Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting/Archive 11

Hotel says 4 officers were on 32nd floor as Las Vegas shooter fired. Should they have acted?

How should this get incorporated into the article? This story continues to get more strange the more we know. Patapsco913 (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "Hotel says 4 officers were on 32nd floor as Las Vegas shooter fired. Should they have acted?" by Tom Jackman November 1, 2017
• Washington Post: "Hotel says 4 officers were on 32nd floor as Las Vegas shooter fired. Should they have acted?" by Tom Jackman November 1, 2017

Here is a nice interview with Sheriff Lombardo which does not mention the above

• Las Vegas Now: "WEB EXTRA: George Knapp interviews Sheriff Joe Lombardo" By: Caroline Bleakley November 01, 2017

Nice analysis by security expert Tom Conley

• Security Magazine: "The Las Vegas Massacre: The Anatomy of a Catastrophic Security Failure" by Tom M. Conley October 13, 2017

"Curiouser and curiouser!" cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English). Amazingly, the police and the hotel have yet to come up with a consistent account of what happened on the 32nd floor at around the time of the shooting. As the Washington Post source says, "the city and private officers almost certainly carried only semiautomatic pistols, with up to 14-shot capacity and maybe some extra magazines on their belts, while Paddock was wielding high-powered rifles apparently modified to fire with automatic frequency. The officers didn’t know how many shooters there might be. And they could see a wheeled cart in the hallway near Paddock’s suite, with wires trailing back under Paddock’s door. Those apparently enabled a camera to show him the hallway, but could also have appeared to the officers to be a booby trap." Nevertheless, this puts an entirely different complexion on the shooting. It's not quite as simple as it looks, because this new version of events comes from a timeline issued by the hotel and the police have declined to comment on it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Title

I don't get why massacres and plane crashes of this scale, magnitude and notability need dates to distinguish each other, as if there will be a 2034 Las Vegas shooting that needs to be disambiguated. Let's keep it simple with Las Vegas shooting/massacre as is the case with Boston Marathon bombing, which also had its title changed. As it was the deadliest shooting in US history, it wouldn't be far fetched to think it will be changed in future months or years, as it was done with the Boston Bombing article. Buffaboy ^talk 15:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The Boston Marathon Bombing was the only bombing at that event in its history (so far as I know and I'd like to think that I would know about another one if it had occurred). There have been other notable "shootings" in the Las Vegas Metropolitan Area so the year is necessary to distinguish it from other articles. 47.137.183.192 (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with the IP user. We have articles on the 2010 Las Vegas courthouse shooting and the 2014 Las Vegas shootings. There is a possibility people will be looking for one of those examples instead of this article, and how else are we going to disambiguate them? HastyBriar321 (talk) 08:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Including/ excluding the perpetrator again

Re this edit: I thought we had reached a consensus to say "59 including the perpetrator". To prevent back and forth edits, what do others think?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, like it or not Paddock was a fatality of the incident. Despite the (accurate) warning of back-and-forth editing above, under the rationale of BRD, I've reverted it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• 59. It is indisputable that there were 59 deaths associated with the Las Vegas shooting: 58 victims and the perpetrator. Paddock died in the same vicinity and at the same time as the victims. So it should be "59 (including the perpetrator)". WWGB (talk) 10:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• I would like to point to the Sutherland Springs church shooting article, which has done an extraordinary feat of excluding the perpetrator from the death count because he fled and died elsewhere, thus not being a part of the same event. I have applied the same reasoning to the Boston Marathon bombing and Montgomery County, Pennsylvania shootings articles because similar scenarios occurred. There also may be other similar articles that I am not aware of. This article should also follow that same logic. The victims did not die at the Mandalay Bay hotel, instead about a half-mile away, and the perpetrator died about an hour after the shooting stopped. I would argue his suicide was a separate event. HastyBriar321 (talk) 10:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The article is called Las Vegas shooting, not Mandalay Bay shooting. Paddock likely died before some of the shooting victims died. Comparison between Sutherland Springs and this attack is illogical. The circumstances of the shooter's death is quite different in each case. WWGB (talk) 10:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Then excluding the perpetrator from the Sutherland Springs death toll is illogical. They're part of the same overall event. HastyBriar321 (talk) 10:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

You are correct. The gunman's death should be included in the Sutherland Springs total. His death was directly invovled in the mass shooting. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's not the consensus at that article. It was decided that the shooter died elsewhere, and not as part of the attack. WWGB (talk) 10:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Additional - according to sources several victims didn't die at the scene, but in hospital later as a result of injuries suffered. Does this mean that they should be removed from the total as well? Your logic suggests that they should - which is obviously nonsense. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion should not become bogged down with mentions of WP:OTHERCONTENT. Some people don't like including the perpetrator in the total because of fears that it glorifies the shooter in some way, but the consensus here is to say "59 including the perpetrator".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

My 2 cents - this should discussed in a project-wide MOS instead of each article separately.Icewhiz (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2017

I feel it is important to mention the shooter's "Allergies" as noted in the "Daily Mail" website.

They write: "The gunman's brother, Eric Paddock, told Reuters in a series of text messages that Danley was sympathetic in dealing with Paddock's allergy-driven quirks.

Paddock often wore brown cloth gardening gloves to prevent rashes from contact with cleaning chemical residues, the brother wrote.

He was also allergic to many pills and was unable to renew his pilot's license - he had flown planes since he was a teenager - because he could not take the pills needed to reduce his blood pressure. At casinos where he was a regular, he was such a valued customer that staff obliged his requests to wash his room's carpet with plain water.

'The reason Mary Lou looks so plain in that picture they keep posting of her is because for him she would not wear perfumes or hair sprays or anything with scents in it because it affected him,' Eric wrote, referring to the passport-style photo of Danley that has been widely circulated by news outlets.

The symptoms Paddok exhibited suggest a disease called Multiple Chemical Sensitivity ,which is not recognized by the mainstream medical community in the united states. Gulf War Syndrome and 911 Syndrome are subsets of MCS.

Among the symptoms are Anxiety, Aggression, Confusion or Disorientation, Rashes, Depression, Breathing problems and Irritability. The triggers can include Fragrances, Dyes, Dry-Cleaning Chemicals, Hair Care and Beauty Products, Off-gassing Paints, Cleaning agents/Detergents.

The disease can lead to a life of isolation because of the need to avoid ordinary items that are used by other people without this disease who can easily tolerate their use. 73.69.190.52 (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

References

WP:DAILYMAIL is an obvious problem here, but the real problem is including wild media speculation about whether any medications or medical conditions led to the shooting. Nature abhors a vacuum, and so does the media, because it is likely to fill in the gaps with speculation. We simply don't know what caused Paddock to do this, and media speculation about the medications that he was taking or similar isn't helpful. It would have to come from the investigators themselves.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Reuters and New York Times also reported on this angle.Icewhiz (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Even if true, the allergy angle doesn't tell us much about the shooting. People are still arguing about whether Charles Whitman's small brain tumor led to the University of Texas tower shooting, but medical experts were unconvinced that it did. Plenty of people have medical conditions, but there is a risk of playing post hoc ergo propter hoc and using them to explain a mass shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

None of the sources link the allergies to the shooting. The Multiple Chemical Sensitivity angle appears to be 73.69.190.52's original research. –dlthewave ☎ 03:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2017

The title and other references to the "2017 Las Vegas shooting" are appropriate, especially if you make it "2017 Las Vegas mass shooting," but I believe mention should also be made to a frequently used reference that carries with it the sense of senseless mass murder ("the Las Vegas Massacre") and the reference officially used by Clark County government and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the FBI ("the 1 October shooting incident").

Many of the references already listed at the end of the article refer to "the Las Vegas Massacre." And the following official webpages use "the 1 October shooting incident" or something similar:

https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Pages/1OctoberFestivalShooting.aspx

https://forms.fbi.gov/seeking-victims-of-las-vegas-music-festival-shooting

https://www.facebook.com/FBI/posts/10155689527601212:0

Some FBI pages also refer to "the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival Shooting in Las Vegas."

It would be good for all 3 search terms to be set to bring readers to this article and for the terms "massacre" and "mass shooting" to be used throughout the article to accurately describe this horrific event. SteveSGU (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: This was discussed at length. [1] O3000 (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

About the section "Aftermath and reactions"

This section requires some expansion, since it does not mention Lady Gaga's call for stricter gun control, American College of Physicians's call for a ban on the sale and ownership of assault weapons ([2]), and international reaction. Incidents inspired or influenced by this shooting (e.g. [3]) are not mentioned, either. And the subsection "Hoaxes" should be renamed "False information", since the statement "Two of Facebook's top trending pages were items from Sputnik, a Russian government news agency. These included one story that falsely claimed the FBI had linked the shooter to a terrorist group. The stories were later removed with an apology" does not mean that Sputnik made or distributed any hoaxes about the shooting, since though Sputnik has been accused of being a Russian propaganda outlet, in fact it never spreads disinformation about the shooting (though the headline of one report had been initially "FBI Says Las Vegas Shooter Has Connection With Daesh Terror Group", a "No" was added between "Has" and "Connection" in a few minutes, and I guess that it was merely the editor's mistake, thus the original headline can not be called a hoax).--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC) added and removed some words 15:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Lady Gaga? Really? We have this type of debate after every mass shooting. The reactions of pop stars, politicians etc do not need to be listed exhaustively per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT among others. Likewise, incidents that are only very loosely linked would run into problems with WP:TOPIC. An incident would have to be clearly linked to avoid running into problems with trivia and cruft.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

When an event such as this happens everybody weighs in with a heartfelt and sincere commentary. There has to be something pretty spectacular in order for an opinion to be lifted out of the tsunami that always follows. What makes Lady Gaga any more notable (with regard to gun control) than anybody else - right down to John Doe in Pittsburgh and Joe Bloggs in Croydon? Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Because Lady Gaga is an internationally known singer, and her reaction to the incident, as I know, is verifiable.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

And according to the RT news I cited, the man who posted a threat message admired Stephen Paddock and wanted to commit a "deed" like this shooting. Isn't he influenced by news media's coverage of the incident?--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

In her field Lady Gaga is notable, but when it comes to comments on gun control her opinion is no more worthy than that of anybody else. What is her level of expertise and authority that raises her opinion on gun control - not choreography and/or the wearing of meat dresses - above that of anybody else?

Where are any previous statements or stances she has made advocating stricter gun control? Is this an overriding character trait that she shows outside of this particular incident - and if so can you source that - or is it a one-off statement prompted by this particular event? Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Cause of injuries/deaths?

It says MOST of the fatalities were caused by gunshot. So what were the other causes? And does this mean some of the injuries were not caused by gunshot? Some info seems to be missing here. Batvette (talk) 11:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

According to this CNN story "Among the victims, potential causes of death may also be wider than gunshot wounds. "There's a wide range of injuries, from gunshots to shrapnel wounds to trample injuries to people jumping fences, trying to egress and getting hurt," Clark County Fire Chief Greg Castle said at a news conference Monday evening." So the sourcing isn't clear and does allow for the possibility that not all of the 58 deaths were caused by gunshot wounds. However, the current wording in the article isn't ideal and doesn't reflect the sourcing accurately enough.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It's customary to include both direct and indirect fatalities in the death toll, and reliable sources either don't have a more specific breakdown or don't consider it important enough to write about. The Greg Castle quote is about injuries, not deaths, so it's also possible that all of the fatalities were gunshot wounds. We just don't have that information. "Fifty-eight people (excluding Paddock) lost their lives as a result of the shooting" is adequate. –dlthewave ☎ 13:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Man or woman?

Re this edit: I know we have to use gender neutral language nowadays, but if you had to guess whether the Las Vegas shooter was a man or a woman, would you really say "woman"? Virtually every mass shooting in the USA has been committed by a man except the Cleveland Elementary School shooting (San Diego). Women just don't seem to be interested in doing this sort of thing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: The Goleta postal facility shootings (8 dead including the perpetrator) were also committed by a woman. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

You're right, expectation is currently male shooter. MOS:GNL applies, but given that the gunman was a gunman, the term probably meets expectations for precision/clarity. Alternatively "shooter" could be used.(I know I'm belabouring the point, but...) That said, the lead could avoid the issue entirely if instead of using an indirect structure it directly named Paddock, just as the leads of University of Texas tower shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, and Orlando nightclub shooting directly name their respective shooters. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

We can be retrospective in this case - as the gunman shooter was identified as being male there's no transgression by using the male term in the article, even if the timeline had not established the gender at that point. If you want to be truly pedantic WP:SPOILER applies here. We don't hide facts from the article just because they haven't been established at that point. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

In addition to the “no harm, no foul” argument, gunman, like actor, has long had a gender-neutral definition in the OED. Gunman appears to be more prevalent in RS. But, I’m OK with shooter. O3000 (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Anthony22: I have reverted your new version of the lead which changes "gunman" to "person..." among other changes pending consensus. If it's going to be structured even further as a mystery -- which it shouldn't be because we're an encyclopedia and not a source of tabloid-style investigations -- and use "person" on the grounds that the gender of the shooter was unknown at the time, note that what Paddock was using was also unknown until much later, it was not certain if there was only one shooter, and it was not known how many were dead or injured: "On the night of October 1, 2017, one or more persons armed with what were believed at the time to be semi-automatic and/or automatic weapons opened fire on a crowd of concertgoers at the Route 91 Harvest music festival on the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada, leaving what was later officially reported to be 58 people dead and 546 injured"??? I'll put up a survey below. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

What? We are assigning a binary gender indicator to the shooter? That is bigoted and hateful! Don't you know that there are 63 possible gender identities? Get with the program - this s 2017! 47.137.183.192 (talk) 04:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

63 possible gender identities? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the {{cn}} there - I thought it was only 62. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)