Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting/Archive 3

Weapon

None of the listed references state categorically that he was using an automatic weapon. The term "automatic weapon" is oftentimes misused by the media to refer to a semi-automatic weapon. Until there is some definitive facts given, it should simply say "weapon". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.45.115.7 (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2017‎

One does not kill 50 people in 4.5 minutes with a pistol. Let's not be silly here. ValarianB (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, let's not be silly - there are a lot of possibilities between "pistol" and "machinegun". Parsecboy (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It's unclear at the moment. Fully automatic means that a weapon will fire continuously when the trigger is held down. This is commonly known as a machine gun, which a semi-automatic weapon is not. It's going to be interesting to see what type of weapon was used here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It could have been a semi-automatic weapons. And a pistol may be semi, or full automatic. A rifle may be semi or full automatic. So, just because it wasn't a pistol does not mean it was an automatic weapon.

One may, however, do so with a semi-automatic rifle. The distinction is particularly important given that someone has added a "Political context" section talking about the laxity of Nevadan gun laws: if the shooter used an automatic weapon, then the legality or otherwise of such a weapon in Nevada is the *first* fact that belongs there. --2A02:C7D:3152:A00:DDEB:A3C1:9755:C278 (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

When talk show host Alan Berg was assassinated in Colorado by Bruder Schweigen a Washington State neo-nazi group using a bootleg machinegun made in Arkansas by CSAL another white supremacist group, were the laws of Colorado on automatic weapons relevant? Assuming that such murderers would be deterred by gun laws? Machineguns are regulated by the federal ATF under the 1934 National Firearms Act (Title II of the Federal Firearms Regulations); most states allow possession of a machinegun registered with ATF and part of the registration process is notification of local law enforcement. Since regulation of legal automatic weapons by the federal gov't is very strict, state laws are almost a moot point.The weapon(s) used have not even been introduced in evidence. What they were, how he acquired them are unknown. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

"Gunfire from an automatic weapon rang out while Jason Aldean was onstage." Las Vegas Review-Journal. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

One could kill 50 people in 4.5 minutes with a semi-automatic rifle though. The fact that lay people "heard" automatic weapon fire is dubious at best. I would think that simply stating "weapon" or "firearm" until confirmation of the weapons used is released. Classifying the weapon before it is confirmed is speculation. Danbert8 (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not just that it was 50 people killed - there are more than 400 wounded. Again, this is not proof. And I agree mainstream news organizations do a terrible job of understanding auto, semi-auto, machine gun, clips, mags, etc. But we need to use some logic here too. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll leave logic to the news. Wikipedia just summarizes reports from reliable sources. Most news sources are unreliable when it comes to the classification of firearms. The source should come from a weapons expert or law enforcement. Logic has nothing to do with it. Below it appears that an apparently reliable source is saying it was an automatic weapon, that citation should be used in the article. Danbert8 (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Point of information - This is WP:OR, so none of this should have a material impact on the article content without sourcing. Just listening to the audio recording of the event [1], it's quite clear from the frequency and regularity of the rounds that this is very likely a fully automatic weapon. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Some comments from CNN's law enforcement analyst James Gagliano - "Automatic weapon(s) like that -- had to be numbers of magazines or a very large drum, it sounded to me like a belt-fed weapon, a military-style weapon and then to be shooting down, to use the analogy, it was like shooting fish in a barrel in that space." (CNN) -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

More evidence - "'The way the shooter was identified was not from the muzzle flashes, but the smoke detector in the room went off from the amount of smoke that came from firing that fully automatic weapon,' the officer, Randy Sutton, said." (The Week)

These comments are sufficiently sourced to back up the claim of automatic weapons being used and this citation should be added to the article. Danbert8 (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

There's really no reason to rush on this - we're not the news, and the news frequently gets things like this wrong on their first, second, and fifth passes. As I recall, the Orlando shooter initially "had a machinegun". Wait until they recover the weapons and ID them.

While we're on the subject of OR, there are plenty of things that allow a semi-automatic rifle to simulate automatic fire - slidefire stocks, and binary triggers come to mind. Given the cost of machineguns, it's probably unlikely that he had one. Parsecboy (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that acquiring machine guns is hard, but I wouldn't necessarily assume cost is a huge problem. He presumably went into this situation planning to die, so I would assume that he would also be prepare to liquidate any assets he had in order to buy weapons and ammunition. If you are prepared to spend the entirety of your life savings, then even quite substantial weapons would be within the realm of possibility for many 60-year-old men. Dragons flight (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

No, but my point was more that there is more than one way to speculate about the nature of the shooting. We need not assume something based on recordings, witnesses, or off-hand remarks from police that aren't meant to be taken literally. Parsecboy (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Could just as easily have been using a bump fire technique with a semiauto rifle or rifles. Not that hard to pull off with a little practice, and specialized stocks to facilitate this technique are quite legal. Best to wait for definitive statements from law enforcement on the firearms he was using. 104.207.208.98 (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure "just as easily" is the case here, but yes as @Parsecboy: indicated, it could have been bump fire/slidefire stock. Most every public briefing has mentioned "automatic" by police or others, but we should wait for the specific weapons used before going into any detail. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, bump firing without a slidefire stock is more or less useless in terms of hitting what you're aiming at, unless the distance is measured in feet. If it does turn out to be an actual automatic weapon, I'd be more interested in hearing whether it was legal or not (a la the North Hollywood shootout). Parsecboy (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Parsecboy, Dragons flight, and Danbert8: New info. Not actionable yet, but interesting - USA Today - Expert: Las Vegas shooter may have used trigger crank The rate of fire was indeed regular(ish) but not really as fast as one would expect from a full-auto weapon. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping - that's along the lines of what I was thinking, though I had forgotten about those cranks, specifically. (Something of a side note - I served in the military and have some experience with machine guns of various types, and I'd agree with that article on it not sounding exactly like a "real" machine gun). Parsecboy (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Here's another article that says the same thing, with statements from Massad Ayoob (the unnamed expert in the USA Today piece). Parsecboy (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

When Massad Ayoob talks, people listen. Another interesting find - a video of Jerry Miculek playing with a trigger crank and drum magazine on an AR-15, showing how this configuration might work. [2] -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Someone who isn't involved in the investigation, giving a "maybe" should not be used as a source in an ever-changing event. Currently, the news conferences refer to automatic. That's what should be used and not speculation or statements from people not in the vicinity, not involved and not investigating.Seola (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

We should also be aware that the mainstream press is notoriously poor in reporting on the specifics and technicalities of firearms (... and cybercrime, and medical news, and scientific news, etc.) - usually it's a lot of general assignment reporters feeling around in an unfamiliar topic. It has now come to light that the weapons were very likely not automatic at all, and were semi-automatic weapons adapted to provide full-auto capability. See: [3]. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not all that surprising - the rush to meet the demand of the 24-hour cycle doesn't really allow for thoughtful or informed reporting. It's more important to be first than correct, it seems, and now I'm a grumpy old man ;)

For what it's worth (i.e., not much), the first rifle in that video is some kind of .308 Daniel Defense, the second is the one with the slide-fire stock. Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Concerning Google News

Google News highlighting anything is completely irrelevant; as it states at the bottom of news.google.com; "The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program. The time or date displayed reflects when an article was added to or updated in Google News." I would recommend changing the article to reflect this. 12.15.136.27 (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

You would need a reliable source to contextualize this. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

And it's the algorithm they used that they are being criticised for if I remember correctly. Doug Weller talk 16:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Companion of suspect: Marilou Danley

BBC and other major news sources have reported that Sheriff Joe Lombardo indicated Marilou Danley is a companion to the suspect and was a Person of Interest. Thought to possibly have driven him to the hotel that evening and been his roommate.

"Sheriff Joe Lombardo described the shooting as a "lone wolf" attack ... He added that police were now confident they had located a woman, earlier named as Marilou Danley, who was thought to have been travelling with the gunman before the attack." (BBC, [4]) Cheesy poof (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Danley is reported in Australia ans being an Australian woman. - "Las Vegas shooting: 50 dead, scores injured in mass shooting at Route 91 Harvest Festival". Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC News). 2 October 2017. Sherriff Lombardo said it was believed the shooter acted alone but police mounted a search for and located a woman called Marilou Danley, who is believed to be the suspect's companion. The ABC understands Ms Danley is an Australian woman. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Las Vegas police clear Stephen Paddock’s ’companion’ Marilou Danley following deadliest mass shooting in US history --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

"During a news conference Monday morning, Lombardo said that investigators have spoken with Danley, who was located outside the country, and do not believe she was involved in the shooting." Washington Post. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not much of a fan of WP:AVOIDVICTIM, but given how quickly she was cleared and the degree to which this was peripheral to the case, at the moment I'm thinking we might be able to avoid her name in the article text without real loss. We should definitely cite the articles saying that a female travelling companion (or whatever) was sought for questioning, but cleared, and those sources will make her name available to the researcher, but so far it looks like we don't really need it to make any useful point in the text. Wnt (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this. I can see no reason to include Danley's name as it certainly doesn't lend any additional understanding to the event, and can only serve to harm Danley over the near (and long) term. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The shooting was the deadliest in modern U.S. history

What does this mean exactly? Needs a definition. 86.180.105.147 (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I think this is pretty much self-explanatory. "Deadliest" refers to the event's relative rank in terms of the number who died. See Lethality (to which "Deadliness" is a redirect here). General Ization ^Talk 17:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

CBS fires executive for 'deeply unacceptable' post after Vegas shooting

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-las-vegas-shooting-live-updates-cbs-fires-executive-for-deeply-1506969657-htmlstory.html

71.182.242.5 (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

That's something of a peripheral nature. Might be worth mentioning in her article (if you has one). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Very minor and tangential. Not worth noting in the main article. Focus on the attack and the perpetator, and the investigation. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

In spite of the comments here and in the previous section about this incident, the incident is in the article in great detail. I am going to remove it. We can discuss here whether to restore it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I was too slow; User:InedibleHulk already removed it. It should not be restored without consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

And I removed Sam Levin's opinion on Google and Facebook at the same time. It was more a piece than a tweet, but nobody is nobody. Besides, he's wrong; the users are to blame for exploiting the systems. Anyway, the bit you wanted to delete is back already, if you still want to delete it. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Beat you to it this time. I pointed the person to this talk page discussion. So let's be clear about why we are removing it: It is peripheral to this subject and involves a non-notable person. It actually distracts from the subject. Yes, the nasty comments and resulting firing have been reported in some sources. So have lots and lots and lots of other details. This is one of the least important IMO. But I'm not the only person here; let's discuss and consensus will rule. --MelanieN (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Beat me to it? I gave it to you! You race a hard race, but OK, we'll call it even. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Her firing has become a pretty big story in its own right. It's been covered in major dailies (Washington Post, NY Times, LA Times, Miami Herald, USA Today, Daily News, NY Post), TV trades (Hollywood Reporter, Variety), and other RS including The Forward, Fox News (duh!), EW.com, and Deadline.com. We really should consider including it. Scaleshombre (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS exists for this very reason, to prevent the "all sourced content must be included in an article" nonsense. As others have noted, this is a non-notable individual then employed by CBS, and promptly fired. TheValeyard (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

She's certainly notable. Just look at all the coverage of her in RS. If there was a page on "social media cautionary tales", she'd certainly belong there, too. But she's definitely a notable part of this tragedy's aftermath/reactions. Scaleshombre (talk) 04:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: "She's certainly notable". Yes, I'm sure you've heard of her before today, and were one the millions dozens of Twitter followers. This is what WP:NOTNEWS should be a shield against, the regurgitation of the tiniest details reported by the media. TheValeyard (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your definition of "notable" is. In the age of social media and 24/7 news, I think she is. Admittedly, perhaps only for a moment. But it doesn't matter whether she's notable. The question is: Is her firing noteworthy within the context of the article? According to RS, the answer is yes. Finally, try to tone down the snark. Scaleshombre (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC) P.S. I just noticed that a separate page for reactions was created; maybe we should move the discussion there.Scaleshombre (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Those sorts of pages are meant precisely for this sort of thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

That page has become a dumping ground for content that is rejected here. It's bloat, a list of "X condemns Y at Z", I hope the deletion discussion is successful. ValarianB (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Lead-Place

It makes little sense to lead with a mass shooting "at a Route 91 concert venue" for the many readers outside Las Vegas. I suggest it should read "a mass shooting took place at the Las Vegas Strip in Paradise, Nevada, United States," at the Route 91 Harvest Country Music Festival. (I know Wiki policy is to have common items in lower case, but otherwise it looks like this title of the concert refers to the Rte 91 Harvest....) The Lead should give the most important information first. Another editor told me the group had already compromised in order to downplay Paradise, but find some other way to lead with Las Vegas Strip rather than Rte 91 concert venue. That just looks indirect and laborious.Parkwells (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Other articles are suggesting this is terrorism

It's one of the problems with incidents such as this, they get mentioned in a wide number of articles. SeeTalk:Domestic terrorism in the United States#Las Vegas shooting. Doug Weller talk 15:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't spend time repeating all the false news about claims of terrorism!Parkwells (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2017

[[File:Las vegas wiki.gif|thumb|A visual representation of what happened (2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting - Mandalay Bay)]] SSSBeyond (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The image is a copyright violation and has been tagged for deletion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Something weird is going on with this talk page

Resolved

A lot of material seems to have mysteriously vanished between 02:04 and 02:07 on 4 October.

Here’s This talk page at 02:04, 4 October. Here’s This talk page at 02:07, 4 October. And, here’s a diff purportedly showing the difference. This diff mysteriously doesn’t show the removal of a massive amount of material, including the recently-edited section titled “Firing of CBS Vice President & General Counsel”. I’ve never seen anything like this at Wikipedia. What’s up? Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

As your diff shows, there was an unclosed "ref" tag. This caused Wikipedia to interpret everything that followed it until the next "ref" to be part of a single reference, with the result that ~6 sections were entirely hidden. I fixed it. [5] Dragons flight (talk) 03:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Well Done, thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Marking this section as resolved. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Updated pictures of the shooting site

I just uploaded a dozen pics of the site and its surrounding taking from a helicopter a week before the beginning of the music festival, so they show the actual layout and scenario of the Festival. Because of the window glare and dirt in the windows not all images are top quality, and I use Photoshop to reduce these defects, but please pick a diff pic than the one I posted in the main article. The new pics are available here: Commons:Category:Las Vegas Village and Festival Grounds. The following are some examples of more suitable images. Cheers. --Mariordo (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
  Annotation on photograph '4950'

Just wanted to thank you for the contribution – these are excellent. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 06:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for these! Bobherry Talk Edits 13:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mariordo: Thank you – I have used one of these to create an annotated illustration, included in the gallery above. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Cited distance looks to be incorrect

I deleted “The lot is 390 yards (360 meters) from the Mandalay Bay resort” The German Spiegel article http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/bild-1170986-1197455.html does say 360 m metres ... but a cursory look at Google maps suggests the distance was far greater, surprisingly

Shooting  !! The shooting took place at 390 yards (360 meters)

again, the distance appears to be far greater Tyuiop (talk) 09:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Hydronium Hydroxide put back in the 390 m distance .. but I don't see the point in citing a German source that seems to be incorrect from a cursory exam of Google maps. .. at least the shooter was at a greater distance, it seems Tyuiop (talk) 09:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tyuiop:Have reverted, as the LVV lot is to the northeast of the MB across the intersection. See Google Maps. If you use the measure distance option, you'll find that as the crow flies from shooter to center, it's about 360 m (Yup, WP:NOR and all that, but there was an earlier source stating northeast). A problem, however, is that 360 m doesn't necessarily take into account the shooter being 32 stories up (hypotenuse of a triangle...), and that 15 acres gives a lot of variability for distance. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Distances are and will be relevant given that it's a mass shooting by high-powered weaponry, though whether this figure/source is required at this stage is less certain.^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Hydronium Hydroxide: Yup the 360 m seems to be at best from the corners of each property .. so the effective distance was far greater, surprisingly. The 360 m is therefore misleading and we are best saying e.g. "several hundred yards" if you like

Thanks – that's a nicely approximate solution. Are you mistaking feet for yards? The linear distance from the edge of the hotel to the corner of LVV is ~225m or ~750ft, which is ~250 yards. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Elevation of the shooter and density of the people in the concert would be a factor. The weapons shown so far though, are not high powered or long range which is why they are not permitted or hunting animals like deer as they are not powerful enough to humanely use. Usually they are zero'ed at 100 yds. At 350yds bullet drop is 20 inches and falling fast (30 inches at 400 yds). It would be extremely difficult to shoot targets that were varying between 300 and 400 yards and moving with those rifles. He seems to have just randomly fired into a large group of people thankfully with a light cartridge. --DHeyward (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

People have been discussing this on the Internet with some degree of puzzlement. This seems to be a joke, although you never can tell these days.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

That image is not good science and is not even acceptable satire. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

They would still be lethal out and past 1000yds (and it seem he actually had higher powered rifles in .308 and not just "evil" AR15's – but only AR-15's have been shown.). The problem is accurately shooting them that far. A "high powered" rifle (not an AR-15) retain velocity with a heavier bullet. Accuracy is reduced greatly when the bullet exits the supersonic range. All the bullet follow a ballistic trajectory but different rounds can be superonic over longer distances. An AR15 is very flat to 100 yds at its normal zeroing rang. It rises a fraction of an inch before coming down to hit the 100 yd target. Even a round that is subonic is lethal though in accurate. An AR15 accurately shooting targets that varied in distance between 300 and 500 yds require considerable skill. The facination with the AR15 is that it's "military style" but the media and shooter lose sight of why it replaced heavier weapons like the M1 garand (.30 cal WWII) or M14 (.308 NATO). Both of the heavier weapons had longer range of supersonic flight and much more lethal but the weight of each round made it cumbersome to carry ammunition. The Ar15/M15/M4 variants are less lethal than thir counterparts. It's a very accurate round at 100 yds though and wounding is generally good enough for combat at ditances. The AR-10 was the original proposal for the M14 replacement as a lighter rifle but they chose the AR15 because the rifle and ammunition were lighter. --DHeyward (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Lead – deadliest

Recommend this: "This is the deadliest mass shooting by a lone gunman in United States history, with at least 60 fatalities (including the perpetrator) and 527 injuries; it surpasses the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting." Get to the point right away; don't lead with the Orland shooting.Parkwells (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• I agree, that was awkwardly done. I've reverted the two using the same language. Dennis Brown – 2¢ 17:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• I think the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting should be removed from the lead per WP:LEAD – ...significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article... the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. At this point the Orlando shooting isn't even mentioned in the body of the article or even in the See Also section, and the claim is not supported by a reliable source in the lead. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I added a ref and reworded a little, though I don't really have an opinion on whether it should really be there or not *shrug* ansh666 19:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Social media controversies

A new section was added to the article today, Social Media Controversies. Seems like the perfect spot for the CBS lawyer firing. Scaleshombre (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Shooter's Name

(Restored. Don't delete other people's edits, please. MelanieN (talk) 06:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC))

I've read on WND that the shooter's name was Abu Abdul Bar al-Amriki. We should include that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.149.81 (talk) 05:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

You shouldn't believe anything you read on World Net Daily. 0;-D Actually, the source for this is ISIS. Yeah, those guys. ISIS claimed that the shooter was somehow connected with them or inspired by them, and they claimed that Abu Abdul Bar al-Amriki was an alternate name for him. This name is actually mentioned in the article, in the section Perpertrator, but there has been no confirmation, and until there is, we should regard it as pure invention. It is common for ISIS to claim credit for any mass killing anywhere. --MelanieN (talk) 06:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done -- as per @MelanieN: Fuzheado | Talk 14:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I actually saw several news stories about this, e.g. [6]. But while this may be relevant to fake news (or Google or Facebook if you look in the articles) it is not clear it is relevant to the shootings. Wnt (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Help hotlines

Should this page include the many help hotlines and services offered by the state, city and others? For example http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2017/10/02/las-vegas-shooting-hotline/ "The number to report missing people is (866) 535-5654. Police have also opened a “family reunification center” for people to find loved ones at 400 S. Martin L. King Blvd., in Building B." There are also blood drives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegastrong (talk • contribs) 18:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with including news coverage of such services, but including them just to be nice and helpful is not the job of an encyclopedia unfortunately Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

We do not put phone numbers, addresses, email addresses in articles, however there is the External links section. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to go with WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, but at the same time ... if we have those numbers in the article there is a risk that someone from Prank University is going to change them and see if anyone notices. The other thing to bear in mind is that article text ought to be written like you could read it in two years and it would still be true – will those numbers and addresses still be useful then? Might be best to leave it to the sources, while being very clear that they "were made available shortly after the shooting" in the text and that those sources say where. Wnt (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

"Two of Facebook's top trending pages were items from Sputnik, a Russian news agency."

This sentence in the context of fake news is problematic, and no I'm not saying Sputnik is reliable. It is phrased to say that the source is unreliable because it is from a country.

To be more specific, it is a Russian state-owned news agency. But again, saying that is confusing to the layman reader, because in that simple context it is no different to the BBC. In this context, you should include sources like this which mention Sputnik as a propaganda weapon, but I don't know if that violates WP:SYNTH. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD and fixed this, using the source reference rather than synthesising Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable edit. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

There is Anti-Russian sentiment, especially in regards to news accuracy. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

It really is a shame as at one point Russia was considered a friend.(Politics as usual from both sides had to ruin this.) Anyways this should be closed now as I don't see anymore issues. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The BBC is publicly funded under a Royal Charter, it is not state owned. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me of my error on the BBC. What I meant is that state-ownership of a media source is not ipso facto proof that it publishes fake news. There are different levels of government influence around the world from nominal to total, and only some of them aim to influence events in other countries. The sources say that Sputnik has a record of trying to influence events in the US and its allies. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I have re-added the Facebook sentence, with a source that Facebook listed the two pages as "trending", and a source that Sputnik has been described as Russian propaganda. --MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

This sentence should be removed, as it is irrelevant to the article. The Politico article referenced does indeed state the claim regarding Sputnik, yet there is nothing either here or in the cited references that describes any specific fake news or propaganda articles from Sputnik about the 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting (in fact, Politico's inline citation links to someone's Twitter post). There is no reason for this sentence to be included as presently written and with its current citations.

I am confused by this sentence also, What was wrong with Sputniks story on the shooting? If it was accurate then it is a good thing it was trending on facebook and not some fake news...Murchison-Eye (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe it wasn't accurate, which is why people are complaining. ansh666 21:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The father

The brother in the article claims that they never knew their father. That doesn't make any sense – Eric is 7 years younger than Stephen, so Stephen must've known his father, otherwise how would Eric have been born? Obviously, "know" is a relative term, but at 6 years old you notice a person being intimate enough with your mother to father another child. Whether or not he emulated the father's criminal tendencies I do not know, but if the father disappeared from home when Stephen was 6 or 7 (in 1960), that would've been plenty time for him to leave a lasting impact on the child's psyche.46.109.76.173 (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Haven't seen whether the timing makes any sense based on Eric's comments and the father's dates of incarceration, but here is one possible explanation. General Ization ^Talk 21:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The shooter knew his father (until he was 7at least), there is period coverage on how a neighbor took him to the pool when the father was arrested. As for the brother, speculation here is tangential.Icewhiz (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Gun sales rising

Seeking consensus on whether the section discussing the stock price of gun manufacturers should be mentioned in the article.

Currently reads "Shares of firearm manufacturers rose on the day following the mass shooting, which was typical in the wake of mass shootings in the US as sales rose from fear of future gun control measures."

Risks include it being conjecture and an assumption regarding stock prices. Pros include being mentioned in reliable sources. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Nope, I removed it twice myself. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Correlation ≠ causation. I would leave it out. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It is being widely discussed throughout mainstream media sources so it appears to be relevant information on this subject. Here is another example from CNBC.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Just because it's being widely discussed doesn't mean it's relevant. It's armchair quarterbacking. Right now it's just a spurious correlation. I vote to remove at this time. Can add back later if there is something especially relevant about it later. 216.119.215.193 (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I re-included it until this discussion is over per WP:BRD (The Bold move was removing it from the article so it is status quo for now). I for one think it should stay as it is a notable reaction. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Add it to a gun related article at some future time if warranted. The markets are very reactive and often immediately reverse. Objective3000 (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes but the rise was connected to this event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

How do you know? How can reliable sources know the intent of investors? ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

We go by reliable sources is why, those people could have degrees in the field. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

How does having a degree mean you can magically tell the intent of investors? ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Again per WP:V we go by reliable sources. You can have your opinions on the sources but take it to WP:RSN if you wish. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think you are misinterpreting WP policy. RS covering something does not mean it should be included. It also has to be relevant to the article. We do not and cannot include everything that reliable sources cover. Why not include the ISIS claim? That is covered as well. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It's well established that sales of guns in the USA rise after mass shootings.[7] It's unclear how a concealed carry would have been much use against a shooter on the 32nd floor, however.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)}

The amount of RS reporting demonstrates that including this in the article is WP:DUE, I feel. I support Knowledgekid87's position here. Bondegezou (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I still don't see how it could possibly be relevant to this article. Stocks of gasoline generator, bottled water, and canned food companies also rose in the aftermath of Irma and Harvey but I don't see that topic ever discussed in either of those articles, because they are equally irrelevant. The only reason to bring up this fact is to depict gun sales as insensitive to the event, which is not impartial at all. If it has to stay in at all, it should say "[news source] claims that gun manufacturer stocks have risen as a direct result of this event".

72.238.16.121 (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it is worth noting that many domestic arms manufacturers are privately held companies (i.e. Colt, Freedom Group, Springfield Armory, Beretta USA corp, Glock inc), so the overall impact on the market are unlikely to be accurately reflected in the RGR and AOBC prices. Further, for the past 252 trading days (the nominal number of trading days in a calendar year) I calculate the standard deviation of the daily logarithmic returns, or historical daily volatility, for RGR and AOBC to be 2.43% and 2.82% respectively. That said, changes in share prices of +3.48% for RGR and +3.21% for AOBC on 2 October (i pulled current and historical share prices form www.morningstar.com/stocks) fall well short of being statistically significant. In my mind, this pretty well rules out including share price changes for Ruger and Smith & Wesson as per WP:DUE, at least for the moment. Dirty.digger (talk) 07:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I understand the above conclusion cannot be included in the article due to it being WP:OR, but can it be used to justify omitting talk of share prices from the article? Forgive me, i'm new at this. Dirty.digger (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

If we have secondary sources discussing the gun control stuff, gun sales, etc. then we should discuss it. I went and moved it from the "Background" section to the end because it is not the way to start the article ... then someone promptly deleted it. Nonetheless if the sources find it relevant so should we; if the sources point out a correlation so should we. I don't believe in gun control but I don't believe in whitewashing our coverage either. Like it or not, massacres are huge political hay, they often lead to new laws, and their political connections have to be explored. Wnt (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Even if, as dirty.digger pointed out, there isn't a statistically relevant correlation between the events? In the interest of full disclosure, dirty.digger is my roommate and friend. Ein.vögelchen (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Main article for Stephen Paddock

Just FYI that this has been created. I suppose something should be done with it. GMG^talk 19:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Redirected it back here, like all the other variations of the name. If it's reverted/recreated I guess AfD would be reasonable. ansh666 19:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Aaaaand I was reverted by an IP so do as y'all wish. I'll at least move it to the proper title though. ansh666 19:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I hate to go to AfD fishing for an obvious redirect though. GMG^talk 19:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Me too, but apparently people are super passionate about mass-murderers. Go figure. ansh666 19:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be the whipping boy for this one I suppose. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Paddock. GMG^talk 19:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't waste your time. This article is going to be kept – just as there is an article for Omar Mateen, the shooter in the Orlando nightclub. There is even a new article about Paddock's father for heavens sake. I sent that one to AfD and it was snow kept. I predict the same fate for this AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that the result for Benjamin Paddock is accurate, since he was notable in his own right before, just nobody bothered to make an article for him. This guy, though, has literally nothing interesting about his life before this event, unlke even Mateen, who'd been investigated by the FBI before, and the AfD seems to be reflecting that as it's headed for a redirect, thankfully. That said it'll probably be recreated and re-redirected many more times as more info comes out, until the next big shooting whereupon everyone will forget about him, sadly. ansh666 20:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Most of the keeps don't seem to be very heavy in substance, at least not yet. And to be fair, Omar was a much more substantive article by the time someone got around to a merger discussion, to the point where it needed to be a merger discussion instead of a half-cocked AfD. GMG^talk 22:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Number of Injured is 507 as per recent News Conference

The number of injured in the shooting is 507, as there was a double count of 20 at one hospital.

Please see the following link at 19 minutes 30 seconds to 20 minutes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z00MiGfhveY

 Not done I was unable to find this reported in any Reliable Source. If sources do pick it up we will make the change, but right now everyplace is still saying 527. --MelanieN (talk) 00:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Stocks prices of firearms rose?

POV pushing, WP/UNDUE. Stock prices across the board rose. Firearms and munitions sales hit perpetual records under Obama and I'm not seeing that on any WP pages. The first sentence should read during the festival at the village on the strip. Harvest 91 is not a place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Multiple guns used simultaneously

Listening to some audio of the event, it is apparent that at times, there were at least two guns being discharged simultaneously. Soon, there will probably be reliable news reports of this fact. 2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to share once you come across appropriate sourcing, thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

More likely echoes, given the large, tall, flat-sided buildings in the vicinity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

See the #Weapon section above for more. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

There are reports the suspected perpetrator may have set up multiple shooting locations, but I've not heard about simultaneous shooting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It's too early to be looking for a grassy knoll here. What evidence there is strongly suggests that all of the shots were fired from a single location in the Mandalay Hotel.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

No, Andy, it was NOT echoes. It was two AUTOMATIC weapons with DIFFERENT cycle rates. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpsqirFRdTo If you really have nothing to say, don't say it. 2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, see the #Weapon section above – there is the possibility the shooter was using a crank, which would account for the differing (and sometimes erratic) rates of fire. Parsecboy (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully this isn't going to end up like Sandy Hook or JFK's assassination where some people spend all day coming up with conspiracy theories. At first sight, this looks like a much deadlier version of the University of Texas tower shooting but there are still many unanswered questions. Please don't post speculative interpretations of YouTube videos, it's not going to help the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I admire your hope of decency still residing in humanity, I lost mine awhile ago. Infowars' top "news" articles read "What they're not telling you about the Vegas massacre" and "Footage appears to show gunfire didn't come from 32nd floor". So, sadly, we're going to have to be prepared to beat this stuff back. TheValeyard (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Infowars, or more generally Alex Jones, isn't a serious news source. John Oliver gave him a proper honest review here. For this event I prefer the honest, noncommercial, troll-oriented coverage on Encyclopedia Dramatica, but I won't be citing that in the article either... Wnt (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

There were witneses who said there were multiple shooters. I don't know which media outlet interviewed them.--70.30.221.71 (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

No source, no interest. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Org suggestion for reactions

The reaction section has a paragraph starting with a sentence from the NV governor, then a lot of content from the POTUS, then a blurb from the performer. I suggest starting with the performer, then the governor. Then, after a paragraph break, the President's info. This would both balance the size of the paragraphs, as well as start with local responses and work up to more global ones. I cannot do this, as it's locked. Comments?

I prefer the bigger thing first, and working down from there. In a story, you want to string a reader along, but in an encyclopedia, best to get to the main point fast. If the reader's still interested after that, they can continue with the lesser tidbits. Not a huge deal, though, and probably works your way, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:13, October 2, 2017 (UTC)

Rename to Las Vegas Strip Massacre?

This has been called a massacre, should the article be renamed? Victor Grigas (talk) 23:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Look, this is an awful act. But, can we pretend that we are an encyclopedia, use neutral terms, and wait for the facts? The word “massacre” means an intentional act. Do we know that the alleged perp didn’t have a brain tumor, as did the University of Texas tower shooting shooter? Patience. Objective3000 (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

"Massacre" sounds too emotive. Even Sandy Hook, an attack of the most despicable type, is titled Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

References

See the section about about the name. Usually with this kind of event, we stick with the name we have until the dust settles, and then decide (after a week or so, and through a proper RfC) what name to give it. In any case, I don't think "massacre" will be accepted as a name. --MelanieN (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTSOAPBOX -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia is not an unbiased, objective source of information; it mirrors the opinions of those who edit it, taking into account a weight factor that assigns more relevance to the opinion of those who contribute more. As such, the decision to rebrand all massacres perpetrated on US soil or by US forces to "shootings" and "incidents" is not a sign of Wikipedia bias, but the reflection of the bias of the news those editors consume, and a very little price to pay for those generous NRA donations to the Wikimedia Foundation. Equally important to bear in mind is the fact that 99% of the USA population (the most regular readers of english articles) are completely blue-pilled into the idea of living in a safe prosperous country. Were they to be suddenly woken up to reality, the impact of realising that having 50% of the population on food stamps, 2 million foreclosed people a year, and 1000 people murdered every day, didn't actually make the US a safe prosperous place but rather had the opposite effect, would be too much. I would actually support the enforcement of anti-terrorism law on people that cause that kind of unnecessary distress on the 99 percenters, just let them live in blissful ignorance.186.57.229.211 (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The elephant in the room ...

Las Vegas shooting: Isis claims responsibility for deadliest gun massacre in US history. Las Vegas gunman identified as American convert to Islam. Would wish it wasn't the case, but there might be an ideology behind again.--Albin Schmitt (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

References

@Albin Schmitt: ISIS always claims responsibility for random shit like this. Might be Lone wolf terrorism if already. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 14:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

That second source (Israel National News) is very poor second-hand reporting - "While initial reports claimed Paddock was a recent convert to Islam, Clark County Sherrif Joseph Lombardo said he had no knowledge of Paddock's religious beliefs." That's it. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

ISIS

ISIS is claiming responsibility without any evidence AP Tweet. I would be cautious if anyone decides to write that ISIS committed the mass shooting in the article without more credible information. FunksBrother (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's not irrelevant, that ISIS is claiming responsibility. And yes, they always do – and police has all the last times figured out, that ISIS actually was behind. Actually, ISIS is more reliable as a news source than many mass media. But we should of course not claim, that ISIS did it. Including that ISIS claimed responsibility is on the other hand very appropriate.--Albin Schmitt (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It’s too early to talk of responsibility. No representative of law enforcement has suggested any motive. Objective3000 (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the points are (a) ISIS claimed responsibility but (b) there is as yet no evidence the shooter was inspired by ISIS. Since the shooter apparently committed suicide to avoid capture, establishing motive would require a manifesto by him claiming intent. These things usually surface after detailed search of personal papers, emails, tweets, facebook, comments posted to website verified to come from the suspect. The only thing we know for certain as of date and time is ISIS has claimed responsibility. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it should not be added because of other things people have said. Bobherry Talk Edits 15:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

An example of why we should enforce NOTNEWS. Reuters has said US officials are skeptical of the ISIS claim.[8] Doug Weller talk 15:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Official FBI statement is, "No international connection at all at this time." - FlightTime (open channel) 15:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It's probably their silliest claim of responsibility yet. They must be desperate for publicity. Let's not give it to them unless an official in the USA confirms any link.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Didn't ISIS at one point claim responsibility for an explosion that was part of a hoax in Louisiana? 24.228.225.97 (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The only established fact is they claimed; it tells us nothing about the shooter but tells us a lot about ISIS. They crave the attention; maybe we should starve them. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Again and again, Amaq News Agency claims something about ISIS and journalists twist it into ISIS claiming it. Then they claim there's doubt about whether what they claim ISIS claimed is true. They get their clicks, SITE gets their fee, Wikipedia relays the headline instead of the meat and Hulk has to fix another damn alleged ISIS claim. It's like I'm the only seeing this, but I'm not crazy. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:12, October 2, 2017 (UTC)

Can we agree this be removed? This is a hot topic and should not contain dubious claims. Objective3000 (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The sentence on the threat back in May should definitely be removed as the source following it predates the attacks and no law enforcement agency has linked this threat to the shootings.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It was dubious when it said ISIS claimed responsibility, but now it's just probably not important. Similar articles have similar bits, though. Consistency is important. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:43, October 2, 2017 (UTC)

What did Emerson say about consistency?:) [9] Consistency is important within an article. WP:OTHERCONTENT Objective3000 (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Emerson? Bah! Point taken, though. But what tends to happen is someone notices the article is missing any mention of ISIS and re-adds the bullshit version they read in a headline instead of the Amaq version, because it's easier. When the clarifying's already present, it's less tempting to actively unclarify it. But yeah, that worry, too, is a hobgoblin. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:33, October 2, 2017 (UTC)

And now it's gotten worse. They're adding the bullshit version with a bullshit source. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:26, October 2, 2017 (UTC)

ISIS's reaction needs to be in the article all International media have carried this claim .Please note we have added that they have offered no evidence along with the reaction.We are not making a claim that they carried out this attack .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Once we know something about the actual motive, then we can add various initial speculations and claims. Until then, it’s misleading. Objective3000 (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Does this also apply to Trump's guess about pure evil? The existence of such a force at all is questionable. That this invisible enemy of goodness had infected this particular soul is even more a shot in the dark. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:54, October 2, 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it again – just because something is reported in media doesn't mean we should include it (just like the right-wing fake news whatever below). There is no real encyclopedic benefit to adding it and could bring potential harm to the family or others, so let's leave it out, please. ansh666 18:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

How's it potentially harmful? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:18, October 2, 2017 (UTC)

Read the deleted bit about the right-wing fake news. It's already been harmful to them. ansh666 19:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to go through every deleted bit of fake news to find what you're talking about. Spell it out, please, or at least link something. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:55, October 2, 2017 (UTC)

It's not "potentially harmful". InedibleHulk, I agree with you. The user "ansh666" (funny name shows a lot), sorry to say, seems to be a suppressor of important facts, who is on the far left and maybe a Muslim apologist or something, and delete or ignore or downplay facts that he doesn't like. (A Californian and a lefty gamer...yeah, real objective, I'm sure.) Doesn't change the reality of what was said and claimed, and how it's solidly referenced. The fact that all (what's considered) "reliable sources" and news agencies (both on the right and the left, and the center) are saying this, constantly, and news articles, that ISIS claimed responsibility and also that ISIS just months ago put out propaganda videos about the Vegas Strip etc, is something (for readers to know) that should definitely be included in this article. Leaving it out is just more Muslim-coddling censorship and would leave the article incomplete.

The information is in line with the necessary criteria for WP inclusion: reliably sourced, copiously sourced, and notable (since it's being mentioned all the time in every news outlet on the planet). Wikipedia is not supposed to be a lefty blog, but a NEUTRAL (neither righty nor lefty) encyclopedia of relevant and sourced information which this arguably is. To say it's not relevant means that every news journalist (of whatever place in the spectrum) is constantly saying irrelevant information. Not WP's call to make. Regards. 71.246.98.171 (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The FBI has stated that the perpetrator has no links to terrorism. Perhaps it cold change as the investigation digs deeper, but for now this is the official line. The article does not need to go into any more detail about a spurious claim than it already does. ValarianB (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thus far, and now (so far) no known link. And yeah, the FBI never lies and is always right about everything (sarcasm). ValarianB.... Again, ISIS has claimed responsibility for this: FACT. And ISIS recently put out propaganda videos regarding the Vegas Strip: FACT. The mass shooting was on the Vegas Strip. And every reliable (and less than reliable and everything in between) sources are saying this a lot...also a fact. So far, ISIS has given no solid proof for their claim though, also a fact, (and should be clearly mentioned in article too). The claim is there and is a reaction...by a notable (though horrible) entity. The Islamic State. It's copiously and solidly sourced that this is the claim etc. And that's all the article is saying. Also a fact. Suppressing that would be wrong and non-WP kosher. Regards. 71.246.98.171 (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

ISIS claims responsibility for lots of things, but there's literally no evidence of involvement. Until and unless there's actual evidence, we have zero reason to include unverified propaganda claims by a foreign terrorist group. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, Islamic terrorist groups also claimed responsibility for the Oklahoma City bombing, which was obviously false. We definitely need more than "they said they did it." Master of Time (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Could just as easily be a hoax or misreporting. Wait until more evidence comes in. If he was connected to Islamic State, then it will be proved later. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked. an obvious sock/logged out editor and virtually admits it with an edit summary response to mu NPA warning saying that they are “leaving this page anyway”. 20:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

ISIS has released an actual statement with company letterhead, translated here. Praises the guy for acting on the call, but claims no orders beyond that. "By God's grace alone." Seems to know his Islamic name. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, October 2, 2017 (UTC)

• IP was indeed socking. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Its clear ISIS had nothing to do with this, but if there are credible sources reporting their imaginary claims, it should be summarized here, if only to stop arguments about inclusion. Obviously it only makes ISIS appear as "JV team" which ultimately are. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• If ISIS takes credit for hundreds/thousands of things they have nothing to do with, do we need to mention them in every single article when clearly they have nothing to do with this? I see no reason to mention them at all. The news media wants ratings so just said terrorism before knowing anything at all, then once it was known it wasn't, stopped covering that nonsense angle. Dream Focus 13:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

  IS is generally reliable in these claims – at least per some RS – [10]. However, the shooter's motivation will probably be revealed by investigators in the near future. If he was indeed a recent convert to Islam, this would lend credence to IS's claim (who put out the Muslim convert angle shortly after the attack).Icewhiz (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• The claim of responsibility by ISIS is obviously relevant to the subject, and it is reliably sourced to multiple RS. Therefore, I think it must be included right now. If the investigators will establish in the future that the claim by ISIS was "fake" (which would be unusual according to RS), the claim should still remain on the page, but it should be added it was "fake" according to investigators. My very best wishes (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• This will not necessarily be unusual. the only claim was Amaq News Agency who has been known to claim several events unrelated to ISIL as ISIL related events. And it was that same claim that was reported on news medias and web sites. But there is no evidence of its validity and actual investigators involved including FBI dismissed the claim and this dismissal too has been reported. So other than Amaq claim (which is unreliable) there is no proof. Regardless since many users wants the information to be included, I think it should stay and the current version is more precise, removing it might cause other users who keeps adding it to add an exaggerated version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengoman2017 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

It was only Amaq for a few hours, but then ISIS proper gave a fuller version. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:19, October 3, 2017 (UTC)

• From WP:BLP: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. I think we need be more careful than usual with material about a recently deceased person that is contentious and dubious. I wouldn’t include it at this point. (In fact, it should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.) I might include it, even if false, once an actual motive is determined. Objective3000 (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

That's the thing, though. There's nothing contentious about ISIS claiming this. Many reliable sources agree they did, so we're fine to say they did. The violation would be claiming Paddock shot people because ISIS inspired him, and citing that to ISIS or Amaq. We haven't done that once here, and won't. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:28, October 3, 2017 (UTC)

^Agreed. Well put, InedibleHulk. Cramyourspam (talk) 05:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC) Cramyourspam (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Moved up ISIS from hoaxes FBI have only as we have determined, to this point not yet ruled them out.They have not yet found the reason.Hence unless they rule it out should not be under hoaxes.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The sources do not say that this attack this fake only 2 fake claims were made and FBI have only no evidence up to this Point.They have not ruled Islamic state out hence removed it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

If somebody put the ISIL material under hoaxes (I didn't see it) it didn't belong there. It did belong in "Reactions", where we report ISIL's claim, the FBI's "nothing to this point" denial, and a sentence or two about how ISIL often makes false claims of a connection to notorious attacks. Those last sentence or two were deleted, but I have restored them. They are necessary to provide context to the claim. --MelanieN (talk) 05:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

It was removed from hoaxes by me here.At this point no WP:RS states that the ISIS is not involved till now and No major Media outlet have done it till this point .The last sentences only state that they have made 2 fake claims in the past without commenting on this attack and imply that this attack claim is fake which I would not state this point.Rather only 'till this point no evidence Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, good. I didn't realize somebody had stuck in under "hoaxes". It is now back under "reactions" where it belongs. I did restore those last two sentences that provide context for such claims. We don't claim the reports are false, but we do point out that they have made identical false claims in the past. And that in the several days since they made the claim, they have provided no evidence for it. --MelanieN (talk) 06:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

There are no sign indicating that Paddock was a Muslim. ISIS is just using his bad reputation for making this massacre. Iagen0509 (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, MelanieN. While prudence and carefulness not to sensationalize or inflame things needlessly with irrelevant information is appreciated, that can't be the go-to argument all the time, when things like this are mentioned clearly by "reliable sources" since the first day this happened to the present. As was stated by myself and other commenters, the point is not that Wikipedia itself is saying that Paddock was a recent Muslim convert, but that ISIS is claiming that (pretty forcefully now) and was doing this attack for that, and also a point that keeps getting ignored (and frankly speaking suppressed) on here is that ISIS recently put out propaganda videos against the Vegas Strip. No one (who is of the "keep this information out of Wikipedia" bent) seems to want to acknowledge or deal with that hard fact. A fact, by the way, that has been mentioned a couple of times in (what's considered) reliable sources. ISIL has released, a few months ago, anti-Vegas Strip videos etc. Maybe a coincidence, but at this point not known for sure yet, and maybe not.

The point is that WP arguably should mention this information (since all "RS" are too) and also clearly mention that at this time there's no solid proof yet that this was done for ISIL or that Paddock was a recent Muslim...also (since all RS are also). Just like reliable sources are clearly mentioning both things. Should WP not follow suit, because of arguable "I don't like" reasons? Hiding sourced and constantly mentioned information out of political correctness, or worries, or ideology is not supposed to be done on Wikipedia (yet unfortunately it's done too much too often, though against WP policy.) Cheers. 71.246.97.56 (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)