Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting/Archive 6

Australia and Nigeria: unusual reactions and notable

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull offered condolences and said "we are very, very proud of our strict gun control regime in Australia. We maintain it, and we are not complacent about it at all" Nigerian Foreign minister Geoffrey Onyeama said "Truly, it was an act of evil. Nigeria commends the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and others for their swift intervention by curtailing the incident, which would have claimed more lives. ...the Federal Government commiserates with the families of the victims and prays that Almighty God grants them the fortitude to bear the irreparable loss. The Nigerian government also prays for quick recovery of the wounded. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

References

• How exactly are these unusual? ansh666 06:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, fairly routine condolences. It's interesting that Malcolm Turnbull twisted the knife by pointing out that laws introduced after the Port Arthur massacre would have prevented an Australian citizen from owning guns like this, but it is more on topic at Reactions to the 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how Turnball's twisting a knife. Clearly the majority Americans are unaware that gun control would reduce such incidents, as it has done in similar nations, especially Australia. A good friend will help, by pointing out information that could help their friend - even if it is something the friend wouldn't want to hear. Nfitz (talk) 08:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, maybe it wasn't quite knife twisting. Theresa May made a similar point about laws introduced in the UK after the Hungerford massacre which would have had the same result.[1] The USA is now the only country in the developed world that allows this type of gun ownership. Remarkably, even the National Rifle Association and the Republican Party are looking at some sort of change in the law on bump fire weapons, and this should be mentioned in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

New Zealand refused to join Australia in banning semi-auto and pump-action long guns after the Port Arthur massacre and like Australia, New Zealand has not had a similar massacre since then. Here in Tennessee this week a man arrested driving on revoked license (he missed a court appearance) had his car packed with survival gear including two handguns and two home-built full-auto AR-style rifles, a .223 and a .308. He built the lower full-auto receivers himself (the barrels, stocks, other parts were probably bought as commercial spare or replacement parts). Similarly Sweden, Israel, India, Australia and other countries have to deal with underground manufacture of full-auto weapons. Not to mention theft from military and police. A ban on bumpfire stocks sounds like the usual non-answer from smug authorities. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

New Zealand has very strong gun control laws for anything that is not a hunting rifle. Pistols are either for target competition, or not allowed to be used with ammunition. Semi's are very strictly permitted, and very few licences have been issued. But how User:Naaman Brown is this relevant to the article? It's a known fact that gun control is very effective at reducing shootings, as documented in gun control. And New Zealnd has strong gun control. Is there a particular edit you are suggesting? Nfitz (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't usually contribute to highly politicized topics like this, and don't plan to stay around to debate this one. However Gun laws in Switzerland and Gun laws in the Czech Republic should be kept in mind if comparisons are to be made. Another thing: you shouldn't be astonished at a homemade AR system; it's pretty trivial to do starting with an "80%" lower blank. The requisite milling can be done with a power drill (not even a drill press, a handheld drill). Many manufacturers will be happy to supply the lower and jig by mail; no NFA restrictions apply because it's not defined to be a gun, legally just an unregulated hunk of aluminum. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Probably need less technobabble/acronyms in this discussion. I only know AR as "Artists and Repertoire" Not exactly sure to what you refer to by Switzerland - which has the highest gun homicide in western Europe (with their relatively lax gun control). But how does it fit into article? Nfitz (talk) 04:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Mandalay Bay Massacre, Las Vegas

Also known as the "Las Vegas Shooting" or "Las Vegas Strip Shooting" occurred on October 1, 2017, at the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival located at the south end of the Las Vegas strip. 64-year-old Stephen Paddock, of Mesquite, Nevada, fired on the crowd at the music festival at 10:05 p.m PST, during the closing performances. Over a period of about ten minutes, Paddock fired hundreds of rounds from two suite windows, located on the 32nd floor, at the nearby Mandalay Bay Resort in South Las Vegas, Nevada. 58 people were killed and another 527 injured, making this incident the deadliest mass shooting by a lone shooter in U.S. history.[2][3]

About an hour after firing ceased, Paddock, whose motive remains unknown, was found dead in his suite, 32-135 with a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. VincentRO (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)VincentRO

VincentRO, what is your point? 220 of ^Borg 02:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

220 of Borg, my point is it was a massacre by definition:

1) an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people.

2) deliberately and violently kill (a large number of people)

And my reasoning for Title is "Mandalay Massacre" or "Mandalay Bay Massacre" because it was what it was being called all night by Us that had to endure the hours of panic and trauma that Paddock caused. He violated our security, brutally and swiftly broke the US Mass Shooting record, and was able to turn the Las Vegas Strip, Mandalay Casino, and Luxor a ghostly, silent shell shocked battlegroundesque scene, empty streets save for the zombified victims who had aimlessly walj around waiting for their dream to end. Those sights will be burnt into my thoughts forever. He didn't just massacre 58 people he massacred the emotional stability of tens of thousands of people all across the country, as its a tourist destination. It was more than just a shooting. Wording Matters, especially when something is experienced in person.

VincentRO (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)VincentRO

VincentRO, your comment still make no sense. You copied and pasted (above) a section of text from the article, and originally made no comment on it. You did not even mention the title. If you want the page wp:moved, them make a request via a {{Requested move}}. It will probably be denied as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper and thus avoids the use of 'emotive' or wp:POV terms such as 'massacre'.

You say: He violated our security, brutally and swiftly broke the US Mass Shooting record, and was able to turn the Las Vegas Strip, Mandalay Casino, and Luxor a ghostly, silent shell shocked battlegroundesque scene, empty streets save for the zombified victims who had aimlessly walj around waiting for their dream to end.

It sounds like you may have been 'involved', in case which I have great sympathy for you and recommend that you not edit the page at all.
It seems you may not be able to be maintain a wp:neutral point of view. Regards, 220 of ^Borg 04:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

  Note that the article title is being discussed in the section immedaitely below, I suggest you make any name change suggestion there, instead of this section. --220 of ^Borg 04:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Images, redux

Mandalay Bay, c. 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comparison

Las Vegas Strip shooting site 09 2017 4968

Las Vegas Strip Aerial September 2013 (cropped)

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

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

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

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

Mandalay Bay, McCarran, and Route 91 (masked)

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

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

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

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

That's already better than I would have thought of myself, so I leave it to you. Wnt (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that Paddock deliberately targeted the fuel tanks at the airport. It may have been wild firing because bump fire is very inaccurate, and semi-automatic rifles aren't accurate over 1000 feet anyway. However, it is notable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Still not resolved

We still have only one, poor, photograph in the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

For now I've added the cropped illustration to the infobox. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Annotated photograph of Mandalay Bay and Route 91 festival site at Las Vegas Village, taken in September 2017.

Well, it didn't last very long. It was removed with the edit summary "changing picture - other one was completely unhelpful and impossible to discern". I agree - at standard thumbnail size, it's not very legible. Increasing the text size is silly, though, so perhaps displaying at a larger size would be helpful. Consider using an upright scaling factor of 2 or better. I still prefer this to the existing photograph in the article, as it shows (1) the north wing of the Mandalay Bay, (2) the main stage and spectator area more clearly, and (3) the fuel tanks (minor detail) – but I have an obvious conflict of interest as the creator, so I'm not taking any action beyond this talk page. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• 
  2014. positive: Shows conversion of parking lot into LVV.
  fixes needed: Needs color correction, resolution of pincushion distortion visible on left hand side of frame.
• 
  2009. positive: More clearly shows LVV site.
  fixes needed: Still just a parking lot, desaturated effect, needs slight rotation to bring horizon back into level.

Here's a few more pictures for consideration. They're not precisely "view of Las Vegas Village" from the north wing, but they do show the 32nd floor of the north wing and LVV. There are some fixes that could be done, as noted, which could be sent to the good folks at the Graphics Lab if these pictures are useful (I'm not a raster editor expert). I also like the Highsmith photo linked above as a good establishing shot, though there appears to be some color cast that could be edited out as well. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:American country music?

Should this article belong in Category:American country music? Seems a bit tangential to me. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it. It's tangential at best. If anyone disagrees, please discuss here. –dlthewave ☎ 01:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:2017 in American music?

Unresolved

Even Category:2017 in American music seems tangential. This is not an article about music. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dlthewave: Thoughts? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The category lead reads "Articles and events specifically related to the year 2017 in American music." There was a concert going on. This concert probably would not have gotten an article if it were not for the shooting, but if a concert gets an article, it goes in that category. This concert has an article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Reworking the lead

How's something like the following for the first two paragraphs? It cuts away a bit in the restructure, but I believe captures the essential information, and provides a foundation for future edits (eg: when weapons used are confirmed):

On the evening of October 1, 2017, a mass shooting occurred on the Las Vegas Strip in Paradise, Nevada, during the closing act of the outdoor Route 91 Harvest country music festival. Stephen Paddock fired on the crowd for almost 11 minutes from his 32nd-floor room in the Mandalay Bay resort on the opposite side of the Strip.

Police found Paddock dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound when they breached his room an hour later. Prior to official identification, fringe sources published false news about the shooter's identity and motive, which was then promoted by automated social media search results. Paddock's motive remains unknown.

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that the fringe news angle has to be mentioned in the lead per WP:DUE. Nowadays it can be taken for granted that some people are going to write a bunch of cr@p on the Internet. The lead at Sandy Hook doesn't say that umpteen people believe that it was a hoax and say this all day long on the Internet. This gives them prominence that they don't deserve per WP:FRINGE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Second sentence struck.^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~

I think it would help if you could explain a bit more why there is a need for a massive re-write. The most significant weapons have been identified, but even so, that level of specificity would not belong in the opening paragraph. As for details - I don't understand the rationale for pushing down the Route 91 Harvest mention in the first sentence. The fact that a crowd of 22,000 at a festival were victims is core to the incident. Also "opposite side of the strip" requires quite a bit of knowledge about the geography and is likely more confusing than anything else. In fact, there is a good argument for eliminating "strip" from the title altogether as the incident was at the Las Vegas Village grounds, and is but one property at the far end of the strip. Instead, it's probably better to use something like "across the street" or "adjacent to" the Mandalay Bay. Style-wise, these types of articles usually describe the situation and then introduce the identity later in detail. Mentioning "Paddock" casually at the start of the second sentence seems quite jarring. The third sentence also seems a bit off, as it doesn't allude to the fact that there had been an initial exchange of gunfire with authorities ahead of a larger confrontation. There are some optimizations that could be made for the first two grafs, but I'm concerned that the rewrite may take a big step backwards. -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The current lead:

• does not spatially link the hotel and the festival (noting not everyone can see graphics). It also states the shooting occurred at the festival, which would normally imply that the shooter was also at the festival rather than hundreds of yards away.
• splits Paddock's location over the two paragraphs, and does not identify his hotel room as being where he was shooting from (the structure implies that he moved from his firing location to his hotel room)
• uses "the gunman" before identifying him by name, which was necessary when he was still unidentified, but not now -- it's not a mystery. Contrary to "Style-wise, these types of articles usually describe the situation and then introduce the identity later in detail. ", 2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting (date=>perp=>crime=>place), University of Texas tower shooting (date=>perp=>place=>crime), Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (date=>place=>perp=>crime) all put perp before crime.
• includes who was giving the closing performance, which is not particularly relevant to the shooting, and splits time between two sentences.

Am not suggesting exact weaponry be listed, but rather something like "with semi-automatic weapons modified to fire automatically" to explain the injury count. The 22000 crowd size could be included.

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Leading sentence

Just to say, I think the leading sentence of this article is currently very unpleasant to read and overloaded. I didn't want to alter it unilaterally because it's clearly important and would involve some effort to reword – but I think that effort should be made. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, I've split up the opening sentence and added a bit more detail. Media reports are saying that the shooting was in Las Vegas, and they don't seem to be bothered by the pedantic but correct fact that most of the Strip is actually situated in Paradise, Nevada.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I like the direction of the rewritten lead, even if I think it is indeed unwieldy to read and overloaded with detail (like the age of the shooter). I would plead, however, that we do not OBSESS about the Paradise, Nevaada point. For the vast majority of folks, it is the most relevant that this happened in "Las Vegas." Other articles we've had about Paris attacks and specific locations go with the most WP:COMMONNAME and what is recognizable. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Las Vegas Strip with a wikilink is enough for the opening sentence. The adjacent infobox map and text gives a more detailed geography lesson for anyone who wants it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't like this rewrite of the lede at all, and I don't think such a major rewrite should have been done without obtaining consensus first. The new lede is disjointed and illogical, throwing in things like where he is from, or the fact that his motive was unknown, in the middle of the sentence about him shooting. The "after firing for 11 minutes he was found dead" formulation is misleading and is under discussion in another thread here. I do think (and most previous commenters have thought) that the distinction between Las Vegas and Paradise is important. I could propose ways to rewrite this to fix the problems, but I would rather restore the previously stable lede until the changes are discussed and agreed to. --MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The previous opening sentence was way too long. There is still some way to go here, but I wouldn't go back to the previous version criticized by Anonymous Dissident.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it was long, but it was logical and followed a sensible timeline. This lede jumps all over the place. --MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Looking through this talk page I find at least three current discussions about how to do the lede: #Reworking the lead #Standoff, confrontation or the like #Please discuss big lead sentence changes For a few people to ignore all the ongoing discussion and unilaterally do a complete rewrite was wrong and contrary to how Wikipedia works. The previous version had been stable for a long time and it is the basis on which all those other discussions are proceeding. I'm going to revert to the preceding version. Then I will post a thread here where people can choose betwen the two versions. --MelanieN (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

This isn't wise because editing is an ongoing process. The lead had been changed numerous times and none of the versions was perfect, particularly the one with the looooooong opening sentence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

It was in constant flux; which is not great for a highly-viewed article. Objective3000 (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm a great believer in not making the WP:LEAD too long, but the current version is actually too short and doesn't give an accurate summary of what happened. There should probably be three or four paragraphs with a logical sequence. We definitely don't need the geography lesson part about Paradise, Nevada which is in the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)}

(edit conflict) User:ianmacm, there's a section below for discussing this like this. User:Objective3000, you thought unilaterally coming up with a whole new lede would eliminate the flux? An article like this, with hundreds of edits a day, is always going to be in flux. Suddenly replacing a longstanding version with a entire rewrite was not likely to contribute to stability. Anyhow, I have started a section below where you can make your arguments. Maybe there will be consensus for your version. Maybe a merger of the two versions will be better than either of them. That's how Wikipedia works. Not by suddenly making significant, controversial changes to the article itself. --MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know what you mean. I have no version. Objective3000 (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I haven't kept track of who-all created the new version. I was just responding to the notion that this new version would somehow be less in flux than the original. And in the rest of my comment, "your version" was addressed to everybody. Sorry for being unclear. --MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Complete rewrite of lede

The lede has looked like this for several days. There have been numerous tweaks, and there are multiple discussions on this page about modifying it, but this has been the general format:

On the evening of October 1, 2017, a mass shooting occurred at the Route 91 Harvest music festival on the Las Vegas Strip in Paradise, Nevada. During the closing performance by singer Jason Aldean, a gunman opened fire on the outdoor festival crowd from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay resort and casino.

The shooter, whose motive remains unknown, was 64-year-old Stephen Paddock of Mesquite, Nevada. After firing into the crowd for almost 11 minutes, he was found dead in his hotel room with a self-inflicted gunshot wound. With 59 deaths (including the perpetrator) and 489 injuries, the massacre is the deadliest mass shooting by a lone shooter in U.S. history.

Sources

Recently that format was replaced by a complete rewrite, as follows:

On the evening of October 1, 2017, 58 people were killed and another 489 injured when 64-year-old Stephen Paddock fired on the crowd at the Route 91 Harvest music festival. Paddock fired hundreds of shots from two windows in his suite on the 32nd floor of the nearby Mandalay Bay resort and casino on the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada, United States.

After firing into the crowd for almost 11 minutes, Paddock, of Mesquite, Nevada, whose motive remains unknown, was found dead in the suite, with a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

The massacre occurred during the closing performance by country music singer Jason Aldean and is the deadliest mass shooting by a lone shooter in U.S. history.

Sources

I have reverted to the previous version since the rewrite was done without discussion or consensus. This thread is to allow discussion. Is the new version a better format? Should some sort of combination of the two versions become the lede? Wikipedia is collaborative and works by consensus; let's see if we can agree on a lede format. In the meantime, let's not make major changes to the lede without discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Definitely no on Paradise, Nevada. The media isn't interested in this per WP:COMMONNAME and it's in the infobox for anyone who wants it. The current version is too short and needs a lot of improvement.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)@

Paradise is exactly the kind of detail or tweaking that can be done. The existing version probably should be expanded. I'm OK with both of those suggestions. --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

My analysis: New version: The new first paragraph is OK, although it doesn't really improve on the original. The new second paragraph is a disaster, interrupting the flow of the sentence with multiple interjections. The new third paragraph is illogical, harking back to talking about the festival which was in the first paragraph, and then somehow combining that with the completely unrelated death toll ranking.

Old version: the paragraphs flow logically in time sequence (the setting and shooting in the first paragraph, the outcome in the second paragraph). It doesn't lump unrelated material together a single sentence. It could be tweaked in various ways, as per the various ongoing discussions here. It could be longer, by summarizing more of the article. But in terms of a logical, smooth reading lede on which to build, it is vastly superior to the new version IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Strong support for old version, per MelanieN. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 18:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• The old version was better. I will restore it if there is no objection. zzz (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, zzz. I think that would be a good idea. --MelanieN (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

More on lead

Earlier today, I rewrote the lede, to take into account many of the very good points in User:Hydronium Hydroxide's bullet points, while being careful to retain all the pertinent facts. And because the former lede was shit not up to our usual high standards.

My edit was undone, with the edit summary "restoring original lede which was rewritten without consensus...". This is contrary to WP:DNRNC; having a discussion here does not put a freeze on edits.

By all means continue to improve my version of the lede (I have restored the version prior to the above reversion); but please do not try to prevent any steps to improve it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Andy, you have been here a long time. You know better than this. You're familiar with the guideline: BRD. Be bold (you were), and if someone reverts (they did), then discuss (that's what we need to do in this thread). Discuss, not edit-war it back in. I have explained in detail, above, why I thought your change was not an improvement. You have explained nothing, except that you think your version is better. This is the place to explain. Make it clear what's better about it. Respond to the criticisms of it, or modify it to fix the flaws I pointed out. Convince people. Gain consensus to reinsert it. That's the Wikipedia way. --MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

You've been here a long time, too, so you know that your claims are bullshit. BRD doesn't apply, because I boldly edited, then others came along and made further improvements. If BRD does apply, it's in that you made a massive, and regressive, bold change, and I reverted you. As for "explaining nothing", I invite you to note that my opening sentence in this very section includes: "take into account many of the very good points in User:Hydronium Hydroxide's bullet points"; and I reiterate: "By all means continue to improve my version of the lede ; but please do not try to prevent any steps to improve it.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Those are generalities and references ("the very good points"), not explanations. Could you please specify in exactly what ways your version is an improvement? Something comparable to my analysis comparing the two versions? It really isn't at all clear why you did it the way you did - for example, why your last paragraph/sentence harks back to the concert (which was in the first paragraph) and lumps it in the same sentence with the death toll record? I'm trying to get a substantive discussion here about the content. --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I see that rather than discuss, you have restored it again [5], fixing a few of the things I criticized, and falsely claiming "per talk" in your edit summary, when in fact the talk page favored the original version 3 to 1. This is getting us nowhere and is approaching edit warring. OK, since you are apparently going to insist on this, let's just take a look at the version now in the article and work with it, see how it can be improved. I see a few stylistic things to fix, and I will re-add the actual numbers of dead and wounded, (found it, it's just in a different place than it used to be) and then we will see what else needs improving. --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, here's a problem: since you have put the name Stephen Paddock into the lede sentence, there is no good way to give his age and residence. I removed "64-year-old" from the lede sentence because it was TMI for the lede sentence, but now there is no good place to put it. The earlier approach - saying "gunman" in the lede sentence and identifying him a few sentences later - gave a clear and logical place to put it: "The gunman was 64-year-old Stephen Paddock of Mesquite, Nevada." I would prefer to go back to that structure. I would certainly oppose trying to cram any of that into the lede sentence, and I don't see any good way to include it in the remaining sentences. --MelanieN (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC) P.S. Checking similar articles here, I find that about half name the shooter in the lede sentence, and the other half later in the lede paragraph, so either is apparently acceptable practice. --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I am proposing something like this:

On October 1, 2017, 58 people were killed and another 489 injured when a gunman fired on the crowd attending the closing performance of the Route 91 Harvest music festival on the Las Vegas Strip. The gunman was 64-year-old Stephen Paddock of Mesquite, Nevada. Between approximately 10:05 and 10:15 p.m. PDT, he fired hundreds of rifle rounds from his room on the 32nd floor of the nearby Mandalay Bay resort in Paradise, Nevada. About an hour after firing ceased, Paddock was found dead in his hotel room from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. His motive remains unknown.

Sources

I also think "the U.S. state of Nevada" is awkward. It would be simpler to simply say "Paradise, Nevada" but that's another issue; for some reason a few people here are passionately averse to naming "Paradise" in the lede. --MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC) P.S. Actually I'm just going to re-add "Paradise, Nevada". Above proposal modified accordingly. --MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I like it. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done --MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

(@MelanieN: Apologies for belated posting) I like the overall structure of this so much more than the older version -- thanks. I changed the voice of the first sentence to active from passive, and that makes just naming Paddock there a more natural fit than the "a gunman". I believe that his details in the second sentence seem to fit reasonably now -- agree that they would overload the first sentence. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)