Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting/Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2017

Article contains Misleading Information: Article States that fully automatic weapons (machine Guns) are allowed in Nevada and compares them to have the same permissibility as magazines or semi-automatic weapons. Fully automatic weapons are restricted at the federal level via the National Firearms Act (1934) & The Firearm Owners Protection Act (1986) and are not legal for any private citizen to own unless they hold the correct Federal Firearms Licence. This is partially referenced in the cited articles but is not included in the text. The text also implies that registration of automatic weapons is not required. Cited articles are full of inaccuracies and are only partially referenced in the text to suit a narrative.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the sources for the statement that automatics are legal and available is directly contradicted by the source given. http://smartgunlaws.org/machine-guns-automatic-firearms-in-nevada/ says "Nevada generally prohibits the manufacture or causing to be manufactured, importation into Nevada, keeping, offering or exposing for sale, or giving, lending, possession or use of a machine gun, unless authorized by federal law". 137.71.23.54 (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, my edit request would be to remove "automatic firearms" from the Gun Laws section. 137.71.23.54 (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This is now located in the background section, but still says automatics are allowed, which isn't supported by either source given for the statement. 137.71.23.54 (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Updated Request: I'm new to the editing process so hopefully I got this correct:

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/rpt/2009-R-0020.htm Fusion2186 (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Gun laws and restrictions

See also: Gun laws in Nevada

It is not immediately evident what gun controls were in place for patrons of the Mandalay Bay resort. It is also not immediately evident whether the Route 91 Harvest country music festival had restrictions on guns for attendees, or whether metal detectors were in place for attendees.

Current text:

The state of Nevada, where the shooting occurred, has lenient gun control laws. Assault weapons (including automatic or semi-automatic firearms) and large-capacity ammunition magazines are allowed. Registration as a gun owner is not needed, though background checks are performed when guns are purchased and private sales are permitted.

Proposed changes:

The state of Nevada, where the shooting occurred, has lenient gun control laws. Assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines are allowed. Registration as a gun owner is not needed, though background checks are performed when guns are purchased and private sales are permitted. Fusion2186 (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources

 Not done Currently there is no mention of automatic weapons, or of gun laws, in the article. And there won't be until it is sorted out. The best source I found said that some of the rifles may have been modified to full automatic mode, but that possibility awaits evaluation by ATF. --MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Map

Can someone please make it so that the location doesn't disappear from the street-map when it is opened to a readable size? Davidships (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Victims were listed in Pulse Nightclub article

Why not here? Rhadow (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

They need to contact immediate family members first before releasing names to the media. FunksBrother (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Casualties not released to press until family notified. Rhadow (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Rhadow It looks like they're starting to release the names. Not sure it warrants inclusion yet, though. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The victims should not have been listed at the Pulse article. While it may sound cold, encyclopedia are not memorial walls to the deceased. Surely reliable sources will report on victim lists at some point if they have not done so already. It should be sufficient to link to one of those sites in the External Links section. TheValeyard (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I would say that an exception may be the police officer that was shot, as he garnered substantial coverage. Although, I don't think it would warrant much more than a mention like "..including an off-duty police officer." Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Include a list of victims that have been named in reliable sources. When you're speaking about "deaths", it's helpful to put a name to each person that died in the tragedy. We don't want to run afoul of WP:BLP, multiple other articles about mass shootings includes a list of the victims, and would be suitable here. Though again, it should be published in reliable sources first. Tutelary (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment There was an RfC for this over at the Orlando shooting article. Which concluded it should be kept. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Videos

Re this edit: I watched them and they are not very good, and three is too many anyway. They should be covered under the template * Media related to Las Vegas Strip shooting at Wikimedia Commons--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 00:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Is it not clear that they had appropriate copyright status to be included here. WWGB (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

They all are licensed appropriately - click 'more' on vimeo and youll see the licenses clearly Victor Grigas (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

They are social media quality home videos. The copyright isn't an issue here, they aren't adding much of value to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 00:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to be blunt, but, the videos suck. #1 is 10 seconds of grainy hotel footage from far away, #2 is conveniently posed at chest level of a blonde woman, plus the shaky 5 seconds of tree view at the end. #3 zooms in on the guys face, then back, then the audio is drowned by wind, then another shaky lack of editing at the end. Complete amateur hour, not worthy of inclusion. TheValeyard (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Where did he live most of the time?

Where did he mostly live prior to the incident? I think they showed his house ..... but he wasn't there most of the time. Where was he spending most of his time in the months prior to the incident? When did he buy most of those guns? Did he lose a lot of money in the days prior? Did he have cancer or some kind of other disease? Meth or crack? Autopsy needed.207.237.87.163 (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)BG

They said he managed real estate. Good chance he had a secret apartment.

Paddock and Danley, who was his girlfriend, reportedly lived for several years in a retirment community in Reno, Nev., The Washington Post reported, before moving to another home in Mesquite, Nev. Some of their neighbors described Paddock as "extremely standoffish" and "aggressively unfriendly," the report said. Other neighbors said they noticed that the couple disappeared for long stretches of time, but Danley had reporedly explained that Paddock was a professional gambler, The Washington Post reported. Was he traveling prior to the shooting? Did hedgiest lose a lot of money gambling?207.237.87.163 (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)BG

RE "girlfriend": Sources can't seem to decide who Danley was. Some sources state "wife"; many others say "roommate" or "companion." I suppose we will find out eventually. Police seem to be satisfied for now that she was not involved so she may never get mentioned in this article. As for where he lived, I saw a report that he owned at least one other property in Nevada - besides the home in the retirement community in Mesquite. He was reportedly pretty wealthy. --MelanieN (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

State of Emergency Issued

Clark County declared a state of emergency. Is this worth nothing in aftermath? Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Seems relevant to me. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Sounds political. This doesn’t look like an example of Justitium. The perp is dead and there is no suggestion of an ongoing disaster. But, I guess it can be briefly mentioned. Objective3000 (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The perp is dead, but there are still living injured who could go either way if more doctors and nurses don't show up. Even the minorly injured need someone for minor treatment, to not bog down the pressing cases. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Relevant, and more substantial than words. Seems good. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done added with above reference. Anyone know how common it is to do that? Issue a state of emergency following something like this? Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I can't recall something like this, period. The next deadliest shooting in Orlando only had a tenth of the wounded. The Aurora shooting had what seemed like a lot at the time, but now 70 looks tiny. Even hurricanes and tornadoes pale in direct injury (but property gets it much worse). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

A state of emergency is a situation in which a government is empowered to perform actions that it would normally not be allowed to. Obviously there a massive number of people traumatized by this event. But, what extra powers does the government need since the alleged perp is dead? Do we suspend habeas corpus? What does this mean? Objective3000 (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Number and type of weapons

Twenty firearms were found in Paddock's hotel room; some were fully-automatic weapons.

Police found at least 19 weapons, including rifles and handguns, inside the hotel room that Paddock had rented since September 28.

Any reason these are different? (not that they can't both be accurate) Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The New York Times piece came out at 6:12 pm Eastern time. (ref name = "nyt171002") Rhadow (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not a major discrepancy at this stage of a breaking news story. It's unlikely that all of them were used and the most interesting thing is which guns were actually fired. If the gun was belt or barrel fed, he may have used only one.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Next discussion: fully automatic weapons are not illegal in the U.S., but they are expensive and rare. There are ways to alter weapons that are not technically machine guns, but achieve the same effect. Rhadow (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

In practice it becomes a bit of a moot point, with legal devices to convert it and techniques like bump firing. For instance, when speaking about this tool, the ATF said A gun modified with Slide Fire “fires as a machine gun would...but, he adds, that doesn’t make it a machine gun. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Related, but not sure it's really suitable for inclusion yet: Experts who have listened to recordings of the long bursts of gunfire that erupted inside the Mandalay Bay told NBC News there is a strong possibility that the suspect used some sort of modification. source. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

When did he buys most of these weapons? 207.237.87.163 (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)BG

Hello Drewmutt -- If it turns out to be relevant, the BATFE office that approved the slide fire mod will be embarrassed, but at the top, there will be no comment. It's too early to speculate. Rhadow (talk)

Those earlier reports about number and type of weapons were sourced to anonymous sources. We now have, from the mouth of the sheriff, that it was 16 rifles and one handgun. I'll take an official report over anonymous sources any time and that is what we now have in the article. There has bee speculation that some of the rifles might have been modified to make them fully automatic, but that possibility has to be evaluated by ATF before it's official. --MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't the name have a date?

Isn't that how we normally name these things? Plus these things are pretty common. Date will help people find the article. Maybe rename the article 2017 Las Vegas shooting . Casprings (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

That seems to be the consensus above, but someone moved it unilaterally to remove the year. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

We should not get into a move war (and if anyone moves it again I will move-protect it). We usually sort out the name after a week or two, partly based on what name Reliable Sources have settled on. But other one-of-a-kind shootings such as Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and Virginia Tech shooting do not include the year. There are redirects to this article from the name with the year. --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Article on the (suspected) perpetrator

There were already attempts for a standalone article at Stephen Paddock, Stephen Craig Paddock and Stephan Paddock, all turned into RD for now. In similar cases like Omar Mateen the community later decided to split the lengthy bio from the article so I suggest we slowly develop Draft:Stephen Paddock with the growing amount of reported relevant information, so we better see when it's worth an article on its own. @Slazenger, Illegitimate Barrister, and Zirnevis: --85.179.83.215 (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Working in the draft space is best here. Thanks for creating. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Strong agree on working up the draft article before pulling the trigger per WP:BIO1E. Appreciate your efforts! --Slazenger (Contact Me) 00:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

photo

This can be migrated: https://twitter.com/FBILasVegas/status/914889765459251200 Victor Grigas (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not particularly good and doesn't need to be in the article. It's not a race to find any media that might be copyright free. It could be on Commons with an appropriate license.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 00:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Does mentioning ISIS automatically mean discretionary sanctions?

This is the thinking here. I'd argue merely mentioning ISIS' feelings on the matter isn't enough to make this sufficiently "related" to it. If the group had actually done something (planned, funded, executed), I could see how this might be "about" it. But a statement in aftermath? I don't know what "broadly construed" means here. Is this too broad? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This is BLP related, even though the alleged perp is dead. Add politics to it, and it could be construed as post-1932 American pol. I’m simply trying to avoid 1RR restrictions which would make this article unmanageable. I could be wrong. But, I just think we should get some official pronouncements of motive before we start adding speculations or claims from unreliable sources. Once we have some more info, then we can add such claims. Just MHO. Objective3000 (talk)

if serious evidence turned up that ISIS was involved, the sanctions would apply. If it's just absurd PR from them claiming that they were involved, no.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It's them claiming Paddock liked the cut of their jibs and helped them out of his own volition. Not "responsibility" or "involvement", as most people understand those words. But maybe useful in understanding why some people think it happened. Beats the "pure evil" theory. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

If it's just absurd PR, then add it to the ISIS article. If they claim they were behind the moon eclipse, would we add it there? Objective3000 (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

That'd take sorcery. ISIS hates sorcerers. So they don't claim it, sources don't cover it and we don't add it. Humans are a tad more susceptible to plain old psychology, so the sources we're meant to reflect are biting. Whatever the truth, ISIS plays a bigger part in this story than this shooting plays in ISIS', so we'd mention it here for the same reason we don't mention the other reactors' input in their articles instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The shooter committed suicide, which in ISIS' and Al-Qaeda's theology, sends one straight to hell (they don't consider suicide bombing to be suicide). So any connection to ISIS seems highly unlikely to me. 97.116.55.253 (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

They say he "departed as a martyr" once his ammo was used up. It's only shameful if you kill yourself rather than help, I think. Or I think they think, because they asked that God accept him. Perhaps they think he didn't kill himself at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

ISIS plays a bigger part in this story than this shooting plays in ISIS' Sorry, what role does ISIS play? Do they play a role in the hurricanes? What is the connection that you see? Objective3000 (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

According to their statement, Baghdadi planted the idea in Paddock's head. Presuming they're lying, their reaction is still determining the sorts of articles people find when punching "las vegas strip shooting" into Google. That influences how a story is remembered. Essentially the same role as Trump's deploration, but inverted. It's more sizzle than steak (if they're lying), but we've normally room for this exact same sizzle. I see a connection between how readily Wikipedians accept (or demand) Amaq or ISIS "claims" and how closely the villain resembles Abdullah the Butcher or The Terrible Turk, but I see nothing about hurricanes or the moon. If you mention poodles out of left field next, I quit. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

"in modern US history"

The lede talks about it being the deadliest incident in modern US history. Doesn't this imply that somewhere in the past there was a worse one? Unless there's sources for that, I would suggest removing the "modern". 101.98.13.161 (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like this is the wording used here and here. I assume this is to exclude things like major riots and clashes in the civil war era, like the New York City draft riots. GMG^talk 22:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It is rather vague. What it means is that only a gun of at least mid 20th century design would allow a single shooter to do this. This makes comparisons with older incidents largely irrelevant.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

As the story is rewritten, I think we'll discover it was the deadliest event from a single gunman in American history, and second to OKC (if you count McVeigh as a sole operator). No one tried this with a Gatling gun. Rhadow (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, all gatlings were crew served weapons. So... GMG^talk 23:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

A Gatling gun could not be carried up to the 32nd floor without arousing suspicion; nor could some other modern heavy weapons. This is one of the reasons why it is going to be interesting to see what gun was used here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 00:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Mass shootings of native Americans in the 19th century United States were far worse in terms of numbers of dead and injured. See, for example, Wounded Knee Massacre. "In modern US history" is a quick and easy way to exclude these incidents from consideration in determining the relative "deadliness" of this event. General Ization ^Talk 01:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Also see List of Indian massacres. General Ization ^Talk 02:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

NPR reports deaths because of first responder delay

EMTs did not enter concert venue until police said all clear. Concertgoers hauled injured out themselves to a staging area well clear of venue. Rhadow (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

That is not newsworthy, it is standard procedure for any situation of this nature. Law enforcement will not risk first responders' lives until they are certain the perpetrators have been neutralized. TheValeyard (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

First shots at 10:08 pm. LVPD says "shooter down" at 11:58 pm. How long did it take in Dallas? Rhadow (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

That's when they announced it, not when it happened. The radio traffic says they were on the floor by 10:13pm and shots had stopped by 10:18pm. It's pure supposition, but he likely heard the police on the floor (or had a scanner and heard they were there via scanner) and killed himself. GaidinBDJ (talk) 03:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Occupation of victims

"with at least one off-duty police officer among the dead." - there's no evidence that the officer was specifically targeted. Why is this significant, and not the number of, say, teachers or librarians? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

If a murder victim is a police officer, that's an aggravating factor in sentencing. It's a moot point for a dead defendant, but I suspect that kind of thinking carries over to speaking ill of him. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps he was off-duty but armed, and he responded in some capacity? If so, then this would be relevant. 216.119.215.193 (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This piece of information is completely irrelevant without some context indicating that it is. Please remove 192.91.171.36 (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Multiple police officers, sheriff deputies, and firefighters from Nevada and Southern California were attending the concert as country music fans and not in any sort of official capacity. And of course there were many on-duty police officers working the concert. One off-duty officer was killed and several were wounded; two on-duty officers were wounded.[1] No need to go into this much detail, but as pointed out the murder of law enforcement personnel holds a special legal status beyond the murder of a civilian, so the one death is worth mentioning. --MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Another possible notable is, according to police radio traffic, a Mandalay Bay Security Officer was shot in the leg on the 32nd floor where the shooter was. Not sure it's been specifically mentioned in media, yet, but recording of police radio have it. It shows he made at least some attempt to defend his position. GaidinBDJ (talk) 03:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Move protection

It is common, in the early days of a breaking news story, for there to be move warring from one title to another. That was happening here. I have now installed move protection to prevent any further warring. The version I protected actually happens to be the version that seemed to be the most stable, although it may not be the final title chosen. I protected it for a week, at the end of which time the Reliable Sources have usually settled on what they are calling it. A few days before that we can have an RfC to choose the actual title for the article - based on WP policy, comparison with other similar articles, Reliable Source usage, and whatever else people choose to rely on. --MelanieN (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Clarification and/or correction needed

In the "Shooting" section, it says that "23 firearms were found". Two sections down, under "Perpetrator", it says that "police found 16 rifles and one handgun". I recognize that this is not necessarily a contradiction, but it does require examination and possibly explanation by persons more familiar with firearms than myself. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Original reporting was that the sheriff had said 16 rifles and one handgun. A few hours later reporting was that he had said 23 firearms. Did he hold a second press conference, or what was the source of the change? In any case we should probably go with 23 since it is the most recent. --MelanieN (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

This was discussed at Talk:2017_Las_Vegas_Strip_shooting#Number_and_type_of_weapons. There was some early confusion here, but the shooter clearly had a lot of guns. The article should try to be consistent and use the most up to date figure.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Fake news redux

Definitely time for a section as it’s now a big deal with a lot of criticism of Facebook and Google. Doug Weller talk 05:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2017

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Hoskins_Paddock is not the father ..... 207.229.180.183 (talk) 05:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The mainstream media has said this about Benjamin Hoskins Paddock, so if they have got it wrong then we have too. Why is it wrong though?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Infobox for "Perpetrator" section?

Should we add an infobox to the "Perpetrator" section? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It's been added, but will look a little strange stylistically until the mainbody text is expanded. Per WP:BIO1E, an infobox for the perpetrator is the best bet given the lack of notability for Paddock outside of this incident. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 06:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Reactions from band member who performed before shooting

I'm frankly quite surprised that my addition was reverted by so many folks, so I'm bringing it here. I tried to add the unexpected reaction of a band member who performed at Route 91 Harvest that day from the Josh Abbott Band, just before the shooting. [2] (In general, I concur with the desire to cut down on "Reactions" sections of articles. I really do.) But a country music personality (on stage that same day) who comes out publicly and forcefully and reverses his stance on gun control is a very significant deal. I gave the particulars, three reliable sources and the context from The Washington Post that this is a large deviation from the norm and is a big cultural shift: "Speaking up about any remotely political issue is rare in country music, particularly about gun culture, given the genre’s close ties with the National Rifle Association."

Again, I know well the problems with runaway "Reactions" sections and how they can get politicized. But what are we here for as an encyclopedia if we don't point out major, significant viewpoints directly as a result of the topic of the article? -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I think this deserves inclusion – at some point. I’m just not comfortable with instant reactions in an encyclopedia. Particularly when it involves living persons. Patience. Objective3000 (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

If he was the sort of country music personality that had a Wikipedia article, a large fanbase and clout within the industry, I could see a potential culture shift toward alternative country (or whatever they'd call it). But this is Caleb Keeter. Googling that name minus "vegas" indicates he's nowhere near important enough to "move the needle", "rock the boat" or any such thing. It seems his experience had a profound effect on himself, and that's good, but I suspect general audiences won't remember his name, work or message past this news cycle. If he gets to 25,000 Twitter followers in four days (today still being October 2 in my timezone), I'll support your addition. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• I won't. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Me, either. And who cares what he says anyway?50.111.59.83 (talk) 09:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Strong support including it. It's regarded as a big deal by many RS and no BLP issue because Josh speaks out publicly and well-thought on his own. More sources:

• https://twitter.com/Calebkeeter/status/914872808110510080 (original tweet)
• https://twitter.com/Calebkeeter/status/914941713180917765
• https://www.cbsnews.com/news/las-vegas-shooting-lady-gaga-other-stars-call-for-tighter-gun-control/
• http://abc13.com/guitarist-changes-mind-about-gun-control-after-las-vegas-shooting/2480384/
• http://www.rollingstone.com/country/news/josh-abbott-band-member-rethinks-second-amendment-post-vegas-w506601
• https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/10/2/16404900/josh-abbott-band-guitarist-caleb-keeter-las-vegas-shooting-gun-control
• http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/7981999/josh-abbott-band-guitarist-caleb-keeter-las-vegas-shooting-gun-control
• http://www.nme.com/news/music/caleb-keeter-las-vegas-festival-shooting-gun-control-2146519
• https://mic.com/articles/184927/country-musician-who-survived-las-vegas-shooting-we-need-gun-control-right-now
• http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/353489-guitarist-who-played-during-las-vegas-festival-changes-his-mind
• http://www.eonline.com/news/884324/josh-abbott-band-guitarist-caleb-keeter-rethinks-second-amendment-after-las-vegas-shooting
• https://thinkprogress.org/country-guitarist-who-survived-vegas-shooting-we-need-gun-control-right-now-c6ff0c4674fe/
• https://www.salon.com/2017/10/02/las-vegas-survivor-renounces-stance-on-guns-after-shooting/
• http://www.tennessean.com/story/entertainment/music/2017/10/02/route-91-festival-performer-we-need-gun-control-right-now/723492001/
• https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/caleb-keeter-vegas-shooting/
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/las-vegas-festival-performer-says-shooting-changed-his-mind-on-gun-control_us_59d273d1e4b06791bb12313d
• http://kticradio.com/abc_music-co/texas-guitarist-caleb-keeter-changes-his-mind-on-gun-control-after-experiencing-sundays-violence-in-las-vegas-abcid35976879/
• http://goncc.com/josh-abbott-band-member-caleb-keeter-speaks-out-after-vegas-shooting/
• http://toofab.com/2017/10/02/las-vegas-shooting-josh-abbott-band-gun-control-caleb-keeter-2nd-amendment/
• http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-josh-abbott-tweets-asking-for-prayers-during-las-vegas-mass-shooting/UamO3kN83Q8G3fVxX43iOP/
• http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-entertainment-news-updates-josh-abbott-band-guitarist-we-need-1506968076-htmlstory.html
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/10/02/i-cannot-express-how-wrong-i-was-country-guitarist-changes-mind-on-gun-control-after-vegas/

and many more. But alas! I'm just another unworthy IP. --78.52.158.82 (talk) 03:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

For the record, he only made it to 10,167, so I'm calling it early. He's not the next big thing. But he's bigger than he used to be. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Map caption is incorrect

I don't know how to fix the map, but the caption on the location map says it's a map of Downtown Las Vegas, but the area pictured (and where the shooting occurred) was the south end of the Strip. Downtown is several miles north and isn't even on that map. GaidinBDJ (talk) 06:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed now. GaidinBDJ (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I changed the strip to Mandalay Bay. Not sure if that is the caption you referred. I think coords are correct. --DHeyward (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the location to Las Vegas Strip. Reasons are twofold - the targets of the attack were not within the Mandalay Bay resort proper and the effects of the shooting were felt across a larger region, most commonly known as the Las Vegas strip. Better to be ambiguous. Media is calling it the Mandalay Bay shooting out of convenience, but I think it's a misnomer when discussing location. Happy to hear your thoughts. Additionally, Gaidin was referencing the selection of maps to display the shooting location; the most zoomed in is called "Las Vegas Downtown" but is truly the strip. I have updated this to be the Las Vegas Strip.--Slazenger (Contact Me) 06:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

No. Immediately under the map are a set of radio buttons. The topmost one says "Show map of Downtown Las Vegas" but the map shown is of the south end of the Strip. The pin is in the right place, it's the actual caption that's wrong. GaidinBDJ (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The article text currently uses "Las Vegas Boulevard" instead of "Las Vegas Strip". Replace as more specific? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@DHeyward: Map pin is incorrect. It should be on the carpark due west, but is currently stuck in the Quail Air Center ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

No mention of hotel window, photograph

In "Shooting" section, the number of guns is mentioned. But no mention of the hotel room windows being smashed to allow the shooting. NBC news citation

It looks like these windows can't be opened from the inside (unlike the Texas School Book Depository which had sash windows).[3] Paddock may have fired the gun to do this, the article should clarify that he had to break the windows.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Sheriff indicated he probably used a "device similar to a hammer"[4] ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Any quote from Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson should be considered suspect, as in that article, he calls an automatic rifle a "weapon of mass destruction". By any sane or legal definition, it is not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, it seemed to do the job in Las Vegas! WWGB (talk) 11:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not that easy to break some windows manually, which is why you can buy special pointed tip hammers for escaping from a vehicle.[5] I would have thought it would have been easy to shoot through the windows, but that's just a guess.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Rename article to "Mandalay Bay Massacre"

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.

---

Should the article should be renamed to "Mandalay Bay Massacre", or "Mandalay Bay Shooting"? Several major news agencies have already begun calling the incident the Mandalay Bay Massacre (see: https://worldusheadlines.com/tag/mandalay-bay-massacre/), as well as the Mandalay Bay Shooting (see: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/02/las-vegas-active-shooter-harvest-country-music-festival). I think naming the article “2017 Las Vegas Strip Shooting” is too generic, because there have already been numerous shootings in Las Vegas in 2017, and it's too easily confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsw531 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Except no-one was massacred in Mandalay Bay. WWGB (talk) 04:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Luby's shooting is often called the Luby's massacre by the media, but it is deprecated on Wikipedia because shooting is more accurate.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2017

The article should be renamed to Mandalay Bay Massacre, because of two reasons:

1. Major news agencies have already begun calling the incident the Mandalay Bay Massacre. (see: https://worldusheadlines.com/tag/mandalay-bay-massacre/) 2. Calling the incident the “Las Vegas Shooting” is too generic, because there have already been numerous shootings in Las Vegas. Bsw531 (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I have move-protected the article; we won't be changing its name to anything else for a week. Toward the end of that time we will have a discussion about what the final title of the article should be. You can join that discussion when it happens. --MelanieN (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The article was unilaterally moved back and forth to this title without much discussion yesterday, so there is nothing sacred about the current title. I think "Mandalay Bay" in the title is not a good choice because it was actually more about the concert, Las Vegas Village or Route 91 Harvest than it is about the Mandalay Bay. Ideally, to go with precedent, 2017 Las Vegas shooting is likely the right title. Look in Wikidata at the other titles in other languages for some guidance here. Also, the "Strip" portion could be construed as affecting the entirety or majority of the Strip when in fact it didn't. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done -- See above. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Page renaming - should be 2017 Las Vegas shooting

Someone has moved this page back to 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting which is inappropriate:

• As per WP:COMMONNAME - Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. It does not matter that this was technically in "Paradise, Nevada" as this is not common to refer to that portion of town as Paradise. I've stayed in that area dozens of times myself.
• The title in nearly all other languages does not have "strip" in the name, backing up the WP:COMMONNAME guideline of being the most "frequently used."

We should move it to the most commonly recognized title. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

My understanding of move policy is that if the article gets moved and moved back it should sit at the original name until there's a formal discussion. The first to get on the job is generally as reliable a Wikipedian as is to be found. I feel like it is tempting fate to imply that there will not be another shooting in Las Vegas, or even on the Strip for that matter, before the year is out. Wnt (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and this is the formal discussion, as per custom. Fortunately, we have no policy based on jinxing, superstition and tempting fate. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

(ec)It's early days, yet. As long as the likely names are properly redirected, we can afford to discuss the proper title. And if, God forbid, we have need to disambiguate between multiple mass shootings in Las Vegas, we can cross that bridge. Until then, I'd lean toward the non-strip title. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm seeing both names used. Wait for the dust to settle. Objective3000 (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Wait for the dust to settle. Exactly this. When one of these things happen it's basically guaranteed to get a half dozen threads on requested moves within about the first 72 hours. Usually within a few weeks, there's enough actual information about the event to decide on a name, and all previous discussion end up being a complete waste of time. GMG^talk 12:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with user Fuzheado, I find inappropriate the word " strip".LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It's too precise, but it's always best to wait four days before talking about the move. Never happens, but is always best. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources are referring to it as the Las Vegas Strip shooting, I see nothing wrong with the current title as it is the commonly-used term. ValarianB (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The current title has a "2017" in it, as well. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@ValarianB: - Please provide the links or proof for "sources are referring to it as the Las Vegas Strip shooting" and how this is relevant. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

"How it is relevant?" What kind of dippy question is that? The common name of an event is the name that most sources refer to it as, that's pretty straight-forward English.

• What Happened at the Las Vegas Strip Shooting] (NY Times)
• More than 50 dead and 400 injured in shooting on Las Vegas Strip; police say lone suspect is dead (LA Times)
• than 400 Hurt at Las Vegas Strip Shooting (Bloomberg)
• Major news outlets refer to it as such. ValarianB (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

My challenge was for you to prove in what proportion are these used? That's of primary importance to WP:COMMONNAME, because you can find instances where a title is used, but is it common in relation to all the headlines and news reports? That's why I asked whether you understood this point. No need to be rude about it. If you do a Google News search, you'll find very few headlines use "Strip" in title. It's important to figure this out sooner than later, because other languages will take the lead from en.wp. So far, there is a greater sentiment to use the WP:COMMONNAME of "Las Vegas shooting." -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

We should be consistent with article titles. We have 2010 Las Vegas courthouse shooting, 2014 Las Vegas shootings and 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting. If each is the only notable shooting in LV during each year, why include courthouse or Strip in their titles? Jim Michael (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Easier to associate events with space than time. "Courthouse" evokes pretty standard imagery that "Strip" doesn't, but "2010 Las Vegas" makes non-experts think of the same Las Vegas they picture in 2017. Slots, showgirls, neon...the usual. They all sort of blend together without the visual reminders. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I see that "2017" has been removed from the title. That is probably appropriate, given that other one-of-a-kind shootings like Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and Virginia Tech shooting do not include the year. --MelanieN (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Press is calling it Mandalay Bay Shooting. Give it a couple of days. Rhadow (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

citation needed - Don't see this label being used much at all. Proof? -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

When the time comes, Las Vegas Mandala Bay Shooting gets my support. ―Buster7 ☎ 14:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

That's not likley, as it's way too detailed and not WP:COMMONNAME. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Las Vegas Mandala Bay Shooting is very misleading; with the exception of the shooter himself, no-one actually died at the hotel. It risks giving the wrong impression right from the start--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)