Talk:Stephen Paddock/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

No standalone article yet

Before recreating it here, please help improving Draft:Stephen Paddock and see WP:BIO1E, Talk:2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting#Article on the (suspected) perpetrator. --85.179.83.215 (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: Draft:Stephen Paddock. He was not born in Mesquite, Nevada. Where did you get that from I ask? At least, this entry is properly referenced and properly formatted with relevant and well balanced background throughout, as oppose to this and this tryout. Please expand the article if you can, with good viable info. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 19:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

This could be an AfD, but I think it would be more appropriate to keep. One of reasons: there is no any obvious motive for the shooting, hence the information about the person is important. For example, here [1], his brother said “Not an avid gun guy at all...where the hell did he get automatic weapons? He has no military background,”. That's important given that ISIS claimed Stephen Paddock was their man (possibly hired to have the money for gambling). My very best wishes (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems odd so little is known about his personal life.207.237.87.163 (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)BG

Keep

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.

---

Highly relevant event. Thanks --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 20:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• User:Camilo Sanchez, I suggest you also read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Paddock‎ for proper background. Poeticbent talk 20:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • keep - Unabomber = 3 deaths and has own wiki page--2600:8800:FF0E:1200:F4A0:C59D:9AC4:A409 (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • keep - Agree with you regarding Unabomber and several articles on infamous criminals. I don't see where this is even arguable.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:19, 4 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 4 October 2017

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.

---

Category:California Democrats Category:Nevada Democrats — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dst4ever (talk • contribs) 18:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Alex Shih^Talk 18:17, 4 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 5 October 2017

Add {{Pp-semi}} template.

--186.84.65.243 (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Done SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 20:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Question

Resolved

Why does this guy have his own wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.31.243 (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Read discussion here: [2]. We don't include articles on subjects solely because we approve of them morally. A subject must meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Typo...

He owned he owned an apartment complex in the Dallas suburb of Mesquite, which he sold in 2012.[15] Relatives said Paddock was worth at least $2 million dollars.[16]

just a typo... please deleted one of the "He owned" and everything is fine.

Edit request

The article states: As of 5 October 2017, his motive is unknown. Please change this to American date form, not British. Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

•  Done John from Idegon (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Just want to say every single issue on this talk page was without a doubt handled the right way . Great job .

That's it . Great job . I totally agree with every decision .96.233.52.166 (talk) 05:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Photo was not "allegedly taken the night before the attack"

The photo on the page indicates it was likely taken the day before the attack, but I haven't seen this indicated anywhere and it is impossible since his girlfriend Marilou Whatever is in the photo with him and she was overseas in the days before the attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheesy poof (talk • contribs) 04:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for noticing. This is not the original caption, see also below captions online.

1. Stephen Paddock pictured in a photo on Marilou Danley's Facebook page.
2. Image: Twitter
3. Facebook.
4. Twitter
5. Credit: Reuters.
6. Image: Twitter.
7. Credit: AFP.
8. Twitter.
9. AFP.

The above sites are likely derivatives of the real source, which is facebook. Poeticbent talk 06:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit Request

Page needs an edit. Under Personality towards the end it states "and studied gun laws to know his rights to own weapons."[17] Read the source, there is no indication from Stephen Paddock’s girlfriend’s sister that Stephen Paddock had any education pertaining to gun laws, formal or otherwise, nor any evidence that she would hold such knowledge of him to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.81.124 (talk • contribs) 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: To whom it may concern, the "talk" page, by definition, is to "provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or WikiProject." Editorial discussion most certainly falls under this category. "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." "Personal views" include criticism directed towards individuals or their activities. Don't be dishonest with your edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.81.124 (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The Guardian source [3] may not say it in those exact words, but the person interviewed certainly expressed something similar - "Paddock’s grasp of the detail seemed superior to most defenders of the second amendment," and "I think it’d be fair to say [Paddock] indicated to me that he certainly knew more than most." So the point is still valid, even if it needs a rewrite. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

A couple small edits

First, I removed an instance of the word "currently". Most experienced editors realize that word is never appropriate in an undated encyclopedia article as there is no frame of reference as to when currently is for the reader.

Second, I removed the street address of his house in Mesquite. I cannot fathom what encyclopedic purpose including it serves, and memorializing it here will cause real world financial harm to whatever one of his totally uninvolved relatives is stuck with the unenviable task of clearing his estate. John from Idegon (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2017

Stephen Craig Paddock (April 9, 1953 – October 1, 2017)[1] was an American mass murderer,

Please add Stephen Paddock is a domestic terrorist next mass murderer because he did cause the biggest mass shooting in US history and terrorized upwards of 593 casualties among many Americans CLoner58 (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. No reliable source calls him a terrorist. WWGB (talk) 03:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. Terrorism is "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.". As yet, no evidence has been released suggesting any motive. (Garryharvey)

 Not done. There were not 593 casualties.

Edit request

This information - "The week before the massacre, Paddock wired US$100,000 to an account in the Philippines, the country where his live-in girlfriend had traveled.[51] Police, relatives, and neighbors described him as a high-stakes gambler, and police said he had made casino transactions in the tens of thousands of dollars prior to the shooting, but did not specify whether these transactions were losses or wins. Court records show he married and divorced twice. He had no children. His younger brother and others who were in close contact with him described him as an ordinary man with no apparent religious or political affiliation." is in the article about the shooting but not this article. Since it applies to the man directly it should probably be in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:ED02:A200:564:AF28:965C:9795 (talk) 07:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Except for minor formatting issues, edit requests without sources will not be done. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

His occupation

Re: his occupation on the fact sheet to the right. He seemed to have worked more as an internal auditor than as an accountant. Yet only "accoutant" is mentioned. I'd suggest either add "auditor" to the list or replace "accountant" with it. 105.98.12.193 (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Auditors (either internal or from an outside CPA firm) are accountants. It's simply one function of being an accountant (which I am).HistoryBuff14 (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree with history buff. Auditing is a subfield of accounting, but it also has other meanings related to education and Scientology. Accountant is unambiguous. John from Idegon (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Barista thinks he is rude

I remove this. I would also remove the other heresay by the anonymous boyfriend of sister. --Malerooster (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that both statements are hearsay and have no please in the article. I removed the anonymous boyfriend quote earlier this morning and was reverted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlthewave (talk • contribs) 23:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• This is not, what "hearsay" means! There's a source attached to it indicating that that was the way he used to be with her (quote from article): "Workers at the Starbucks inside Mesquite's Virgin River Casino remembered Paddock frequently berating his girlfriend. “It happened a lot,” supervisor Esperanza Mendoza told the Los Angeles Times, and added: “He would glare down at her and say 'I’m paying for your drink, just like I’m paying for you.' — Can you explain why this characterization of Paddock bothers you? Poeticbent talk 23:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It's inappropriate. A conversation overheard by a barista is irrelevant to an encyclopedia article. If the article were to assert a general opinion that he is rude as part of a personailty profile that fit a pattern, and that quote was used as an example, it would be different. Otherwise, how do we know he wasn't being rude for good reason, or the Barista misheard, or had a chip on his soldier because he didn't tip etc.. it's too random and fleeting in a concise full-life biography. -- GreenC 23:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, and not incidentally, this was asked of her after the event in Paradise. Do you really think she'd be looking to give an honest description, or would she be caught up in demonizing the dude? If we're looking to write a good article about this dude, this is what we need to avoid. It's natural when someone commits a henious act to attempt to demonize them. It's one of the ways people cope. No one wants to accept that someone they've met could be capable of doing what Paddock did. If you demonize them, it provides a psychological distance and allows you to feel safe. Besides, do you think anyone will give a shit what an anonymous barista said 10 years from now? John from Idegon (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Poeticbent talk 04:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of the word murder

I removed the word murder from the lead, as murder requires a conviction, even if that were to take place, its politically motivated word. The word "kill" or "killings" is a neutral word that describes exactly what happened without any political bias to a particular jurisdiction. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 01:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The term murder is absolutely non-political in this situation. If Paddock were alive, I would support your position as the matter would be sub-judice. In this instance, the evidence and news coverage mean that use of the term murder is inevitable. To avoid use of the word murder concerning the worst mass murderer in modern US history makes Wikipedia look tame and weak. WWGB (talk) 01:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@WWGB: clearly you have a bias in this, as you just called it the "worst" mass murderer, demonstrates that you hold a position on this topic that you view this incident as "bad". I would compromise in saying that that "xyz news channel referred to the incident as a mass murder" --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 03:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh please! Bi-arse? Google "Paddock worst mass murderer" and you will find many reliable sources using the term. Get over it! WWGB (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Julio Gonzalez was convicted of arson and murder of 87 people in the fire at Happy Land social club on 25 Mar 1990. Paddock's action was more intentional murder, very meticulously planned with greater collateral damage. Not the worst mass murder of modern times by an individual. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Paddock had multiple firearms and hundreds of rounds of ammunition. It was premeditated. To not call it murder is incorrect and immature. Wiki is for encyclopedic purposes, it should not be restricted for the purpose of being inoffensive. Words can be offensive, that's why we tell children "sticks and stones". Don't be dishonest with your edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.81.124 (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Foreign cruises

I recently added the following content, which was cited to CNN: "Paddock reportedly took cruises to foreign countries in Europe and the Middle East, including Spain, Italy, Greece, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates". The content was removed by WWGB with the comment, "how has that got anything to do with the shooting?" I find that to be an utterly disingenuous comment, for several reasons. In the first place, the name of this article is Stephen Paddock, not 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting. It is thus false that content has to be "about the shooting" in order for it to be included here, as the article is about Paddock, not about the shooting. In the second place, please. The information is obviously relevant to Paddock's behavior in the sense that it suggests leads that investigators are going to have to pursue. Since some have alleged that Paddock converted to Islam, it is quite obviously relevant that Paddock did in fact visit Muslim countries before the shooting. Removing this very relevant information amounts to political censorship. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

If anyone actually needs an explanation of why the information about Paddock's foreign travel is relevant, here it is spelled out on CNN: "Investigators have taken note of the foreign travel as they attempt to piece together a profile of the mass killer and a timeline of his activities leading up to the attack that left at least 58 people dead and nearly 500 injured." If reliable sources say it's relevant, based on what those actually investigating the case believe, it is not reasonable for editors who dislike this information to loftily proclaim it irrelevant. We are meant to base article content on reliable sources, remember? WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered". Meaning that you don't just remove crucial facts from articles because you personally decide, for some reason, "Oh, that isn't relevant" - which is a made-up excuse to get rid of anything you don't like when sources spell out the relevance explicitly. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

It has been reported by other sources besides CNN, see, eg, the Washington Examiner story here, the Weekend Australian story here, and the Denver channel story here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: Thanks for expanding the content beyond "he took a vacation". If that had been there originally, I would not have raised an objection. Regards, WWGB (talk) 10:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Since we don't have a motive, media and law enforcement are going after every detail they can find. We're not here to help solve the crime, so we don't need to publish all of these leads. I'm curious why you would add just the cruises and not, say, suspicious hotel bookings near music festivals. –dlthewave ☎ 14:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• We ought to be adding information about Paddock that has been confirmed as factual based on reliable, published sources. It is not an easy task, considering the incredible amount of speculation. There's nothing yet in this article about his collection of guns. Paddock had a gun room in his house (though Adam Le Fevre, who said that, did not get to actually see the guns).[4] Poeticbent talk 17:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

A lot of info on his personal life

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/stephen-paddock-las-vegas-king-microaggression-eric-brother-shooter-background-life-a7987826.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.87.163 (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

INCORRECT DATE OF BIRTH

The copy of the birth certificate I am looking at clearly says April 4, with the 4 being drawn differently from the 9 in 1953. If someone explains how to upload that graphic, I will do so. Thanks. Dioxin Freak, not signed in 2604:2000:270E:2100:C957:9848:B48B:6D2B (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

No need. We are not interested in primary sources. John from Idegon (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Strange Citation to statement alleging no connection with ISIL

The article ends with a strange statement discouraging the idea of a connection with ISIL. Yet when one goes to the citation for that allegation, the citation says, "an expert warns IS may have been involved." Perhaps a different citation should be used and one that observes that (non-aggressive, non-body-bomb) suicide has not been an ISIL way to end an engagement with the "infidel." (PeacePeace (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)_

Merger proposal

Resolved

 – Merger not done as original poster was not aware of previous AfD and merger discussion. Notice removed from 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

This article, Stephen Paddock, should be merged with Las Vegas Strip shooting. The biography of this person does not warrant a separate article as the basis for the article one is the shooting itself. Separate articles should not be created in such cases. This article is very similar to the LA shooting one and overlaps it, which encompasses this as well and this article can be merged into it without any significant issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotitbro (talk • contribs) 14:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like both you and I missed the previous discussion about whether to keep this article. But we would have cancelled each other out anyway, because I support keeping this article especially for providing information about Paddock that is not tied to the shooting. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Nothing significant about this person that needs to be documented separately. As of right now both the articles overlap each other at multiple instances and this one is just a subset of that. Merging both would be good as then additional info can be viewed about this person there and then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotitbro (talk • contribs) 15:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• This is absurd. The proposal is a result of complete lack of background research into a flurry of similar proposals in recent days. There's no place for an uninformed flag in this article. Please go to 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting and post it there as required by policy. If your flag survives for the next 15 minutes, than come back please. Poeticbent talk 15:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that we should wait up to a month before talking about a merge or deletion. It just feels like every week we get another comment like this which is frustrating to editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

And that is what I am saying we should've waited before creating an article about this person as of right now nothing warrants a separate article for him. Nothing else of significance that isn't already covered by the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotitbro (talk • contribs) 15:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your concerns but we have already had two discussions regarding the page's deletion which included talks of a merger with no results. You can accept that this is the consensus for now, or you can continue to beat the dead horse which is disruptive. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I understand what you are trying to say. I am still leaving the notice up in case other users want to chime in that haven't seen the deletion discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotitbro (talk • contribs) 17:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the merge tag, which was only posted to one of the articles anyways. Two AFDs already in a week, let it rest. -- ferret (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Please change facts about the security guard.

Please change Paddock stopped shooting at the crowd at 10:15 p.m. when his attention was diverted by the impending arrival of a hotel security guard. He fired about 200 rounds through the door of his room, wounding the guard.

This is incorrect. The security guard was shot before anybody else was shot.

Source: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-vegas-shooting-20171009-story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C5E:4E80:11D2:4502:1232:A362:5E0D (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thx. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2017

The mother's name is not listed under 'parents'. Her name is listed as a spouse in this article about his father Benjamin Hoskins Paddock. Her name is Dolores Irene Hudson. 63.144.207.90 (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

We only name notable parents. Father is notable because of his criminal record. Mother is not notable. WWGB (talk) 06:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

MaryLou Danly

Paddock's girlfriend at the time MaryLou Danly allegedly took a flight out of Vegas. What was the flight number? Before or after the massacre?69.179.105.95 (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM. The purpose of this page is to discuss existing content of this article and to propose (with sources) concrete suggestions for improvement to this article. It is not for general inquiries about the subject. Even with sourcing, the area you are discussing is off topic to this article. It isn't about the shooting or about Paddock's girlfriend. John from Idegon (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it is fair to discuss such things to explore relevance - Paddock's way of dealing with the woman before the massacre clearly gives some opportunity to explore his character. According to [5] Paddock told Danley he found her a cheap ticket to the Philippines a bit more than two weeks before the massacre. He wired her money when she was there, I think it was a week before. I mean, I'd guess Americans have seen enough of these shootings by now to know the nearest person pretty much always goes to jail one way or another (that doesn't mean they did anything...). There are few lives provably free of a jailable crime if they are looked at really, really, really hard by hostile prosecutors. Wnt (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

BLP violation? How does anyone know he is a murderer?

Side-comment inspired by conspiracy theories. — Poeticbent
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There are no witnesses who saw Stephen Craig Paddock shoot anyone. He was found dead in his rooms by the cops some time after the shooting. The shooting stopped at 10:15, and there are a couple of minutes before the cops arrived on 32nd floor after that. So IMHO we should hold off judging until more evidence comes & the possibility (even if small) is eliminated that he was not the shooter. I don't think at this point there are reliable sources for him being the murderer. It is SOP for journalists to say ALLEGED murderer before adjudication. Thus I suggest that we insert alleged at this point. Also, I think it is too soon to state that he died from a self-inflicted gun shot, as there are no witnesses and forensics have not yet been published. What's the hurry to issue a verdict on Wikipedia? Take it easle. (PeacePeace (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)) If reliable sources themselves raise reasons to have doubt then we should also. But right now they are all in agreement on the shooter's identity and acted alone. The word "alleged" in't really being used much at this point. Also need to be careful of right-wing propaganda. There are some efforts to introduce doubt with conspiracy and false flag theories to highlight the workings of a "Deep State" as part of a far-right anti-government narrative (reliable sources available for this statement, on request). This falls under FRINGE so if we are going to introduce doubt there has to be some really good sources in support, so we don't echo the FRINGE. At this point the investigating officials are crystal clear there are no other suspects and events happened as described (except for some timeline issues). All reliable sources report the same. It's not appropriate for us as editors to speculate and second-guess investigating officials ("there are no witnesses and forensics have not yet been published"). -- GreenC 13:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Liberal & Antifa categories

Resolved

There is no evidence that he is a "liberal" or member of "Antifa" also the links to those categories are improperly formatted. In fact, according to USA TODAY, he has been falsely accused of being part of Antifa. There are no citations that Paddock was a member of Antifa, so I am deleting those links. Probablynoteworthy (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It's all allegations, including that he was the shooter, investigation is still going on. --105.6.198.135 (talk) 11:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree. There have been recent reports that his first idea was to target a rap concert but was stymied by his being unable to rent the room in a hotel that he would have required for his sinister purposes. Presumably, there were many more African-Americans present there. (Please correct me if my presumption is incorrect.) Assuming these reports are accurate, since he ended up targeting a country music concert, it seems such was simply a target of opportunity which implies he had no political motive one way or the other within the political spectrum.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

HistoryBuff14 Please can you share the references that you read with that information? If they are reliable they should be added to the article. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Anarcho-authoritarian, per your request: http://nypost.com/2017/10/03/vegas-shooter-may-have-been-targeting-another-music-festival/HistoryBuff14 (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

however there is video showing Paddock and GF Marylou at ANTIFA rally... and Paddock used Marylou's ID to checkin at hotel before the mass-murder. Was MaryLou there?69.179.105.95 (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

IP, if you are talking about the image that is allegedly him in a "pussyhat", even many conspiracy theorists have said that is someone else. There is no established proof of him being a member of any organization, period. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Allegedly a suspect

How can Wikipedia show that this man did the shooting when the police have not declared this definitively? There are too many holes currently, answers need provided from forensics such as GSR on the suspect, bullet holes and trajectory, motive, etc. If the article is to remain it needs to be changed to "allegedly" and "suspected". Anything else including the current context is speculation and should be listed as such, otherwise it could be considered slander against who may have been a victim turned patsy. MaxAiring (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Max 10/10/2017

 Not done. You are buying into routine police lingo which is depersonalized in reports intentionally. The use of such in-house lingo relayed for the press is of no significance here. Poeticbent talk 18:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, MaxAiring, please make yourself aware of our policy on reliable sourcing if you are going to edit here. John from Idegon (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Actually I can see having a "presumed"/"presumptive"/"believed to be" here and there, though in no great numbers. Still, there would seem to be a logic problem with the notion of saying "alleged" or even "suspect" when the presumed culprit is dead and there is never going to be a trial. I mean, such terms normally are resolved one way or the other in time, but whatever status Paddock has is permanent. Wnt (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Chief of police said during press conference, he didn't "want to sensationalize his actions" and added: "I believe if he doesn't have a name nobody can relate to him." (15:08) That is why he used the word "suspect". And please WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Poeticbent talk 23:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

There is good possibility of trials, but they will be civil; as for example for wrongful death vs an estate. The hotel is likely to be sued, Girl Friend, manufacturer of slide-stock. Discovery with depositions may happen. Also, will his estate not end up in probate court? At this point in time the historical status of Stephen Paddock is anything but permanent. (PeacePeace (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC))

Here we are 13 days after the shooting and the sheriff is still calling Paddock the suspect. No motive, ideology, or any other forensic, circumstantial, or otherwise evidence has proven Paddock as to being the shooter. All we know for sure is what we have been told, that he was found dead in the room. There is overwhelming evidence that he wasn't the shooter including the bullet casing found ON TOP of the dried blood pool and the rifle strung over top of his legs in the crime scene photos. My only point here is that again, the official story does not list Paddock as being the shooter, only that he is the suspected shooter. If Wikipedia doesn't change this then they are contributing to passing misinformation and thus just more fake news. Here is the latest press release directly from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department's Youtube page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gs9hIufmAo MaxAiring (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Marilou Danley

Subsection on Marilou Danley placed. She was the killer's girlfriend. She is now on a terrorist watch list. AGrandeFan (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I changed the sentence to reflect the source, which describes it as a "travel watch list". Source also states: "At this stage of the investigation, officials believe that Danley played no part in — and had no knowledge of — her now deceased boyfriend's plan." –dlthewave ☎ 22:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Copied from mainspace (below), Poeticbent talk 22:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Marilou Danley Paddock lived in Mesquite for several years with his Flipino-born girlfriend, Marilou Danley, whom he met at the Atlantis in Reno, Nevada. Two weeks before the attack, his girlfriend went to her native Philippines at his suggestion. Paddock wired her $100,000 to buy a house there. Danley has been placed on the US government travel watch list and would be subjected to special screening if she tried to board a commercial flight or if she tried to leave the country, authorities would be notified. He was spotted in Las Vegas with another woman in the days prior to the attack, reported by investigators to be a prostitute. It has been confirmed that she is not an accomplice, and is not considered a suspect. Her name has not been released. Two days prior to the shooting, Paddock was recorded by a home surveillance system driving alone to an area for target practice located near his home.

• Let's discuss first, if this new subsection is compliant with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy guideline, before we re-post it to mainspace. There has already been some discussion between regular contributors here in that regard. — There's no chronology in this subsection. The US government travel watch belongs to recent developments, and it has nothing to do with the period leading to the attack. And what is the prostitute doing here, and the target practice? Please comment on how to approach this new challenge. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 22:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Danley is not suspected of any wrongdoing. Hundreds of thousands of people are on the travel watch list.[6] At this time. she still lacks sufficient notability to be named or described in mainspace. That would be a breach of BLP. WWGB (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Marilou Danley was added to the Secondary Security Screening Selectee List (SSSS List). This is not the same thing as being in the "Terrorist Screening Database (aka Terrorist watch list)". These are two separate and distinctly different databases. Thousands of people appear on the SSSS list for reasons that have nothing to do with terrorism. Try to buy a last minute one way ticket and pay with cash and you are almost guaranteed to be issued a SSSS ticket. SSSS is a low level secondary screening and everyday hundreds of people are randomly selected for the SSSS list. CBS527^Talk 02:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it is compliant as long as we don't try to smear her. Just the facts. AGrandeFan (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Bump fire stocks are not really a "recent" invention

Would you please change the words "recent invention" referring to bump fire stocks, to "late 1990s invention" as per the earliest patent cited in the patent infringement lawsuit described in that article? Using the word "recent" is not really encyclopedic, and the more accurate date the products became available is interesting to those evaluating their social impact and risk. 96.64.197.125 (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• The patent was submitted in May 1998, and approved by the US Patent and Trademark Office on August 15, 2000 which is more significant. However, it took years before the actual real plastic device was made available for sale legally.[7] — When we write 'recent', we mean prior to the attack, obviously. I wonder. What would be another way of saying it without dates? Please consider that any information with no relevancy to his WP:BIO needs to be very brief. Poeticbent talk 13:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: The sources given in the article and by {}u|Poeticbent}} make it clear that the availability of the accessory was only available in the recent past so I've changed it to: "recently-available firearms accessory". Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Tripod vs. bipod

The article mentions guns on tripods. There have been photos of guns in Paddock's room equipped with bipods. The article needs proof of tripods or an edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.175.100.22 (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

It's very likley that erroneous early reports of "tripods" never got fixed, when they were indeed bipods. We'd need more sources on this. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• agree, bipods in photos. 54100a! (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Please note, looking at photos is called wp:original research, but the actual written citation about bipods has already been provided. Poeticbent talk 15:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

No such thing as "algorithmic gambling"

The article says that he "won a lot of money applying algorithms to gambling". There is no such thing as "algorithmic gambling": no body of scientific research, no wikipedia article, no popular articles, no known success stories. Casino games are biased towards casino, that's how casinos are profitable businesses. Such bias is also known as house edge. Not sure how should the article be changed, but the original statement is obviously a lie. Yurivict (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Your analysis has merit. However... I don't mean to cart out the WP:TRUTH trope, but the goal on Wikipedia is not to perform the original research on the math and ability to actually beat the house. "Algorithmic gambling" is the phrase uttered by the acquaintance in the Guardian piece, so the solution is probably to word that better as an anecdote/quote. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of the whether "algorithmic gambling" is real or not, it is a fact that the source reported Paddock talking about it. I support removing the Personality section altogether as it's just the opinion of a single acquaintance. –dlthewave ☎ 15:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not necessarily the opinion of this acquaintance. It's possibly/likely how Stephen Paddock was explaining his wealth to others. Yurivict (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Betting system using algorithms is a real thing, but the long-term winning using them has nothing to do with reality. It is a myth. User:Yurivict is correct, this is how Paddock was explaining his wealth to others. Poeticbent talk 15:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes they use algos against a machine's imperfect random number generator which can lead to an advantage. But that's cheating :) -- GreenC 15:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I also support removing the Personality section. A "man, speaking on condition of anonymity" who provided the quotes (used in this article) is not a reliable source by our standards. Poeticbent talk 15:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

In theory a person can win money at poker under the right circumstances, or other "side bets" (Jimmy the Greek) if there's somewhere it's allowed. That said... I would like to see more detail about the father's bank robbery situation, since both gambling and accounting seem potentially useful if you have a secret windfall. Wnt (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• @WWGB: We had a discussion here about poker. It seemed that his 25 year career at playing it (discussed in the main copy) would justify the inclusion of the video poker console illustration. Under these circumstances, it would hardy qualify as gratuitous in my view, but what are your opinions on this @Yurivict and Wnt: [8] Poeticbent talk 04:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit to section of article - please review

In a recent edit, I changed the phrase "gambling only on machines" to "online gambling" because this appears to be what the original writer meant. If this is incorrect, please review and correct it as soon as possible, and inform me on this page. Thank you. CreationFox (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• The source says (word for word): An Australian man said Paddock won a fortune applying algorithms to gambling ... via casinos where he was a frequent and prodigious gambler ... And how he obtained that: the algorithms behind his methodology of gambling – only on machines, not on tables, he said. The mention of 'tables' would indicate betting in person, not "online gambling." [9] Poeticbent talk 22:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources appear to state that he played video poker on machines in the casinos; that is not online gambling. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Naaman Brown and CreationFox: Would the illustration of Video poker console clarify your doubts about what it was? Although it was recently removed from mainspace, it can be reinstated with consensus. Poeticbent talk 15:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. CreationFox (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

If a reader does not know what a video poker machine looks like, just has to click wikilink. Anyway, the image has been deleted. WWGB (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)