Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting/Archive 14

3432: 2989:(note the update on those statistics), with a subset of those going into additional relevant details (how they handled themselves during the incident, for example). I know our sources often memorialize the victims, and while I don't necessarily support full memorials, I wouldn't object to some light details if enough of our sources do so as well. I feel like that will be a harder discussion due to wanting to keep the article encyclopedic (and that is definitely not what is being proposed here). I don't know if any of that helps, but I genuinely hope it did. — 3543: 419:? This is hardly something that makes or breaks the article. If we mention the places where multiple victims from, then we should mention all the places that victimes come from, if it's at the expense of a mere 12 words. After all, knowing the places where multiple victims come from doesn't improve the article to any great extent either, it's all just in the interest of presenting the facts. That we're spending this amount of time on this is ridiculous. 1913:- 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: 31: 4356: 3676:. You need to add the template to the two article pages per item 2, and will need uninvolved editor assistance per item 3 given that Paddock is B class. There should also not be different proposal sections at each page -- there should be a single discussion section (the template will link there from each article), so you should strike one of your proposals and !votes and just provide a reference to the other section. 2890:, one of those is basic understanding of our policies and guidelines and being able to interpret them and apply them. Are you certain you're equal to that task? Because you just linked to something that literally said the opposite of what you were claiming. If you need help understanding our policies and guidelines and want to have more insight, I'm here to help you correct your misunderstandings. — 4387: 4305: 4215: 3494: 3384: 3290: 3192: 3243: 4107:- I think Chaheel has a really good point. Most people look up the 2022 Top's Shooting as just the "Buffalo Shooting" and I think that principle applies here as well. If I knew nothing about this, I'd probably just look up "Las Vegas Shooting 2017". Furthermore, I believe that the current title fits under guidelines, and isn't too vague or too long. 4156: 780: 4267: 3589: 3338: 890:

identified as having sustained an injury, but the type of injury sustained was unable to be confirmed." This is where the word shrapnel comes from. It's hard to be more specific when the sourcing does not go into details. The non-gunshot injuries were probably an assortment of injuries sustained during the situation following the shooting.--

164:, provided the information is accurate. Whether it is included or left out, our article is not going to make sense of the incident that transpired in the subject of this article. I simply err on the side of providing the reader with an abundance of reliably sourced and relevant information pertinent to a topic being addressed. 2103:: it is standard to include names of victims on "shooting" pages like this, the identity of the victims is always inherently relevant, and unless I'm mistaken, we're already including some names. Others above have also listed an avalanche of WP conventions that support inclusion. It's a real no-brainer. 3923:

course, pretty subjective. But Paddock and his horrific crime are famously bizarre, mysterious, and high profile to the degree that it warrants a separate article. Why he is the way he is is inherently related to his claim to notability: a lot of criminology focuses on the reasons driving these people.

3033:

I will presume to respond here, not in place of, but supplemental to anything Locke Cole (or anybody else) wants to add. In short, no, the above does not confirm that victims need to be either Notable (GNG) or noteworthy. Their only qualification for inclusion in the article by name is that they were

2855:

The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of lists that restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within

2822:

Every topic to which every article is devoted must be notable. But not "everything" in the project must meet that requirement. As has been much noted in discussions on this and other articles, the people, places, events, things, etc ("everything") mentioned in articles, other than the main topic, are

1611:

I'm encouraged you don't oppose inclusion in principle. Yes, I know the Titanic list is a separate article, and I would not object to having a standalone list article for the shooting victims. I don't think that's necessary, though, because a 60-name list is not an undue amount of additional text. My

4453:

The lede says that the constitutionality of the bumpstock ban was under review until SCOTUS declined to hear "the case" in 2022. In fact, a challenge to the DOJ's redefinition of the term "machine gun" (Garland v Cargill) was heard by the 5th circuit in 2023 and the en banc panel ultimately rejected

1892:

exists for precisely this reason. I believe we are looking at this argument the wrong way round - because this article does not include a list of names - and is no worse for it - we should instead remove names from all other articles. After all - this article doesn't include names, ergo all others

1745:

To those who for whom the names are not meaningless, they are almost certainly redundant, but we have no way of knowing whether the naming would or would not be welcomed by them, so should err on the side of respecting the privacy of those unwantedly in the public eye. I cannot see any encyc purpose

3103:. Like it or not, the victims of events like this are integral to the event itself, equally as much as the perpetrator. Their relevance, and their often equal treatment in our sources, demand we balance our coverage by acknowledging them with more than just dry statistics. (From your other reply to 869:

How does panic cause injuries? Can we elaborate on what this actually means? The article says 411 were injured from gunfire or "shrapnel" (which should probably be changed to fragments), but says nothing about the majority of injuries. Was this an egress panic/stampede situation? A crowd crush? Was

2980:

With most of these types of events the victims will oftentimes receive individual or group coverage on their own. In this case in particular, we see that the victims are covered even years after the event itself. My general rule of thumb with regard to mass shooting articles is to try and maintain

3828:

Paddock's case is one of the most bizarre in the history of crime and deserves an article solely due to the sheer lack of a motivation investigators have been able to find. The fact that we know so little of why he did it makes him notable and distinct from other mass shooters. It's also a pretty

2290:

and is not just going to include pure lists of victims. Particularly, lists of names that are reliably sourced may be found for a wide-number of mass casualty situations (e.g., the Falklands war) such that encouraging a general policy of inclusion would lead to articles that are nothing more than

889:

says "Approximately 869 people sustained documented physical injuries. Of those who sustained injuries, FIT was able to confirm approximately 413 gunshot or shrapnel injury victims. Approximately 360 victims sustained injuries other than gunshot or shrapnel injuries. Approximately 96 people were

4043:

than the proposal. To wit: Recognizability,Naturalness,Precision,Concision,Consistency. The proposal may have a slight edge in "precision", pedantically speaking. Nevertheless, I don't believe most readers and editors think of "Route 91" or "Harvest Festival" when they think about this event; I

3922:

In my experience as I edit a lot of these kinds of articles, it tends to basically work out to this with mass murderers having separate articles from their crimes: is it an extremely high profile case, and is there substantial content that would be undue to include on the main page? Which is, of

2390:

inclusion of names of victims. A list of names of randomly-shot strangers would be of no relevance to over 99% of readers. No-one's going to read the list & find out that their best friend was killed & that's why they haven't heard from them since 2017. Victims' names being in many other

3034:

the victims of the mass killing. Their names should be included, in my view, as a matter of encyclopedic completeness of the article. If readers, for any reason, want to know any or all of the names, Knowledge should be a place where they can find that information about this historical subject.

912:

It is not difficult for me to see how panic causes injuries. Panic at football games, rock concerts, and during visits to Mecca have resulted in horrific injuries including death. Note that people trying to escape didn't know which way to run and may have run into blind alleys or entryways, or

818:, it's the deadliest, full stop. Throwing "individual" in there seems like an unnecessary qualification of the statement and implies that there have been deadlier shootings by more than one person. Not sure if "modern" US history is required either, but that one seems less problematic to me. -- 112:

The article currently says "Six were from Nevada, 35 from California, 13 from other states (Alaska, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Iowa, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Utah, Washington state, West Virginia), and four from Canada." Agree that this doesn't add a great deal of context to the shooting. The

462:

Certainly, but, as I'm sure you're also aware, not being involved would be used against me, as in "Well, where were you when other editors were discussing this?" What I'd like is for editors to see at some point that (1) They're mistaken, or (2) The argument is going to go against them, and

2264:

inclusion. The victims aren't what make the article encyclopedia worthy, as horrible as it is to say. There was nothing individually special about the victims, and they weren't even specifically chosen. They were people who had the extremely bad luck to be in the wrong place in the wrong

1562:

The usual reason for excluding is NotMemorial, but it's an unconvincing argument that loses to the goal of encyclopedic coverage. If we can show the names of all the passengers of the Titanic, including both survivors and victims, we can show a list of the 60 victims of this calamity.

1612:

overarching reason for inclusion is to support the goal of making Knowledge the encyclopedia of record, to borrow a phrase often applied to the NY Times. Many reliable sources include the names, and as a go-to source for information about a vast range of topics, so should Knowledge.

1635:. The names of the 60 victims are meaningless to almost all readers. Insertion serves no other purpose than space filling. Relevant demographic information, such as age, gender and home state, is already in the article. Where will this zeal go next? Listing all the victims of 9/11? 682:

Agree that the additional p.m.'s are unnecessary in context. Disagree that 24-hour clock would be an improvement, as a significant fraction of readers have no idea what 22:05 means. It's basically military and computer jargon, and modern computers usually give you the option.

3018:

It certainly did help, thanks. What you're basically confirming then, is that the victims need to be notable and/or noteworthy? And by that, I presume that due weight should consider whether their notability is gleaned from instances other than the shooting itself?

2913:

required for inclusion in an article. As per your offer, can you explain your thought process there? I may have linked to the wrong article - which only says that the specific guidelines don't apply, not that there are no guidelines at all - but I'm pretty sure that

2240:, as the article (and the article on the perpetrator) clearly create an imbalance with the almost total lack of information about the victims of the event. Objectifying the victims by only referring to them in dry statistics minimizes the actual loss that took place. — 96:

need to run down every last U.S. state every last victim came from? I feel like the only states that are noteworthy of mention would be Nevada (the state where the shooting took place) and California (the state where a VAST majority of the victims came from).

3525:

I would like to make a request for somebody to do something about Source #5 (Duke Center for Firearms Law). Nowhere in the source does it say that the Supreme Court declined to hear the case regarding constitutionality of the bump stock ban.

4086:- as per Ianmacm's argument. Poor alternative title referring to a location that's practically unknown outside America compared to Las Vegas. Given the number of shootings in America, titles need to be as clear and obvious as possible. 3907:

Where's the line drawn now? There are also plenty of massacres where the perpetrator doesn't get their own article. Is it based on word count or some sort of other criteria… or is it currently subjective and we aim to keep it that way?

2823:

not "subject to notability". To the question: "were any of the victims notable for anything other than being killed at this incident?" the answer is: probably none were. And none need be, because policies/guidelines don't require that.

1466:- I would support the inclusion of the victim names. It is information a reader may want and their is no policy reason to exclude. Due to the larger amount of names, it may be better in some kind of organized list rather than in prose. 501:

Well maybe that's a overstatement. I often participate in a little back-and-forth before getting out, and two days doesn't seem excessive even for something so minor as "12 words". So I can't fault anybody for over-discussion here—yet.

2010:

Thanks for quoting my rationale from before. I believe it sums up eloquently why the victims should not be named. Victims may be relevant as a group entity - ie you can't have a mass shooting without them - but are they notable as

2391:

articles doesn't mean it's good practise. Some media sources including the names doesn't mean that we should. They often include various info about victims to sensationalise in order to gain more readers/viewers & profit.

1776:

apply to the dead? I have. It's a fairly troubling conclusion, aye, but one most living people either immediately or eventually accept. You ever look at old census records? One day, barring societal collapse, our survivors

1006:- the yeas outweigh the nays here, but the arguments in support are largely based on arguments that our policies reject while those opposed are based on core policy. That sources exist that have the list of victims is not 1938:

weight to the perpetrator, which is even worse in this instance as not only is the article almost entirely focused on details of the event and the perpetrator, but we've apparently gone so far as to give the perpetrator

1746:

whatsoever to naming, but of course demographic info should remain and while some naming sometimes helps narration, a list of names is pointless IMO. I've been on the losing side of almost every discussion on this topic

2040:

to be included in an article. There are no content guidelines that requires an article to exclude victims. If length of a list is a concern, I remind people that Knowledge formatting includes the sortable, collapsible,

2967:, etc. don't mention notability IIRC but rather how to make sure articles aren't unfairly written or provide too much coverage of only part of the subject (while omitting or severely tapering other relevant aspects). 2971:

does mention being careful of recent events being in the news, however the victims in this instance are central to the event even being notable, which I think helps tip the scale towards inclusion. Excerpt from

2308:

My views on the subject has not changed much since 2017. The subjects did not go to the concert with the understanding they were going to be victims, let alone dead. The lists of names have been published in

2185:

about the event. The information about the victims is no way indiscriminate, in fact, it is well sourced (from many different, independent, sources) and directly relevant to the event this article discusses.

870:

this a failure of crowd safety procedures? I don't know what happened, but I'm baffled that this article is silent on the majority of injuries, other than the lede saying they happened in the ensuing panic.

2077:

applies to content of notable pages. The "relevance" of the victims of an article about their being murdered is quite obvious high, because without victims there is no event and no article. Lastly, neither

1984:) this article about dead people is worse than many other articles about dead people because it only addresses Where they died, Why they died, When they died and What killed them. There are supposed to be 433:

Surely you know that at en-wiki no issue is too minor to debate endlessly about. This one is just getting started. But of course no editor is required to be a party to it, and I'm sure you know that too.

3571:

There are three options. 1) The source is replaced with a different source. 2) The source and its surrounding text is removed entirely. 3) The surrounding text is revised to match what the source says.

1750:, but no one has yet to come up with an argument for inclusion AFAI can see except that the info is usually in the public domain already. The victims always had names! Does that really need recording? 4458: 1992:. Your rhetorical argument needs no rebuttal, and you know it. But erasing widely sourced Who from multiple independent sources in even one already bettered article about dead people would violate 3785:; dated: January 2024. Proposer's Rationale: I think that Stephen Paddock is not notable without the 2017 Las Vegas shooting; and, therefore, the content in his article can be merged into its own 4130:: Too long and i would say a very large majority of people trying to find the article on this shooting would just search "2017 Las Vegas shooting" rather than "Route 91 Harvest festival shooting" 3048:

Hm, I've just noticed that the discussion is moving goalposts somewhat, and I hadn't realised. There are essentially two different questions being asked here - the main one is "should we list

2351:

It also seems there are anniversary articles on the victims (see the extended discussion below). It's definitely clear the victims notability has extended far beyond just this incident alone. —

4480: 4419: 1820:: I've said no to this before and thought that previous consensus was against having a full list. It wouldn't add anything significant to the article. I'm disappointed that someone has used 2772:

Which policy or guideline is the basis for this requirement? How do you have an article documenting an event and leave out the half of the event that made it notable in the first place? —

841:

describes the Las Vegas shooting as "the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history", which implies that there were deadlier mass shootings in the past history of the United States. --

1930:

to this event and integral to it. If the perpetrator had gone into an empty field and shot hundreds of rounds into the side of a hill we wouldn't have an article on it. It's precisely

715:

for comparison and all of the times are am and pm, not 24 hour clock which some people dislike. A statement like 9:35 – 9:40 a.m. should be interpreted as a five minute period. --

2496: 4175: 3684: 814:"The incident is the deadliest mass shooting committed by an individual in modern United States history" surely isn't the best wording, is it? It's not the deadliest committed 711:

These edits were reverted because it seemed unlikely that any reader would be confused and think that the Las Vegas shooting took place over a 12 hour period. I had a look at

4021:, and other shootings in Las Vegas, more effectively than simply putting the year in the title. It would also be more accurate as Paddock specifically targeted the festival. 2955:

Notability determines whether an overall subject is worthy of inclusion (in this case, the 2017 Las Vegas shooting). The content of the article beyond that is adjudicated by

379:

The commonsensical understanding of WP:MEMORIAL is that articles should not be created about otherwise non-notable people for the purpose of memorializing them after death.

3080:- which is what it always comes back to, and to insist that inclusion in an article doesn't need to be notable is blatantly inaccurate, not matter how you dress it up. 2416:. It is sufficient to include only the details of the death and injury tolls, including where the article explains (without names) where two victims were reclassified. – 2086:

have any force or consensus as specifically stated at the top of each of the pages. They are not Knowledge Policy or Guideline and have not been vetted by the community.

788: 1497:

which I believe at least warrants a mention. Due to the number of victims, consensus for the best way to format it would need to be reached (a table similar to that at

3056:

I will not deny that in some cases some of the victims subsequently become notable as an extension of the event that propelled them into the public eye - for example

660:

Only when there is ambiguity over the start. It's clear from both article and context that this was not a long drawn-out siege and that the two times are in the same

3680: 2986: 615: 3989: 1084: 933:

What are thoughts about removing the times in the introduction? Unless I am mistaken, I do not see any times in other introductions in shooting articles. Thanks!

4061:: Poor suggestion, "Route 91 Harvest festival shooting" is obscure. The current title is ok and within Knowledge naming guidelines for mass shooting articles..-- 3793:, much of the content is unrelated to what makes him arguably notable and thus I think can be condensed into a section instead of its own article. Discuss here. 1080: 4337: 4247: 2595: 481:

I'm a strong believer in stating your position and getting out unless you see something that changes your position, for most situations. I'm doing that here. ―

2291:

lists of names of casualties. However, all the victims may be named in narrative format when describing what happened so long as there is sourcing for this.

2448:

if all names are included in a few media, which I am sure they are. The policy is that as long as content has significant coverage then it can be included.

3687:, and that Paddock is more difficult to merge into this article without overwhelming it, I suspect that this merge proposal would be unlikely to succeed. 1934:

these victims were murdered that we have this article, and that they're notable and relevant in the article on the event. Not including the victims gives

3623:. I think that Stephen Paddock is not notable without the 2017 Las Vegas shooting; and, therefore, the content in his article can be merged into its own 2978:

An article ... should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.

1076: 3811:– Paddock is not notable outside of the 2017 Las Vegas shooting and therefore the content of his article can be condensed and contained within this one. 3649:– Paddock is not notable outside of the 2017 Las Vegas shooting and therefore the content of his article can be condensed and contained within this one. 2909:

Sorry, been away from the topic a while. Due to my incompetence, you'll have to clarify something for me. You seem to be insisting that notability is

2644: 2545: 1068: 1671: 2195:, but as this isn't a BLP concern, the statements contained within are irrelevant (and it's an essay, so has no policy or guideline status to boot). 1884:: For the same reasons I opposed before. What improvement does it add to the article? More importantly, why is this article worse than those that 178:

The information, if accurate, is pertinent, and there is no policy-based reason for excluding it. Either list all of the states, or none of them.

3631:, much of the content is unrelated to what makes him arguably notable and thus I think can be condensed into a section instead of its own article. 2326: 1088: 1072: 72: 67: 59: 3698:

Thank you, Hydronium~Hydroxide! Since this is a proposed merge instead of proposed delete, I'm going to give this a try. I appreciate your help.

1539:

per my comments at other discussion; there is no reason to hide this information from our readers so long as it is reported in reliable sources.

1921:

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"?)

4017:– The proposed name is used about as commonly as the current title in news articles about the shooting, but distinguishes the article from the 2046: 1799:

privacy laws of the US or even the societal/media norms of the US have to do with that? They do/don't do something so we must/mustn't either?

3740: 3127:(which is really just a re-hash of most of this, but tl;dr: MEMORIAL applies to creation of entire articles for not-notable people, which is 3061: 2841:. My question is: do you actually read these policies before claiming they cover something they clearly don't? Let me draw your attention to 712: 4246:

Add COAST GUARD Petti Officer Traci Huddleston to RECIPIENTS OF AWARD FOR BRAVERY for receiving THE COAST GUARD MEDAL FRO HEROISM. source -

3416: 3163: 2434: 2266: 934: 646: 3969:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a

2717:

territory to me, which points out that individuals who have lost their lives must still meet notability requirements. The point here is

2053:

for each victim or the list of victims) there is no legitimate reason to oppose the inclusion of such a list. I disagree with the "not a

979: 914: 837:?" or similar incidents. Personally I don't think that events like these qualify as mass shootings in the modern sense of the word, but 784: 4462: 2486: 2317: 1963:

justification was that other articles list the victims, your point would be valid. There are numerous reasons to include the victims. —

113:

popularity of the music festival meant that most of the victims were not actually locals, but a complete list may not be necessary. --

4166: 4148: 772: 4484: 4423: 3573: 3527: 3227: 1773: 838: 3876:? What about all the 9/11 hijackers – each one has their own page – Do we delete them to because they aren't notable outside 9/11? 3322: 3140: 2998: 2899: 2781: 2704: 2360: 2249: 1972: 1873: 1683: 1473: 287:"Then how come I keep seeing it being brought up during discussions about including victims' names in any mass killing article?" 913:

dangerous stairwells (dangerous to a panicked crowd). People may have been shoved, trampled, knocked down, or jammed together.

272:

Then how come I keep seeing it being brought up during discussions about including victims' names in any mass killing article?

210:

WP:MEMORIAL is not applicable here. WP:MEMORIAL's purpose is to tell us not to create articles on non-notable deceased people.

1263:

I will also ping the participants of the most RfC at Buffalo to prevent the same discussion from technically happening again:

4338:

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/03/27/petty-officer-awarded-first-coast-guard-medal-2012-heroism-vegas-shooting.html

4248:

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/03/27/petty-officer-awarded-first-coast-guard-medal-2012-heroism-vegas-shooting.html

3350: 2330: 2802:

How do you have an article documenting an event and leave out the half of the event that made it notable in the first place?

2227:

to memorialize victims. It takes no position on simply including them in articles documenting events that made them notable.

2146:

include it, and in many of these cases, little value is added to such mass-casualty articles by adding lists of victims. --

1586: 3766: