Talk:Stephen Paddock/Archive 2

Valium and Alcohol

I removed the sentence stating that Valium should not be combined with alcohol. Although it is factual, RS does not state that he was combining the two, and there is no valid reason to cherry-pick this fact. Adding the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism source is pure WP:SYN. –dlthewave ☎ 17:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree it was a bit much, but we can surely quote an article about Paddock. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

It's still cherry-picking. Although the source article is about Paddock's Valium use, the quoted sentence was providing general background information about the drug and did not imply that he was using the drug with alcohol. The article concludes with "As it stands now, the link between diazepam and Paddock's actions is tenuous at best — though some celebrities have said otherwise." –dlthewave ☎ 18:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Good point, I have added that to the quote. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• The real issue is about adequate sourcing. Here's a statement from wcvb.com: The owner of a casino where Stephen Paddock gambled says the Las Vegas gunman didn't drink alcohol ... when he was a customer there ... Steve Wynn said in an interview on Fox News.[1]
  The information about Paddock taking medications is confirmed independently by multiple sources:
  Paddock was prescribed 50 10-milligram diazepam tablets on June 21 and purchased the drug at a Walgreens store in Reno the same day it was prescribed, according to records from the Nevada Prescription Program obtained Tuesday by the Las Vegas Review-Journal.[http://www.wnd.com/2017/10/paddock-prescribed-anti-anxiety-drug-in-june/] Poeticbent talk 18:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding alcohol:

• “KALLIE BEIG, STEPHEN PADDOCK’S HAIRSTYLIST: HE SMELLED DRUNK AGAIN IN MORNING, GOT MARILOU’S TRIP 2 MONTHS AGO”, Inquisitr (October 6, 2017).
• “Others who crossed paths with Paddock in recent months described him as despondent and smelling of alcohol.”The Independent (October 7, 2017).
• “Kallie Beig, who worked at the Great Clips in Mesquite, Paddock’s hometown, told CNN exclusively that she had cut Paddock’s hair at least three times over the past three years, and that every time he had come in, always early in the morning, he had smelled of strong liquor.”, CNN (October 6, 2017).

Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I see that. Casino owners and staff might not be perfectly honest about how alcohol is being served. Here's another one: ... other players noticed he always had a drink with him ... Gamblers say they saw Stephen Paddock playing video poker with a 'constant stream of booze' by his side when he was a guest at VIP tournaments.[2] Poeticbent talk 19:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I see no WP:SYNTH in here at all. Paddock was combining the two according to [http://www.wnd.com/2017/10/paddock-prescribed-anti-anxiety-drug-in-june/ wnd.com] and the link to aggressive behavior is highlighted right there by the Las Vegas Recovery Center. Poeticbent talk 20:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

If you’re not sure about the reliability of a source, you can search for it at WP:RS/N. I think you’ll find much criticism there of Daily Mail and also WND. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The WND source does not state that he was combining the two. –dlthewave ☎ 00:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

(a) WND makes the Daily Mail look good by comparison, and (b) we can't assume he popped the pills he was prescribed at any particular time, e.g. when drunk, unless someone saw it. Do we have a source for someone seeing him doing both? Wnt (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Benzodiazepines

• @Dlthewave and Anythingyouwant: Here is what we know. On June 21st a Henderson physician prescribed him 50 tablets of diazepam, 10 milligrams each. It was the highest dose possible (short term relief only). The prescription was filed with the Nevada Prescription Monitoring Program as required. Paddock purchased Valium without insurance at Walgreens in Reno on the same day. He was prescribed one treatment of one pill a day according to Dr. Winkler’s office. All else falls within the patient confidentiality laws. — The manufacturer's brochure says: "If you are to take diazepam regularly, you could be asked to take one, two, or three doses a day ... up to a maximum of four weeks of treatment." The treatment cannot exceed four weeks apparently which means, Paddock could not have been prescribed more pills. In total, the last 10 days of June plus the months of July, August, and September (ahead of massacre) amounts to 102 days since the purchase of Valium. After 50 days, Paddock was on his own: "There is naturally a high potential for benzodiazepine abuse, even with those who are given a prescription by a doctor overseeing their case" says the Addiction Help Center. Benzos are a popular street drug in all of North America. Paddock did not have to go back to Dr. Winkler's office to get it, and there's no need for speculations about what he did afterwards. However, the prescribed period of treatment between June 21 and mid-August coincided with his preparations for the attack. This is not WP:SYNTH but a simple math without opinion about whether he took the drug or not, which would have been original research by our standards. Quote: “If somebody has an underlying aggression problem and you sedate them with that drug, they can become aggressive,” said Dr. Mel Pohl, chief medical officer of the Las Vegas Recovery Center. … “It is much like what happens when you give alcohol to some people … they become aggressive instead of going to sleep.” Pohl … said the effects of the drug also can be magnified by alcohol.

Please note: article makes references to a 2015 study published in World Psychiatry. Poeticbent talk 19:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Statements we should be allowed to make

Referenced to reliable third party sources about Paddock.

• On June 21 Paddock was prescribed 50 tablets of diazepam – the highest dose of 10 milligrams each, and filed his prescription the same day.
• The prescribed period of diazepam treatment between June 21 and mid-August coincided with his preparations for the attack.
• The side effects of diazepam treatment, in case of an underlying aggression problem, can also be magnified by alcohol according to chief medical officer of the Las Vegas Recovery Center.

Notes

There’s more info about him and Valium here. But I am satisfied with what’s in this Wikipedia article now, and don’t favor adding to it at this time. Doing so could be stirring a hornet’s nest, disrupting a careful compromise, and inadvertently result in all of this material being stricken. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that these are all well-sourced statements. My question is, why would you choose to put them together in this article? The only reason I can think of is to lead the reader toward the conclusion that he combined Valium and alcohol, which has not been established by reliable sources. –dlthewave ☎ 22:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Once we agree that the above information is compliant with the WP:RS policy guideline and that it relates to Paddock's lifestyle specifically, we can also ask ourselves, how is this different from the inclusion of his father's psychopathic tendencies in this article? Why did we choose to put it here? — What is the reason for it ... other than to lead the reader toward the conclusion that Stephen Paddock inherited psychopathic tendencies from his father, which has not been established. The autopsy is not going to help resolve this. We are allowed to provide relevant and confirmed facts about the subject in accordance with WP:BIO, but we should not be attempting to make ourselves look smarter than the reader.

@Fuzheado, GreenC, John from Idegon, and FreeKnowledgeCreator: please let us know what you think about this. Poeticbent talk 23:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Responding to the ping. What y'all are failing to discern here is what makes a source secondary. Just because it is reported in a newspaper magazine or on the idiot box does not automatically make it a reliable secondary source for our use. If the source is reporting that the investigation is looking into a drug alcohol connection, we should report that (but no analysis of the meaning of that - unquestionably that would be WP:OR, and that is what the referenced bit above appears to me to be). However, if the media is postulating that as a contributing factor, then the media report is primary and we shouldn't be using it. And I'm not aware of the experience level of the editor's here, so apologies in advance if it appears I'm "talking down" to y'all. But you do realize that this whole line is well past the point where WP:MEDRS would apply, right? If for no other reason, I'm opposed to this bit completely on those grounds. I think the primacy of sourcing is a more important argument. It isn't our place to solve this; we simply report what reliable secondary sources say. John from Idegon (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

User:John from Idegon, we can easily get reliable medical sources that say mixing alcohol with valium is a no-no, but they don't mention Paddock, and so using them here might be synthesis. Additionally, we have a reliable non-medical source that says the same thing but does describe Paddock. Is all of that insufficient for us to mention in this article that mixing alcohol and valium is a no-no? If so, it's difficult to see how this article can ever mention that mixing these two substances is a no-no. Incidentally, the reliable non-medical source links directly to this reliable medical source. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I have yet to see a reliable source that actually draws a connection between Paddock's Valium use and the alcohol contraindication. It is very common for the media to quote medical sources and interview experts in the field for general background information, even though these statements are not specific to the case at hand. –dlthewave ☎ 04:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Right, and we can convey some of that general background information. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

No. See John from Idegon's response above. –dlthewave ☎ 12:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• I like what you said, John from Idegon, quote: "If the source is reporting that the investigation is looking into a drug alcohol connection, we should report that (but no analysis of the meaning of that...)." The operative word is 'reporting' what the investigation is 'looking into'. Here's a relevant quote from the article in Review Journal (Oct. 5, 2017 update): Washington, D.C., attorney Paul Kamenar said: “An autopsy may help us get some toxicology answers as to why Paddock did what he did in Las Vegas.” Officials with the Clark County coroner’s office have not said whether an autopsy has been done of Paddock. The office did not respond to requests from the Review-Journal for comment on Tuesday and Wednesday. — In other words, we just have to wait for what is being reported next. However, the information about the prescribed period of diazepam treatment between June 21 and mid-August still holds. The period coincided with his preparations for the attack. Poeticbent talk 16:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Notes

Report what the sources say, but remember that they may have more than one interpretation, so be cautious. Did Paddock start treatment and get turned psycho by it, or did he turn psycho and say what he needed to a doctor to get Valium to steady his nerves while he prepared an arsenal and explosives with some left over to keep him confident the day of the attack? We don't know unless sources go out and hang one or both of those lanterns for us. Wnt (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2017

Please change X

According to a Business Insider article, “As it stands now, the link between diazepam and Paddock's actions is tenuous at best — though some celebrities have said otherwise.”[43]

to Y

According to a Business Insider article, “As it stands now, the link between diazepam and Paddock's actions is tenuous at best — though some celebrities have said otherwise.”[43]

The Justice Department fact sheet on benzodiazepines, the general class in which Valium is found, states, "Adverse effects include ... delirium, aggression, depression, hallucinations, and paranoia..."

Some medical authorities believe that the adverse psychiatric effects of Valium are common, defined as affecting beween 1% to 10% of users. "Common (1% to 10%): Confusion, withdrawal symptoms, euphoria, increased anxiety/anxiety, panic, irritability, delirium, aggressiveness/aggression, numbed emotions, instability, restlessness, agitation, inappropriate behavior, delusions, rage, hallucinations, nightmares, confusional or paranoid psychosis/psychoses." Zaitzeff (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for mentioning this, user Zaitzeff (talk · contribs), but the general rule to follow here is: no WP:SYNTH meaning, Paddock needs to be mentioned there as well. However, the current write-up needs to be revised (no question about it), mainly because the Business Insider is not a proper source for the subject of drugs and alcohol abuse, and the article is old in the timeline of developing stories. I will look into this, thanks. Poeticbent talk 17:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
• The more I read online about "AGGRESSION, VIOLENCE & BENZODIAZEPINES" (Facts, Figures & Quotations By Susan Bibby & Ray Nimmo, 2001) the more I see that: "The implications of the combination of anti-anxiety agents and aggressiveness are astounding." — However, the magic word "Paddock" is still missing from there, and so is the connection with alcohol. The Las Vegas shooting may as well lead to a major shakedown in the psychiatric community's attitude toward the side effects of excessive prescriptive use of Valium but that is way beyond the scope of our article. Poeticbent talk 19:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Business Insider article

Article uses unreliable source: "According to a Business Insider article, “The drug should not be taken with alcohol....As it stands now, the link between diazepam and Paddock's actions is tenuous at best — though some celebrities have said otherwise.”[37]" This is a medical question which requires a medical or pharmacological citation. (PeacePeace (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC))

Why? The cited source is generally reliable, cites the National Library of Medicine, and links to this study. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Then am I wrong for thinking that the Business Insider is at best a tertiary, not secondary source, for drug interaction information. And isn't the opinion of "some celebrities" just gossip? BTW, you are aware that the hotel manager claimed that Paddock & his GF were remarkably teetotal? (PeacePeace (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC))

That he was a heavy drinker has been pretty well established, but if you’d like to dispute it then probably the best place would be at the pertinent discussion in the shooting article’s talk page. I doubt the article cited here is a tertiary source as opposed to secondary, but anyway “Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

We have RS saying that he was a heavy drinker, that he had a Valium prescription and that Valium and alcohol should not be mixed. What we don't have is an RS that ties those facts together or states that he was actually combining Valium and alcohol. The sources about Valium list a number of restrictions and side effects, so I'm not sure why we would include only the alcohol one. –dlthewave ☎ 19:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

We cannot use “the sources about Valium” unless they also discuss Paddock, due to WP:OR. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Should we really mention Valium at all?

I originally argued against mentioning Valium at all. Now that more information is known, and it seems he had an alcohol problem, it becomes slightly more relevant in my opinion.

However, there is only one source claiming that he was prescribed Valium, and all other sources refer to that source. The original source is the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which cites an unnamed person who provided the newspaper with illegally obtained information from the Nevada PDMP (prescription drug monitoring program). Whoever accessed the Nevada PDMP, they did so illegally. During the press conference on Monday, October 9th, Sheriff Lombardo of the LVMPD repeatedly refused to answer questions about Valium, saying the LVMPD and the FBI are investigating any and all physical and mental health records and they will release information if and when it is appropriate.

Unless a doctor or a law enforcement official confirms that Stephen Paddock was prescribed Valium, I am of the opinion that we should not print this information. I think it is likely true that he received 100 pills over the course of 2 years, but the person who provided that information to the press was violating the law. I can easily forge a report from the Nevada PDMP saying that Stephen Paddock took any controlled substance that I care to put in the forgery, and it might never be uncovered as a forgery unless law enforcement officials decided to specifically address it. Sheriff Lombardo has explicitly stated that he is not going to answer questions about the alleged Valium prescriptions, so I think this is possibly not fit for inclusion on Wikipedia. I am not sure, though. Sometimes illegal leaks are good for the world, even if law enforcement wishes the leak had not happened. As I said before, I suspect Stephen Paddock actually was prescribed Valium, and it has received a fair amount of media attention, so I am not removing it from the article at this time. However, I did clarify the language. Fluoborate (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Please read what has already been established, before speculating and casting aspersions. You have no proof on any-kind that the Las Vegas Review-Journal (est. 1909), the main source of info about Paddock's Valium prescription: "illegally obtained information from the Nevada PDMP (prescription drug monitoring program)." This is your own speculation of no significance to our Wikipedia article. The Las Vegas Review-Journal (which obtained the records) is a reliable third-party source by our standards. Since the attack, the Las Vegas Review-Journal published a series of articles by different authors interviewing medical doctors about Paddock, including (originally) Dr. Mel Pohl, chief medical officer of the Las Vegas Recovery Center, and Dr. Michael First, a clinical psychiatry professor at Columbia University. Our write-up is not about the psychiatric drugs and violence but about the psychiatric drugs ... alcohol abuse and violence with no relation to those patients who benefit from their use. — On a side note: information about Watergate was obtained by the Post from the anonymous Deep Throat. Does is sound like a 'reliable source' to you? Poeticbent talk 15:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I've added sources and updated accordingly. Here's what the paragraph looks like now:

During his last months, he reportedly smelled of alcohol, was despondent, and he is reported to have filled prescriptions for the anti-anxiety drug Valium (diazepam) in 2013, 2016, and 2017. According to a Business Insider article, “As it stands now, the link between diazepam and Paddock's actions is tenuous at best — though some celebrities have said otherwise.”

References

There seem to be at least three pieces of evidence for valium use: a 2013 deposition, info from the Nevada Prescription Monitoring Program, plus a valium bottle was found in his room. It's been reported in dozens (if not more) reliable sources. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

It is interesting to see Stephen got an article on here but Heather did not

It is interesting to see Stephen got an article on here but Heather did not. Synesthetic (talk) 01:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Not surprising at all. Mass murderers are usually notable, victims are rarely. WWGB (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

If we say mass murderers are usually notable and victims are rarely notable then we are incentivizing people to become mass murderers. I believe if we focus more on the victims and give only limited notability to mass murderers then mass murders will become less common. Synesthetic (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see the connection with Paddock. The more appropriate counterclaim would be to James Alex Fields which is a redirect to Unite the Right rally in Wikipedia. Fields does not have an article. There was an attempt to create it, but the attempt was rejected without as much as an AfD nomination. Poeticbent talk 03:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Stephen is getting an article because he killed more people than James did. They say Stephen's motive was unknown but I would not be surprised if it was because shooting into the crowd gave him pleasure or he wanted to be known for taking out as many people he could. He must have thought the shooting of the concert goers would get a lot of coverage in the media. If the motive was for wanting to cause harm to those he shot than it probably should not be glorified on here. I really can't see a good motive that would justify the article on here. Synesthetic (talk) 04:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Name of media file

From the caption on the recording of the shooting: "Audio recording of the attack, Mandalay Bay.[50]"

Shouldn't it be video recording, as it also contains motion picture content? Codyorb (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Well, obviously the file contains a video recording, but there's virtually nothing to look at in it, except for the ominous sound of the rapid fire in its soundtrack. Poeticbent talk 22:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2017

Please add "http://web.archive.org/web/20171017023420/http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/latest-vegas-shooter-fired-aviation-fuel-tanks-50467860" as the archive url of "The Latest: Coroner: Stanford to study body of Vegas shooter" with an archive date of "17 October 2017" and mark the original url as dead, since it is no longer accessible. 47.148.83.144 (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Gulumeemee (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Please change the Timeline

The time line that is listed "At 9:59 p.m. Paddock shot a hotel security guard through the suite door. At 10:06 p.m. he started shooting at the concert-goers.[46] He stopped shooting at the crowd at 10:15 p.m. Police officers responded to his floor and eventually breached his suite with explosives after spending more than an hour clearing the floor.[54][55] Paddock apparently planned to escape the hotel room" States that Paddock opened fire at 10:06 PM which would be a full 7 Minutes after shooting the security guard.

This is incorrect, he opened fire at 10:05 PM a full 6 minutes after shooting the security guard, which was verified by concert venue CCTV. (Source: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-vegas-shooting-timeline-revised-20171009-story.html)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.209.126 (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to add that in Source 46 (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-vegas-shooting-20171009-story.html) This also lists the time as being 10:05 not 10:06.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.209.126 (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Note that according to the LA Times source the timeline really has been changed from what was previously said; it's not just that Wikipedia was wrong. Wnt (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: Timeline has changed again for the nth time. Article updated already. Poeticbent talk 23:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure you have the timeline correct? Was not Campos shot at 9:59, but the article has the shooting out the door at 10:05? In fact I am wondering if the structure of the article on timeline should be changed to reporting the various timelines proposed, instead of presented a supposed correct timeline. Timeline is like trying to nail jello to the wall, despite the abundance of evidence, visual and auditory on this. (PeacePeace (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC))

Is the part on alcohol use based on reliable sources? Or reported gossip?

Did anyone say they saw him drink? The manager is on record denying evidence that he imbibed alcohol, but I didn't see that in our article. (PeacePeace (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC))

From LA Times:

But drinking seemed to be a common denominator among those who saw him in action. "He was a heavy drinker and that is what impressed upon on them,” Curtis said.

If anything the article skips over the extent of his drinking. -- GreenC 18:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion to change the picture

wondering if the LVMPD picture (in a cropped version) used here would be more appropriate: http://nypost.com/2017/10/09/las-vegas-shooter-gambled-all-night-and-slept-all-day/ (direct link https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/171009-stephen-paddock-heart-feature1.jpg)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.94.45 (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Photo

Wouldn't it be better to use his driver's license photo where his eyes are open? http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/10/04/14/4503E82400000578-4948306-image-a-5_1507123248839.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.226.254 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. The current photo of Paddock holding a drink is telling a bigger story. Poeticbent talk 15:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Fair Use photo vs free alternative

The current photo is Fair Use because no free alternative exists. However according to this source (NBC News) there is a photo of him attributed to the "U. S. Government" which would make it free and clear of copyright. However some other sources attribute this photo as a drivers license photo issued by a state (NV I suppose). Any thoughts or ideas? -- GreenC 15:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• I have two comments to make. Firstly, the photo of him drinking tells a bigger story. Secondly, his driver's license photo might not be in the public domain, because "US passport photos are supplied by the passport's subject, and the copyright is almost always actually held by the photographer..." said Jameslwoodward, our Commons' bureaucrat, checkuser, sysop, and OTRS-member. Poeticbent talk 23:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:Fair use. 'Telling a bigger story' has nothing to do with copyright law. If there is a free version available a Fair Use claim is invalid and the current picture would be removed from Wikipedia as a copyright violation. The only question is if there is a free version available. Also the picture in question is not a passport photo you seem to be confusing it with a different photo. -- GreenC 04:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I didn't make myself clear enough, GreenC. I don't think a drivers license photo is free. The choice we have, in all likelihood, is between two WP:Fair use images. Poeticbent talk 04:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• I can’t imagine why the federal government would have issued him a driver’s license. Must be a mistake. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

How does a pic showing a guy holding a drink imply something if you don't know what is in the drink? BTW, did Paddock have a pilot's license?(PeacePeace (talk) 02:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC))

you don't know what is in the drink - How do we know your not a foreign agent trying to sow doubt about the official narrative in order to spread uncertainty about the US government? Because we assume good faith and don't introduce complicated and unusual theories without strong evidence. -- GreenC 18:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

October 29, 2017 revert

Cut & paste from user talk, because article talk is the right venue to discuss improvements to article:

Hi, PB. Since there is already a separate Las Vegas Shooting article, and it is linked from the Stephen Paddock article, there should not be a 650 word section on the SP article about the LVS; summary only. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 14:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Checkingfax. I suggest you take a closer look at both articles. The two write ups are not at all the same. The particulars are described in two distinctly different ways and supplement each other. They are based on different sources. I seriously doubt that any one of them is better than the other. Your flagging is unjustified and in my view amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Poeticbent talk 15:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, every article on Wikipedia is stand-alone. It could be printed on paper or copied into a website. The question is only WP:WEIGHT is the section too long in weight compared to the rest of the bio (I don't think so). If the section is too long compared to another article on the website "Wikipedia.org" is irrelevant since this article stands on its own merits. -- GreenC 15:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2017

Remove the sentence "Her name has not been released." The cited source states, rather clearly, "The report from ABC News did not note if police were talking to the now-identified 'mystery woman'", which directly contradicts this line and 100% of reporting from the time of shooting and today. 68.37.8.19 (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Provide sources. Also note that now is a word that probably wouldn't be used, as now is time sensitive and this isn't a dated publication. John from Idegon (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. The name of the now-identified 'mystery woman' is known to the police apparently but has not been released to the media. Therefore the sentence "Her name has not been released" is correct. Poeticbent talk 13:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Deadliest Mass Shooting

Was this the deadliest mass shooting by a lone gunman in US history, or just in modern US history? There needs a citation to back up this claim. Bardoleg (talk) 05 I:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Why, Bardoleg? The entirety of US history is modern history. Did you have a different incident in mind? John from Idegon (talk) 05:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not have a specific incident in mind, but I know for a fact that there have been worse general mass shootings in US history. I want to make sure that there is a trusted citation that says this is the deadliest mass shooting by a lone gunman as I am less than sure this is the case with the US' sordid history concerning both indigenous and ethnic peoples.Bardoleg (talk) 07:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Nearly every general news source already in the article states that it is; without a specific sourced example of another "contender" for that title, I see no need for any additional sources. John from Idegon (talk) 09:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Very few articles claim anything but "deadliest mass shooting in modern US history".Bardoleg (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

What about the Wounded Knee Massacre? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.116.70.28 (talk • contribs)

That was not a lone gunman. WWGB (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

What is the problem of either inserting the word "modern" or adding a citation that makes the claim?Bardoleg (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Because your arguments are not persuasive. No one has agreed with you. John from Idegon (talk) 07:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Further, as I said in my initial response, using "modern" in conjunction with "US history" is quite silly. The US is less than 230 years old. US history is all modern history. And quite well documented. Since you cannot even name, much less cite, any contradictory information, it's hard to take your arguments seriously. John from Idegon (talk) 07:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Out of the first fifty citations in this article, 30% state that it is the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history in some form, 2% state that it is one of the deadliest mass shootings in US history, 14% state (incorrectly, e.g. Wounded Knee Massacre) that it is the deadliest mass shooting in US history. 54% of the articles don't claim anything. My point being, no article states definitively that, as it is stated in this entry, "The incident was the deadliest mass shooting by a lone gunman in United States history." All I am asking is that since we make that specific claim, it needs to be cited. At this point, I'm afraid this page violates WP: NOR, specifically "...facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." All I am saying is we should either cite it or change it to "modern US history" or "contemporary US history" if that is preferable.

• Showing my work
  • I looked through the first 50 citations on this article (2 had 2 citations (1,42), 2 were the same article (30,40). I used the first 50 unique links in my math. I included the 51st (50) link on the list, as well as the link to 33, neither of which were included in my math.
  • "Modern US history," as it is stated in the articles, can logically be assumed to mean contemporary history in the US.
  • Each number listed after the link corresponds to the reference number in the main article. I included some of the notable sources in parenthesis after the reference number.

"Modern" Links (15%)

• "he carried out the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history" 1 (abc)
• "Details about the man behind deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history are starting to emerge," 2
• "Deadliest mass shooting in modern US history" 5 (cnn)
• "in the deadliest shooting in modern U.S. history" 12
• "It was the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history" 15
• "in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history" 23 (nbc)
• " in the worst mass shooting in modern American history" 26 (cnn)
• "coldest-blooded killer in modern American history" 28
• "worst mass shooting in modern US history" 29
• "deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history" 32 (reuters)
• "carrying out the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history" 34
• "worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history" 35 (abc)
• "the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history" 38
• "after carrying out the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history" 46 (abc)
• "in the weeks leading up to the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history" 47

"One of" Links (2%)

• "commenced one of the deadliest shootings in U.S. history" 21

Incorrect Usage Links (14%)

• "others have been injured, in the deadliest mass-shooting attack in American history" 3
• "on Sunday night in the worst mass shooting in US history has been identified" 4
• "man believed to be behind the deadliest mass shooting in American history was born" 9
• "involvement in the deadliest mass shooting in United States' history" 10
• "Three days after the worst shooting in U.S. history" 17
• "The shooting on the Las Vegas strip is now the deadliest in U.S. history." 39
• "the man who killed 58 people in the nation’s worst mass shooting" 49
  • "would become the future largest mass murderer in U.S. history shook me up" 33 (quote in the article from non-entity)
  • "a motive for the killing, which is the largest mass shooting in U.S. history" 50

Bardoleg (talk) 08:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:TLDR, however, it still does not address my argument, and no one else seems to care. Provide a citation to a worse mass shooting. Wounded Knee, as misguided and amoral as it was, was a military action. If you are not going to do that please drop this. John from Idegon (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Newly added subsection "Motivation"

The section split was performed by User:CybFox (35 edits since: 2017-06-25) with a misleading summary: "Some new information that came out today, created sub section "motivation" on the tail end of the shooting." Please look at the two references added by User:CybFox:

1. Hayes, Christal. "LAS VEGAS GUNMAN WAS A TRUMP SUPPORTER, HAPPY WITH PRESIDENT BECAUSE STOCK MARKET WAS DOING WELL". News Week. News Week. Retrieved 4 November 2017.
2. Apgar, Blake. "Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock lost money in 2 years preceding shooting". Review Journal. Retrieved 4 November 2017.

NEITHER OF THEM includes any new information. Both articles are based on rumor and hearsay. Sheriff Lombardo (alleged source) said "he didn't know offhand who Paddock was talking to when he was talking about Trump." This is unattributed hearsay with zero (!) value for us. The second article is from November 2, 2017, with absolutely positively no new findings, and again, attributed to Sheriff Lombardo (quote): "Lombardo speculated that the financial losses might have contributed to Paddock’s decision." All this needs to be reverted as unreliable. This is pure ex post facto speculation with no first-hand knowledge of the facts. We do need to maintain wp:neutrality. Poeticbent talk 19:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

If you have not removed that yet, please do. You're right, poorly sourced POV. John from Idegon (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, John from Idegon. I have not removed that because I wanted the two editors who made subsequent edits to be aware of the POV problem. Poeticbent talk 20:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done now. Poeticbent talk 20:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Jesus Campos

Should we be naming individuals with either peripheral or non-existing connection to the life of Paddock? This is a biography of the perpetrator, not the article about the incident. Jesus Campos is named in this article once and once only, as if his identification mattered here, which it doesn't. What do you think about that? Poeticbent talk 13:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)