Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting/Archive 12

Victims list

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

---

Re [1]

Victims lists in these tragedies are always controversial. There is currently an open RfC on the subject at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#WP:NOTMEMORIAL and victim lists in tragedy articles. While it may be necessary to revisit the question here after that RfC closes, we should go ahead and get a consensus for what to do here in the meantime.

Please !vote whether you Oppose or Support inclusion of the victims list. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Update: The related Rfc has been closed with "consensus that these scenarios should be handled on a case-by-case basis." –dlthewave ☎ 19:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. These victims are not independently notable. As for what other editors at other articles have decided to do, see WP:CCC. We can link to an external list, costing a reader who wants to see the list two clicks (one in, one out). ―Mandruss ☎ 18:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Quite agree. OK to point to a list extra-WP. (As an aside, never liked the wording of NOTMEMORIAL.) O3000 (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - See Orlando nightclub shooting. Consensus can change, but it shouldn't be tucked away on one article. This is premature given the RfC linked above, and I would support closing this section as such. Nihlus 2:41 pm, Today (UTC−4)
• Support Victim list should be added but should be organized better. My victim list was a rough draft. Other mass shootings including the Orlando nightclub shooting and the 2014 Isla Vista killings have lists of the victims -Blysbane (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Blysbane
• Oppose - Always err on the side of respect and dignity. No compelling reason the complete list of individuals' names should be included here when there are official ones available. Not only can consensus change, the "consensus" at the Orlando shooting article was 22 to 16, or 58% support. That is hardly a precedent-setting consensus. [2] [3] [4]. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Recalling a name, age and hometown isn't memorializing. It just distinguishes one event's dead from the next. A hundred or more lines is too many, for my taste. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I want multiple columns, I'll add. This is too long. Not what I support. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Simple solution so there are no long lists: a collapsible list defaulted to collapsed. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support - As is the case with almost every other major US shooting article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:301D:1701:8E00:907F:9B7C:DBE8:527 (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

— 2603:301D:1701:8E00:907F:9B7C:DBE8:527 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The reader's understanding is not enhanced by knowing the names of the deceased. By all means, analyze the ages or genders of the dead, but knowing that "Fred Funk from Fooville" died has no encyclopedic value. WWGB (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose No encyclopedic value whatsoever. (Btw supporters should actually say WHY they support adding it to this article, if they want their opinion/vote to be taken seriously.) zzz (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - WP:MEMORIAL does not apply here. WP:MEMORIAL states, "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements." Well, the victims are not the subject of an enyclopedia article; the 2017 Las Vegas shooting is the subject. The list of victims is obviously notweworthy content and numerous mainstream reliable sources have published it. Simply displaying the name/age/residence of the victims is absolutely not memorializing. Memorializing would include content such as background details, tributes, anecdotes, quotes, and photos. The 10 deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history are, in order, the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, the Orlando nightclub shooting, the Virginia Tech shooting, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the Luby's shooting, the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre, the University of Texas tower shooting, the Edmond post office shooting, the 2015 San Bernardino attack, and the Binghamton shootings. All of them, except this one, include a list of the victims' names and, at the very least, their ages. This evidence proves that Wikipedia editors have repeatedly debated this issue and clearly established a consensus that a list of victim names should and will be listed in major mass shooting articles, and that its inclusion overrides any objections based on WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:BLP, and WP:OTHERSTUFF. This is as close to protocol as you can get. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC) 14:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

...and numerous mainstream reliable sources have published it. Great. Let's link to one of them. O3000 (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Here are a few. Take your pick. It can be attached to the victim list that should be added to the article. Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, CBS News, NBC News, CNN, Time 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

in lieu of. O3000 (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

So you believe the names of the victims of the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history is not noteworthy content in an encylopedia article about their murders? Can you please explain that? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Gun deaths, earthquakes, tsunamis, wars, cancer, 9/11, where do we stop? We avoid lists. What’s wrong with pointing to a source instead of copying it? In any case, I’m not interested in a long discussion on this. O3000 (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Easy. We stop where a consensus of editors says to stop. For the most prominent mass murders, they have clearly said not to stop. Pointing to the source is great for all the details beyond their basic identity information. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Stop at 100. It's a naturally memorable delineator, with its third digit, and roughly about the number that fills up an entire screen. Browser settings vary, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

So, we stop at the arbitrary square of the sum of digits on a human’s hands? Do we want future mass killers to think their victims won’t get into Wikipedia if they don’t kill at least the Wikipedia numerological standard of 100? Instead of using an arbitrary number, let’s choose zero. People use an encyclopedia for information. A tiny percentage will look for the names. Those that are interested in the names, can click a link. What is wrong with pointing to a list elsewhere? O3000 (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

No, their victims won't be named if they don't kill less than 100. If anything, it's an incentive to kill fewer people. I've never believed in the theory that dead killers are interested in their posthumous articles, though. Pointing to info elsewhere is better than nothing, but if we start simply linking things we think only other people care about, Wikipedia'd be a mere portal in no time. We have to reflect, not just collect, general sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC) 01:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

No, we do not need to “reflect”. We need to dispassionately relate. O3000 (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Reflect, relate, relay, recap, whatever. I'm 110% for a lack of passion. No hobbies, volunteer work, favourite songs and such. Just name, age and town. Dry and basic ID, purely to satisfy "Who died this time?" InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hulk, your reasoning does not address the entirety of the argument, largely missing the point and making it a strawman. Nobody has suggested "simply linking things we think only other people care about". But I suggest that nobody's mind is going to be changed by this debate (it's illusory that such debates can be "won" by strength of argument), so I think I'll drop out. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:BLP for the surviving relatives. Yes I know that there is WP:OTHERSTUFF where there is a list of the victims' names, but it doesn't alter my view that a list of this kind is unencyclopedic and unnecessary.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Are ages and towns worth anything to you? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you suggesting "Female, 19, Pasadena, California"? I think that's a separate discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm suggesting name, age, town. Just wondering if that's completely unencylopedic, or only the name part. Definitely not suggesting genders. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

That discussion has been had in all of the articles about the other top 10 deadliest U.S. mass shootings (which are linked in my ivote comment above). There was a clear consensus in every one of them not only to include a victims list, but at the very least to use names and ages. Some of them have additional information. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: Where identification of particular victims, whether killed or not, is necessary to understand a crime, they should be included in an article because they are of relevance. Where their individual inclusion is not necessary to understand a crime, they should not be, and NOTMEMORIAL applies. In this case, the victims were randomly selected, and only Campos is necessary to include. The external link is a better option for those interested in those who died. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support These victims are, as a group, notable as their deaths are notable. We have the Orlando_nightclub_shooting#List_of_the_dead list, other such lists exist. Additionally, we live in the era of BS and conspiracy theories about "Crisis actors", so it is worth giving a name to people who died in horrific incidents such as this. FOARP (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Good point about conspiracy nuts. But, all this does is give them another source of grieving families to harass. O3000 (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - for most of the reasons above, but the victims of the shooting are not notable for anything other than being victims of a shooting. What purpose is there to include their names, other than to commemorate them - which is essentially what WP:MEMORIAL is intended to avoid, even if it isn't directly phrased to include victims? Most of the arguments to support seem to be based on OTHERSTUFF - "Because other articles do so". This is a circular argument:

• "Why does Orlando nightclub shooting have a victims list? - Because Virginia Tech shooting does so."
• "Why does Virginia Tech shooting have a victims list? - Because Orlando nightclub shooting does so."
• "Why doesn't 2017 Las Vegas shooting have a victims list - all the other articles do?"

What does their inclusion add to the article, or to turn it on its head - what is the article lacking without the list? (Apart from "The list"?) Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - This might be included in books on the subject but it isn't really encyclopedic. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Why does Orlando nightclub shooting have a victims list - because many of the victims were gay? If a victims list is made, should it include the race of the victims? People think that everyone there was white because it was a country music festival, but there were lots of Hispanics at the concert and at least one Asian lady was killed. 47.137.183.192 (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – This is not a memorial. This is an encyclopedia, and a list of names of people killed doesn't add knowledge to the article. Natureium (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - This may change some minds: [5]. O3000 (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - If we have the details from reliable sources, add them as pat of the history of it. Cramyourspam (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons given by Hydronium Hydroxide (adds nothing to understanding) and Chaheel Riens. And just for the record I have opposed such lists whenever asked the question, whether the victims were gay/straight, black/white, US/UK or whatever.. If there is any significant demographic information (age, gender, nationality), that can be summarised in the text and an external link to a list if apt. Pincrete (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
• SupportObviously there should be a victim's list, with their name and age.--Jane955 (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• "Obviously" isn't a reason. Can you expand on why you think it's obvious? Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support We name the victimizer, but not the victims, which is absurd!--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:OTHERCONTENT. A link to a list of the victims should suffice for this article. ^Falling_Gravity 08:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support I believe that naming victims is part of the encyclopedic coverage of an event like this. Regarding policy, I think two sections of What Wikipedia is not are relevant; one applies to this article; the other does not. Not Censored applies; wp:NOTMEMORIAL does not apply. The Not Memorial provision, as I read it, refers to the topic of an entire article, not to a portion or section of an article. The article is not about the victims and thus by definition is not an attempt to memorialize them. Furthermore, the Notability guideline itself explains that WP:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_apply_to_content_within_an_article," which invalidates an argument that says: victims should be excluded because they are non-notable. DonFB (talk) 11:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

If, as you say, the "article is not about the victims and thus by definition is not an attempt to memorialize them" why do we need to name them? Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose This was an indiscriminate shooting, and listing the names of the victims does nothing to contribute to the reader's understanding of the event. I agree with Pincrete's idea that relevant demographic information can be summarized in the text. Disagree that we are under any obligation to provide equal coverage to the shooter and the victims. –dlthewave ☎ 19:55v, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Support The victims of the article are notable given the fact that the names have been noted by numerous reliable sources, including the coroner. They also have had their lives and history delved into by media outlets, so we would be doing nothing that was not already done by the media themselves, negating WP:BLP. The BLP policy does apply, but it just means that poorly sourced content should be removed and special care taken, none of which apply here since they've already all been named by said media outlets. WP:MEMORIAL applies to standalone articles, not content. The guiding policy would be WP:DUE and even that, based on the number of sources including said names, support inclusion. We should echo the reliable sources and list their names and occupation in said article. Tutelary (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It is the coroner's job to release the name of every person who dies, regardless of the circumstances. This doesn't make it notable. –dlthewave ☎ 04:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't list people who die in plane crashes etc, even though the media often does. Wikipedia policy is the main guideline, not what the media does or does not do.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

In reply to Chaheel Riens: This event would have been much less likely to be included in Wikipedia if the shooter fired randomly from the hotel, but did not kill anyone. The deaths are what guarantee the notability of this event. Of couse, mainstream media have named the victims, so the information can be found if a reader takes the trouble to look for it. Not all media stories about this event, however, have shown a victim list. Instead, other media articles focus on a specific topic, such as the weapons, police response, timeline, and so forth. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is an appropriate place to list names of the victims, so that members of the public can see the information, or know if one or more specific names are on the list. At a minimum, the list should include each person's age. Such content in the article is what helps it to be "encyclopedic." Wikipedia policies do not at present forbid inclusion of such information, as can be seen in other articles (named above in the !vote section) about mass killings. I believe the Not Memorial argument has been effectively refuted in my !vote above, and by the earlier !vote comment by IP user 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D. Such a (faulty) rationale also did not overrule inclusion of victim names in multiple other such articles on this site. DonFB (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Perhaps not a suicide?

WP:FRINGE O3000 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There's new evidence of it possibly not being a suicide: http://truepundit.com/video-leaked-las-vegas-swat-audio-indicates-police-gunned-down-stephen-paddock-in-hotel/ This source is probably not reliable but the actual recording is. I'm not sure about this but just letting you editors know that a change of wording may be necessary. JohnSmith678 (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC) When and if there's reliable sources discussing these claims, we can take a look at it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC) The audio is in various places, eg here. The police are still insisting that Paddock killed himself, and despite their somewhat wobbly track record, it would require a lot more evidence to overturn the theory that he was already dead when the SWAT team entered the room.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC) There is no proof that he is even dead. The whole crime scene looked staged.--Jane955 (talk) 04:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC) What signs did you observe that led you to that conclusion? Stu (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC) The crime scene is clearly staged. Has there ever been a video showing even one shot from his hotel window? There is however a video showing shooters on the roof, below the Mandela hotel. It would be nice if Wikipedia would present the truth for a change.--Jane955 (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of crowd size / 490m

Mike Turber: Both old and new sources specifically state that the crowd that was fired into was 22000 [6][7]. 32nd floor is perhaps 9*32yds = ~290yds high, and concert area is 390yds at ground level, making linear distance from room ~490yds as the hypoteneuse of a triangle. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hydronium Hydroxide: It was my understanding that Wikipedia would like to use the most accurate and up to date information. In the references to crowd size, this was a 3-day event. 22,000 tickets were sold for the entire 3 days. This information is readily available from "Live Nation" and it has become common knowledge that the references to crowd size that evening were not correct. I called Live Nation and verified the crowd size. Since the exact crowd size for Sunday is not known, saying that it is 22,000 is simply not correct and saying it is 22,000 at the time of the shooting is a perpetuation of a false fact. Perhaps you should not reference crowd size at all or at least make it known that the crowd size is in question.

In reference to the distance. If the hypotenuse is 490 yards (1470') and the room is roughly 320', then the linear distance on the ground is 1434.7473645210157'. Again this would place his shots outside the venue. You are welcome to check my math as I have been investigating this event directly and my numbers are accurate. The distance to center stage from Paddock's room is 1010' at ground level. Using 320' on the right angle will give you a hypotenuse 1060'. Follow that same line out to 1434' and you are in the middle of the street. I also verified the numbers using lasers at the location. So in this case, I am the source.

Since I believe I have given you more accurate information than either of the 2 sources currently listed on the page I would kindly ask that you revert back to the information I have corrected or explain in detail why you would leave information on a site that is used as a reference that is known to be false. If you must have verifiable sources then I would suggest you verify the info using the correct sources as I have done.Mike Turber (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

We do not publish original research conducted by editors. Mike Turber Hydronium Hydroxide can either of you provide reliable sources that support your calculations? –dlthewave ☎ 13:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

For 22000 crowd size, pick an RS. For 490yds, that originally came as a conversion from 450 metres citing the SMH. Using something along the lines of "about 500 yards" would probably be better. That said, if there's actually sufficient WP:RS for fewer than 22000 or less than 500 yards (noting that some sources state a closer distance for the stage), then update away. I just checked Google maps using "measure distance" (right-click menu). Level distance from north end of Mandalay Bay hotel to central area in front of stage is shown as ~360m ~= 390 yards. Level distance from MB to northeast corner of LVV is shown as ~625m ~=683 yards. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 14:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that 490 yards is the number that is supported by RS, and 500 yards is a good round number. Google Maps and back-of-the-envelope calculations might be useful for verifying or explaining measurements to other editors but we cannot use these calculations or laser measurements made by an editor as sources. You each made errors and assumptions in your calculations (using 9 meters as the floor height and assuming that the measured line goes through the stage area) which clearly illustrate why we use information that has been vetted by secondary sources. –dlthewave ☎ 16:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

dlthewave, You are telling me I made errors in my calculations when you stated "using 9 meters as the floor height"? Using your number of 9 meters for floor height, the 32nd floor would be 944 feet high. I aam sure you meant 9 feet, which is also wrong. The hotel is 480 feet and has 43 actual floors. I made no errors at all. Zero. Show me any error I made at all rather than just saying I did. The distance from Paddock's room to center stage is 1010'. The distance to the crowd in front of the stage is 1050'. If you run a line from Paddock's room through center stage out to 1500', as you are now talking about, you will be in the dirt parking lot. If you swing the arc around you will certainly be well past the area where the concertgoers were. I would suggest that you remeasure your distances and you will find that my measurements are more accurate. If you decide to keep the 500 yard / 1500' range you will be manipulating a source that many use and that I tried to correct. This is what I thought Wiki was about. So clearly you are not interested in placing factual data on this site. You would rather argue it then simply measure if yourself using Google Maps and calculating the hypotenuse. I have done what I was asked to do when I joined this site and that is to edit a page when I see something wrong. The distance is wrong. 100% Wrong. The number of concertgoers is obviously wrong. Do you see 22,000 people? Seriously? People are using the numbers here to make videos about how wrong it is. I tried to correct it and gave you the source. LIVE NATION is who put on the concert and I would think that they would know how many attending but you want to quote MSM? WOW. This is very discouraging. Here is the link to the video the made me want to correct this info. https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d92_1509626514 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Turber (talk • contribs) 17:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC) :::

The most important policies we have are WP:RS and WP:NOR. We need numbers and distances to be reported in reliable sources, or they cannot go into the article. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The strange thing is that Mike Turber may actually be right here. Reliable sources are not infallible, and the figure of 22,000 may be the ticket sales for the entire event, not the Sunday evening. When Live Nation was asked by the media how many people attended the event, it may have said 22,000 which is correct, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they were all in the stadium on Sunday evening at 10 PM. Likewise, there have been various estimates of the distance from Paddock's hotel window to the crowd, and the figure of 490 yards (1470 feet) given in the article is on the high side. Other sources have said 1000-1200 feet to the stage area. It can vary because the arena is large.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Fuzheado: Does the GA rating need to go via WP:GAN and independent review?

@Hydronium Hydroxide: - Good point. I've dialed it back to B class until someone can review it for "good." Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

dlthewave: OR applies to article content. Trying to understand/reconcile duelling facts/claims on the talkpage, on the other hand...

Mike Turber: Apologies for my non-metric conversion fail. Yeah the distance seems long, but as written by others above, we need to be able to source claims to Reliable Sources (though some of those Reliable Sources may happen to be of increasingly questionable reliability)...

+IanMacM: I see what you mean. 500 yards seems to be more commonly used than 400 yards but NYT has both[8][9]. Washington Post states that the stage was between 400 and 500 yards from the hotel. Las Vegas Sun states more than 500 yards. Chicago Tribune quotes the Sheriff, but the phrasing suggests that those at more than 500 yards may have been outliers. BusinessInsider uses 300-500] yards. Meh. Use a range for distance given the area and that attendees fled to the fenceline? I've not seen an RS that's quoted a crowd size much lower than 22000.

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Here is another graphic of the incident, sorry it is from the Daily Mail. It gives 1100 feet to the stage area, and I believe that this is a more realistic range based on the photos than 1500 feet which is well over a quarter of a mile. Also, it says that the capacity of the arena is 22,000 people, and unless it was full to capacity at 10 PM on Sunday evening it may not have been a crowd of 22,000, which is the point that Mike Turber was trying to make.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Help!

I have no clue how to edit wiki but I found an error and was wondering if anyone can fix it. Under the casualties section it says that UMC hospital is closer to the Route 91 location than Sunrise Hospital. That is false, Sunrise is .2 miles closer according to Google Maps. I know it’s a small detail but feel it should be fixed. Is there anyone out there that can edit this section please? Thank you! Clover-berry (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Due to vandalism and similar, the article has been semi-protected to prevent unregistered and newly-resisted accounts from editing. I've adjusted the wording per your suggestion. The source used doesn't directly mention maps, but it does indicate that Sunrise being listed first on people's phones is likely one reason so many people went there instead of UMC. The news article doesn't exactly say that UMC is "nearby", but it seems like the simplest way to summarize it, so that's how I phrased it. Grayfell (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Reactions section

Re this edit: I have been asked on my talk page why it was removed, and here is the explanation given: "I can't recall removing it because it wasn't recently, but if I did, it was because a laundry list of reactions from foreign politicians adds little in the way of insight. Every mass shooting produces a laundry list of this kind. As for the Nigerian reaction, why is this so notable? It is standard condolence stuff. There are no good reasons for including what Australian and Nigerian politicians said while excluding the numerous other comments that were removed. British Prime Minister Theresa May used the shooting to comment on gun control, so it was not unusual." Without exception, every article about a mass shooting goes through a phase where a laundry list of reactions from foreign politicians is added. Then they are shunted off to a separate article, such as Reactions to the Las Vegas concert shooting. We are now long beyond the stage where we need to know what Nigerian politicians said about the shooting, it is routine condolences and adds nothing of value.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Reactions to the Orlando nightclub shooting still exists, but a lot of the foreign reactions are repetitive. There needs to be some reason why a country expressing condolences, lowering flags, illuminating buildings, calling for more gun control etc is notable. In this article, a decision was made to stick to reactions from the major national and local politicians, and to leave out the "me too" reactions from foreign politicians.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no objection to the British Columbia half staff reaction. Australia stuck it to the US with a gun control comment. No country in the world commended the police except the Black nation of Nigeria. AGrandeFan (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Ian is incorrect because I did not ask him why it was removed. I merely saw that he owns the article so I was asking his permission. AGrandeFan (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• There was significant previous discussion about included reactions. The reactions of people like the sheriff, governor, and president are relevant but the reactions of other politicians is not unless they're somehow relevant to the event itself. It doesn't matter whether they're a minority opinion or whether it's unusual (unless, of course, it's directly related to the event such as ISIL's claims that he was acting on their behalf). GaidinBDJ (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not WP:OWN the article. As GaidinBDJ said, there was a lot of discussion about this and there is a problem when reactions from foreign politicians are included. These usually fail WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC on shooting description in lede

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to describe the shooting as the deadliest in "modern U.S. history," as opposed to "by an individual."

This at first may seem an odd conclusion for me to reach: the number of !votes in favour of "individual" significantly exceeds those in favour of "modern US History." But Wikipedia is not a democracy and !votes must be weighed in light of policy. I cannot see how "individual" could comply with policies such as WP:OR and WP:V. None of those in favour of "individual" have made the case that it is compliant with those policies. No source has been cited stating that this is the worst shooting by an individual. Indeed in the article the claim of deadliest by an individual is actually sourced to report describing it as the deadliest shooting in modern US history. This lack of a policy basis has been emphasized by those opting for "modern history" such as MelanieN and Icewhiz.

The argument for "individual" is instead one predicated on the lack of clarity in the word "modern." While this argument may have some weight to it in general, WP:OR and WP:V are key Wikipedia policies that should not in most circumstances be deviated from. Any close that opted for clarity over WP:V and WP:OR would ultimately be an ignore all rules close, which I am not convinced is justified in the circumstances. --Brustopher (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

---

A couple weeks ago there was a discussion about how the article's lede should describe the shooting. The debate focused on whether it should be called "the deadliest mass shooting committed by an individual in the United States," or "the deadliest mass shooting in modern United States history". Should the lede say "by an individual" or "modern U.S. history"? ^Falling_Gravity 07:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Modern U.S. history – Most sources say "modern United States history", so I think we should just stick with that. ^Falling_Gravity 02:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

  Note: By "most sources" I was mostly going by a Google News search for "deadliest shooting las vegas", most of which say something like "deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history" or "one of the deadliest shootings in US history". In addition, a lot of the sources cited below by MelanieN describe why "modern" is important here. ^Falling_Gravity 22:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Individual. There were worse atrocities committed by squads or armies, so the word individual must be applied here. WWGB (talk) 03:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Individual. Words like "modern" and "recent" are clearly discouraged by WP:RELTIME because they mean very little. Some media sources are worried that they aren't including events like the Wounded Knee Massacre in the count, but these were carried out by more than one person and did not involve rapid fire weapons.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Modern U.S. history The term "mass shooting" is used nowadays refers to shootings by private parties - that is, an individual or a few individuals. It is not used for events in wartime or carried out by armies or quasi-military bodies, which obviously eclipse anything private citizens can do. But the main consideration here is that we have to follow Reliable Sources; we can't just make up our own language to suit our own interpretations. The vast majority of Reliable Sources are either saying "deadliest" without qualification (The Hill, local ABC News channel), or saying "deadliest in modern American history."(CNN, WaPo, TIME, CNBC, NBC News) Even an article calling attention to the earlier, worse massacres of blacks or Native Americans suggests we resolve the issue by calling it "the deadliest shooting in recent or modern history." (Huffington Post) Anything other than "modern U.S. history" is purely original research. We are bound by Wikipedia policy to follow the Reliable Sources even if we think we know better and can say it better. --MelanieN (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Modern U.S. history. Per the sources identified above. Neutrality^talk 20:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Individual. Using "modern" just confuses the reader, on multiple levels. Were there guns in ancient Nevada? Is WP redefining Modern Era on the fly (hint: Wounded Knee happened within it)? Is WP redefining "mass shooting" to include military and mob incidents when the rest of the world doesn't use the word that way? Etc. Using "individual" is helpful here because it avoids all that. The convoluted rationale provided by NPR here is too much detail and opinion to "pack" into a phrase in our lead.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Rejecting reliable sources (like NPR) on the basis of your own opinions is the very definition of original research. ^Falling_Gravity 16:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Individual and in the U.S. Audie Murphy killed plenty of people with a machine gun in an hour of fighting in modern U.S. history. --DHeyward (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• By an individual: saying 'modern' is vague. Who are we to state when the modern period started? (I would say c the end of the first world war; others may disagree). –Sb2001 23:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment What is modern? When does the modern period start? Wikipedia policy clearly discourages this type of vague and woolly wording. This Time magazine article looks at why the US mainstream media is afraid of being accused of insensitivity if it does not include events like Wounded Knee and the Colfax massacre, but these were carried out by far more than one person. Racial massacres were commonplace in the 19th century USA, but if Wikipedia is going to use the word modern, it has to explain what it means and not leave it up in the air for the reader to interpret. The Las Vegas shooting is a lone gunman shooting and does not equate to racial massacres by squads or armies in the 19th century.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

This NBC News article seems to define modern shootings as after the "early 1900s and prior". It should also be noted that the article doesn't make a big deal about the "lone gunman" aspect of this or previous shootings. ^Falling_Gravity 17:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• by a single individual - Wikipedia is written for the ages. What's modern now, may not be modern later (as User:Sb2001 notes). We should really say "single individual" though for clarity. NickCT (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment A single individual as opposed to a double individual, perhaps?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ianmacm: - Ha ha! Yes. Very clever. But I think saying "single individual" makes it clearer this was a lone wolf shooting. Rather than individual acting within a larger group. I guess we could say "lone shooter" or something like that instead. NickCT (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• individual or lone shooter or similar. Though modern has weight of sources, the need of readers (who may be non-US and/or NESB) mean "individual" is more useful. "Modern" raises too many questions as there's no agreement on when it starts (1877? 1900? 1949? 1966? 1982?). Many sources leave it ambiguous; some are implicit through omitting an incident; some are explicit on a year; while those stating "one of the deadliest in modern US history" imply that they include Wounded Knee and maybe earlier massacres in the count. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

  @Hydronium Hydroxide: Which sources have you read that use "one of the deadliest in modern US history"? ^Falling_Gravity 17:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

  @FallingGravity: CBS, Fox, NYT, AP, Vox, NBC, ... ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• modern U.S. history (or qualify with start year to be precise) - this is used by most if not of the sources, and I don't think that individual passes WP:V/WP:NOR - while possible to verify on modern events, this is actually quite hard for the 19th century and early 20th century. You'd need bullet clad sourcing to support individual, and you'd probably have to qualify with a known to have been committed by an individual.Icewhiz (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Modern U.S. History - I think just follow the cites ... 'modern' is strongly dominant in WP:RS, looks like about 75% by Google count. Markbassett (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Individual or lone gunman or similar a case could be made for using neither, since 19th C killings are not generally described as 'shootings', despite people being shot, however maximum clarity is achieved by including 'individual' and it side-steps any "what about wounded knee" stuff. 'Modern' is a constantly moving term which is only clear in context, a modern house may easily be twenty times the age of a modern mobile phone. Pincrete (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Combine options to produce: "the deadliest mass shooting by an individual in modern U.S. history". See my comment below in threaded Discussion. DonFB (talk) 08:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• I guess another option we could use is "one of the deadliest shootings in U.S. history". ^Falling_Gravity 17:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• The trouble with "lone shooter" or "an individual shooter" is - well, two troubles actually. The biggest problem is, that's not what Reliable Sources are saying, and I am still disturbed by the apparent feeling of many here that they can ignore Reliable Source usage if they think they have a better idea. The other, more specific problem with "lone shooter" or "an individual shooter" is that the reader immediately begins to wonder: which mass shooting (in the modern sense) involved two or more shooters and was more deadly than this one? Columbine, maybe? In other words, "lone shooter" doesn't really make the distinction that we are really trying to make - a distinction between "one or two heavily armed private citizens" vs. a huge group, like a mob or an army or a quasi-military unit. --MelanieN (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

We've been through this before. The US mainstream media is using the word "modern" here as shorthand for "there were worse racial massacres in the USA in the 19th century" which indeed there were, but this is not what the word modern means on its own. The first "modern" mass shooting is widely regarded as Howard Unruh in 1949.[10] In addition to being carried out by one deranged person in the space of a few minutes, it required ownership of a hand held gun that could fire rapidly and repeatedly, something which nobody in the 19th century had. Nobody ever committed a mass shooting with a Winchester rifle or a Colt .45. Cowboy era guns do not produce mass shootings like the one in Las Vegas. Some people have said that Gilbert Twigg is the "first modern mass shooter".[11] He was deranged and killed nine people with a shotgun at an outdoor band concert in Winfield, Kansas in August 1903. There was no rhyme or reason for doing this and Twigg's conduct had previously been a source of worry, as with many mass shooters.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• I feel the reason the !votes above are so diverse is we are trying to say this in Wikipedia's voice. It seems we are trying to give this incident some context in the lead rather then just saying "a lot of people got killed". We want to let the reader know "Is this the most terrible thing to happen? "; but that is an opinion and Wikipedia should just state the facts. I had a thought that quoting some pundit in the lead would solve it, but who? Our Reliable Sources are trying to sell disasters so people will buy (and cite) their article. Quoting a politician makes that politician more important then the rest. I've looked in vain for guidance on establishing context in the lead in Wikipedia and all I can find is "For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence." per WP:BEGIN. Maybe more policy needs to be established as to how to express noteworthiness in the lead. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

If we can't say it in Wikipedia's voice, how about "According to CNN, The Washington Post, TIME, CNBC, and NBC News, it was the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history"? I'm only half kidding. If we need to cite it to somebody, then let's cite it to somebody. There are plenty of sources. --MelanieN (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Never liked the use of superlatives to describe such events. Does this event make the Orlando shooting any less awful? Is this a contest? I’m fine with “one of the…”. Then we just have to worry about the rest of the sentence. O3000 (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I oppose "one of the". We really do need to say what Reliable Sources are saying, which is that it was THE deadliest such shooting (not "one of the"; there is no modern mass shooting that exceeds it). Yes, in a sense it is a contest; whenever one of these things happen the media always trot out the next ten awfulest shooting for comparison. We may not like it, but that is how all the Reliable Sources treat it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Also oppose "one of the" because it is too vague. Agreed, we are not keeping a score sheet, but it would be wrong not to mention that Paddock managed to exceed the death toll in Orlando (within 18 months, so soon already). As for "modern", it might be best to sidestep this word by introducing a sentence explaining why there has been a debate over this. Personally, I don't see disgraceful actions by the 7th Cavalry Regiment as being the same as a mass shooting by an individual, but some people do.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Avoiding Wikipedia's voice, might be a way to go. We probably don't necessarily need to explicitly attribute given weight of sources is verifiable. Can anyone come up with a sample wording plus explanatory footnote (if necessary)? Note that there'll be a lot of inconsistency across WP. For instance, consider the exclusions from Category:Mass shootings in the United States by year or the leads of Orlando, Virginia Tech, etc. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe something like, "after the shooting, it was regarded (by the media?) as the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history". This way it would reflect the sources and avoid dating the article, even if deadlier shootings occur in the future. ^Falling_Gravity 22:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't use the superlative in the lede, since emphasizing the fact that a mass shooting is the deadliest in the modern American history may cause contagion (cf. [12]).--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Melanie that we should be carefully observant of what the RS say. The lede at present (11/15/17, 0808 UTC) is acceptable imo, but can be improved by addition of "modern," a word used in two of the three refs currently in place following the last sentence in the "Casualties" section of the article, which is the basis for the unreffed sentence in the lede. I understand the problematic nature of the word "modern," but I think we should use it as a reflection of what the sources now say. If at some point in years, decades or centuries hence, Wikipedia editors want to drop "modern" or change the text to re-contextualize the word's meaning, they will presumably be free to do so (by which time, no doubt, this will no longer be "the deadliest" and "one of," or "253rd most deadly" or the like will be the necessary phrasing). I also recommend that the NPR article be added as a reference to that last sentence in the section in order to guide sufficiently motivated readers to an explicit and reliably sourced discussion of the question. DonFB (talk) 08:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

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