipedia? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:13, October 4, 2017 (UTC)

I think Jones said this absurdity while he was podcasting. I still think his opinion is worth less than 2 dead flies, but I'm just a hairy woodland beast.--MONGO 03:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I thought that a bit preposterous. So I clicked your link. Now I believe in you. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:50, October 4, 2017 (UTC)

RE "where does it say Alex Jones said this beside Wikipedia?" It says it in the Politico article which is already linked in the paragraph. --MelanieN (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It says that, but it doesn't say he did. Could put something it does say he said in place of what it doesn't, I suppose. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:50, October 4, 2017 (UTC)

I totally don't understand this note. --MelanieN (talk) 05:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The bit I deleted said Jones tied the shooting to what he (Jones) claimed was a "Communist takeover of the country", but the source didn't contain that phrase at all. The Politico article you offered is a bit better, because Ben Strauss (the author) says "Communist takeover of the country", but doesn't say Jones said it, so it's still no good for the deleted claim.

So I proposed (if we must say something about Jones at all), we use the Politico article to say he said something like “It’s the 100-year anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution. We’re here. It’s happening now.” Not sure what that has to do with the shooting, but he verifiably said it. He's probably said more clearly relevant things in other sources, alternatively. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:37, October 4, 2017 (UTC)

NOTFORUM. --MelanieN (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Someone above said that Jones should be called "far right" because he expresses reactionary views. The leftist politicians (like the Democrats in Congress who refused to acknowledge the moment of silence for the LV victims) and former politicians (like Hillary saying that we need to ban "silencers" while the bodies were still warm) are being reactionary. Therefore I propose that "reactionary" be reversed to describe the far left and "far right" be removed as a descriptor for Jones. 47.137.183.192 (talk) 06:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC) I suggest you self-revert this. Objective3000 (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• I've never heard of Alex Jones but reading the lede ... thinks Sandy Hook staged to support gun control! US government behind Oklahoma bombing, September 11 attacks, and faked the moon landings? This is far-right? That sounds more the most paranoid man in America – a mental health issue than a political position. Either way – why would you ever say anything of him. We don't need to mention the opinion of every mentally-ill conspiracy theorist in the world. Though looks like he's not mentioned in the current iteration. Nfitz (talk) 06:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You would not be alone in thinkingthis. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh really? you don't say? GMG^talk 14:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Likely all agree that his opinion is worthless, but let's avoid assumptions he is mentally ill per BLP. Could be he is quite sane and makes his living spreading ridiculous nonsense knowingly just to make a buck.--MONGO 15:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

That's what he once claimed in a custody dispute – that he is just a "performance artist". And then immediately rebutted by insisting that his shows are real. [1] No matter what the state of his mental health, his shows are full of the wildest conspiracy theories imaginable. That's his bread and butter. As for this article, I'm OK with leaving him out. His comment was not widely covered. --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, not having heard of him, I haven't seen the media's view of him either! I'd assume our media simply ignore him, as mentioning him in article on real subjects, would lead to press standards complaints of accuracy, combined with ethics complaints relating to the abuse of the mentally ill (not saying he is, but those assuming he is, could complain). Though I seem to see enough sources on the health aspects that suggest that BLP isn't at risk. Just beyond comprehension. Main point is - I don't think far-right is an accurate description - more a red herring. Better stop there, before we cross not-a-forum. Nfitz (talk) 09:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The closed-eye image is really bad

I suggest that File:Stephen Craig Paddock.jpg be dropped from consideration in this or any article. It's candid shot that captured the subject with his eyes closed and does the reader no service by inclusion. I'm wondering if it should ultimately be put up for deletion. ValarianB (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Images, redux

Mandalay Bay, c. 2006

The view north along the Las Vegas Strip, with Mandalay Bay, center. The concert took place on the dark lot, to the right of and beyond the hotel

The concert area, bottom right, lies opposite the Luxor Hotel "pyramid". The Mandalay Bay is partially visible, to the left.

Mandalay Bay from McCarran International Airport, to which some of the survivors fled

I think the current images are far inferior to the four that were in the article a few hours ago, which I reproduce here with their captions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Is the current infobox image OK? As I said over at Slazenger's Commons talk page, Google doesn't say that its maps are CC licensed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, ianmacm about the licensing or source of the images. To Andy Mabbett: I feel that all the images are bollocks, including the dainty red trajectory lines. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I like the current infobox image, as it shows the huge and somewhat implausible but true 1000 foot plus range of the shooting. However, if the base image is from Google Maps, Google doesn't say they are CC but allows non-commercial fair use. Help needed here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, ianmacm. Commons does not allow Fair Use, as far as I know. Allowing a fair use image on Commons would allow somebody not knowing the CC license rules to think that they could download and share the image, if attributed. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Relatively new to all of this (I'm admittedly more of a written content and anti-vandalism editor). Thinking back to the old days, Commons would not allow fair-use, but en-wp will provided there is sufficient rationale, laid out in WP:FU. Perhaps uploading on en-wp with rationale included would work? Anyone an expert here that can help out. I created the image as an overall encapsulating image, showing distance, relative location, shooter location, etc all in one. Appreciate the assist. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 09:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I have uploaded with rationale – please advise. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 10:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

As noted below, fair use provision does not apply when a free alternative is available. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I stated my lack of experience in this realm, would you kindly use layman's terms? --Slazenger (Contact Me) 10:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

See point 1 at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy – which is a policy. If you do not understand that, you would be well advised to refrain from good-faith uploads of images under "fair use". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I reviewed this in its fullest before uploading, added rationale to address concerns, and firmly believe there are no suitable alternatives, as stated in the rationale in the upload. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 10:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Firstly I've restored the images here, where they are being actively discussed. As for fair use provision, it does not apply when free alternatives are available. The red line on the current image is on the wrong place. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I've now put the images back again. I'll ask for admin intervention if they are removed again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Appreciate the attitude, an edit conflict caused them to disappear. Ever heard of good faith? --Slazenger (Contact Me) 10:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Could Andy put these images in a gallery, then? They've currently got crap layout.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, the four images here are outdated in terms of current layouts on the strip (the venue had not yet been created) and provide little to no context for this article. The current image below the infoboxes is an excellent image showing the venue's setup and relative positioning. Not sure how you think they're "inferior" Andy – would you mind expanding? Thanks! --Slazenger (Contact Me) 10:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

What, apart from on being a copyvio and the other not even showing the hotel in full? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

You've got an attitude issue for no apparent reason. You have several other editors attempting to be reasonable and discuss this with you, yet you provide no details and instead belittle people. The article is not about the hotel; your point about the hotel being partially visible makes no sense. The article is relating to the shooting and the venue that was the target more than the hotel. You still have not answered my question regarding what a free alternative would be. Additionally, your point regarding the lines being in the incorrect position is flat out wrong according to multiple, multiple, multiple sources. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 10:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The left-hand line-of-sight in your image starts from adjacent to the second white vertical line on the flat side of the hotel; in the sources you cite it is clearly seen that the broken window from which the shots were fired is adjacent to the first such line. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

If you take a look here, you will see that the left-hand broken window is in fact to the left of the first wide vertical column, as illustrated in the image. It's slightly too far to the left, but is positioned correctly in relation to which columns it's between. The circle is not to scale of the window, after all. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 11:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

It's a talk page, layout is unimportant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggest you look at the edit history; and you own non-AGF. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

It's always a happy event once Andy turns up at an article. Personally, I agree with Slazenger that all of these images are either too old or not very good anyway. We need something more up to date, ideally taken by someone who lives in Las Vegas.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)}

• The MGM Resorts Village where the attack took place is a former parking lot converted into an outdoor concert venue in 2014.[2][3] This means that ancient file photos aren't going to be much use, and could actually be misleading here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I think you're over-egging the erection of a few temporary structures on what is essentially still a flat area of asphalt. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

---

And now we have just one, distant photograph of the scene. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a great fan of this image currently in the article, as it isn't very informative about the shooting. The images need to show what the gunman would have seen; we already know what the Mandalay Bay and other hotels look like. The four that you have suggested aren't very successful here either.-♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

No, we do not need to show "what the gunman would have seen" - a crowd at night and a floodlit stage – we need to help our readers to understand the layout of the area, and what the surroundings – which many of them will never have seen – look like. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd say pictures 1 and 4, the palm tree and the airport shot, don't give that much context. But photos 2 and 3, from the air showing Las Vegas Village, are indeed valid and useful. Agree with @Pigsonthewing: that a shot of "what the gunman would have seen" is not a standard we need to aspire to. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

When originally used, the airport pic was in the section which included the text "those escaping the shooting entered the airport property as they fled". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

By "what the gunman would have seen", I meant a good general view of the hotel and the concert area, something the current images lack. By definition, this would probably have to be an aerial photograph. However, this lead to problems for an average Wikipedian if the image has to be copyright free. The first and fourth images are nowhere near informative enough. Two and three are a bit better, but still not ideal.-♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. If you visit Google Earth, you can get a very accurate, and bone chilling, approximation of the view you're talking about. Not copyright free, however. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I've added this image to the article. It's cropped and edited from Andy's third image. It's the only copyright free aerial aerial photo on Commons which clearly captures the considerable range from the shooter's vantage point to the concert venue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Please use the best images presently available and debate the image copyright questions elsewhere. This is not the forum for deleting images or evaluating copyrights. Wikipedia violates copyright law just the same whether people go to the image page or this talk page or the main article -- if it is violating it at all -- and so there is no apparent virtue in concealing them from the one place where their online availability (at least per fair use) is most likely to be justifiable. Wnt (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

It's policy – quite wisely – to remove copyvio mages from articles even when they are "available"; but that issue was resolved about 12 hours ago when the copy vio was speedily deleted. Discussion since then has been about quality. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Comparison

Las Vegas Strip shooting site 09 2017 4968

Las Vegas Strip Aerial September 2013 (cropped)

At the time of writing the picture in the article is 'Las Vegas Strip shooting site 09 2017 4968'. The image originally added, and used on the main page, is 'Las Vegas Strip Aerial September 2013 (cropped)'.

I contend that 'Aerial September 2013' is better quality, has a better vantage point, and gives a much clearer impression of the area. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I think we're both out of luck, because the current image in the article is one that was taken in September 2017. All of the four that were proposed here are old photos and there is a lot of change and construction work on the Strip at the moment. This means that in this case, using a newer photo is the best option. However, one of the problems with Las Vegas Strip shooting site 09 2017 4968.jpg is that it doesn't show the area where the victims were killed (the concert arena). The photo shows the nearby area, but isn't very clear at depicting the route taken by the bullets to the victims.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Here is the 2013 image with some further cropping. The gunman was behind where the word "ONE" is on the hotel, and the arena is on the right hand side in the black area of asphalt. The purists are going to say that the Village arena wasn't built at this point, but nothing in the free images is ideal at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Mandalay Bay, McCarran, and Route 91 (masked)

@Ianmacm: @Pigsonthewing: This illustration, derived from one of the newer photographs from September 2017, does show the particular wing from which the shots were fired (the one pointing north along Las Vegas Blvd) as well as the arena site and main stage area of the Route 91 Harvest Festival. The only flaw is the prominence of the non-relevant Luxor Hotel, as the view is facing roughly ESE. So for what it's worth, I used a semitransparent white mask on non-relevant objects to "fade" them into the background (basically, I added fog to everything but the Mandalay Bay and Route 91). This isn't too difficult to adjust (I could, for instance, make the "fog" a bit denser to better fade out non-relevant elements, or remove the mask that's open around the McCarran terminal, as that structure is not terribly relevant either). Let me know what you think. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mliu92: Your illustration has abruptly become much more desirable, due to the revelation that the shooter also targeted fuel tanks at the airport, which are visible in this illustration. [4] Wnt (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Mandalay Bay, McCarran, and Route 91 (masked and cropped)

@Wnt: I've uploaded a cropped version which adds a label for the fuel tanks and drops the label/mask for McCarran. Let me know if I can adjust anything (adding labels, dropping labels, making the fog denser) – edits are easy for the vector mask. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Injury total reduced to 489 by Las Vegas Metro PD as of 5:00PM PDT on October 4, 2017

The Las Vegas Sheriff just held a press conference and lowered the injury total to 489. Here's a source: https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/915732774262206464 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DTG.stl.314 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

 Implemented. WWGB (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Marilou Danley

Who is Marilou Danley in Las Vegas shooting? SuntukanTayo (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Paddock's girlfriend Danley has been determined to have played no role in the Las Vegas shooting. General Ization ^Talk 04:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the authorities wish to interview her in Tokyo. It's still early on this particular issue.50.111.59.83 (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course. The statements are not mutually exclusive. Danley is still a "person of interest" and by interviewing her they may be able to shed much light on Paddock's personality, his acquisition of weapons, his possible motivations, etc. However, authorities have stated that she is currently believed to have played no role in the Las Vegas shooting. If they learn otherwise, so will we. General Ization ^Talk 21:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Federal authorities met her at the L.A. airport Tuesday evening to interview her.50.111.59.83 (talk) 07:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Number of Victims

It says 59 victims, but the citations for it only state 58 victims. Msm8bball (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it should say 50+ and 500+. These numbers will continue to be updated and can even drop. Objective3000 (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia typically includes the deceased perpetrator as part of the casualty count, which may explain this discrepancy. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Should we include a list of all the victims? I think that would be a nice touch to remember the ones that have fallen.

We do not usually name the victims, unless they are individually notable. The latest official statement, from the county sheriff, says 59 fatalities. Sources have not made clear if that includes the perp or not, but even if it does, the number of fatalities is correct as 59 (though the number of victims is only 58). --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC) Rereading the sources, they seem to be saying that 59 people were killed by the gunman. That does make the total fatalities 60. --MelanieN (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The number of victims should be listed with names and ages. Put 59 deaths with 500+ wounded — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blysbane (talk • contribs) 02:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

"He killed 59 people — the coroner clarified on Tuesday that the number included Mr. Paddock, along with his 58 victims" -solitha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C300:85BC:7DC8:E22B:2EFD:13B1 (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Map marker problem

The Nevada and US maps don't display the map markers nicely. I can't see a way to suppress labels at different levels (ideally the Nevada map would just show Las Vegas, and maybe Mesquite, and the US map would just show Las Vegas). Any ideas/alternatives? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed this issue too. Perhaps we could just get rid of the Nevada map entirely? I don't think it's possible to set different map markers for different map levels. Weslam123 (talk) 11:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Number of dead is 59 including the shooter, not 60

58 victims + the shooter. Please update.

http://wgntv.com/2017/10/03/nearly-all-of-the-58-victims-of-las-vegas-massacre-identified-here-are-some-of-their-stories/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C492:CE00:397C:CBBE:713C:827B (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Further confirmed by Reuters in their latest flash updates and article edits. 58 fatalities, plus the 1 death of the shooter. [5] Akaricloud (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Just heard this clarified by a sheriff at the press conference. Article now reflects this information. --MelanieN (talk) 05:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Can someone update the source then? Last I heard, the coroner/sheriff stated 59 dead not including the shooter. [6] TxState (talk) 06:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The current source in the article is correct, but another could be added. At last night's press conference, the sheriff's deputy was asked repeatedly about this and stated clearly numerous times: 58 victims, plus the suicide of the perpetrator, 59 total. (I myself had been unclear on the numbers, as had many sources, until the deputy cleared it up.) --MelanieN (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree with MelanieN. 58 victims + 1 suicide. Coroner corrected clarified count. See https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/us/las-vegas-gunman.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 Television fan (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight tag and subsequent removal of reliably sourced materials

Editor El cid, el campeador has thrown up an undue template with the erroneous claim that "half the article is about fake news." Is this an attempt at hyperbole or something? Clearly half the article is not on the subject of fake news, just a small sub-section of a larger section. Given the number of WP:RS in that small sub-section, the extent of media coverage of fake news and false information surrounding this event, and the number of fake news stories themselves, I'd say this sub-section is absolutely WP:DUE. Now it seems the editor in question has recently removed the tag and proceeded to delete swaths of reliably sourced materials. This appears to be a case of WP:JDL. The materials should be restored unless a case is made here to justify their removal.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems to have been restored. I agree the material is appropriate in size and sourcing. --MelanieN (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Alex Jones was removed again but I feel this is okay as his comments didn't result in anything like the others did (google ect..). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@C.J. Griffin: Ales Jones left no impact with his comments. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I removed his comments.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I did that already but thanks for understanding here. By no means do I agree with Jones and we shouldn't be promoting his ideas anyways as it is all talk. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I also attempted to remove them but you beat me to it by seconds I imagine.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I am going to assume you are purposely misconstruing my comments and failing to assume good faith, and I will kindly pretend I didn't see this. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, then what exactly did you mean by "half the article is about fake news. WP is fake news for this"???--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

No mention of security camera outside hotel room

New information is that a security camera was discovered by police outside the hotel room door. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-las-vegas-guns-20171003-story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diggera (talk • contribs) 22:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- Eventually, the analysis will show this attack was premeditated and well planned. Cameras on the door and catering cart. Lotsa weapons, including the suicide handgun. Sending his girlfriend abroad with money. He forgot to put showercaps over the smoke detectors. Rhadow (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Paragraph about a professor who warned Las Vegas in 2014

Resolved

 – Please don't re-add this content without discussion. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

We now have, in Reactions, a paragraph with two good sources saying that a trauma expert from Israel warned in 2014 that Las Vegas was vulnerable to mass attacks of this kind. Is that worth retaining? My own impulse would be to remove it as a) not very widely sourced and b) the kind of thing that any trauma expert would likely say about any big city. I don't find it particularly significant or insightful here. --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing it. After any tragedy there's a Told-Ya-So bandwagon. ValarianB (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree. And it may not be the case here; but there are folks that make hundreds of predictions and say I-told-ya when one comes true. Objective3000 (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• No way it belongs. I was going to remove but people are strangely protective of the reactions section ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

YourNewsWire – NPOV

Under the final section of the current article, YourNewsWire is described as a "fake news website". This clearly violates the Wikipedia: NPOV guideline, as YourNewsWire has no clear self-identification as a "fake news website." This is simply conjecture on the part of an overly biased editor. Regardless of the legitimacy of the content for YourNewsWire, Wikipedia needs to remain neutral in all possible circumstances, especially in situations dealing with ongoing news events. The line quoted phrase can be removed and still convey the same intended message of YourNewsWire spreading misinformation without attempting to discredit the website in an mostly unrelated article. 24.248.228.44 (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

No. yournewswire.com is noted by reliable sources (The Times), (CBS News) as a fake conspiracy site, particularly notable for spreading the Pizzagate trash. They can and will be labeled for what they are, it is not conjecture or speculation. ValarianB (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

List of fake news websites--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I have never even heard of "YourNewsWire" before now. If other sources are calling it "fake news" for spreading false stories then it is fake news. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no need at all to mention outlets by name, because fake news is fake news. Also no need to mention the specifics of the theories. Also, you can't self-cite to WP to prove something is fake news ( though i don't dispute they are) ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

We should still note that YourNewsWire is not reliable, though the anon does have the minor point that simply mentioning "fake news" is not ideal. Instead, point to a source, quote an outlet, or state the facts. For example, The Hollywood Reporter [7] extensive profile has some useful prose. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

(ec) YourNewsWire has no clear self-identification as a "fake news website." LOL, do you think any site is ever likely to self-identify as a fake news website? That reputation is given to a site by third parties, and is based on their track record. The cited Snopes reference[8] clearly establishes that YourNewsWire constantly promotes false and conspiratorial material and is a particular fan of New World Order-type conspiracies. I do agree with Fuzheado that we should somehow establish that the site is not a reputable news source, maybe not with the words "fake news site". The Snopes reference calls it "disreputable". --MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, The Onion, but then again they don't even try to make their stuff seem real. ansh666 17:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia, I would argue this is exactly why we should call out the fake news websites by name, so readers know exactly who these people are. If it is reported in the sources cited, I see no reason not to include them by name. The anon who posted above protesting the description of yournewswire as fake news is a shining example of why they should be exposed, IMO.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree – the classification is well sourced. Parkwells (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Newsweek: Paddock's Girlfriend Used Two Social Security Numbers and Was Married to Two Men at the Same Time

http://www.newsweek.com/marilou-danley-gunmans-girlfriend-social-security-number-677033?amp=1

71.182.236.176 (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we should be dumping on his girlfriend until and unless we hear she is involved. Objective3000 (talk) 11:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, she's involved just by virtue of association. Care and discretion should be taken before anything about her is dded to the article, but discussion here should be fine as long as the citations are reputable. Paddock wired $100 grand to the Philippines a week ago, and shipper her out before all this went down. Both speak to planning and intent as opposed to the "white dude just snapped" narrative coming from some corners. ValarianB (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Objective: I think we should report only the things about her that relate to this one event, and avoid bringing up peripheral dirt on her – unless and until it becomes clear that she was involved in it. As for "white dude just snapped," that is clearly incorrect and I haven't even seen it proposed. It is clear that this took weeks if not months of careful planning. --MelanieN (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for inclusion, just saying that she isn't automatically off-limits either. As for discussion of "snapped", yes, it has been happening, e.g. The Las Vegas Shooter Didn’t Just “Snap.” They Never Do.. ValarianB (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Initially when she was "cleared" and out of the country for the incident I thought we might keep her name out of this entirely. But with the money transfer before the shooting and her coming to the U.S. to be questioned by the FBI [9] it seems probable she'll end up in the article after all, unless they come away from the session telling us "nothing to report". That said, we still have to keep relevance in mind -- this kind of personal detail has to be shown to be related to the shooting, not to Paddock. At least, that is, provided WP:Articles for deletion/Stephen Paddock doesn't go the wrong way -- if they merge that here, this is the kind of stuff we might end up having to absorb. The article about Paddock is clearly the best place for biographical detail. Wnt (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Firing of CBS Vice President & General Counsel

I object to this edit. The material removed from the “Reactions” section is as follows:

The vice president and senior counsel at CBS wrote on social media that she had no sympathy for the victims because they were mostly Republican, whereupon CBS fired her.

References

Stephen Paddock was a nobody until this horrible incident. Same for [the other person]. This news is really quite amazing, and a sign of the times. Further reliable sources are available, including Variety and Snopes, LA Times, etc. I find it irksome that this info has been deleted. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Not the same for [the other person]. Paddock killed more people than any lone shooter has before. [The other person] got politically ugly on Twitter, as people do every day. Few knew she had the job (vice president of what?) and nobody but her is affected by the loss. She's a sidebar topic, and those belong in newspapers. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:05, October 2, 2017 (UTC)

• Nor is there any reason at all for us to publish names. BTW I remember when this wasn't fodder was newspapers either. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

No one's that old. Not even I:) Objective3000 (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note the OPs attempts to stick this into the CBS article. TheValeyard (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely I did, per the policy WP:Preserve. See also the Toronto Sun, Variety, Snopes, Washington Post, USA Today, The Hill, MSN, The Miami Herald, etc. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It makes fine sense there. Damn fine, even. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:47, October 3, 2017 (UTC)

It makes no sense at all. It is not a controversy, and it is not a well-known CBS personality, it is just a lawyer who said a stupid thing and was promptly fired. That's the be all an end all of the story, this non-notable person's name will sink into obscurity in days. TheValeyard (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Does't have to be well-known to play a sizable part in CBS' operations. Unlike here, where we have thousands of commenters, CBS only has twenty-some VPs. Virtually everyone in Vegas or wherever the victims live is unaffected by her firing, but CBS needs to hire someone else and (probably) fight this woman in court. She's a bigger fish in that smaller pond, and has a ripple effect. Out here, she's dust in the wind. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:02, October 3, 2017 (UTC)

Snopes is not a reliable source. 47.137.183.192 (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Snopes is considered RS. If you don't agree, take it to WP:RSN. This is the wrong venue. Objective3000 (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Without looking at Talk (never worked on a "live" page so didn't know that was necessary) and seeing that this was already added/deleted, I added it on my own, only to have it deleted. My entry would be as follows:

Hours after the massacre, CBS vice president of business affairs Hayley Geftman-Gold was fired for comments she made on Facebook regarding the mass shooting. She posted that "If they wouldn’t do anything when children were murdered I have no hope that Repugs will ever do the right thing. I’m actually not even sympathetic [because] country music fans often are Republican gun toters." The comments were reported on a number of websites prior to the post being deleted.

This was reported on on many TV news sites tonight, and as I referenced in WP:RS news sites. This is an important part of the story because if for no other reason, someone at that level at CBS thought they could make such a remark publicly with impunity. So what is the problem including this? RobP (talk) 03:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

References

My problem would be that if a book were written on on this massacre ten years from now, the firing of whats-her-name would be at most be a minor footnote. Trivia gets reported on many news sites nightly, does not make it all encyclopedic. I found her remarks offensively partisan but unimportant in a mass tragedy. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

If we can’t squeeze this info amongst our sentences about Alex Jones, Facebook (where incidentally she made these remarks), and other trivia, then her firing ought to be mentioned at CBS. You can register your opinion about it at Talk:CBS#Firing of CBS general counsel and vice-president where inclusion is being opposed just as steadfastly as here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I have started a discussion about this at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard, here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Correction – rifle configurations

Under the SHOOTING subheading it stated "two of the rifles were mounted on tripods and were equipped". Please edit this as they are actually bipods. They are very similar but I want to help this site be as accurate as possible. This can be verified by simply looking at the claimed authentic photos of the firearms. todd 15:28 ~ 2017 ~ 09 ~ 04 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.175.140.166 (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Ambiguous. There are certainly bipods visible in the photos of two firearms that are being circulated in the media. However, one has to also consider that there may indeed be tripods that are not in the frame, and were used. It is true the mainstream media does a poor and sloppy job at times, and may have mixed up bipod and tripod, but we need more proof before contradicting what is in RS already. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement from Marilou Danley

Through her attorney: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/10/04/investigators-question-girlfriend-of-las-vegas-shooter-seeking-to-probe-mind-of-shooter/ General Ization ^Talk 23:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, but nothing there yet that needs to go into the article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)