Misplaced Pages

Talk:2020 Nova Scotia attacks: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:39, 27 April 2020 editJim Michael (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users136,973 edits →age in lede← Previous edit Revision as of 19:12, 27 April 2020 edit undoBus stop (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers44,012 edits →age in ledeNext edit →
Line 668: Line 668:
::{{tq|"is not relevant enough to be in the lead"}} {{u|Jim Michael}}—Why? Any reason? Just your opinion? ] (]) 18:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC) ::{{tq|"is not relevant enough to be in the lead"}} {{u|Jim Michael}}—Why? Any reason? Just your opinion? ] (]) 18:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
:::It's not significant to the killing spree. ] (]) 18:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC) :::It's not significant to the killing spree. ] (]) 18:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
::::You are avoiding the question. Why are you my edit? Are you perhaps opposed to ]? Was it a person of a different age who committed the killing spree? Are you committed to ] behavior? What is it? You and {{u|Headbomb}} reverted my edit concerning the person's age immediately. Can either of you explain any of this? There is nothing wrong with the edit I made. Please stop throwing your weight around. Allow others to edit. ] (]) 19:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:12, 27 April 2020

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2020 Nova Scotia attacks article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 days 
In the newsA news item involving 2020 Nova Scotia attacks was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 20 April 2020.
Misplaced Pages
Misplaced Pages
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCanada: Nova Scotia / History Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Nova Scotia.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject History of Canada.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Death
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2020 Nova Scotia attacks article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 days 

Requested move 20 April 2020

The request to rename this article to 2020 Nova Scotia attacks has been carried out.
If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

Nova Scotia killings → 2020 Nova Scotia attacks – Tragically, these are not the only murders that have ever taken place in Nova Scotia. This title is extremely broad. Per wp:CONCISE and wp:PRECISE. Bneu2013 (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.
"2020 Nova Scotia spree killings" might be better. It is a spree killing by definition. There doesn't seem to be any official name that the media is calling this. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I would agree with 2020 Nova Scotia spree killing as a better article title. But waiting for more sources to append a name to the attacks might be worthwhile. There's no rush here. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I also agree with 2020 Nova Scotia spree killing as being the appropriate title moving forward as it is both specific and non-presumptive with regards to any facts not in evidence.

What's unencyclopedic about spree killing? Jim Michael (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I personally have never seen "spree killing" or anything along those lines being used in an article title. "Killings", "attacks", "shootings", etc., seem to be the norm. Love of Corey (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
All of these events you mentioned happened in specific towns/cities/areas, Nova Scotia is a province with many "killings" in it's past Gromte (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure I follow the above comments. Please elaborate. There has been no reasoning behind the retention of the date in the title other than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I have stated it reduces the ease of finding the article and is unnecessary disambiguation. Sparkle1 (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
The point is that plenty of articles are named with the year number. The ease of finding articles is managed using redirects; naming is so inconsistent that the task would be impossible otherwise. 109.186.146.69 (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
You think there's only been 1 stabbing in Melbourne & that a shooting in Nova Scotia is more likely to recur than a stabbing in Melbourne?! Jim Michael (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the new title as proposed: 2020 Nova Scotia attacks. This follows naming conventions of other Misplaced Pages pages. Nova Scotia is a large province, and other killings have taken place in the past. In 2017, four people were killed in Upper Big Tracadie, Nova Scotia. In 1992, three were killed in Sydney River, Nova Scotia. Larger massacres have also occurred in the province in 1747 and 1751. Adding 2020 to the title will ensure this attack is differentiated from those that have occurred in the past. EastCoastHistory (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Attacks is too general not enough information. People were not just attacked 18-19 were attacked and killed. That's the story. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Reflects the actuality of the situation and refers to the year, putting the page into more context. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The new proposed title: "2020 Nova Scotia attacks" makes more senses considering it was drawn out and their were multiple different forms of attacks committed ranging from arson, shooting, home invasion, etc.(KNorth192) (Talk) 20:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Numerous people were adversely affected by the arson attacks, and numerous people appear to have experienced significant injuries, but not killed, so 'attacks' is much more appropriate and respectful. The possibility for there to be significant "Nova Scotia killings" at any given point in the future also opens the article title to needless ambiguity. By all indications, that term is not being sufficiently commonly used in the media, so there is no reason not to include the more specific, customary article title of . See 2017 Las Vegas Shooting or 2019 London Bridge stabbing as examples. FlipFlopped ツ 20:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support change, maybe not 2020 - I am not sure using the date is ideal. Sadly, there have been many killings in Nova Scotia's history. There have also likely been or will be other killings in the province this year. This article is not about all killings in the province this year or ever. It is about this specific event which took place between April 18 and April 19, 2020. Perhaps a more specific name will emerge in use by media and politicians, or perhaps it is appropriate to include the names of the towns in a name. Not sure what the best way to deal with this is, but I don't think we can leave it with a generic name that could be construed to refer to other killings or deaths in the province that are unrelated to these events.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Until a better WP:COMMONNAME exists, 2020 Nova Scotia killings or 2020 Nova Scotia shootings may be the best of temporary names. That would be an improvement over the existing name, but not a great long term solution.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
That seems to be too wordy, though, and I haven't seen that kind of title used ever. I'm not sure what's wrong with "killings". The 2014 Isla Vista killings is a high-profile article that uses "killings" in the title, and there are some similarities between these two incidents, so I'd say this title format is appropriate and relevant for now. Love of Corey (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Of course sources don't use it. Nor would people likely say it. It is intended to identify the article for all time. (After coronavirus inherits the Earth.) Bus stop (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Fuck the coronavirus, too. Just use a common name. People will know the one they and the papers use, and so will their descendants (till 2148, at least). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Coronavirus be damned, I agree. But I can't agree that an article title should mimic or conform to spoken language, as you seem to be suggesting. In this sense I, to a degree, disagree with WP:COMMONNAME (which for this article at this time none exists). Even if "the papers use" a term of reference, our choice in article title can take different factors into consideration. In my opinion an article title should have an element of "formality", but I also understand that you hold the diametrically opposite opinion. Bus stop (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to Portapique and Wentworth killings -- The murders didn't span the whole province of Nova Scotia and were confined to Portapique and Wentworth Valley. The perpetrator may have been killed by police in Enfield, but there were no "killings" there at all. Most were killed in Portapique and three later in Wentworth Valley. A case in point, and this was pinpointed by one of the colleagues was Sydney River McDonald's murders at the McDonald's restaurant in Sydney River, Nova Scotia, Canada. Three people were murdered there. So it is also a Nova Scotia attack or Nova Scotia killings as well. But we didn't name that article Nova Scotia killings, but Sydney River murders or killings mentioning the actual specific location. I think Nova Scotia should not be mentioned at all in our title unless proven that he killed people in other locations. I am for the title Portapique and Wentworth killings In such a case mentioning the year is redundent as there were as far as I know no other "killings" in Portapique. A very good case in point is the massacre in Hungerford, Berkshire, England. Misplaced Pages doesn't call it the Berkshire massacre (a bigger geographical unit) but the Hungerford massacre, the smaller more specific local geographical location. Nova Scotia is synonymous to saying Berkshire. We need to go to Portapique synonymous of saying Hungerford. werldwayd (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as the current title is far too broad. "Portapique killings" is also not appropriate since the scope of the article covers much more than the events in Portapique. Ben MacLeod (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Based on your concerns, Ben, I have expanded my proposal to moving the article to Portapique and Wentworth killings. I don't think it went further than that. Involving the whole province of Nova Scotia in this is erroneous logic. Nova Scotia may be one of the smaller Canadian provinces, for an outsider, but it is still a wide area. werldwayd (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I see your point. However, there's an issue with that title too – the article states that the RCMP constable was killed in Shubenacadie, which is located in another county altogether. A relevant precedent might be 2011 Norway attacks. I don't think that title implies that the attacks spanned the entirety of Norway. Ben MacLeod (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree. In fact, "2020 Nova Scotia killings" seems even more justifiable in this case because three, maybe more locations were involved, rather than the two in Norway: Oslo and Utoya. Love of Corey (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
As is bolding Support under a request to propose an alternative. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I now think 2020 Nova Scotia Massacre is probably the best Gromte (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, this seems to meet WP:SNOW standards, the time has come to action this. There are two templates taking up an inordinate amount of space at the top of the article, let's get rid of one of them and move on. Only an administrator can move the article at this time, so I would implore one to take appropriate action when possible.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 17:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, we should move it from Nova Scotia killings → 2020 Nova Scotia attacks as envisioned by the original proposal. That appears to be supported by the above and is vastly better than the current title. Though I agree with NickCT's original comment above that the move might not be the "final" title, and do not think the move should prejudice a further discussion there of some of the alternate names discussed here (ie. 2020 Nova Scotia multiple homicide incident, 2020 Nova Scotia killings, 2020 Nova Scotia shootings etc.) or the development of a WP:COMMONNAME down the road.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
@Darryl Kerrigan and Crumpled Fire: - Thanks guys. This will be a technical move because it's a move over redirect. Nnadigoodluck - Per the discussion on your talkpage, can you just close this RM and perform the move? NickCT (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Per Nnadigoodluck's suggestion on their talk page, I have asked for a move at WP:AN/RFC. The entry is found here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
let it snow
Agree, let it snow. Ribbet32 (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, apparently our assessment that this is a WP:SNOW move has been rejected at WP:AN/RFC. Perhaps, we should do an RfC on the options (ie attack, killings, mass shooting, shooting, multiple homicide incident etc). There are now so many options, I do not see how we reach a consensus in this section without going through the options. I had hoped we could have done that after an inital move to a less bad option, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it would be if people weren’t partially supporting and coming up with their own titles as part of their vote. This RM is all over the place. Vaselineeeeeeee 02:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose It was a MASSACRE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.228.162 (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose identifying as "2020" so soon. The year is less than 1/3 over; there could be another incident like this in the next 8 months—what would you call that? At the end of the year, maybe call it the 2020 whatever, but not before. "Attacks" may be better than "killings", though. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support NS killings is too general --Cornellier (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment The term "massacre" is appearing widely across well-known news outlets, and I would agree is probably most applicable in this particular incidents. And, it would not be inconsistent with other articles. Suggest Nova Scotia massacre of 2020 or 2020 Nova Scotia massacre. ⌚️ (spennythegent talk) 03:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – the specific naming convention here is WP:NCEVENTS, which prescribes the inclusion of when, where, and what in most article titles about topics like this, even in cases where there aren't any other articles titled "Nova Scotia attacks". I am less concerned with whether to label it "attacks", "killings", or "massacre"—"attacks" seems to be the most neutral-sounding. Mz7 (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Reservations about use of the word massacre. Massacre is a loaded word. The generally accepted term is when it is perpetrated by a group of political actors against defenseless victims of a certain ethnicity or religious group or class of people like in the Armenian massacres or the Rwandan massacres or the Khmer Rouge massacres, basically an attempt to annihilate a large group of people to obliterate their sheer existence now or in the future. It also involves deliberate planning at very high levels prior to execution of a massacre act. A deranged fellow killing some of his countrymen in a massive rage is not a massacre. Tragic as it may, these are killings. werldwayd (talk) 07:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support 2020 Nova Scotia massacre. Doubtless won't be the only attacks or killings in Nova Scotia in 2020; quite probably will be the only event commonly described as a massacre. But whatever, we definitely need the year. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
This will probably be the only notable attack or killing in NS this year. I'm not aware of any other mass killing event in NS having been referred to as a massacre, so if massacre is included in the title, the year isn't needed in it. Jim Michael (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Why would you use other years? This is unprecedented in hundreds of years of Nova Scotia history, and also in the entire nation this century. Nfitz (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Because technically the 1917 Halifax Explosion is also a "Nova Scotia massacre". delirious & lost ☯ 21:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
It wasn't, because it was an accident. Jim Michael (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Unless there was new evidence that only came to light recently the Halifax Explosion was not a deliberate attempt to kill people so it wasn’t a massacre.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, I feel like it's "attacks" that sound too tabloid-ish for a Misplaced Pages article title. It sounds more aggressive as a noun. Plus, let's not forget the 2001 Isla Vista killings and the 2014 Isla Vista killings. They use "killings" just fine in their titles without any objections. Love of Corey (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how, per 2001 Isla Vista killings and 2014 Isla Vista killings. Love of Corey (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note - Since the last request was rejected and archived, I have made new request here for this discussion to be closed once it has been open seven days.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Vote for new article title

1. 2020 Nova Scotia attacks

  • None of the options are perfect, but this one seems the least bad for now so we can at least get the year in the title. The page can always be moved later if RS consistently refer to a "massacre," etc.; police themselves have used "rampage." PrimaPrime (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I think this one fits best, because it incorporates the arson which may or may not have contributed to deaths. Even if the arson didn't contribute, I still think including it within the title instead of killings, massacre, homicides, etc. fits better with the scope of this incident.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 17:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

2. 2020 Nova Scotia killings
3. 2020 Nova Scotia rampage
4. 2020 Nova Scotia massacre
5. 2020 Nova Scotia multiple homicide incident
6. 2020 Nova Scotia spree killing
7. 2020 Nova Scotia spree killings
8. Nova Scotia killing spree

9. 2020 Nova Scotia multiple homicide
10. 2020 Nova Scotia shootings

I prefer 2020 Nova Scotia shootings, followed by 2020 Nova Scotia multiple homicide or 2020 Nova Scotia multiple homicide incident, and lastly 2020 Nova Scotia killings. I am not a fan of Attack, because, for some readers, I think this will suggest it was a "terrorist" attack, which it appears not to have been (though this is still leagues better than the current title). I also dislike massacre, spree killings or rampage as those seem inflammatory, non-neutral and not particularly modern mainstream Canadian ways of talking about this topic. Massacre is quite a loaded term, though we have used it historically. Rampage may suggest something about the perpetrator's mental state, which I very much do not want to get into in the title.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
What about the arson involved in the incident? Should that not be considered in naming the article?— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 22:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
No title is going to be perfect here, the main occurrence were the shootings. We are going to end up with a title that is too specific, too vague, too loaded (ie not neutral) or too long (if we try to fit everything in). I think that is the best fit balancing all of those factors. If there were people killed by fire alone then perhaps shooting is not appropriate, but I am not sure that is the case. We could include "ramming" or false "traffic stops" if we try to be too specific in the name. If we just say killing, that ignores the specifics that this was a shooting incident, in favour of including the general other (ie arson, ramming etc).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Best title, in my opinion, would be 2020 Nova Scotia spree killings. Bus stop (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Could the people who want the year in the title when it's unnecessary (such as when massacre / rampage / spree is part of it) say why they want the year in it? Jim Michael (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Certainly. Thanks for asking. The year contributes to instant-identification of the subject being addressed. I reject the argument that the year is superfluous. This is a non-judgmental descriptive title. I am placing minimum emphasis on the aim for "conciseness" which says the title should be "no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects". Please present your counterargument—why should the year be omitted? Bus stop (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Per your explanation & WP:NOYEAR, the year isn't needed in the title & is superfluous. Jim Michael (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Jim Michael, there is an argument for omitting the year per WP:NOYEAR, but it fortunately says "As this is a judgement call, please discuss it with other editors if there is disagreement." WP:TITLE talks about "descriptive titles". That is what this would be. I am not aware of a commonly accepted reference for the incident. As I am (or we are) concocting out of thin air a title to represent the incident, I lean towards instant recognizability. I feel that priority should be given to incontrovertibly identifying the subject being tackled in the article. When the reader is reading the lede they should have a title in their field of vision that assures them of the identity of the subject matter being addressed. Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I would agree the year is not needed if we use a more specific (but perhaps inflammatory) title using one of the descriptors massacre, spree killings or rampage, but it likely would be needed for the more general "Nova Scotia killings", "Nova Scotia attacks", "Nova Scotia shootings" etc.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Strictly speaking the year is not needed. I support the inclusion of the year. I am not trying to find the absolutely shortest title for the article. In my opinion the extra few characters required to represent the year do not represent a terrible violation of our aim for the most "concise" title possible. Why is it so important to have the briefest title possible? Bus stop (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
If a general term such as attack(s), shooting(s) or killing(s) is in the title, then the year is needed. If we use spree, massacre or rampage, then we don't. It's better to be precise. Using one of the latter terms is more descriptive & wouldn't leave any ambiguity. In addition to our policies favouring no year, including the year unnecessarily falsely implies that this wasn't the only massacre, rampage or spree killing in NS. Jim Michael (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
"In addition to our policies favouring no year, including the year unnecessarily falsely implies that this wasn't the only massacre, rampage or spree killing in NS." It doesn't imply anything of the sort. Bus stop (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
If someone said "the 1987 Hungerford massacre", you don't think that implies that there has been more than 1 massacre in Hungerford? You wouldn't find it strange that they unnecessarily attached the year to the event? Likewise "the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting". Jim Michael (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
There is no common name as far as I am aware for this incident therefore any title we choose is a concocted title. In my opinion we should be trying to cover all bases. That is why I feel conciseness can take back seat to thorough descriptiveness. Bus stop (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Poll created by --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Interim Solution

My reading of the above is that there is a consensus that the article should be moved (ie that we agree the current title is bad), and that most of us agree 2020 Nova Scotia attacks would be better than the current title (even if not perfect), but that we are not in agreement on what the final title should be. Does anyone object to me moving it there (as initially proposed), while we continue to discuss the final name? If this is done, I recommend we start an actual RfC following the move which would include the options in the discussion above and any others editors think should be on the list.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 09:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Reply - @Darryl Kerrigan:, we have less than one day remaining until a week of discussion on the move request has transpired. Once this is over, and an uninvolved editor has closed the discussion, we can move the article, if that is what is decided. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
We are unlikely to get a quick close. And I do not see any consensus in the above about the specific name to use, beyond some agreement that the proposal is better than the current title. Sure, we can wait for a proper close, but in my experience that is likely to take anywhere between 1-3 months (given the backlog at WP:AN/RFC). All the discussion above seems to have done is cement a option no one wants. Can we agree to WP:IAR and move it, and continue the discussion or wait for a close for a final title? Otherwise, the title will remain one that there is pretty uniform consensus against until we get a close, whenever that is.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Just append "2020" to the present title, as there is nearly consensus that the year should be there, and then continue an RfC for the wording that is to come after "Nova Scotia". This is a two-step plan. Immediately change the title to "2020 Nova Scotia killings", and then initiate an RfC to address the word(s) at the end of the title. Bus stop (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Fuck "2020", it's awkward and nobody uses it to describe this...thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • When there is difficulty with the first words and the last words, that difficulty can possibly be alleviated by breaking the RfC into 2 RfCs—one RfC for before "Nova Scotia" and one RfC for after "Nova Scotia". Bus stop (talk)

Names of victims

Now that two-three days have passed on the murders, isn't it high time the names of the victims are mentioned in our article? I think our present "Victims" page is very vague and cause of many more questions and ambiguities. We say: "According to the police commissioner, some of his first victims were closely connected to him, but his targets became more random". For all I know, this is a very important fact and may have been trigger to the later so-called "random" killings. We are so vague in our wording when we know the first two murders to be his ex (wife or girlfriend) and her new boyfriend. I refrain from putting their names but it's all there. Their names have been published. What about the other victims? We know by now so many of them. I will quote the names without full family names for verification by editors before publishing. Lisa M. was a teacher, 17 year old, the youngest was Emily T. Emily’s mother, Jolene O. also died. Heather O. and Kristen B. also were victims. Gina G., Jamie B., Lillian H., the couple Alana J. and Sean M., the couple Dawn M. and Frank G. All this just from one single newspaper article here There are many more articles mentioning the victims. Please update our victims section with names of all those killed. The injured may be omitted for now for obvious reasons. werldwayd (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Our vagueness continues. In the section "Victims" we say: "The RCMP expects to find more bodies within the remnants of five structure fires". That's speculative plus that it doesn't take account of the passage of time. It may have been true in the early hours, but not anymore. Our readers are led to believe we are implying that RCMP is still searching for more bodies in the ruins and the final toll is not known. Somehow I strongly doubt that. They must know all the victims by now. Just rephrase that vague statement or replace it with something more current and more clear. werldwayd (talk) 08:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Nobody knows what the RCMP knows, that's standard. But they release certain details on time. When they or the coroner show us a complete list, we'll take it and run with it. I fixed the tense issue, for now. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Individual victims aren't notable and WP is WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. Demographic information on them, like their age range, might be relevant to give some idea of the kind of attacks. Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Harizotoh9—WP:MEMORIAL addresses the creation of articles, not content within articles. Notice the wording: "Subjects of encyclopedia articles..." Bus stop (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Editors citing NOTMEMORIAL are referring to its spirit, not its letter, so your repeated references to its letter are a straw man. Misplaced Pages Pillar 5 says, "The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording", and to many editors the spirit of NOTMEMORIAL is that Misplaced Pages should not be used to memorialize non-notable individuals. You are free to disagree with that interpretation, but you are not free to imply that editors are not free to agree with it, or that their arguments are "incorrect" or lack legitimacy. Despite multiple requests, no editor has yet explained why memorialization should be acceptable as content within articles while being unacceptable as creation of articles. Please stop framing your responses as a debunking of NOTMEMORIAL arguments. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Individual names should only be given if the perpetrator targeted them specifically. Most mass or spree killings are just "I'm gonna kill whoever gets in my way", the victims are just the unlucky ones. --Khajidha (talk) 10:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

In this case it is apparently a mix of specific and non-specific targeting, so I'd say yes in this page.--Eostrix (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
My comment applies to each victim individually, not to the list as a whole. If one victim is specifically targeted and others are not, we should only name the one. --Khajidha (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Consistent with this decision, victim names will only be added if that is agreed by a majority of editors contributing here. WWGB (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The colleague WWGB quotes WP:NOTMEMORIAL. But when the killings involve his ex-girlfriend (some use the term ex-wife) and her new boyfriend, in those two murder cases, it is not just a "memorial case", so that rule would not apply. We are talking about actual motives and "targetted killing of the two". There names are very relevant as information. werldwayd (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
What? I did NOT quote WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I linked to a discussion on the listing of victim names. Thank you. WWGB (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Agreed on those two names. --Khajidha (talk) 11:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Sources should guide the development of the article. If sources by-and-large ignore the identities of victims, we should follow suit. But if multiple good quality sources expand on the identities of victims, then we should briefly summarize this information just as we briefly summarize and report other information. Bus stop (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Namimg random victims is sheer sensationalistic journalism a d is inappropriate in an encyclopedia. --Khajidha (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
That is your opinion—but which should matter more—your opinion or the judgement assumed to be exercised by sources of good quality? Bus stop (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
When that judgement results in sensationalism, it is demonstrably flawed. And, as you yourself stated, we summarize sources. We are free to leave out extraneous details. Like the names of people who just had really bad luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khajidha (talk • contribs) 14:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
It is axiomatic that not everything found in sources should be found in a Misplaced Pages article. We pare material down to give a reader a good representation of a cross section of reliable sourcing on a topic being addressed. You argue about inappropriateness and sensationalism—but your sensibilities are not of utmost importance. Ultimately sources should determine the content of articles. Bus stop (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Ultimately sources should determine the content of articles. That is clearly wrong, since we routinely omit information reported by a relative handful of sources. Misplaced Pages's mission is different from that of a newspaper, and a lot more than "it has been reported" goes into inclusion decisions. The evaluation is more nuanced than you make it out to be. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
As a compromise, I've gone down the route of the 2017 Las Vegas shooting and the Sutherland Springs church shooting and created an "External links" section with a link to the National Post article linked by the OP. Hopefully this is good for now until a final consensus is reached. If there's a more up-to-date article on the list of victims, please link it there. Love of Corey (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Nothing is requiring us to relegate information on victims to an external link. In my opinion information on the victims should be integrated into the article, as we see at for instance Ghost Ship warehouse fire, Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, Charlie Hebdo shooting, Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Orlando nightclub shooting, Virginia Tech shooting, and Columbine High School massacre. Bus stop (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Like I said, "Hopefully this is good for now". It's just to keep everyone happy until a decision is made here. I'm personally neutral about the whole thing. Love of Corey (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I oppose naming all victims in this article, for the usual reasons, which can be found in the previous discussion of this type (permalink) and many before that. I think the entry in the External links section is a fair compromise and the best solution proposed to date. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Mandruss that a victim list under External Links is a good compromise, and may be the best way forward to resolve the ongoing dilemma of naming victims. WWGB (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
These dead people have been the top story on The National for three consecutive days. That means they're not only more noteworthy than Wortman, but bigger than the coronavirus. To exclude such famous names from their own article despite such coverage in the real world would be stupider than usual this time. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Even the Canadian Prime Minister in his attempt to stop the press from mentioning even the perpetrator's name said: "Instead of focusing on the shooter, all our attention should be paid to the victims, their families and friends". What we are effectively doing is reducing the victims by reducing them into a number. Anything else about them doesn't matter. We are saying, now you know the number of the no-name deads. That's all you need. Now go and do something else and just forget about them. All the media without exception have detailed their backgrounds. And here we are arguing to make them non-persons and just some statistic. werldwayd (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Technically, we're doing the opposite. They're the ones with the problems. One has allegedly arguable privacy concerns, one has apparent reading difficulties and one is generally right but overconfident about that. Sometimes they're effective in their doings, sometimes we are. Little by little, we all get tired of each other untill the next massacre. I'm semiretired, so if you want my spot on our side after this round, be my guest! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Including the victims names, ages, occupations, personal lives etc. is of no relevance or use to anyone - with the exception of the fraction of a % of readers, those who personally knew them. Jim Michael (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Speak of the #2 devil. How's it going, Jim? Have you thought about reading up on this particular case, or are you going to tell me the CBC is sensationalist tabloid bullshit next, per tradition? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I've read enough & I know that stating names, occupations etc. cannot help our readers to understand this massacre. If for example, the victims include a 44-y-o salesman named David Smith who was divorced & had a son, daughter & dog & that he played golf at the weekend - there's no way that any of that can be of use to our readers. Likewise if another victim was a 67-y-o retired cook called Jane Jones who was widowed and lived with her three cats & enjoyed watching soap operas. No-one's going to be pleased to know those things & be sure to mention such details when talking to someone about this massacre. A person could cover this massacre in detail for a dissertation for a university course & still would have no need to mention such irrelevant details. It doesn't matter how many media sources give the biographical details of the victims - they're not encyclopedic. Jim Michael (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, this does not belong here, unless they have special connections to the killer. An external link to the CBC (or national post, or whatever) list of victims is enough. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Headbomb—reliable sources are showing us which material is pertinent to the Nova Scotia killings, which happens to be the title of the article. From where might you derive that this article is limited to "the killer"? Bus stop (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The sinking of the titanic killed over 1,500 people. We don't individually named them because these people simply happened to be on a boat and have have nothing to do with the boat sinking. Likewise for the people killed by Wortman. If there's a connection to the killer, we can mention those people and their connection, but the random ones are exactly that. Random killings. No insight is gained by naming them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
For practical reasons we can not include "over 1,500 people". You go on to say "If there's a connection to the killer, we can mention those people". But this article isn't solely about "the killer". The title is "Nova Scotia killings" and sources are clearly telling us the lives of the victims are relevant to the "Nova Scotia Killings". Bus stop (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Same old Jim, same old imaginary victims. You should write police stories. Seems to come easier to you than recounting actual key characters. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm really definitely not understanding, Jim Michael, why material of this nature should be omitted from the article. I think you think that you know what is best for readers. Reliable sources show us what is "best" for readers. I think that your sensibilities concerning what is "sensational" is of secondary importance. Bus stop (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
You write "No-one's going to be pleased to know those things & be sure to mention such details when talking to someone about this massacre." Is it your conception of a Misplaced Pages article that it should provide details likely to be mentioned by people when talking about this incident? That, in my opinion, is a parochial concern. Our purpose is wider than that. We are reproducing reliable-source coverage of a topic. That is a more basic concern than merely what people may talk about. We should not be weeding out that to which we have personal objections. Bus stop (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
What people say about it isn't the only or main bar for inclusion - I was using it as a means to show how unimportant the victims' details are to understanding what happened. It's not a mere personal objection, nor is it only to avoid sensationalism. During the last couple of years an increasing number of editors have voiced their disagreement with including names & biographical details about the victims in articles about mass death incidents. Being included by the news media doesn't mandate our inclusion of it. Jim Michael (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I oppose the initiative to truncate articles in accordance with the misguided reasoning of a relatively small group of editors. This is in response to "During the last couple of years an increasing number of editors have voiced their disagreement with including names & biographical details about the victims in articles about mass death incidents. Being included by the news media doesn't mandate our inclusion of it." Bus stop (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
You describe excluding names & other details of the victims as misguided - I see it common sense. Jim Michael (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
You write "I was using it as a means to show how unimportant the victims' details are". To determine "importance" we should be considering prominence of coverage of material in good quality sources. Bus stop (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I agree with Jim's view. I do not think we should be including a list of victims unless there is something about them which is especially notable or relevant to the article (ie. details about the type of victim a killer targeted, his motive, perhaps how the warning system failed, etc). Our job is not to memorialize the victims, and frankly I think regular people should have some right to privacy and to be forgotten unless there is a good reason to include them. If people really want to figure out who the victims are, they can read CBC or many other media out there. We don't need to list them though. Similar discussions have occurred after many other large tragedies. One such discussion occurred following the Christchurch Mosque Attacks. I have evolved these views based on the discussions following events like that.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Darryl Kerrigan—the victims are as much a part of the article as anything else prominently covered by good quality sources. I don't think we should second-guess or override good quality sources. We have the option of omitting that which is truly indiscriminate. But I don't think that applies to the victims any more than it would apply to the perpetrator. Bus stop (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
We surely do have the right to make a decision to omit that information. We have done so before. We have also included it before as can be seen at our article about the Orlando nightclub shooting and was discussed in the Christchurch discussion I previously linked to. As InedibleHulk alluded to before, these discussions tend to happen every time there is such a tragedy. Sometimes they go one way, sometimes the other. WP:MEMORIAL is not consistently applied, or at least the interpretation that would prevent these sorts of lists of victims is not uniformly applied. I think it should be. Others disagree. So far the issue remains unresolved.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Darryl Kerrigan—WP:MEMORIAL is not only not applied but it is inapplicable. It refers to subjects of articles. Not content within articles. These are two different things. Misplaced Pages:Notability tells us "The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it." We are not considering starting an article on a victim; we are discussing inclusion of information on victims in this article. Bus stop (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
That is one interpretation of MEMORIAL, but not one that is universally accepted. Mandruss already expressed this above. It stands to reason though, if we are not permited to memorialize people/groups in their own articles or create obituaries, devoting a large portion of an article about an event to the victims would have the same effect. The narrow interpretation of MEMORIAL you propose is not universally accepted. This discussion, already linked to above, makes clear that many believe that the spirit of MEMORIAL (or a broader interpretation of it) includes the treatment of victims in articles not just whether they should have their stand alone articles. But as I said, clearly the community has not reached a final consensus on what to do in these situations, favouring a "case by case" determination. In this case, I do not think there is any reason for us to deviate from the "spirit of MEMORIAL" or its broader interpretation.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Darryl Kerrigan—there is no memorialization taking place. I am not memorializing. You can say I am memorializing. But I most certainly am not. I am permitted to memorialize. But in fact I'm not memorializing. I am permitted to memorialize because no policy prohibits me from memorializing. You would have to know the content of my heart or brain to know if I were memorializing or not. But I can tell you categorically, if you believe me, that I am not memorializing. An incident took place. Misplaced Pages addresses itself to the task of representing that incident—per reliable sources. WP:MEMORIAL has nothing to do with this. All that matters, in my opinion, is providing a representation of the coverage provided by good quality sources. I think that our representation should be as unmediated as possible. Why should this article be burdened by any editor's preconceptions of what it should be? The way forward is simple: follow reliable sources. If they give scant coverage to victims—then leave it out. If they provide good coverage—include it in the article. Bus stop (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bus stop, I do not need to look into your mind at all. Nor am I, nor do I need to, accuse you of some secret wish to memorialize the victims. I assume you believe there are encyclopedic reasons to include their names. You are entitled to that good faith view, whether I disagree with it or not. I disagree, and have explained why. I tend to think lists of names are inappropriate. I also think irrelevant details about victims are inappropriate. I also think victims that were notable before their death, or victims that are relevant and notable because their identity or facts about them are relevant (ie to the type of victim a killer targeted, his motive, perhaps how the warning system failed, etc.) can be included. My view is not that victims' details can NEVER be included, only that generally they should not be included unless it is really necessary. Now I think the details of the regular debates that happen here are well known now. If there are specific wordings or proposals folks have, lets deal with them.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Darryl Kerrigan—we aren't inordinately focussed on the perpetrator. You are referring to reasons the perpetrator might have had in mind prior to committing an act leading to the death of someone. This would be only one perspective on writing the article. Why should I accept that framing of the subject of this article? (I am not rejecting it. But there are multiple facets to the coverage of this incident.) I would prefer to accept the framing of the subject of this article as presented to me by a multitude of good quality sources. We have articles like University of Texas tower shooting. I think it is a good article. I am not virtue signalling, obviously. I am unflinchingly stating it is a good article based on factors like accuracy and thoroughness. Bus stop (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Just because something appears in WP:RS does not mean we need to include it in the article. That just means we can verify it is true, reliable, not that it is encyclopedic and should be included. Yes, some of the factors I have suggested as relevant can be seen to view things from the perspective of the perpetrator. I am not framing it in that way though. I framing it from the perspective of why the tragedy happened, and why it happened the way it did. Motive and victims he chose are relevant to that. So might be characteristics of the victims which put them at higher risk. That is why the failure to use Alert Ready and whether victims would have seen those alerts, but didn't see the Twitter ones is also relevant. As might be other characteristics of the victims. It is also helpful to understand the sequence of events. Anyway, I am not sure if it is helpful for us to continue an abstract discussion about this divorced from actual proposals.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
You say you are "framing it from the perspective of why the tragedy happened". At this stage we are not trying to explain why the tragedy happened. Sources haven't told us why the tragedy happened. Authorities and historians may not ever know conclusively why the tragedy happened. In the meantime Wikipedians are expected to draw upon reliable sources to verbally convey to readers what is known about an incident. We do this so that a reader can get up to speed on what the best quality sources say about an incident of this sort. Information pertaining to victims is not taboo. You are not explaining why information pertaining to victims should be as severely restricted as you may be suggesting. Bus stop (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
At this stage we are not trying to explain why the tragedy happened. - Exactly, when we have sources that speak to motive, effect of the failure to issue an alert etc. there may be a reason to include certain details about the victims. I do not see reasons to include random details about the victims without that (subject to other reasons to include I have alluded to, perhaps understanding the sequence of events, victims that were notable before their death etc). But as I have said, let's talk proposals. I am done with this philosophical discussion. Both of our positions are known. As are those of other editors. If you want to talk proposals, then lets do that. I do not think either of us are going to convince the other to generally see things from the others perspective though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
It seems you are trying to make the article an expression of your personal likes and dislikes as opposed to a reflection of the general coverage of this topic in good quality sources. Bus stop (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Read above. There have been many discussions about these issues where many editors have said they do not believe it to be encyclopedic to include lists of victims names. I would ask you to WP:AGF as I have done. Unless you make a specific proposal, I do not intend to respond further to this thread.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't think editorial sensibilities should play an important role in writing articles. The article is a product of many hands. If you don't want to write about the lives of victims then please just desist from that task. Bus stop (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Actually, the WP:ONUS is on you to establish a consensus to include things in an article. Based on the discussion above, you don't seem to have it. Perhaps, if you make a proposal you might. Otherwise, you should WP:Desist.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Do not personalize article talk discussions. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
You're talking to Bus stop, the most persistent typist this war has ever known. He knows ONUS inside and out. He can not be stopped, only reasoned with. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The mantra is The reader doesn't need to know. Bus stop (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
It's not merely that - it's that it's of no use or relevance to readers to know the victims' identities. Jim Michael (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
You say that "It's not merely that - it's that it's of no use or relevance to readers to know the victims' identities." Then how do you explain the delving into the lives of victims that we find in reliable sources addressing the Nova Scotia killings. That, by the way, is the title of the article. Bus stop (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
We've discussed on a few talk pages of articles of mass murders why the media love to do that. It's a means of publicising their own organisations & maximising the number of readers/viewers they attract.
I don't know what point you're making about the title. It's likely to be moved, but regardless of that, most of our articles about events in which many people were killed don't include the names of the victims.
If it's proved that the killer targeted a particular demographic, that fact would be relevant enough to include. However, the names still wouldn't be. Jim Michael (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
You say "It's a means of publicising their own organisations & maximising the number of readers/viewers they attract." This is unsubstantiated. It also would seem to have little to do with Misplaced Pages, as this is a project quintessentially dependent on sources and I think we place a high value on adherence to sources. You also say "most of our articles about events in which many people were killed don't include the names of the victims". This is of course false. In fact most such articles do include rudimentary information on victims including their names. This can be said to be standard practice. Bus stop (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Obviously we are not going to include hundreds of names so such articles are excluded from my above assertion. Bus stop (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Where do you draw the line as to how many victims are too many to name in a WP article? Jim Michael (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Jim Michael—you ask "Where do you draw the line as to how many victims are too many to name in a WP article?". I think the more pertinent question is why we should refrain from doing that which can practicably be done. Bus stop (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
At what point would it become impractical? Also, why do you think practicality is more important than relevance? Jim Michael (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Jim Michael—is it your opinion that depicting decedents is impracticable at this article? (Merriam-Webster defines "practicable" as "capable of being put into practice".) Bus stop (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
No, but it would be giving undue weight to details of no relevance to the vast majority of our readers. Based on your reasoning, Oklahoma City bombing should include a list of all the people who were killed. Jim Michael (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Jim Michael—we are talking about this article, not Oklahoma City bombing or articles in general. Bus stop (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
We've been in similar conversations on many talk pages of mass murder articles, so it would be helpful if you said when the number of victims is too many to name. You either haven't decided that, or you have but won't say.
You say that most of our articles about mass death events name the victims, but to use recent mass murders as an example, do you think that most articles in Category:Mass murder in 2018, Category:Mass murder in 2019 & Category:Mass murder in 2020 list the victims' names? Jim Michael (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Jim Michael—if you are going to point to the all-too-numerous articles on bombings in parts of the world where victim identification is commonly missing from reporting, I think that is an argument for inclusion of this information in this article. Shouldn't we be following the sources that apply to the incident being covered? Bus stop (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it's one of the reasons to exclude the names. We should be consistent, rather than Western-centric. Jim Michael (talk) 08:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Jim Michael—you are saying "We should be consistent". Who is the "We" to which you refer? Are we going to provide information on victims in the "22 April 2018 Kabul suicide bombing" article? Probably not. That is because sources pertinent to that part of the world typically don't publish such information. Reporting practices are different in different parts of the world. Your argument is that a blackout of information in one part of the world should result in a blackout of information in another part of the world. Bus stop (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
We means WP & its editors. If the victims' names were an important part of understanding the event, I'd agree that we should include them even if they're not available for many articles. They're not, so adding them is part of WP's Western-centrism. Jim Michael (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Jim Michael—background information on the lives of victims including their names are "an important part of understanding the event". This isn't a creative writing project. We don't emphasize information and deemphasize information willy-nilly. Reliable sources are telling us what is "an important part of understanding the event". Can you tell us why we should not provide background information on the lives of the victims including their names just as we do at Ghost Ship warehouse fire, Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, Charlie Hebdo shooting, Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Orlando nightclub shooting, Virginia Tech shooting, and Columbine High School massacre? Bus stop (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Those events occurred prior to 2019. Since that time, there has never been consensus to include victim lists. Misplaced Pages has moved on. WWGB (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
WWGB—when you sign up for addressing topics via Misplaced Pages, you implicitly sign up for adhering to sources—not veering off willy-nilly into your own conceptions of how a topic should be addressed. Bus stop (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I note that you did not rebut my comment above. I repeat, Misplaced Pages has moved on. WWGB (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
WWGB—Misplaced Pages has not "moved on" from the principle of adherence to sources. Sources tell us what is pertinent to a topic that we are attempting to address, not the other way around. Creative writing doesn't happen to be an option available to you at Misplaced Pages, and that would include the creative omission of a dimension of the coverage of an incident that is given prominence in good quality sources. The burden is on you to tell us why we should in essence turn a blind eye to the lives of the victims of the Nova Scotia killings. The lives of the victims are pertinent to the coverage of this topic if reliable sources are to serve as a guide. Bus stop (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Standing with the unburdened majority of editors who eschew victim lists, I am moving on from this discussion too. We will of course never change each other's position, so debate is futile. I will leave the final word, as always, to you. Over and out. WWGB (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
not veering off willy-nilly into your own conceptions of how a topic should be addressed. Pot, meet kettle. (I am astounded that others continue to engage this editor, helping him flood one article talk discussion after another with circular argument. I can only assume that some editors enjoying arguing for its own sake.) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop, I don't think that any of those articles you mention should include the victims' names. The reason that they do is that at the time those articles were created, a high proportion of editors of articles about events in the Western world in which many people were killed wanted the names to be included. During the past couple of years, consensus has moved against that. Jim Michael (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Some of them happened before this issue was really on anybody's radar. Others can be explained because a lot depends on who happens to show up and who the closer is. It's fairly random. All we can do is keep showing up. It's a dumb game and a shameful time sink, but it's the "case-by-case" game imposed on us by the wider community, most of whom have had little or no firsthand exposure to this issue (and few of whom ever have to waste their own time as a result of their misguided positions). C'est la vie. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Question about the timeline

The article currently reads -- or, at least, gives the impression -- that this is what happened: He did a shooting and set some fires at 10:30 pm. Then, he did nothing all night long. Then, he started up again the following morning at 8:00 am. Is that what happened? Or was he actively engaging in this spree throughout the night-time hours? I am confused after reading the current timeline. And I suspect that my "interpretation" of what I am reading cannot be correct. I "doubt" that he took a break during the overnight hours and then waited until the next morning to resume his spree. Does anyone know? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

This does need further consideration. The gap should be properly explained. Like he was hiding some place to avoid pursuit? werldwayd (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I reviewed many reliable public sources, social media and a few other sources. There is a gap in the night we're the perpetrator actions are not public. The closest I got was that he may have been preparing for the morning, however I cannot give you a reliable source for updating this. A line saying details are unknown or not released to cover the gap may help readers understand. As the matter is under investigation, it can be updated later. Air Java (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Could also have gone to bed and slept (in a car or whatever). It was night time after all. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the point. I myself would think it odd to start a spree, then go to bed and get some rest, then resume tomorrow morning. I assume that -- in the middle of a spree -- the killer wants to keep going. And, why risk getting caught by the police, while you are resting, if you still have unfinished business? Perhaps -- as someone suggested above -- we can add a note that says "his activities during the night-time hours are unknown, while under investigation" or some such. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I've written a fair amount of that section and it certainly could give the impression that nothing happened overnight, which would be odd, but it's just reflecting that nothing has been said by police/in RS about that time period. I've added another sentence to clarify this, and we can update it further if more comes out about what he was up to. PrimaPrime (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
What happened overnight would be pure speculation and unless sources comment on this being a particularly conspicuous period of inactivity, shouldn't be highlighted here. There's a number of scenarios that are possible, from the mundane to the nefarious, and it's not for us to decide if something is unusual or not. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I think the unexplained gap is something a reasonable reader may find puzzling, especially since we say "the investigation developed overnight." The obvious next question to answer in the text is "how did it develop?" So I disagree that it's speculative to simply clarify that it's currently unknown what, if anything, transpired overnight. It would only be speculative to say "he may have done XYZ." But even if his activities were "mundane" in the sense that he went to sleep, that in it of itself would be notable, because he was able to take an extended break without being caught. PrimaPrime (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I noticed the "gap" too in news coverage. One thing that caught my attention was commentary on his state of exhaustion near the end. I don't know what indications of exhaustion were being referred to by the news source that I heard, which was an online video. I don't think it is our responsibility to make sense, especially at this early stage. We would fill in the blanks when appropriate information became available. Bus stop (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
It now reads. "The investigation developed overnight..." how did it develop or grow? or was it status quo? By saying it developed you are saying more happened, but we don't know this. Air Java (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
It is safe to say that it did "develop". We can patiently wait for more information. Bus stop (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The investigation should not be confused with the spree it investigates. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, this question is the result of an incomplete timeline, not because of some oversight by editors. Every timeline I have seen of the shooting shows an unexplained gap like you just described, unless there's something I missed. I think we should wait until the RCMP provides further updates on the timeline. Love of Corey (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


Just state the facts. He did a shooting and set some fires at 10:30 pm. His actions are next known the following morning at 8:00 am. --Khajidha (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Bingo. Even a claim of "the interim is unclear" would need a source. We could theoretically fill a second article with what we agree we don't know, but it'd be original research regardless of Talk consensus. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
This is a pretty good source for "the interim is unclear":

RCMP investigators in Nova Scotia haven't finished tracing the path of the man they say killed 22 people last weekend, but newly obtained video and audio recordings capture the chaos and confusion surrounding their 13-hour manhunt.

Also provides some more details for the timeline.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
That is about their actions, not his.--Khajidha (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

It's unclear and the police themselves are piecing it together. As time goes on more gaps will be filled. The new security camera footage fills in some holes for example. More will follow. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The wiki reads "who had been at a house party" but none of the referenced sources say the party was a house party and many people interpret "house party" to mean an overnight party at someone's house. In any case, it appears that the party involved a fire on the beach behind the home so I suggest editing the article to reflect the info in the cited sources and simply say "a party at a nearby home". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adwoodworth (talk • contribs) 17:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Firearm Acquisition Certificate

Gabriel Wortman, according to the RCMP, did not possess a firearm acquisition certificate.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/3a83av/nova-scotia-gunman-was-not-a-legal-firearms-owner-rcmp-says

Any firearms he had were obtained illegally. Canadian law stood in his way to procure his weapon(s). He didn't pay any attention to the law. Duh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.228.162 (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

-It's also hasn't been called a Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC) since 1995. I know it is the quoted text, but maybe a link to the Wiki Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL). https://en.wikipedia.org/Possession_and_acquisition_licence - Air Java (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Have the State Police evidence of the killers firearms acquisitions.At the time of his attacks, was he under Canadian Law, a legal firearm owner, and if so was the weapon he used part of that legal collection of firearms? or was the killer in possession of and using a firearm that was illegally obtained. It is key to the current CDN governments attack on the over 2 million law abiding legal and responsible firearm owners and how stronger regulations imposed on them will will increase public safety, versus stronger law enforcement measures applied to the criminal element who use firearms for violent acts. Canuk Citizen2001:569:F863:FA00:4D14:8A7A:594A:B132 (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

He had his PAL taken from him due to a conviction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.228.162 (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I have found no citation for that claim. I HAVE found where he was prohibited from owning weapons, explosives and the like for a period of nine months following his pleading guilty to the assault charge.   Aloha27  talk  15:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
"Chief Supt. Chris Leather said Wortman “didn’t have a Firearms Acquisition Certificate” to be able to purchase firearms legally in Canada."
Again in Vice.
Again in National Post
"It is illegal to own a gun without the proper licence." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.228.162 (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
"It took the Mounties until Wednesday afternoon to admit publicly they had known since they first heard Wortman’s name and ran it through the computer that he didn’t have a gun licence." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.228.162 (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Lede

The current lede is appalling. There is no foundation laid as to what the article is about it simply goes off talking about details of what happened. This clearly goes against MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH This is incredibly confusing for the layperson and makes the whole section very difficult to read. The lede should be a summary of the whole article and an introduction to the whole article. The current lede is also in no way in line with MOS:LEDE. I have attempted to make constructive edits but this trash version keeps being reverted to under the auspices of selective MOS:BOLDAVOID while ignoring MOS:BOLD. I do not want to edit war, but the lede as it stands is about as good as toilet paper for being a useful lede. Sparkle1 (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Your comment is a rant about the general incompetence of editors at this article, and of little use as written. Please make specific suggestions for lead improvement. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I made suggestions. here is a version which I edited to but it was simply reverted. I have said improvements should be in line with the manual of style. The current version is in my opinion outside the MOS. I really don't want editing by a committee that is not a good use of anyone's time. General discussions regarding this lede are far better. Sparkle1 (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Have it your way. I have no "general" problem with the current lead.I do oppose, somewhat strongly, repeating the article title in the first sentence when it is not an iconic "household name" for the event, such as Oklahoma City bombing. Very few of these mass killing events ever acquire such a name. To blindly do that because of an MOS guideline that doesn't even clearly call for it in articles like this is an excellent example of over-adherence to rules, in my opinion.I see you've now done that at least one other article, as part of a massive "copy edit" there, and I will revert that part of the edit in a few days unless someone beats me to it, either selectively or en masse. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The manual of style is pretty clear that:

If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence

The title of this article is what Wikipeida has decided the formal name of this topic is. There is nothing to do "iconic "household name" for the event". That is just not the case. The article title is as it currently stands the formal name for the article and the manual of style is clear on how to incorporate that. MOS:AVOIDBOLD can be easily dealt with as the incorporation can easily be done in a natural and redundancy free way. see Dunblane massacre, Oklahoma City Bombing, September 11 attacks, etc. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The lede shouldn't be saying "Gabriel Wortman killed 22 people and set fire to five buildings before the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) killed him." Instead the lede should be saying "A 51 year old male killed 22 people and set fire to five buildings before the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) killed him." That is because this isn't a known person; the reader is first encountering this person's name in the lede. Curiosity might lead the reader to jump to the "Perpetrator" section of the article. Even in the absence of curiosity the reader is apprised of his age, which I think constitutes an important piece of information. Bus stop (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I would tweak the lede a little. "A 51 year old male killed 22 people and set fire to five buildings before he was shot and killed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police."   Aloha27  talk  15:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
That sounds acceptable to me. Bus stop (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Removing the name is unacceptable. Gabriel Wortman is the guy. This is important information. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The name of the individuals is verified and substantiated by numerous reliable sources. This is also notable information regarding the incident. There is a need to remember not to get sentimental or treat this as a memorial to the victims. The name is reliably and verifiably sourced in line with the rules of Misplaced Pages. It should be retained, not retaining the name would be an omission of information just for what?. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The opening is very small and needs to be greatly expanded. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Harizotoh9's observation, the lede is in need of expansion. That's its biggest problem right now. I concur with Mandruss in that we should not bold the title in the lede unless a common name emerges for this incident. 2017 Las Vegas shooting is a good example; it has no common name such as Oklahoma City bombings and September 11 attacks, so the title is not bolded in the lede.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 20:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I've now done some expanding of the lede which hopefully better summarizes the incident and the article's contents. I was thinking about adding mention of the criticism being leveled at the government for its use of the emergency alert system (or lack thereof), but thought I'd hold off for now and maybe see what others here would think of adding it in the lede.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 06:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted poor writting several times now. Stop starting the article with awkward phrasings like "During a thirteen-hour period spanning April 18–19, 2020, 51-year-old Gabriel Wortman..." Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

That beginning a sentence with a preposition constitutes "poor writing" is your opinion, but it's grammatically correct and in line with how most mass shooting-related articles begin. How about "On April 18–19, 2020..." PrimaPrime (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
That it's grammatically correct is irrelevant. What matters is stating what the article is about as soon as the article starts, not go into details about when something occured without knowing what the something is. Hence "Multiple shootings occurred in Nova Scotia during 18−19 April 2020..." and not "During 18−19 April 2020, multiple shootings occurred in Nova Scotia..." Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Almost every similar article still begins with at least the date. Furthermore, because not all victims are confirmed to have died by shooting, I don't think we should imply otherwise. Again, how about: "On April 18-19, 2020, Gabriel Wortman committed multiple shootings and set fires at several locations throughout the Canadian province of Nova Scotia." The "something" that happened is still right there in the first sentence. PrimaPrime (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
No they don't. It's in the first sentence, sure, but it's not the first bit of information presented. If "shooting" is felt inaccurate, then "attacks" or "killings" or similar can be used. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with PrimaPrime, there's no issue at all with the way we're beginning the article. Stop trying to enforce your version which lacks information and reads awkwardly, and stop using the wrong date format.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 16:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I said "almost every"; see for example 2017 Las Vegas shooting, La Loche shootings, 2019 El Paso shooting, Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, Charlottesville car attack, or 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting. Particularly if there is no "iconic" title that's bolded in the lede, the date regularly goes first because that is a common and clear style of writing that avoids the passive voice. PrimaPrime (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Investigations Section

Shouldn't we break this into different subsections? Perhaps, the criminal investigation (into Wortman, and those who may have assisted him in obtaining police equipment), the investigation of the failure to use the Alert Ready system, and the police-related shootings. Does the investigation of the police shooting of Wortman and the one at firehall belong in the same subsection as that of the investigation of Wortman himself?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

It probably doesn't and a third subsection seems appropriate, although it will be a bit sparse on details until the SIRT finishes up its work in at least several months. PrimaPrime (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

In the Criminal section it says "Police later said all but one of the firearms had originated in the United States." When I looked at the linked article it says "The gunman used a handgun and long guns during his attack, and police say they were able to trace one weapon back to Canada. They believe the gunman obtained the other firearms from the United States." I believe that the wiki quote reverses the meaning of the actual linked article. The line in Wiki does not properly identify one known country of origin (Canada) and presents the current police speculation/belief (They believe the gunman obtained the other firearms from the United States) as fact (Police later said all but one of the firearms had originated in the United States). I think it would be better to quote the source directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdsorrentino (talk • contribs) 18:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Coordinates

Interactive mapping tools such as Google Maps can be useful in understanding an event such as this, and coordinates are Misplaced Pages's way of providing easy access to those tools. This article currently does not provide coordinates, presumably because there are at least five widely-dispersed locations involved. There are several ways to approach this at this article:

  • We can require readers to go to the Nova Scotia article and click on the coordinates there. How likely is it that that will occur to them? Is this a reasonable expectation?
  • Some articles that have multiple locations provide separate coordinates for each. An example is Christchurch mosque shootings, but it has only two locations. Would five be too much?
  • We can add coordinates here that point to the approximate center of the multiple locations, and use a low precision (d.d°) to imply the wide geographical area, per WP:COORDPREC. This concept was applied at 2014 Isla Vista killings, although its geographical area was smaller so it uses a higher precision (d.ddd°).

Which approach do editors prefer? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Second option - That seems to be the most realistic for me. Love of Corey (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
    If I'm not mistaken, we have already soundly rejected showing specific street addresses for victims' homes. How do you give separate coordinates without pointing to specific structures, which is essentially the same thing? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
    That is correct. Identifying the precise locations of shootings might also identify people's actual residential addresses, which raises WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:AVOIDVICTIM concerns.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
    Oh. I thought we were talking about the towns affected, not actual addresses. Love of Corey (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
    @Love of Corey: My bad, I was unclear on that point. Read on. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - Can something be done in the form of how a heat map shows areas, however doesn't give out addresses? Air Java (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
    AFAIK we have no way to do that in a way that provides easy access to interactive mapping tools, which is the goal here. The article already shows the locations of the respective towns ("areas"), but in a form that doesn't allow you to access the mapping tools. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
    We can identify locations down to the Postal Code or town (perhaps neighbourhood). We just do not want to be too precise with locations when they occur at private homes. I do not think those concerns generally apply when we are talking about business locations (ie a gas-station, side of a highway etc). Those generally will not trigger the same privacy concerns.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
    I agree, and I think we can drop option 2 from consideration. The example given above, Christchurch mosque shootings, does not present such privacy issues. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
    Well I suppose we could provide the coordinates of each town, but we would have to identify them as such for clarity. As compared to option 3, I'm not convinced that would be that much more useful from the standpoint of using a mapping tool, enough so to justify at least ten lines in the infobox. Mostly I'm just trying to get the reader to the general area of the globe in a mapping tool. I would use the dim: parameter to show a smaller initial view than, say, the entire province. It would be just "wide" enough to encompass all of the locations and a little "margin". ―Mandruss ☎ 01:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that the map already in the article provides access to OpenStreetMap (OSM), an interactive mapping tool (IMT), via its "Full screen" link at the bottom. One could argue that that makes coordinates redundant and unnecessary. They could also argue that OSM marks the towns (without naming them, however) and other IMTs would not. I would respond that they have good points, while adding that:
  • OSM is a relatively primitive IMT, providing only basic features.
  • Some readers have invested considerable time learning the unique features of their IMT-of-choice (I have, Google Maps), they are more comfortable using it, and they would prefer to use it, not OSM. This number is obviously growing as tech-challenged readers are replaced by new generations who are tech-savvy by age 5.
  • Location-related Misplaced Pages articles usually have coordinates and it stands to reason that many readers expect to see them.
I therefore feel that both mapping methods have their advantages, I see little reason not to provide both, and I think the article will be improved by the addition of coordinates. Unless there is consensus against it, I plan to implement option 3 above. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
My learning process continues. If you click on "Full screen" at the bottom, you then have an "External maps" button in the bottom right, and that gives you access to other IMTs including Google Maps. That largely negates my first and second bullet points above, significantly weakening my argument. To whatever extent readers can reasonably be expected to figure this out on their own, coordinates would in fact be largely redundant, so I'm suspending my plans for coordinates while still interested in other comments. I don't feel that the mix of the two methods site-wide is good for readers, but that's a discussion for a different venue. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Injured Civilian

If anyone thinks there is a better way to word this, please have at it. It seems clear that a civilian drove to the scene to help, and was fired upon by either Wortman, police (presumably by accident) or a civilian defending themselves (presumably by accident). The reporting is murky, so I struggle with how we can accurately say someone else was injured, without suggesting it was Wortman who shot at him (when we don't seem to be clear it was). Hard to word uncertain things in this situation.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

But the April 22 press release clearly states there was only one person injured. Is the Globe and Mail source up-to-date? Love of Corey (talk) 04:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Do you have a link to the portion of the press release you are referring to? That diff doesn't include a reference. It appears there was an officer wounded, and a civilian. That is in line with the initial reporting, even if not the April 22 press release (but I would like to see the specific wording used there). Perhaps, it said one person (meaning one civilian) as opposed to an officer. Perhaps they are no longer saying the civilian was injured by Wortman because it was an officer or armed civilian who mistakenly shot out a bystander vehicle. Perhaps this injured civilian is just a man's man who doesn't want to admit he was actually hurt despite being taken to hospital. With out the exact wording of the release I do not want to speculate too much. But the Globe piece is clear a civilian was injured and talken to hospital after his vehicle was shot out. And we know Wortman shot another officer who survived (ie injured).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Two injured civilians in Portapique, one shot male, one something female. Just the cop later. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Remove Reference to Justin Trudeau's Political Exploitation by user Crumpled Fire

Crumpled Fire (one time user) added Justin Trudeau's immediate exploitation of the 22 deaths to advance his long held desire to ban firearms in Canada. It is a political injection into a massacre by a man who disregarded the law in an infinity of dimensions. No gun law on earth would have stopped this jerk. So, The killings are not a political in any respect. Let's keep it that way, unless it can be establish that his motive were tied to firearms legislation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.228.162 (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

  • I don't know where you're getting the idea that I am a "one time user", my account has existed since 2012 and I was in fact the user who first created this very article several days ago. Adding the reaction of Canada's head of government is not a "political injection" by any means, but your inflammatory comments characterizing Trudeau's comments as "immediate exploitation" is certainly a political opinion. The only reason I added this to the intro was to help bulk it up and summarize the article's contents, and I felt that his comments were an important part of the summary, regardless of what you think of them. We are just reporting the facts, that's what he said. Once we get more information about the weaponry used and its relation to laws, I'm sure appropriate amendments to the lede will be made.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 20:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • When seeking material to bulk up the intro and summarize the article's contents, I made the determination that the best way to represent the "Reactions" section was to note the country's leader's response in the most succinct manner possible, and I felt that mentioning his comments about "not naming" the shooter and "not giving him infamy" would be more controversial than his comments about strengthening gun control laws, so I added the latter. If folks would rather his response to the incident be removed from the lede, or would like to reword how we address it, that's fine. My main imperative at the time was bulking the lead and summarizing all of the article's content as succinctly as possible. Since Nova Scotia's Premier didn't seem to provide any noteworthy reaction other than to offer condolences, I felt the Prime Minister's substantive reactive comments would fit better in the lede than the Premier's mere condolences.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 20:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Unless and until something happens in the House of Commons, those really are just words and a small amount of political posturing. If this leads to changes in law (or even perhaps simply efforts to change the law), then that'd be worth mentioning. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
It is worth mentioning in the article now (but not the lede), and perhaps the lede later depending on developments.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
That's fine. Now that the official timeline of events has been revealed by authorities, it should be easier to expand the summary of actual events that took place during the incident in the lede, so hopefully the void from the removal of reference to the PM's comments can be filled back in with those details.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 21:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Should the date or the event start the article?

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Basically, should the first sentence begin with something like this, with the topic first, then the dates (What, Where, When, By Who)

A) Multiple shootings occurred in Nova Scotia during 18−19 April 2020, when Gabriel Wortman engaged in a killing spree throughout various locations.

or with something like this this, with the dates first, then the event (When, By Who, What, Where)

B) On April 18 and 19, 2020, Gabriel Wortman committed multiple shootings and set fires throughout the Canadian province of Nova Scotia.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

If you prefer the style at OKC bombing, that's option A. What, When, Where, By whom. Doesn't matter if the event has an "common name" or not the structure should be the same. Also the passive voice is generally more appropriate for encyclopedic tone, especially on events (see 9/11 attacks for another example). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
No, Option A is not worded in the same way as OKC bombing. There it starts with "The Oklahoma City bombing was...". That is an active definition. Option A here, does not start with a definition and is somewhat passive it communicates that a multiple shootings occurred (ie a ball was thrown) and then later indicates by whom (ie the boy). OKC has a full stop after the definition and then goes straight into who (McVeigh & Nichols), though that sentence could be more active too (although the importance falls off a bit after the first sentence). I think it is important that the first sentence of the lead is active not passive.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Active or passive voice isn't the issue here, but rather the order of information. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
The current order of information is already perfectly clear. It's not like the "what" is buried in the second paragraph. It's literally the second clause in the very first sentence. Many similar articles do the same thing. As for the use of passive voice, it is indeed not the primary concern here, but it is something to consider. Generally speaking, passive voice is considered poor writing and something to be avoided if possible. PrimaPrime (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
The passive voice is considered poor writing by people who don't know how and when to use the passive voice. The lead should start with the topic. That's what, not when. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@Vaselineeeeeeee: that starts with what first, not date first. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
The second paragraph, once we get into the details, I meant, starts date first. Vaselineeeeeeee 17:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, but the RFC isn't about how to start the second paragraph, but rather how to start the first sentence of the first paragraph of the lead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Right, your first paragraph has some of the elements that I'd like to see in the second paragraph. So I'm still opposed to both of those options for the first paragraph. If this is an issue because people don't want to use boldface right now, then option B until a typical opening sentence can be used to introduce the article. Vaselineeeeeeee 23:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with @Vaselineeeeeeee:. Sparkle1 (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I also agree with Vaseline. École Polytechnique massacre and OKC both use the "definition" approach, which I prefer. It is active and easier to read in my view, though I note some others seem to think it is inappropriate to use this approach without a WP:COMMONNAME for the incident.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Per MOS:BOLD "The most common use of boldface is to highlight the first occurrence of the title word/phrase of the article in the lead section." Nova Scotia killings is what the title is currently, and even though that may not be the common name, it is still the title and belongs in boldface. When the article is moved, the new title will go in boldface. The current state of the title shouldn't be a deterrence from using this system. Vaselineeeeeeee 19:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
And per MOS:BOLDAVOID, there does not always need to be something bolded in the first sentence. PrimaPrime (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Why would date first depend on where or not something has a common name. The what events occured matter more than when they occurred. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of what's in the first sentence & in which order, the killer's age shouldn't be in it. Jim Michael (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, we could just as easily re-write that as Gabriel Wortman committed multiple shootings and set fires throughout the Canadian province of Nova Scotia on April 18 and 19, 2020.. That might address both your and Headbomb's concerns. Although, I expect some might object to placing Wortman first in the article (ie killing him a name and fame, prominence). This is part of the appeal of the "definition approach", our unnamed third option.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Nope, what needs to come first. The article is about the killing sprees, not about Wortman. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
How about something like On April 18 and 19, 2020, multiple shootings and acts of arson were perpetrated by Gabriel Wortman at several locations in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia.. That satisfies listing the events before the perpetrator, but I do still strongly support listing the date of the events at the very beginning, unless we move to adding the bolded title of the article in the lede, which I don't think should be done under the current article title.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 00:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Not a fan. That is the problem of not doing a definition. Putting "multiple shootings" as the beginning of the sentence makes the action come before the subject and thus makes it passive not active. It is way easier for humans (at least English speaking ones) to understand "A caused B" than "B was caused by A". Using a definition allows the lede to remain active while putting the important details at the beginning and end of the first sentence (as is the case with École Polytechnique and OKC bombing)... ie "A is A."--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
In theory, this could work as a compromise using the "definition" approach, although I again am against bolding anything in the lede unless and until a WP:COMMONNAME emerges:

The Nova Scotia killings were a series of shootings and arson attacks that occurred on April 18 and 19, 2020 in several locations in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia. The perpetrator, Gabriel Wortman, killed twenty-two people and injured two others before the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) shot and killed him at a gas station in Enfield.

PrimaPrime (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support B - Per PrimaPrime. Also, active voice > passive voice. Love of Corey (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support A in substance, but not in content. Subject matter should go first, but it should not start with "Multiple shootings." It would be easier with a WP:COMMONNAME, but I guess in the interim, it should reflect the name of the article. The Nova Scotia Killings occurred in Nova Scotia on April... and so on. AlexEng 23:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support B because it seems more natural to my ear. Shootings don't just "occur".Since it has come up in this RfC's discussion despite not being one of the options, I'll state that I oppose repeating the article title in the first sentence, bolded or otherwise. There is no event widely referred to as the "Nova Scotia killings". To whatever extent news reports use those words, they are a description, not a name. Refer to the term "Nova Scotia killings" to a hundred people two years from now, and without further information 99 of them will have no idea what you're talking about. This is starkly contrasted to Oklahoma City bombing, a very different kind of event. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support A. The shootings are the critical issue here, not the dates on which they occurred. WWGB (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support A The event itself is needed to be mentioned first more than the dates. Idealigic (talk) 11:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Both versions include the killer's name in the first sentence. Should it be stated there, rather than later on? Jim Michael (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

More detailed timeline:

More info is out so the police have fleshed out more of the timeline of events. Here and here as examples. 00:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like it's still not known or at least publicly revealed most of what he was doing for quite a few hours (from about 11 to 8), per the earlier discussion #Question about the timeline. There was questions about whether any source had noted a gap. This BBC source does say "The complexities of the case meant that it took several days to identify all the victims, and several more before the police could release a timeline, and there are still large gaps where Wortman's whereabouts are unknown." Nil Einne (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
The whole transcript is published today, should probably be directly cited in a lot of places where we currently have clumps of various, "snippeted" or redundant early news recaps. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Archiving now 3 days

We previously reduced the archiving to 1 day, due to the fast paced nature of the talk page and its size (now 153,082 bytes and 18 discussions). I guess 3 days is fine for now, but the talk page is getting up there and only growing. We will have to keep an eye. Perhaps it will shorten up once the constipation caused by failing to move the page has been dealt with.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Re TOC size, even thirty or forty level-2's are manageable. Re file size, many talk pages stay up around 400K and nobody sees a problem with that (although many editors need to learn how to comment less verbosely). It's unwise to assume a thread has gone dormant when it hasn't received a comment in 24 hours. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
We can always archive individual threads manually when it's clear they're no longer active. Unarchiving discussions when there's been a brief lull in activity is the greater hassle in my opinion. Activity will naturally die down over time, and then the talk page can easily be culled. AlexEng 05:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Reply - Can we PLEEEEEEEEEEASE reset archiving to ONE day, now that the talk page is up to over 200 kB? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
    Please explain why 200 is unacceptable while 400 is routine at many high-participation articles. If your device or internet connection is too slow to handle 200, I suggest upgrading your device or internet connection. This is 2020, not 2002. This page cannot function effectively with 1-day archival, or even 2-day. Even 3-day excludes a lot of editors who can't or don't care to participate that frequently. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Perp's DOB and DOD

An editor added Wortman's dates of birth and death, referring to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as precedent. My edit summary on my BRD revert fairly sums up my objection and was: "This is not a biography of the perp, so age is sufficient. In response to the cherry-picking, this is per other articles with perps lacking their own article (e.g., Thousand Oaks shooting, Christchurch mosque shootings). Please, don't cherry-pick to support an argument."

Cherry-picking from other articles is unconstructive and misleading, and in some cases even disingenuous. There are always multiple existing articles that do what we want to do. So let's set aside "what other articles do" and just discuss the merits of these dates in this article. How do editors feel about this issue?

(The editor re-reverted without consensus, contrary to guidance at WP:BRD. They did not respond to my UTP request to self-revert, so I am restoring status quo ante pending a consensus to include this content. Discussions are not held by re-reverts and edit summaries – for multiple good reasons.) ―Mandruss ☎ 03:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

There are a number of other articles outside of Sandy Hook that mention a perpetrator's date of birth and date of death, even if the perpetrators don't have their own biography articles. 2014 Isla Vista killings, Umpqua Community College shooting, and Sutherland Springs church shooting come to mind. I don't see what's so wrong with that, unless MOS dictates otherwise. Love of Corey (talk) 05:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
There are a number of articles outside of Thousand Oaks shooting and Christchurch mosque shootings that don't mention a perpetrator's date of birth and date of death, even if the perpetrators don't have their own biography articles. Included are 2017 Las Vegas shooting, Aurora, Illinois shooting, 2019 Dayton shooting, Midland–Odessa shooting, Saugus High School shooting, and Naval Air Station Pensacola shooting. How long are we going to play this game?But you are of course not required to agree with my reason for objecting to the dates, that's why I started the discussion. If you don't think DOBs/DODs are biographical data that should generally be confined to biographies, fine. If you think readers have some need for that information in the context of this shooting event, okay. If you think we should include information just because it's known and reported, well, you're just wrong, that's not what we do. Thank you for your comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
By the way, this DOB was not even "reported" per se, as far as I can tell from the references used. The editor had seen perp's DOB in some other articles of this type, decided it needed to be in this article because it's in those articles, and found the date in a court document which is provided by the Halifax Examiner. We might as well include that the case number is 1132785. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
That case number could be where he got the digits for car 28B11, speaking of original research. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
So would you suggest those dates be removed on those articles, then? I personally don't care either way. Just puzzled by the lack of support in the first place since there's clearly precedent. Love of Corey (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@Love of Corey: As I've shown, there is at least as much precedent for omitting DOB as for including it. This is why it's a really, really bad idea to cherry-pick our precedents to support what we want to do. Furthermore, for the articles that include the DOB, we have no idea how much editors there really considered whether DOB makes sense there. Can you point to a discussion with high participation involving experienced editors? It should mean very little to us that some editors chose to boldly include those dates – in many cases for no other reason than that they saw it done in other articles, as was done here – and other editors have had other things to think about. The existence of bad stuff never justifies the addition of more bad stuff of the same kind, and such thinking can only result in a snowballing of bad stuff.Sure, I think those dates should be removed. Which is not to say that I'm going to go around removing them. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
While readers may not need to know his DOB to understand the gist of the article, neither do I think that it's irrelevant to the point of being indiscriminate information, especially given that it's a mere 22 bytes of content. Another editor sees fit to add it, and provided they have a reliable source and there are no policies, guidelines, or precedents to the contrary, the DOB's presence does not seem liable to detract from the article's quality. PrimaPrime (talk) 05:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
WP:NOTEVERYTHING found in reliable sources needs to be published in Misplaced Pages. Knowledge of Wortman's date of birth in no way enhances the reader's understanding of the attack or his motive. I removed an assertion that he was "private polite and house proud" which is similarly irrelevant to this article. WWGB (talk) 06:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Polite, not private. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Articles about mass murders in which the killer's identity is known typically include a section about the killer, which is a mini-biography. If published by RS, it should be stated in that section. Jim Michael (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Date of birth is not important in my opinion and from what I gather from what others are saying in this thread, the person's date of birth is not prominently found in sources. Bus stop (talk)

Dead and injured dogs

A fair bit out there about two dog victims, both of whom lost their owners but survived being shot. I think they're noteworthy, but another guy doesn't care. What say you? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure, as long as you don't name them. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
If RS say that Wortman shot dogs as well as people, it should be included. Jim Michael (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Oh, come on. This is Misplaced Pages, not dogipedia. Maybe he stepped on some ants also? WWGB (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Sources don't say, but he stole the Shepherd's car (which we note by model, despite this not being Auto Trader). InedibleHulk (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Deliberately shooting dogs was part of the killing spree. Jim Michael (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps most historically, these dogs got free health care. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
And perhaps "ironically", CTV Atlantic, which first made him "famous" for generous dental work, reports his final canine victim was shot in the teeth and owned by a denturist. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
In the canine teeth? Thanks, we'll be here all week! ―Mandruss ☎ 13:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Did you know the Shepherd from Death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi not only has his own name and infobox number, but a photo? Can ***ger at least have her full name? Seriously, it looks bad censored. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
We bypass sources at our own peril. Selective omission of that which is found in good quality sources is tantamount to creative writing. Of course we should be mentioning the canines that were shot. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is a benefit as well as a liability. Bus stop (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
BBC also notes two dead Labradors, no clear names or injuries, in a burnt house. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
One of these days I'll find the energy to boldly add content to an article including all information found in good quality sources. When reverted, I'll link to some of your comments on the question, and we'll see how that flies. My expectation is that editors, by overwhelming margin, will prefer "selective omission of that which is found in good quality sources". ―Mandruss ☎ 14:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Mandruss—we should stop pretending that WP:INDISCRIMINATE allows us to selectively omit anything that suits our fancy. Misplaced Pages doesn't base articles on subject matter. Misplaced Pages bases articles on the coverage of topics in good quality sources. Bus stop (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
No competent editor selectively omits "anything that suits our fancy". We use our brains and selectively omit things that are not relevant, are not significant, and so on. Any intelligent 8-year-old could be taught to transfer information from news sources to Misplaced Pages articles with rewording to avoid COPYVIO. As you've been told countless times by countless experienced editors, to deaf ears, coverage in sources is one factor to consider but far from the only one. It is Step 1 of a filtering process that transforms news to encyclopedic content. Your view of Misplaced Pages editing is narrow and simplistic, and has precious little support. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I support Bus stop's simple and focused approach, at the risk of getting hatted for humanizing him again. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't see a good reason to omit the fact that dogs were among the victims of this killing spree. Jim Michael (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Any reason to omit their names, breeds and/or ages? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the reason is that those details are trivia. Jim Michael (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Mandruss—we aren't trying to show the reader how the topic ought to be covered. We should be endeavoring to show the reader how good quality sources actually have covered the topic. Do you see the distinction? This isn't our creative writing project. Adherence to sources is not something that is merely optional. Bus stop (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Adherence to sources is not something that is merely optional Huh? I have never suggested we should not adhere to sources. That's verifiability, and it has nothing to do with this issue. While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. That is part of a Misplaced Pages policy and it directly contradicts your views here. And this is not the first time this has been pointed out to you.Here's a small sampling of how good quality sources have covered this topic, currently omitted from our article. Please get to work adding these items and all others like them, or admit (at least to yourself) that you yourself endorse what you call creatively call "creative writing".
  • RCMP gave the new death toll, which excludes the shooter, Tuesday night in a news release.
  • It's not clear if police still expect the number of victims to rise.
  • the piles of flowers and mournful notes at memorials across Nova Scotia are growing.
  • On Tuesday, police maintained a blockade at the top of Portapique Beach Road.
  • Only investigators and residents were allowed to pass through the roadblock on Tuesday,
  • Gabrielle Sullivan-Sparks drove in from Great Village, a town 10 kilometres east, bringing a potted hydrangea and a solar-powered lamp to make sure the memorial would "have some light all the time, at night."
  • People in blue and white forensic suits moved about.
  • At Debert Elementary School, home-crafted hearts dot a chain-link fence in memory of Lisa McCully, who taught there.
  • Sullivan-Sparks said the grief being felt across the province was made all the more difficult by COVID-19.
  • Strang and Premier Stephen McNeil have also denied national and international media outlets that want to send reporters to cover the shooting, and have requested exceptions to the order for travellers to self-isolate for 14 days. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It is fine to note that he killed or wounded dogs or other animals, and at what locations, but we are not running an animal MEMORIAL or pet cemetery here either. Unless there is a reason to include details of their "names", ages, or breeds we should not do so. The Baghdadi example is not a comparable one, because that was a working dog (not a pet) which was involved in the operation. But I am not sure that is even appropriate there and seems rather Memorial-y.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss—in the above you are suggesting I add material to an article. But bear in mind that this is a collaborative project. People voluntarily add material to build an article. Yes, sometimes people also remove material in an effort to improve an article. But should you be devoting so much effort to telling people they should be doing or not doing anything? In my opinion your modus operandi is shortsighted. There is a reason that Misplaced Pages works and that reason is not that we have traffic cops. You are setting yourself up as a gatekeeper of information. Such a role is not as important here as you might suppose it is. There is latitude for ebb and flow of information into and out of an article that doesn't violate policy or practice at this project. Bus stop (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
But should you be devoting so much effort to telling people they should be doing or not doing anything? You know what, Bus stop? I've learned to ignore your inane comments most of the time. From time to time, however, you can expect me to shoot down your reasoning once again, for the benefit of newer editors who may not know better. That's one way I can make a significant contribution to the project, improving articles indirectly. You are setting yourself up as a gatekeeper of information. Bullshit. I am "setting myself up" as an editor who understands and makes every effort to comply with Misplaced Pages policies. I've reached my Bus stop tolerance limit for the time being, so have a great day. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone who's commenting in this section want the fact that dogs were among Wortman's victims to be omitted from this article? Jim Michael (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Mandruss—you say "I am 'setting myself up' as an editor who understands and makes every effort to comply with Misplaced Pages policies." May I respond to that? Policy is not difficult to understand; if a new editor doesn't understand how Misplaced Pages works, they can very easily get up to speed in a very short period of time. Having said that, I give you credit for being much more knowledgeable than I am about many technical matters pertaining to editing. Bus stop (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jim Michael - I think we are all on the same page that the fact that dogs/animals were injured or killed should be included. The question of the detail to go into about the dogs is where we seem to potentially be wasting time. Let's add in the info about the dogs, if we really have to talk later about whether doggie names, ages, breeds, and photos are required we can have that discussion in another section. Hopefully, we do not as that would certainly be a waste of time.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

We are supposed to reflect sources. This question can't be addressed in the abstract. In the final analysis we are not at liberty to add or deliberately omit information based simply on arguing amongst ourselves. The question before us concerns what language best reflects the sources, as well as what most appropriately fits into the article in its present state as well as future states as can reasonably be expected. Bus stop (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Of course, we can omit things that appear in reliable sources if it doesn't fit within our other policies or the consensus that we reach here and across the project. That is what WP:ONUS is all about.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
You say "Of course, we can omit things that appear in reliable sources". But I did not say we can not "omit things that appear in reliable sources". WP:ONUS says "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted". It is therefore axiomatic that we can omit information when consensus deems that such information should be omitted; consensus is a bedrock of policy. The question here is whether to include this information or not, and what language to use, and which factors to mention. Bus stop (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Just one quick sentence about any animals he deliberately he killed is fine. But obviously, we can't include them in the death toll. Only extreme animals rights organizations would do that. Love of Corey (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
This is reliably sourced and I think some information on it warrants inclusion, probably mentioning the breeds of the dogs. Bus stop (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
And why would we need to mention the breed? Why is that relevant?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Unless Wortman was known to have singled out specific breeds...I'm not sure how that would be relevant at all. Love of Corey (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Love of Corey - Agreed, animals should not be included in the count in the infobox. Readers assume this means people. It is fine to mention it in the prose (but should not be mixed into the human casualties). I guess we could also put a footnote in the infobox noting that he also killed animals that are not included in these numbers, but I am not sure that is even necessary or appropriate.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The dog casualties should be mentioned, but not included in the ibox or first sentence. Jim Michael (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Agreed.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Darryl Kerrigan—you say "why would we need to mention the breed?". I would mention the breeds because it is plain, concise English. It is as easy to say a "poodle" as it is to say a "dog". Furthermore, you say that it might not be "appropriate" to mention the killing/injuring of dogs. Do you find something inappropriate in the inclusion of such information? Bus stop (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Got it. The breed is not relevant, but you like it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
It's not that I "like it", Darryl Kerrigan. It is what happened: in addition to shooting humans, the perpetrator shot a german shepherd and a miniature pinscher. You are standing on ceremony over an unimportant point. Reasonable people can disagree over whether to mention the breed. I merely made a suggestion. Now I'm explaining my suggestion ad infinitum. Bus stop (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I'll oppose breeds, since they're unusual victim descriptors in racially-uncharged killings, but names and ages are as routine for pets as for anyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Dog breeds are just one more piece of information that can be added at a proximal point in time and subtracted at a distal point in time. Bus stop (talk)
Aye, opposition is futile, all are but dust, the wind blows and it, too, shall pass. Just saying, I'm not "dog racist". Presently, anyway, maybe when I'm older, hard to predict. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
It was a german shepherd and a miniature pinscher that were shot. Why would we omit that information? Do we just go around omitting information willy-nilly? Bus stop (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Willy and Nilly are great dog names! WWGB (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Bama and Remi were the great Labrador retrievers whose fiery demise probably amuses you, if anyone else cares. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I prefer basic: Name, age, hometown. But it depends on context. In the Events section, just "dog" is fine, gendered pronouns if need be. Only my two cents, though. Yours are cool, too! InedibleHulk (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
WWGB—I don't think the names of the two dogs should be mentioned nor do I think anyone has suggested the names of the two dogs be mentioned. Bus stop (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
In the Victims section, yes, I prefer basic name, age and hometown. I've been saying this for five years or more beside you. I won an Emmy from Wikipediocracy for naming Hannah Anderson's dog (Cali) even before recognizing well-sourced victims and repeatedly badgering the other team was cool. If you pinch a pinscher, does it not bleed? Wake up! InedibleHulk (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
"In the Victims section, yes, I prefer basic name, age and hometown." I agree. Bus stop (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata

Second deadliest?

I've noticed a change made recently that this is the deadliest rampage in Canadian history. While this is no doubt deadlier than the Polytechnique massacre in 1989 and is the deadliest by a lone perpetrator I found one incident that was deadlier than this which three suspects. I figured i'd bring this up since the article uses the term "rampage" instead of mass shooting. Any reason for this? https://en.wikipedia.org/Blue_Bird_Caf%C3%A9_fire Graylandertagger (talk) 01:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, multiple sources keep pointing out Polytechnique. Nothing about this fire. But I see your point. I'm just not sure how we can fit this in without some sort of reliable source. Love of Corey (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
An arson attack at a single location isn't typically considered to be a rampage. However, should we make it clearer by saying that this is the most deadly mass shooting or most deadly mass murder by an individual? Jim Michael (talk) 06:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
The only mass shooting during this rampage happened in Portapique. Seven to thirteen dead, depending how one defines "location", neither count topping Montreal's thirteen (fourteen counting Lepine, fifteen counting the stabbing). The term "deadliest mass shooting" is used by some writers, but still inaccurate by Misplaced Pages's definition, so I'd pass. A fire is neither a rampage nor a mass shooting, even if one person starts it with murderous intent. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Would most deadly spree shooting be the best wording for the lead? Or most deadly spree killing? Jim Michael (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
They could work, but then it couldn't be compared so directly to non-spree Montreal, so not best. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
We need to word it so that it clearly excludes the fire, because that's the most-deadly mass murder in Canadian history. Most deadly spree killing would do that. Jim Michael (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but so does "rampage", without excluding the 1989 deal. Already cited, too, and more concise. I'd stick with the best. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, "rampage" or "rampage killing" fits the best here. Love of Corey (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
"Killing" is quite strongly implied by "deadliest" already. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Maybe Misplaced Pages editors could stop fixating on "deadliest" records. I wasn't aware there was an Olympics for spree killing. WWGB (talk) 10:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Should it be moved out of the lead? Jim Michael (talk) 10:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it should. As Trudeau said "do not give this person the gift of infamy". WWGB (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
We're not, he's one dead. Twenty-two dead are the famous ones (in this one sentence and in Canada, less so in the rest of this article). Plus, all deadliest event leads do it. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to suggest that Misplaced Pages had an "Olympic record" for spree killings. I was merely suggesting that the term shooting be used rather than rampage since it would be more direct. Just a suggestion.Graylandertagger (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Changed to shooting. Jim Michael (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
So now we have to to pretend the Battle of Lundy's Lane didn't happen. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Do you plan on changing the reference to support this alternative historical fact? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
You took over thirty minutes, so I put the verified claim back, but without prejudice against a sourced "deadliest shooting", if you want. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
What if we called to the deadliest rampage by a lone perpetrator? Wouldn't that be consistent with acknowledging that the Blue Bird Cafe still happened? Seeing how that incident had three perpetrators and this only involved one, I figure that would be a fair change. Graylandertagger (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Graylandertagger—I would just say "one of the most deadly" or "one of the deadliest". Bus stop (talk) 05:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Possible. It could work as an alternative solution. Graylandertagger (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The Blue Bird fire was not a rampage. Nor were any deadlier battles, shipwrecks or epidemics. They are all excluded by simply writing what the source says about how this was Canada's deadliest rampage. Not North America's worst man-made disaster, not Canada's most prolific serial killer, not the highest body count inflicted by a lone gunman out East since World War II and no other convoluted, uncited editorial invention. Just the known knowns. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Graylandertagger—it avoids specificity while making generally the same point. This isn't necessarily factual or quantifiable and we are still aiming for accuracy and precision by putting it in the category of one of the most deadly or one of the deadliest. Bus stop (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
You can't aim for accuracy by choosing arbitrary question-begging vagueness over easily quantifiable reported facts. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

There may be poorly defined terms in the assertion we are considering adding to the article. I would guess more than one source addresses this. I feel that it doesn't matter. Who cares if we are distinguishing between one means of mayhem or another, or whether this took place in one location or more than one location? Those who are interested in those distinctions can track down information appropriate to such assertions on their own. We wouldn't omit mention of the severity of this incident relative to the history of similar Nova Scotia or Canadian incidents. But the mention that we make can be cursory. Bus stop (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Name wounded cop?

Like Wortman and Stevenson, "the individual in question" has been mentioned freely by police on the record. No apparent privacy concerns. Would make our story about he and the aforementioned two easier to explain. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I feel inclined to agree. Love of Corey (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
They're not notable people. How does naming them help our readers to understand what happened? Jim Michael (talk) 09:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
They're not any people, he's the one injured officer whom we already (vaguely) describe in what happened between these three people. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
No apparent privacy concerns. WP:BLPNAME: The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. "Presumption in favor of privacy" means we don't have to show or explain a privacy issue, but we can debate whether a "merely wounded" cop is "loosely involved". I could be wrong, but I'm skeptical that naming him is the only way to make the story sufficiently easy to explain. Happy to help find a different solution to any clarity problem there. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
But he's not loosely-involved or low-profile, he's the wounded Mountie in a national tragedy on every major network for a straight week. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
How would naming him improve the article? Jim Michael (talk) 09:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Definitely low-profile in my understanding of the term, which I believe refers to his "profile" outside the context of this event. He was very likely barely known to the public before being wounded here, hence low-profile. As I said, we can debate loosely involved. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Also, he's nowhere near notable enough for his own article. Jim Michael (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Neither are/were Wortman, Thomson, Stevenson or Leather, but naming helps distinguish them more efficiently than appending adjectives to their jobs, now that they've been highly profiled (not Thomson so much). InedibleHulk (talk) 10:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Wortman is named because he is the prime actor, and because the perp is always named, pretty much without exception. We even name suspected perps. Dead cops can be named, I have no issue with that. As for the others, I haven't looked into them but ease-of-explanation alone is a terrible reason to name a person in a Misplaced Pages article. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
This is the cop who found the prime suspect. This is the cop who unwittingly put the dead cop on her path. Not merely wounded, a high-profile figure. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I have no issue naming the deceased Stevenson. The injured officer does not deserve to spend the rest of his life responding to "are you that guy in the Misplaced Pages shooting article?" He has a right to privacy once this matter is done. WWGB (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
The vast majority of people he'll meet won't need to ask, he's been IDed repeatedly across his country (where nobody calls it the "Misplaced Pages shooting article"). Also, there's no shame in getting shot. Per many media, even in your country, that's the most heroic part of the job, the sacrifice. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Alright, I confess I haven't had the time to learn much about the events, so I didn't know that. I'll concede on "loosely involved" and therefore on BLPNAME. I'll leave other opposition to my distinguished colleagues and withdraw to wipe some tiny bits of egg off my face. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

IMO Stevenson is prominent enough to be named. Being injured doesn't seem to rise to that level, but I don't feel strongly about it either way. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the RCMP Constable should be identified by name as this information is widely available in many good quality sources such as National Post. One example can be seen here. Bus stop (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Cst. Chad Morrison should be named. He provided valuable information over police radio as to the location of the suspect while on his way to seek emergency treatment at a Paramedic Base. His transmission(s) alerted Cst. Stevenson who rammed the mock up cruiser minutes later.   Aloha27  talk  18:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
He was there for a prearranged meeting with Stevenson. Bus stop (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Morrison actually thought the mock up cruiser was Stevenson's unit which is why he allowed the suspect to pull alongside. At that point the killer opened fire.   Aloha27  talk  12:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
And we'll never know for sure whether Stevenson was driving in that direction to meet him or Wortman, but she was a police officer in a police car with a police radio during an "officer shot by fake officer" call, so safe to assume she knew plans had changed well before the crash. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I had read that Morrison and Stevenson had arranged to meet which was why Morrison thought the killer's car was indeed Stevenson's.   Aloha27  talk  16:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

age in lede

Is it OK to write, in the lede, "On April 18–19, 2020, 51-year-old Gabriel Wortman committed..."? Obviously Headbomb and Jim Michael are strongly opposed to this. Hoping others will weigh in. Pinging Headbomb and Jim Michael. Bus stop (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The killer's age is rightly in the article, but is not relevant enough to be in the lead & nowhere near relevant enough to be in the first sentence. Jim Michael (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
"is not relevant enough to be in the lead" Jim Michael—Why? Any reason? Just your opinion? Bus stop (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
It's not significant to the killing spree. Jim Michael (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
You are avoiding the question. Why are you reverting my edit? Are you perhaps opposed to collaboration? Was it a person of a different age who committed the killing spree? Are you committed to WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior? What is it? You and Headbomb reverted my edit concerning the person's age immediately. Can either of you explain any of this? There is nothing wrong with the edit I made. Please stop throwing your weight around. Allow others to edit. Bus stop (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Categories: