Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting/Archive 10

Image swap proposal

I would like to swap the diagram of the shooting, currently in the infobox, for the image that is lower down: File:Las Vegas Strip shooting site 09 2017 4968.jpg. The diagram can be included in the subsection where the suggested image currently appears.

Compare with University of Texas tower shooting, which does not include such a schematic in the infobox. Would there be any objections? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is a sensible proposal.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Disagree with this rationale. The photo shows the Mandalay Bay and Luxor and only minimally the Las Vegas Village grounds. It's also so small and too detailed at that size to relay much. The schematic is far more useful in showing the configuration of the Mandalay Bay and the angles the shooter has. There's no reason to treat the University of Texas tower shooting as the superior approach that needs to be emulated. -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with swapping the photo and the diagram. zzz (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support swapping. It's logical to put the diagram next to the Shooting section which describes it. –dlthewave ☎ 12:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

You folks realize that's a pretty poor photo. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support per Dlthewave. My first priority is getting the diagram into the Shooting section which describes it. I consulted my crystal ball and saw us eventually finding a better photo for the infobox. In the meantime we could consider enlarging the photo, here's a rough mockup at 160%.[1] ―Mandruss ☎ 16:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC) **** Now supporting modified proposal below. **** ―Mandruss ☎ 12:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The first above image was extracted from the second (original) photograph, the third option is a 25% crop of the original photograph

• Comment. There is a saying that “a picture is worth a thousand words,” but the actual photograph from the crime scene would probably be worth even more. After reading your comments about advantages of a schematic I took one of the Commons photos and added an arrow to it while blurring the far away background and highlighting the Las Vegas Village grounds in Photoshop. Here's the result. Poeticbent talk 20:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Was there a similar picture or alternative version which showed more of the area? (May just have been taller?) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Added the original file showing more of the area (bottom right). Poeticbent talk 12:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I prefer the original because the surrounding buildings give context. –dlthewave ☎ 12:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. If a cropped image is used, I believe it should show the full LVV area, as well as the fuel tanks. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

We can also keep the area shown in the original file, dim unrelated parts of the photograph and add the same arrow as per above. Is this what you mean? Poeticbent talk 13:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• I prefer the second, original image, without cropping and without the arrow: File:Las Vegas Strip shooting site 2017 4948.jpg. I think it would be perfect for the infobox: it shows Mandalay, the concert grounds, the airport -- generally gives a good overview of the area in question. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Rough mockup at 160%.[2] I support this. As for enlargement, we would have to make it ridiculously large to provide much usability without a click-through (the default size after click-through is 363% in this case) - and on many smaller devices no amount of enlargement would be of any benefit because the display is just too small - so it's questionable whether any enlargement at all is justified. I went to 160% as a compromise. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC) **** Now supporting modified proposal below. **** ―Mandruss ☎ 12:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. The festival grounds are virtually indistinguishable in the original image (second from the top). Added a third option, the 25% crop of the original with zoom on the subject area. Poeticbent talk 04:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Rough mockup at 160%.[3] I support this. We can debate the function of the infobox photo. Is it to provide a detailed understanding of the crime scene? I think not, since the lead says nothing about the fuel tanks, for example. Just as lead is "summary" and "rough overview", so is infobox photo. Thus we can overthink the infobox photo in my view, and "perfect is the enemy of good." ―Mandruss ☎ 12:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
• But the diagram should be updated to show the fuel tanks, possibly with a new arrow for them (I'd remove one of the existing arrows to avoid arrow overload). For purposes of detailed understanding, a diagram is superior to any photo (even an annotated photo) because it allows us to omit all of the irrelevant things that merely get in the way. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
• @Phoenix7777: Can you make the above changes to the diagram? ―Mandruss ☎ 13:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I uploaded an annotated photograph some time ago (File:Mandalay Bay, McCarran, and Route 91 (crop).svg), which I've added to the image box above as the fourth image. I used a semitransparent white mask to "fog" out the non-relevant buildings (generally speaking, the Luxor pyramid and hotel blocks). The semitransparent mask style is used in the NY Times photo illustrations. As a vector file, the strength of the fog may be adjusted (by adjusting the alpha channel of the mask), the color and thicknesses of the yellow outlines may be adjusted, and the labels may be rewritten or eliminated entirely. The labels are deliberately in bold to improve their visibility at small sizes. I will upload a version eliminating the labels and outline colors for comparison in Category:Las Vegas Strip shooting Illustrations. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 02:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

That's not bad and I think it could be considered as a replacement for the diagram in the Shooting section. It's not appropriate for the infobox in my opinion. But I've already changed what I support twice and I'm seriously doubting we have enough participation to reach a consensus on anything. In such situations, my position is usually Que Sera, Sera. :D ―Mandruss ☎ 02:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• I swapped the diagram with the photo that was in the shooting section, which I think is fine. Feel free to change it though. The above photo showing the airport may be better in the shooting section where the shots fired at the fuel tank is discussed. zzz (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for swapping. Actually, the current image (in this version of the article) is good, as it provides a good view of the festival grounds. I don't have a strong opinion though, provided that there's no arrow in whichever image chosen. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Image 1: A gunman fired from Suite 135 on the 32nd floor (upper left) of Mandalay Bay on a crowd of concertgoers in Las Vegas Village.
Image 2: Similar view at night (photograph taken in 2015).
Image 3: Before conversion to LVV, the parking lot was quite dimly lit at night (2009).

I added an image which shows both the actual room of shooting (Suite 135 on the 32nd floor) and Las Vegas Village, but it was removed by user:Ianmacm. I think it is a very precious picture. However if it is a consensus to remove the picture, I don't object the removal.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 06:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I felt that it was largely repeating the diagram which is clearer. Also, I didn't really like the faded colour in this image. We're still awaiting a good photo that takes in the scene and the trajectory of the bullets. I've now uploaded a new version of the image which is a bit clearer. It seems to have been taken through a window, leading to some murkiness.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The shooting took place at night when only the concert grounds were brightly lit up. Meanwhile, all of the proposed photos so far show a bright sunny day in Las Vegas, when everything stands in the way of the subject area, is colorful, busy and unnecessarily detailed. Poeticbent talk 23:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I found a night-time photograph (View from the Foundation Room (24089601122).jpg) showing Las Vegas Village and the north wing of the Mandalay Bay (albeit taken in 2015 and somewhat blurry, unfortunately). The Strip, in the background, is fairly well-lit in comparison to the grounds of Las Vegas Village. If you poke around for photographs tagged "Foundation Room" there should be other potential candidates for use. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 02:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think File:View from the Foundation Room (24089601122).jpg (second) is the best illustration we've found so far, definitely worth considering for the lead image. Poeticbent talk 03:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• I just went ahead and did it the way I thought would work best. Explaining here what I meant would take a lot more effort than the straight-forward WYSIWYG method. Your comments are greatly appreciated of course, Poeticbent talk 16:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Image stacking

Image stacking

There's an image stacking problem. I fixed that a couple of times, but lots of editors seem not to be able to see it and keep doing it while making their edits from mobile devices with smaller screens. --My-wiki-photos (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't seeing an obvious image stacking problem here. It's hard to say whether this will occur as it varies with the screen resolution. Generally speaking, images should be on the right.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Certainly. However, occasionally we have to move some of them to the left instead of stacking them all up to the right. It's not always obvious, but we do have to take into account all devices including wide screens. --My-wiki-photos (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• The image (right) provided by User:My-wiki-photos is quite telling actually. I didn't realize that WP:STACKING situation was that bad ... until I saw it. However, placing the bump fire image on the left is really quite OK, since it does not stand in the way of clarity, and it corresponds well with the relevant copytext. Therefore, I'm definitely for the left-hand placement of the image. User:ianmacm is correct about the general rule, but here's a good example of why the left-hand option was introduced in the first place. Poeticbent talk 18:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Floor plan schematic

• 
  "Vista Suite" floor plans (simplified)

I've created a simplified floor plan of a suite similar to 32-135 which may be helpful for the article: File:Mandalay Bay Vista Suite.svg. According to the Review-Journal, floor plans were filed with the Clark County Building Office in 2015, which makes the floor plan publicly available:

• Crosby, Rachel; Brean, Henry; Hassan, Anita; Munks, Jamie; Bekker, Jessie (3 October 2017). "'It was a horror show': Mass shooting leaves at least 59 dead, 527 wounded on Las Vegas Strip". Las Vegas Review Journal. Retrieved 24 October 2017.

I've tried digging through the Clark County website to find the specific file, but haven't had any luck. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Not much to look at. Check out this one: https://latimes-graphics-media.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/img/Killing-room-for-blog-.png Poeticbent talk 04:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Perpetrator

Shouldn't this section be titled "Alleged Perpetrator"? 47.137.183.192 (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Similar arguments about Lee Harvey Oswald. Obviously when someone is dead, there isn't going to be a trial, hence this plaque on the Book Depository Building. Note how someone has highlighted "allegedly". WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply here, but the evidence doesn't look good for Paddock.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done - No serious or credible sources are pointing to anything other than Paddock as the perpetrator. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

By that token, no serious or credible sources are offering any evidence that Paddock so much as swatted a fly. What, he was in the same room as a bunch of guns? I cited an article for the 1980 MGM Grand Fire that mentioned a victim who entered and died in a room after the people who had rented it had evacuated. The TV news reported the woman who had occupied that room as dead and she could read about her death in the papers. The case against Paddock is purely circumstantial. Using the term "allegedly" stays true to known facts. 47.137.183.192 (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is clear. Our omission of the various forms of the word "allege" easily passes WP:V. The rest is irrelevant for our purposes. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Besides, Oswald was captured by the police elsewhere without the murder weapon. Paddock shot himself at the crime scene, surrounded by his arsenal.[4] Poeticbent talk 23:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, but the real shooter could have kidnapped Paddock as a patsy and staged his "suicide", then somehow made good his own escape without detection. This is the pointless tangled mess we get into when we engage this kind of reasoning. WP:V, end of discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

In shooting cases, once law enforcement definitively concludes that a deceased person was the perpetrator, "alleged" is no longer necessary. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 02:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Just because law enforcement definitely concludes something doesn't mean that it is accurate. The FBI Crime Lab "definitely concluded" that people had committed rapes and murders and later were exposed as having manufactured evidence. 47.137.183.192 (talk) 06:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

We're fair and reasonable people here. If you can find reliable sources that suggest Paddock may not have been the shooter, then we can seriously discuss the inclusion of "alleged".

Remember - Wikipedia does not make claims, it just reports claims that others have made. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Harassment of survivors

Please can someone add something about this:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/26/las-vegas-shooting-conspiracy-theories-social-media ?

I'm travelling and won't have time for a while. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

It's there. --MelanieN (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC about article title: "shooting" or "massacre"?

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.

---

In a preliminary discussion on this topic there was consensus to say "2017" and "Las Vegas", but a difference of opinion whether to call it "2017 Las Vegas shooting" or "2017 Las Vegas massacre." Opinions are now solicited which title to use. Note that a good deal of research and discussion on this subject has already taken place, which can be reviewed in that now-archived thread above. MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Massacre, to stress the sheer magnitude of the event. Some say, it is sensationalist, but with 58 people dead and 489 injured shooting sounds more like a euphemism ... please consider the outcome. Also, shooting sounds quite different in derivative articles such as Stephen Paddock. The most appropriate opening paragraph there would probably sound like this: Stephen Paddock was an American mass murderer who committed the 2017 Las Vegas massacre. The Las Vegas massacre brings to mind the Columbine High School massacre also. Attacks and bombings are different words altogether, and shooting isn't always a mass shooting.Poeticbent talk 22:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Shooting. OK, let us look at the magnitude. 3,000 dead and 6,000 injured in the September 11 attacks. We don’t call it a massacre. The article on the Oklahoma City bombing doesn’t use the word massacre. 168 dead and 680 injured. This included babies and children in a day care center. We have a List of massacres in the United States. 51 articles about US massacres. Most of these were acts of mob violence, actions against striking workers, acts against various races, predominately Amerinds. The majority had few deaths. Apparently, the sheer quantity of deaths is not how massacre has been defined. We also have Category:Mass shootings in the United States by year. 164 incidents. The vast majority involve a mass shooting by a single perpetrator. That’s what this article is about and the category in which it belongs. O3000 (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Objective3000 (now O3000), an "attack" is precisely what September 11 was; it was an attack on the United States and began a war. Most importantly, it was also the term used by the vast majority of reliable sources. Oklahoma City obviously was called a bombing because that's exactly, specifically what it was (the bombing of a building) and "Oklahoma City bombing" was of course what nearly all mainstream media named it. By definition, a massacre is "an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people" or to "deliberately and violently kill (a large number of people)". It fits this event perfectly. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don’t see the distinctions. All of these events fit deliberately and violently kill (a large number of people). Oklahoma was not indiscriminate. The FBI was specifically targeted in revenge for Waco and Ruby Ridge. McVeigh was at war with the government. We have no idea if Paddock was any more or less discriminating in his choice of target as we have no information on his motivations. Oklahoma City Bombing talks to the location and weapon, as does Las Vegas Shooting, and is the same convention used in most of the 164 incidents at Category:Mass shootings in the United States by year. The choice of weapons and multiple locations on 9/11 makes that style awkward for that incident. O3000 (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

No, "Oklahoma City bombing" talks to the name assigned to it by most reliable sources. McVeigh bombed a federal building (which resulted in the deaths of many people); Paddock massacred a large number of people. In any case, you're again failing to recognize perhaps the most vital consideration: the event's common name. The prevalence of the term "massacre" in independent, mainstream, reliable sources is overwhelming (regardless of whether or not the term "shooting" is also used in near equal numbers). 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

You're being inconsistent here – "bombing" refers directly to the method used, as does "shooting" in this case. Yet you argue for "massacre." Second, the case for "massacre" being overwhelming or prevalent in the media has not been effectively made. -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Since you keep insisting that usage of "massacre" in the media is not overwhelming or prevalent, name three major U.S. metro daily newspapers and three major TV news networks that have not used the term "massacre" to describe this event. Let's start with that. I assume you won't want to use any of the 40 I provided links for below as evidence. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The burden is on your side to make the case, as I've made the case for "shooting" quite clearly and the majority of folks chiming in agree. Also, proving a negative – essentially what you're asking – is logically flawed. If the facts change to support "massacre," that's something I will enthusiastically concur with and agree to. However, the facts aren't there. -- Fuzheado | Talk

Unhelpful discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It appears we may have checkmate. That was the type of reply that I fully expected. More rhetoric. You're afraid to even name a few major newspapers and news networks (of the huge number available) because you know it will prove my point very easily. Come on, you keep trying to convince everyone that the use of "massacre" isn't prevalent in the media. So if that's true, back it up. Simply name three major U.S. metro daily newspapers and three major TV news networks that have not used the term "massacre" to describe this event. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC) "Checkmate?" Inaccurate and odd language to use. My previous postings examine the coverage of the event in multiple news sources where I show metrics and comparisons in context. The majority of folks here concur with those findings. Look, anon, it's OK if you're not winning or beating someone. The fact that you use a chess metaphor is perhaps an indication you're focusing on the wrong motivations and seeing it as a personal issue. Relax. This is not a game with winners and losers. Making the best version of this article for the public is the goal here (WP:5P). -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC) More passive-aggressive trolling to once again distract from your fear of providing the information that you know will destroy your argument.2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC) If your goal is to convince, you are going about it in the wrong manner. O3000 (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC) To the anon: no passive-aggressiveness on my part. Simply keeping things WP:CIVIL, which seems to be a one-sided exercise. Happy to reconsider when proof for a different position is evident, but we haven't seen it yet. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC) Still waiting... name three major U.S. metro daily newspapers and three major TV news networks that have not used the term "massacre" to describe this event. Then we'll see if you're right. But of course you won't do it because you know they don't exist, so you'll continue your passive-aggressive distractions. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC) "Shooting" is what we have converged on based on logical conclusions and findings of fact. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Still waiting. All meaningless talk, no action. Those who have been backed into a corner do prescisely what you do: divert. Even other admins have had to scold you about your inappropriate behavior, like Toddst1 and Drmies. And those are just a couple of recent ones. There are a lot more. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC) 2605, please focus on the issue, not the editor. If you want to criticize or complain about an editor's behavior, article talk is not the place. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC) "Shooting" has the support of the consensus. That's not a corner. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC) You're still in the corner, refusing to provide the relevant media names because it will destroy your argument. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Shooting as it seems more common in US sources. Also consistent with 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting which wss similar in fatality scale (injury tally comparisons are always "funky" in these events amd vary per inclusion criteria (which can include very minor and anxiety - or not)).Icewhiz (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Shooting as said above, reliable sources more consistently use "shooting", and sensationalism should be avoided in article naming. If anything, "attack" would be more consistent and appropriate than "massacre" if "shooting" is deemed to not reflect the magnitude of the event, whatever that means. ansh666 23:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Massacre I was "attacked" by my cat hours ago. Singers are "attacked" in the press. You want a word that suggests many dead, indiscriminately, needlessly and brutally, you want "massacre". Our sources like it well enough, and never mention the date, as we're forced to with plain "shooting". So the alternative to "Las Vegas massacre" is a term that's not common at all, unless you ignore the first part. Not cool. Also, some of the dead and wounded weren't shot, but contributed to the tally that made this American shooting exceptional. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Massacre - Massacre is the term used by a large percentage of mainstream media, and using the word "shooting" doesn't even come close to accurately reflecting the magnitude of what happened. In this regard, "shooting" is extremely euphemistic. Yes, "shooting" is used a lot by high-level reliable sources, but "massacre" is used just as much, and probably more, and is a much more accurate descriptor. As noted previously, here's a sampling of the literally thousands of stories that refer to the event as the "Las Vegas massacre", which include ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, Denver Post, Washington Post, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Los Angeles Times, The Hill, Miami Herald, Salt Lake Tribune, Philadelphia Inquirer, San Diego Union Tribune, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Newsweek, NPR, and many, many more: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Shooting - Re-iterating my rebuttal of the above research, from the last discussion:

I would not be averse to calling it "massacre" at some point in the future. I did a Google search as you did, but you have to be cognizant of the confirmation bias problems in your methodology - "I went out seeking X and I found a lot of X!" Rather, I sampled the first page of news results and the front page stories of a few prominent US news organizations. At this point, it does not seem to be the commonly used title from news organizations in the US. Here's what I found:

• If you do a raw Google News search on "Las Vegas" and see what comes back, and analyze the headlines for what label is used primarily to refer to the incident. Here's what I found from an incognito brower (ie. not logged in to Google and no cookies). You're welcome to re-test for confirmation [5]:
  • 8-9 mentions of the construction "shooting"
  • 3-4 mentions of the construction "massacre"
• If you check some prominent news organizations today (NY Times, CNN, WSJ, Washington Post) here's what you'd see if you saw a front page story about the incident, brought up the story, and searched for shooting or massacre:
  • CNN front page [6] - use of word attack and shooting; no use of word massacre
  • CNN [7] - shooting, no massacre mention
  • CNN [8] - mass shooting, no massacre mention
  • CNN [9] - mass shooting, no massacre mention
  • CNN [10] - shooting, Las Vegas concert massacre used in video title
  • CNN [11] - shooting, no massacre
  • CNN [12] - shooting, massacre used multiple times
  • NY Times [13] - shooting, no massacre
  • USA Today [14] - shooting, no massacre
  • WSJ [15] - shooting, no massacre
  • Washington Post [16] - shooting, then massacre

FOX News does call their entire section covering this as "Las Vegas Massacre" so they seem like they are embracing this title, but the vast majority of reputable news sources seem to be holding back for now. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

"...you have to be cognizant of the confirmation bias problems in your methodology - "I went out seeking X and I found a lot of X!" Actually, I sought both "massacre" (X) and "shooting" (Y), and only read the headline of each of the over 1,000 stories I browsed. I only considered headlines that actually named the event, and only from undisputably reliable, mainstream media outlets. Using these specific guidelines, I found that massacre was used considerably more than shooting. I then randomly chose 40 of the sources to present here to verify their use of the phrasing since a couple other editors falsely implied that the term "Las Vegas massacre" has rarely been used in the media. Your interesting but limited search used different criteria that looked at more generalized content and did not focus on headlines. Sorry, but you claiming that "the vast majority of reputable news sources seem to be holding back for now" on using the term "massacre" is patently false. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I showed my math. Please show yours. Otherwise, the "patently false" claim is a rhetorical device not rooted in fact or science. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Unhelpful discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 08:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Unfortunately, your math and your research criteria and methods are deeply flawed, thus rendering your results useless. You clearly have a very limited understanding of Google searches. The prevalence of the term "massacre" among all types of independent, top-tier, reliable sources is overwhelming. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC) All I see in the above argument is vague rhetoric using selective, uncontextualized data. The claim is, "massacre was used considerably more than shooting" yet there are no metrics provided to show this. Therefore, the case has not been made. I'm trying to assume good faith, but after several rounds of discussion there is still no proof of that point. -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC) I'm sorry, but repeating the same nonsense 10 times will not make your argument any less weak. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC) Just don't take things too personally. I fear that is what motivates your activity rather than accepting consensus and trying to make a better encyclopedia. You'll be happier focusing on parts of Wikipedia that bring you delight and letting things pass that don't. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC) What you fear is providing the media sources requested. Instead, you choose to exhibit this type of passive-aggressive behavior in order to change the subject and distract from your nonsense. Making a ridiculous claim is easy. Backing it up is another story. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC) Plenty of media sources have been provided – in context with metrics using a superior methodology. It's getting tedious repeating the same thing over and over again when the conclusion is clear and the majority of folks concur. Resist the need to "win" a WP:MMORPG#Battle and focus on creating an encyclopedia. There is no shame in just moving on. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC) Still waiting for the info. So you can either present the evidence or continue your passive-aggressiveness and avoidance of the issue. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC) "Shooting" is what we have converged on based on logical conclusions and findings of fact. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Still waiting. All meaningless talk, no action. Those who have been backed into a corner do prescisely what you do: divert. Even other admins have had to scold you about your inappropriate behavior, like Toddst1 and Drmies. And those are just a couple of recent ones. There's a lot more. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC) 2605, please focus on the issue, not the editor. In particular, psych diagnoses have no place in Wikipedia content discussions. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Reminder: editing Wikipedia is not about winning. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Reminder: you're still diverting and afraid to provide the relevant media names that will disprove your repeated false claim about the prevalence of "massacre". 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Shooting -- "massacre" does not seem appropriate; pls see Massacre. "Shooting" is both neutral and specific. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Shooting - by WP:WEIGHT seems somewhat more frequently said - Google hits of : Shooting 22 M,killing 20.9, rampage 10.9, and massacre 9.9. (Caveat lots of false hits in such a search.) Looking at the hits, there does not seem to be a clear thread among the main media, a paper may change which they use from article to article - although I note the BBC clearly favors the less sensational 'shooting'. It seems minor points but 'shooting' has a bit more descriptive accuracy, is less sensationalism than 'massacre', and precedent of say Sandy Hook also used 'shooting'. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Shooting also as per us sources and per Markbassett and Fuzheado.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Shooting - I really don't see why this is a big deal discussion though. The event was horrible no matter how you look at it but WP:RS seem to be looking at "shooting" more. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Shooting - sounds more encyclopedic. We could change to Massacre later if that becomes the accepted way of referring to the shooting. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - I'll change my ivote from massacre to shooting if "Las Vegas massacre" is mentioned as an "also known as" (or similar) in the article, as long as it's inserted in a prominent location. There are few top mainstream reliable sources that have not used that term in their coverage of the event. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 05:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• Shooting (Summoned by bot), firstly, just to point out that all, the sources cited above are US, and sorry US is not the world. I don't believe that 'massacre' has been established as either WP:COMMONNAME nor as especially accurate. The massacre article makes clear that 'massacre' is ordinarily 'political' and that "massacre... should be distinguished from criminal or pathological mass killings". "Stress(ing) the sheer magnitude of the event", as argued above, regardless of strength of feeling/immediate shock, is not a valid naming reason, indeed it argues against the term being neutral and accurate if it is being employed in order to "stress" an otherwise inaccurate description. It is not impossible that 'massacre' will become an alternative name, but evidence offered at present is that this is not yet the case and the more neutral and common name 'shooting' should be used until that has happened for a longer period than the few weeks since the shooting. Pincrete (talk) 10:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Since I'm being quoted here (per 'above'), let me add what comes across in the media. The terms such as: "shooting", "suspect", and "law enforcement" originate from the official reports,[17] meanwhile, journalists who write in plain English ... use "police", "massacre", and ... "Paddock". — "Sheriff Lombardo" on YouTube (quote): "I believe if he doesn't have a name nobody can relate to him." (15:09) Poeticbent talk 19:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to point our your comment, "journalists who write in plain English ... use 'police', 'massacre'," is an opinion and not a fact. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion ... Poeticbent talk 01:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Then a citation or proof is needed. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police statements are actually calling it a " Mass Shooting Incident". I haven't seen a non-US source using 'massacre', and that would need to be established as the COMMONNAME across the 'Anglosphere' to justify the name change. Pincrete (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Massacre - By definition the meaning of the word massacre is an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people. The intent of the killer was that, and this whole event can be described as that. --My-wiki-photos (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, but the dominant policy for article naming is WP:COMMONNAME which prescribes the "most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)." Therefore the dictionary definition is mostly irrelevant as we turn to what secondary sources are using. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
    • The meaning of the word is relevant. The correct word here is massacre. If that's in conflict with the policy, then the policy should change. --My-wiki-photos (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Shooting - On top of the piles of sources listed above, Google Trends agrees with it as well. Nihlus 19:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Good find. This set of parameters on Google Trends shows an even more dramatic 7 day window. [18] -- Fuzheado | Talk 22:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

This drama might be meaningful if we were going with "Las Vegas shooting", but we aren't. We're going with "2017 Las Vegas shooting". Here's how that looks. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, the graphic is flawed. Better use Google Advanced Search allintitle: "Las Vegas massacre" – About 39,400 results; allintitle: "Las Vegas shooting" – About 81,000 results, which means the shooting is twice as popular at present, most likely inspired by the Wikipedia's very own title which is at the very top due to search algorithms. Poeticbent talk 23:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

allintitle:"2017 Las Vegas shooting" – About 221 results. It shows 68, and 146 if you include omitted results. Most are not reliable sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: - Regarding your modified Google Trends graph, why would you compare "2017 Las Vegas shooting" with "Las Vegas Massacre" (without the year)? That makes no sense and consequently, the conclusions from the resulting graph are invalid. If instead you compare like with like, you see massacre occurs less often - "2017 Las Vegas shooting" vs "2017 Las Vegas massacre." Shooting, as expected, comes out as more common. [19] Going down this path in the first place is folly - I wouldn't bother searching for the year included in the term at all. But if you're going to add the year, add it to both search terms, not just one. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a contest between "massacre" and "shooting" individually, in theory, but between "Las Vegas massacre" and "2017 Las Vegas shooting" entirely, in practice. There's no need to measure whether "2017 Las Vegas massacre" is common, because nobody's shown an indication of wanting that and there's no disambiguation page. Just checking now, I see Las Vegas shooting already redirects here, so that means we could use that title for this primary topic without any real problems. There was a prior RfC closed (early) suggesting we need "2017", though. If that's not binding, I could go for plain Las Vegas shooting (as sources really call it). But if it's binding, I can't support a title that only 68 (mostly garbage) pages use for theirs. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Poeticbent: - It's possible that Wikipedia has already influenced the knowledge graph of Google and the media ecosystem, which affects how things come back in these Google examples. However, the fact that we cannot find any domain where massacre is used more than shooting in the news sphere convinces me that we are not leading the way in using this term. This is as it should be - if we are indeed adhering to WP:RS and WP:V appropriately, we are simply following the norms of news sources, and I'm fairly certain we are. This is why we should frown upon doing WP:OR and debating dictionary definitions above. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Shooting - WP:COMMONNAME and consistent with recent Orlando nightclub shooting. NickCT (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Mass shooting I favor a middle road. "Shooting" doesn't convey the magnitude. "Massacre" doesn't quite fit, either. So I suggest "mass shooting." — e. ripley\^talk 01:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Neither here nor there, the article should use the more recognizable title, i.e. the one more used in wp:RS, whether it would be "massacre" or "shooting". So far, it seems to me that more sources are using the term "shooting", but I'm not inclined to push 'shooting' here - just reminding the wp:RECOGNIZABLE principle. --2A00:1028:83BE:4392:FC27:ED7D:844B:6E89 (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Referring to the comment by user Poeticbent, I'd only remind that links in "derivative articles" can always be piped or redirected, so this is hardly of any real concern.

Columbine High School massacre is again quite a different proposition, as that was the name generally used in media of the time, and generally accepted by subsequent sources. --2A00:1028:83BE:4392:FC27:ED7D:844B:6E89 (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Have we argued about whether to use "Las Vegas" or "Mandalay Bay" yet? A "Mandalay Bay shooting" wouldn't require a "2017" that nobody pronounces, and a "Mandalay Bay massacre" rolls off the tongue. I think "Las Vegas x" is a bit more common. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, yes. "Mandalay Bay shooting" and "Mandalay Bay massacre" were among the choices offered in the earlier survey. Nobody was interested. --MelanieN (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

This Mandalay Bay consultant advises the hotel really had nothing to do with it and suggests associating it with the concert instead. The concert promoters might object to "Route 91 Harvest massacre", but I haven't seen it in writing. The objection, I mean; I see the phrase on this country music blog. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

IP 2A00, "it seems to me" carries no weight. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@IP:2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D: Indeed. That's why I had put it into the 'Discussion' subsection, not in the survey/straw-poll itself. My point was that the term more used by English-language reliable sources should be used for the name of the article, regardless which one of those two it is. Anyway, it actually seems that "shooting" is way more common than "massacre" in the sources.-2A00:1028:83BE:4392:B4BC:6FFD:E29A:98E5 (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

There's no difference between "it seems" and "it actually seems". 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

In fact, there is - the word actually, but you still seem to be somewhat missing the point here - i.e. preferring the name more often used by English-language RS to naming based upon a straw-poll there.--2A00:1028:83BE:4392:E596:B623:6929:6AD6 (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Uh, it appears you are missing the point. What is supersedes what seems to be. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 04:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

side discussion about the Las Vegas Review-Journal. --MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just an aside. I think we need to be a tad careful about using the Las Vegas Review-Journal as a source in this article. The LVRJ is owned by Sheldon Adelson. Adelson also owns LV Strip hotels. There could be a conflict of interest in how stories are presented. O3000 (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC) That's an interesting point, but is there any evidence from reliable sources that the LVRJ's credibility is in question? Have there been any controversies of significance about it? I know that the LVRJ is the state's largest major daily and is managed by a different company. If using that newspaper as a source is actually a conflict of interest then a decision on its usage should be a priority because it is currently used to source content eight times in this article. Also, if it is a conflict of interest, then there are a myriad of subjects for which the LVRJ shouldn't be used as a source since Adelson was Donald Trump's largest donor ($25 million). It seems like quite a slippery slope because a lot of newspaper owners' publications could be accused of potential conflicts. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC) My hunch is that Adelson may influence their editorials, but that the journalists who work there are still doing what journalists do. They would be egged on by the possibility that really good coverage of a high-profile local issue can lead to a Pulitzer Prize (e.g. the Times-Picayune for their coverage of Katrina). I haven't seen any signs of slanting or misrepresentation in their reporting on this story. Haven't looked to see how they cover Trump. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC) [20], [21], [22], [23]. Surprised none of this is in the Adelson or LVRJ articles here. On Trump, it was the first paper to endorse him. O3000 (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC) Well, it should be in those articles. I'll take a look. From the sources you linked, it appears the main way he is seeking or exerting leverage is in stories about himself. I'm going to hat this as off topic, but let's both take a look at the Adelson and LVRJ articles. --MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

How about 10/1 Attack? I think that October 1, 2017 will go down in history as infamous a day as December 7, 1941 or September 11, 2001. 47.137.183.192 (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

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