Talk:2020 Nova Scotia attacks/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Presuming dead were shot

The police spokesgiant declined to give any causes of death yet, and says buddy was armed at at least one time. Not safe to assume everyone was shot, especially knowing house fires and fast cars were also involved (in the overall event). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The spokesman confirmed the presence of a firearm, but DID NOT confirm other causes of death. Sources commonly refer to this as a mass shooting. Until we have explicit confirmation that a weapon other than a firearm was used, it's way too speculative to imply people died in various ways here. Love of Corey (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Why don't you need confirmation on the supposed gun use, too? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

But they confirmed a gun was used. Love of Corey (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

On the injured cop, if "they" means Chris Leather. Otherwise just said Wortman HAD a gun sometime. I don't doubt many or most were shot, just not confirmed. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

But reliable sources keep describing it as a shooting. Not adhering to the language of reliable sources until new, reliable information comes out just makes this angle speculative. Love of Corey (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The whole event is a spree shooting or active shooter incident, during which people were killed by unstated means. Police announced the perp killed them, so omitting the speculation about gunshot deaths isn't an angle. Just what sources say. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

That's not what the sources say. Love of Corey (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources don't say he killed them? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources don't say he killed them by OTHER MEANS. Love of Corey (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Nor by ANY means, including shooting. We just know at least ten people were killed. That's what the references tell us, that's what we relay. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

At Least 10 Killed in Nova Scotia Shooting, Police Say

'Devastating day for Nova Scotia': More than 10 people, including RCMP officer, killed in shooting

It's not "At Least 10 Stabbed to Death in Nova Scotia Shooting, Police Say", is it? Love of Corey (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Nor does it say any dead were shot. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Love of Corey (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Fucking where? Paste it. I read both. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

"Killed in shooting"? They certainly didn't die of heart attacks, now did they? Love of Corey (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

That means "in shooting incident". Not "shot dead". Not BY shooting, the verb. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

you can't be serious, "killed in shooting" 100% means they died as a result of gunfire and not some other mechanism. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

It does not mean that at all. He could have been a really bad shot, missed the victims but pierced a full gas bottle, which exploded, killing them that way instead. Its semantics definitely but the article does not state they died by shooting.06:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Then why do the articles not say so? These headlines are misleading for a reason. Trust the body. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Police and media report Chevy Tracker; CBC shows photos at Irving station of a GMC Suburban

Hi everyone. I know the media is reporting that the vehicle was a Chevrolet Tracker, but that's an old vehicle and rather rare by now especially in the salty environment of Nova Scotia. The CBC still photos of the Irving station show a silver GMC Suburban with the door open. I theorize a witness may have misidentified/misnamed the vehicle and the media continues to report it as a Tracker rather than the far more "official-looking" Suburban. Can anyone confirm what he was actually driving besides the fake RCMP car? Yiddophile (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I am a resident of a nearby community. I have heard rumours that the Mazda 3 dark grey hatchback seen at one of the pumps was the actual vehicle he swapped into and the tracker was an error made by the eyewitness. The silver suburban looks clearly to be a police vehicle. However, nothing has been confirmed from the police or media so we must follow what the reports say Zfamdam (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The Suburban seemed to me to be the sort of thing a person driving a mock police car would want to trade into, which was why I was confused. The Tracker is surely an eyewitness error. On a personal note, I'm a grandson of Sara MacLeod and Donald Patriquin, both of Great Village, and my mother is interred along the Cobequid Bay, possibly down Portapique Beach Road but I'll have to ask my sister. I have fond memories of shopping at Layton's store. My heart goes out to the wonderful people of your beautiful area. Yiddophile (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Canadian English

Love of Corey, please stop changing the Canadian English spelling "neighbour" to the incorrect "neighbor". David O. Johnson (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be better suited for their talk page than here? puggo (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

No I think it should be discussed here. It is not that just these two editors are being involved. We are talking about the whole article being in Canadian English. So it is a note to all editors. werldwayd (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Death toll, no OR

Several times now, I've had to subtract one from the dead because someone assumes Wortman is additional to the cited number. Don't assume that. Use the cited number. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The issue is that sources aren't clear whether Wortman is being included or excluded from the number. Do you have a source stating Wortman's been excluded from the numbers we're getting? Love of Corey (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I was just going to make a section. It appears different news outlets reports people killed to include the Shooter, while other's do not. CBC just says 19 dead, CTV says 18 victims, while Global says in excess of 19 then continues to add that the shooter is also dead. Air Java (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

But how exactly are each of them wording those numbers? Do they explicitly say the shooter is included in or excluded from that number? Love of Corey (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The Globe and Mail says both ways today, buddy killed 18 and 19 were killed. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

So are you saying 18 is the number of people killed? Because that's what I was just trying to go for. Love of Corey (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Aye, but cite a source when updating, don't just leave an edit summary. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The same needs to go for you, apparently. Love of Corey (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Existing citations said 17 and 18, total. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm prepared to use the following for the infobox, since numbers seem to be all over the place: At least 18–20 (including the perpetrator). This will be followed by a note that says, "The number of fatalities vary from source to source. CBC News says the death toll is 19, including the perpetrator; CTV News says it is 18, without clarifying if the perpetrator is counted; and Global News says it is "in excess of 19", excluding the perpetrator." Any objections or amendments? Love of Corey (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

That would work, especially since more victims will be added in the coming days. Air Java (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Protip: Since Wortman was a person, and died, mentions of x dead people include him (unless noted otherwise). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Love of Corey: this is getting close to vandalism, the most up to date source says 19 dead, so we say 19 dead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: seems to disagree. Plus there's all these conflicting sources that we just mentioned. Love of Corey (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

"At least 17" at one time that climbed to "At least 18" is not conflicting sources. The most recent tally is 19 dead, including the killer. See both [1] and [2]. And I'll take what the CBC says over what a Wikipedian says. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

This Wikipedian says yes, simply follow and cite the most current reliable source. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The news outlets seem to get their numbers from the RCMP, Chief Supt. Chris Leather, who provided a update this afternoon. He said "there in excess of 19 victims..." Issue is, victim can include non-fatalities and media doesn't seem to distinguish at this point. The information will be updated tomorrow. Air Java (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

"at least 18 victims who died" is clear as day. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: Then why keep undoing my edits from 19 to 18 when that was correct in the first place? Love of Corey (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Because the cited source said otherwise, just update both. And I only reverted this once, before googling the correct number. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe instead of changing the numbers and getting me all confused, how about actually UPDATING THE CITATION YOURSELF? How was I supposed to know the citations are out-of-date? Love of Corey (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Can't paste on this thing, nor type quickly enough to avoid edit conflicts. Can still CLICK AND READ existing citations. So can you, and you can paste. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but I clearly have a different way of grasping how news articles are written. If you see something that clearly no one else is noticing, maybe make the citation change yourself and make it clear why you did it in the edit summary? Love of Corey (talk) 02:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Plenty of people notice the death tolls of massacres, even people in this discussion. Again, can't paste or type a URL in time, much less a proper citation. Anyway, 19 is 19 and even killers are people, all clear now. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Giving notoriety to the mass shooter while giving minimal recognition of the victims

In such articles the writer’s choice to name the murderer and thus give him notoriety while leaving the known victims nameless provides an interesting view into the inherent bias in reporting such incidents. The victims are often just given recognition as numbers. AlbertaSunwapta (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The perp achieves notoriety by his actions. Victims are randomly chosen, and their names convey no benefit to the reader. WWGB (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The identities of the victims are as relevant to the article as the identity of the perpetrator. Inclusion or exclusion of identities of both victims and perpetrator are determined by whether or not this information is prominently found in good quality sources. I agree with the general sentiments expressed by AlbertaSunwapta. Bus stop (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The Case For Publishing The Names Of Mass Shooters | HuffPost Canada

“ “They want to go from being a nobody to being a somebody and they’re calculating accurately that if they commit a mass shooting and kill a large number of innocent people that they will get that reward,” he said. The death toll of mass shooters has increased since 2010, he said, as attackers recognize that more victims means more media attention. “If the media stops giving them fame, it removes that incentive.” “

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-problem-with-erasing-mass-shooting-perpetrators-from-media-coverage_n_5d55b70de4b0d8840ff02d3c AlbertaSunwapta (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Should there not be a list of victims? Should the list not precede the name of the murderer? Say this was just the theft or destruction of a prided asset. The dollar value lost would be seen a prominent and critical fact in any discussion. When it’s the immeasurable value of good, often law abiding people lost to murder, some attempt to measure the impact of the loss is also often reported. Why then do many writers of Wikipedia articles choose to ignore such highly pertinent facts? (In comparison look at articles on celebrities etc and note all the details seen as relevant to the articles such as lists of film appearances, controversies, etc. ) AlbertaSunwapta (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Correction “prized asset” AlbertaSunwapta (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• WP:MEMORIAL. We do not enshrine non-notable victims in the article. The Village Pump Policy page is where you'd suggest changing from that policy, but I don't think you'll get much headway. Also, it's highly insensitive to compare living people to a monetary value, it's not even close to a good analogy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• AlbertaSunwapta—welcome to Wikipedia. I wanted to mention that you can just change the wording of your post, such as from "prided" to "prized". Please see WP:REDACT. Bus stop (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• HandThatFeeds—please re-read WP:MEMORIAL and try to catch your error. (Hint: WP:MEMORIAL addresses the creation of freestanding articles to memorialize deceased individuals; it is not about content as may be found in articles on other topics, such as in this case, a mass shooting.) There is no policy suggesting that the information that we are discussing should be omitted. Wikipedia isn't a creative writing project. We look to sources and make an honest evaluation as to whether information is found in sufficient prominence to warrant inclusion in an article. Our aim should be to reflect the presence of information in sources. There is no "right" answer or "one-size-fits-all" answer to the question that we are addressing. Sources should determine whether this material gets included, rather than our personal opinions. Bus stop (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Omitting victims' names isn't creative writing. You mention what media sources write, but the large majority of them give significantly more coverage to the killer than any of the victims. Jim Michael (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Even including victim names can be akin to "creative writing" if such inclusion is a deviation from the representation of victim identities in sources. For instance, if only one obscure, poor quality source, enumerates the names of the victims, then we should omit the names and identities of the victims. But if the identities of victims are prominently represented in many good quality sources—then of course we should follow suit. Bus stop (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Bluntly, there is no more reason to name the people killed in this than there is to specify which bricks in the walls bullets went into. --Khajidha (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Khajidha—in your own creative writing you would be free to deemphasize the identities of victims if your heart so desired—but Wikipedia should not hew to your creative sensibilities. Sources matter. We should be looking to sources to determine the direction the article should take. Bus stop (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources give significantly more coverage to the killer than any victim. Jim Michael (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't respond to this the first time you said it because I don't know what point you are making. Is it your opinion that we either identify the victims or the perpetrator? Is this an either-or situation? Bus stop (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

No, it's that we should name the killer but not the victims. Jim Michael (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that we should adhere to your whims. Bus stop (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not a whim - it's been established as consensus on many talk pages during the past couple of years. Jim Michael (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

"There is a consensus against enacting this proposal, and consensus that these scenarios should be handled on a case-by-case basis." Bus stop (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

That was the case when that discussion took place in 2017. My comment above stands: consensus has changed since then. Jim Michael (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Bus Stop, I'm quite familiar with MEMORIAL, and it does not stipulate that it only applies to freestanding articles. This topic is perennial, and has come up many times over the years including at major articles such as September 11 attacks. If the victims are not themselves notable, we have no reason to include them here simply to remember their names.

Further, your "creative writing" comments are so far off the mark I don't know what you hoped to accomplish. We don't simply regurgitate everything published in a reliable source, and you know that. We constantly engage in discussions to make articles be factual within our rules & guidelines. Personal opinions always factor into these decisions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds—you say you are familiar with the policy but you appear not to be familiar with WP:MEMORIAL. It addresses "subjects of encyclopedia articles". It doesn't address content of encyclopedia articles. Bus stop (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

That is one interpretation of NOTMEMORIAL, one that is well short of a community consensus on the matter. Please don't misrepresent it as having the weight of a community consensus. For one example, the closer of the previous discussion of this type (permalink) did not support your interpretation. For the record, I oppose naming all victims in this article, for the usual reasons, which can be found in the linked previous discussion and many before that. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Public alert of active shooter

I'm a local to the area and know that many people have questions about why only Twitter was used and not the Public Alert Broadcast System. Not sure if there is a place for this in the WIKI however. Air Java (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I managed to fit it in. Love of Corey (talk) 00:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Not to hound you, Love, but it'd fit better in a Reaction or Aftermath section. Wikipedia usually leaves Investigation for the CSI stuff in crime articles. If I could cut and paste, I would. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Amending the map in infobox by adding Wentworth and Shubenacadie

Now it is apparent an explosion and gunfire happened at a house on Hunter Road in Wentworth, approximately 37 kilometres (23 mi) north of Portapique. Two residents and a neighbour were later confirmed to be victims. Another victim was then allegedly shot and killed while walking in the community of Wentworth Valley, on the road between Wentworth and Portapique. Since this is case, the map in our infobox should also indicate Wentworth. werldwayd (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I second this. Love of Corey (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The RCMP constable Constable Heidi Stevenson was killed in Shubenacadie. That must also be added to the map. werldwayd (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Now the new locations have been added by a colleague. Many thanks. werldwayd (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

First two dead are believed to be his “ex (wife or girlfriend) and her new boyfriend,”

The Toronto Sun wrote: "The first two dead are believed to be 51-year-old Wortman’s “ex (wife or girlfriend) and her new boyfriend,” say police sources." This seems like a relevant piece of information of information that should be included. Tallard (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

This has not been supported by any credible source. I have seen this rumour around and no motive has been released Zfamdam (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable - but is Joe Warmington a reliable source? He's normally a columnist, and frequently wrong. Is there a better reference? It's hard to see if this is considered a column or not, but the "WARMINGTON" in the headline generally indicates it's a column. Nfitz (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't trust anything the Toronto Sun puts up without confirmation. If the RCMP identified the first victims as his ex and her boyfriend, then let's use the RCMP as a source. But since no one else is reporting that so far... this is likely a gross failure of WP:V. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

This information has not been released yet by official sources which can be referenced. I would suggest to monitor the situation further before adding these details. Media reports only able to confirm it had started off targeted and switched to random. Air Java (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The Sun's credibility is somewhat better since the Postmedia buyout, but I still wouldn't consider them to be much more credible than Facebook news. Yiddophile (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Stick to on-the-record police, this isn't an American shooting article. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

References

The Sun is a trash tabloid. This is rumor tier for now. It may end up being true. Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Is this article not semi-protected?

Perhaps it should be. A few recent edits by an IP, appear to have potentially been vandalism. They added false information and some which is unknown and was unverified.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I submitted a request at WP:RPP. Love of Corey (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, we seem to have done that at the same time. I have asked an admin consider whether some level of temporary protection is appropriate. I will strike mine out.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright. Love of Corey (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

FYI, this has been semi-protected for a week.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

One day archiving period

Should we change the archiving period from 3 days to 1 day, since the talk page size is already up to 90kB? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I would leave it for now. Some should archive tonight or tomorrow. After a few days it might be wise to change it a week, and when it quiets down a bit, two weeks, a month, two months, etc.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

On second thought, have at it. I am changing it to 2 days now. Perhaps it should even be one day for a bit as you suggested?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Reply - @Darryl Kerrigan:, I changed it to one day, because we are now over 100 kB, and growing rapidly. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Latest source info for updating

Editors, please reference an Official RCMP media release through the RCMP Nova Scotia Facebook account. It will update some of the information as well as may be a better way to consolidate source info. https://www.facebook.com/rcmpns/posts/10157512693344779?__tn__=-R Air Java (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Is Facebook a reliable source, though? David O. Johnson (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I would say if it comes from known Government Facebook accounts, yes. Just like we have referenced Twitter, like condolences from the Monarch. Air Java (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

We really didn't need the actual tweet, though. The accompanying secondary source should be enough. Love of Corey (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Condolences from the Trumps (and likely other world leaders)

Does anyone agree with me that the comments attributed to Donald and Melania, who are not Canadian, are not relevant here? I tried to remove them, but I was reverted. If we leave that door ajar, the article will likely be swamped by meaningless platitudes from "world leaders". WWGB (talk) 07:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Yes, the countries are tight trading partners. But no, condolence/condemnation isn't business. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Meh, platitudes from world leaders can be summary as "A number of world leaders expressed sympathy, namely from the US, UK, Swaziland, etc..." without going over who they are and what they said exactly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. Everyone the world over expresses condolences.--Eostrix (talk) 10:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

For now it appears that only one international head of state expressed condolences, so I would say we can retain it on its own until more come through, at which point we can aggregate them into one mention.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 11:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Another editor is pushing hard for the wording "Queen of Canada". While she might technically be the queen of Canada, she is globally known as the queen of the commonwealth or queen of England. Whether this article is written about a Canadian subject or not, WP:COMMONNAME should prevail and it should be written from a global perspective. Gizapink (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

That she's the Queen of the Commonwealth is irrelevant, this is a Canada-related shooting, and the association that's important here is that she's the Queen of Canada, not Barbados. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, side note. A french monarchist? Now I've seen everything. Gizapink (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a monarchist. As far as I'm concerned, the Royals can all get bent as useless wastes of space. But QEII, as the Queen of Canada, is the head of state. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

No, actually she is not known as the Queen of Canada outside of Canada. This is a global encyclopedia, common-name should be used. You're the only editor who is repeatedly adding this change. Gizapink (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I am the one who initially added it, and I stand by it. She is the Queen of Canada, that's what makes her statement relevant here. She is Canada's head of state responding to this incident.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 18:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, if this were an American shooting, then we'd go for Queen of Commonwealth. If this were a UK killing, we'd go Queen of the UK. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It adds undue confusion to add a title that is not WP:CommonName. Why not list it as Queen Elizabeth II? Gizapink (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I tend to think either is okay, but it is more standard to call her Queen of the United Kingdom and her other realms and territories. I do not think calling her the Queen of the UK is appropriate in this article. It is not really common to call her the Queen of the Commonwealth (if that is said at all, it comes after a reference to the UK). That is not appropriate here, in an article clearly about Canada. If there is to be a wiki-link, it should be to Monarchy of Canada. But why don't we just use the following:

Queen Elizabeth II expressed her condolences, stating that she and Prince Philip were "saddened by the appalling events", and that...

I think Queen Elisabeth's is well known enough the word over, and naming the places she is Queen of may be unnecessary here. I also think that sort of link in an article about a Canadian event does not run foul of WP:EASTER though some editors seem to take an annoyingly strict and literal view of that policy.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with the piped link "Queen" linking to "Monarchy of Canada", especially since there's no break between the next link to "Elizabeth II". I actually do think it runs afoul of WP:EASTER. If we are going to reword it (and I don't think we need to), I'd rather go with something like "Elizabeth II, the reigning monarch of Canada, expressed her condolences..."— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 22:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the above wording suggested by Darryl Kerrigan of "Queen Elizabeth II expressed her condolences...". Gizapink (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

In light of Crumpled Fire's view of EASTER, I would rather we just leave it as is:

Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, expressed her condolences...

That seems to work as well as anything else.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

"Made to look like a police vehicle"

This phrase is awkward and just confuses readers. The way it's phrased now makes it sound like he took a normal car and somehow disguised it to look like an RCMP vehicle. This phrasing comes from being very literal to early reports, possibly an eye witness. BBC article:

"Royal Canadian Mounted Police tweeted that they believed a police car was being used by the gunman"

Nova Scotia Police tweeted out an old image of the car in question too, making it no mistake that it was a legitimate RCMP vehicle and not some how a fake car. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Might be a retired car that was supposed to be repainted, but wasn't. How old is that old image? What does 28B11 even mean? How hard is it to paint a number on a stock body? Or paste a number on a representative photo as a visual aid? Why does Ian Hanomansing call it a "mock-up" and "fake"? Confusing indeed! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Last I checked, no one confirmed the police vehicle was legit. Love of Corey (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

28B11 is the unit number assigned to the vehicle by H Division RCMP. The "28" is the location for the vehicle, the "B" is the type of unit, ie. "A" is municipal, "B" is provincial, "C" is traffic... The "11" is the just a sequential number. RCMP vehicles that reached end-of-life and sent to auction as Crown assests and can be purchased from https://www.gcsurplus.ca/mn-eng.cfm. Decals and lights can be purchased and re-applied.

Per the RCMP Chief Superintendant, the car was "mocked up" to appear like a legitimate police cruiser. They also tweeted that the car number was not legitimate. We don't know if it was a retired cruiser he bought & repainted to appear as an in-service cruiser, or it was a similar model he mocked into a cruiser, but either way it's clear he did not have access to a legit RCMP vehicle. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for decoding! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It has been said in many sources that it was a retired police vehicle and he bought all of the decals himself Zfamdam (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Would you mind sharing these sources? Love of Corey (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Perpetrator's previous appearance on news

As reported in the NY Times article, the perpetrator of these killings previously appeared on national news when he provided dentures to a cancer survivor. I added this to the Perpetrator section, but my change was reverted by David O. Johnson as "tangential". Why is the perpetrator's previous appearance on national news (which is cited by the NYT) more tangential than, say, his attendance at Riverview High School (New Brunswick), for example? AlexEng^(TALK) 05:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

This is an article about a series of shootings, not a Wortman biography. We should stick to relevant facts about the attacks, not spurious facts about tv appearances or schools. WWGB (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Unless this previous news appearance reveals something new about Wortman that will be crucial to the investigation, I doubt the notability of this tidbit of info. Love of Corey (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

This was somewhat important early on, for ID corroboration, but now we know it's that "Gabriel Wortman" (also, that's just an Atlantic news piece). It's weird why Wikipedians note killers' high schools, but it's routine and traditional. So that's fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It's relevant info and brief biographical information on criminals is often noted. So what kind of a person was he? What role did he play in the community? Did he show any signs? Him giving free dentures to a woman suffering from cancer highlights how normal he seemed. He might have had some kind of mental breakdown later on. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I've known hundreds of normal people, even Nova Scotians, and recall none who made free dentures for anyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Mostly because most people don't know anyone that makes dentures. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I know people who have dentures, so they probably know a denturist. But that relationship was probably based on money. Free dentures are weird enough to make Maritime news, but Maritime news isn't always spicy enough for Wikipedia, even if it's briefly mentioned by spicier American news six years later. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2020

Please, append the "Perpetrator" section with information regarding Gabe's brushing with HRP/RCMP in the past, something to this effect: "According to the February 17, 2020 Frank Magazine article, Gabriel Wortman was involved in a conflict with Halifax Regional Police over the use of his private parking space by HRP officers in an unmarked car on February 12, 2020."

Reference: http://www.frankmagazine.org/post/car-54-where-are-you 50.100.251.97 (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

From what I remember, Frank Magazine isn't actually reliable... Love of Corey (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it's not a matter of Frank being reliable. Frank is a sarcastic satire magazine like the British Private Eye. It is just indicative of the perpetrator being a very antagonistic stubborn bully man even before the recent incidences happened by the fact he is ready to make havoc with a number of police officers over a petty matter, five at the same time, so much so that he caught the attention of a national satire periodical about his bizarre behaviour. werldwayd (talk) 07:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit requests need reliable sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

But do we have another source that can back up Frank's article? I feel like we shouldn't solely rely on the words of a sarcastic satire magazine on information such as this. Love of Corey (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:Edit requests: "...consensus should be obtained before requesting changes that are likely to be controversial." Except for trivial grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc—or for low-activity protected articles, where edit request is the only way to get somebody's attention—I feel you're usually better off bypassing the edit request facility and simply starting a new discussion (using the New section link at the top of the page). I'm marking this edit request as "answered", which is not meant to discourage further discussion in this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Frank's is a crap-tier tabloid. Not reliable for anything. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Death toll (19 or 20)

I know a lot of the available "news" sources say 19 dead including the suspect, but the RCMP officer who they are citing makes it very clear in his own words that it is 19 victims of the suspect, plus the suspect's death which equals 20 for the infobox "deaths" column.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnY1sc0FQL0&t=2m19s

I've linked to the precise moment that RCMP Chief Superintendent Chris Leather makes the following statement: "Firstly I can confirm, now, there are in excess of 19 victims, victims both men and women, and all were adults. It appears that some of the victims were known to the suspect, and others were targeted and not known to the suspect".

Just as our own article here separates a "Victims" and "Perpetrator" section, so too does Mr. Leather in his statement. Unfortunately, it seems that one or more media outlets mischaracterized what he said and the rest followed instead of listening to it and reporting on it directly. There are some sources that correctly identify 19 victims of the suspect, but most do not. How do we proceed in such a case? Can we source the media outlets that correctly characterize his statements, and also source the video itself showing what he said? Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an official RCMP-sanctioned written version of his statement available.96.44.72.91 (talk) 11:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

You might be right. I'll wait and see if the media corrects this. 11:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

CBC now says " "The RCMP said at least 20 people appear to have been killed by 51-year-old Gabriel Wortman," Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

"Elizabeth Joanne Thomas and John Joseph Zahl are presumed dead." Other news outlets have reported this as well as they have received information from family that their house has been burnt and they cannot contact them. I'm not sure about adjusting the number until RCMP confirm number of deceased. Or you could right 18 fatalities and 2 presumed pending... Air Java (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

So is the death toll of 23 final? We still have "23+" on there. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Probably final enough. Surprises aren't impossible, but police haven't mentioned any more unexplored scenes, or missing people. When the toll was expected to rise, Leather and Luckie said so. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Justin Trudeau's reservations about naming the perpetrator or using his photo

Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has asked the Canadian media (probably world media outlets as well) to avoid so much as mentioning Wortman’s name or publishing a photograph of him. He said today: “Do not give this person [his words] the gift of infamy”. "Instead of focusing on the shooter, all our attention should be paid to the victims, their families and friends". Since it is one of his country's own citizen's that committed these atrocious killings, does his wish apply to us as well at Wikipedia? I find his position odd. Is it a futile attempt on applying arbitrary censorship or a gag order? Is this a prelude of making Wortman disappear as a non-entity, a non-person that never ever existed. My position is that a cautionary comment would have been warranted if the perpetrator had been a minor say 15, 16 or 17). But the guy is a mature 51 year old man who in an outburst of extreme rage (probably also suffering from a traumatic psychological condition and distress) committed these atrocious acts. And if he suddenly disappears, by his name being banished from all mention, will everything become "normal" again? After such a public position by Trudeau, I say it is our duty to pay extra attention so as not to demonize Wortman ourselves. My comment here is not in any way an attempt to "humanize" him as a person, but a genuine desire on my side to avoid "dehumanizing" him. I would like that the section on the perpetrator is supervized by a very responsible editor to avoid both "demonizers" and "humanizers" alike, by sticking to the facts without imposing a censorship atmosphere. werldwayd (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we should make him his own wikipedia page that way once we find out more about him (his politics, his MSM history, his ex-girlfriend, etc.) we don't have to make this page- that's just about the crime- a page just dedicated to him AnotherToast (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Well Wikipedia is governed by internal policies not what the Prime Minister says. The Canadian PM has no power here and Wikipedia is not censored. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Jacinda Ardern tried the same thing after the Christchurch mosque shootings, asking that Brenton Tarrant's name not be mentioned. The media in New Zealand may or may not have followed her request, but Wikipedia is under no obligation to bow to any request from one nation. WWGB (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

That's Trudeau asking Canada, eh, not Canada asking Wikipedia. If something needs international suppression, we have more powerful ministries and departments. And they don't even mention such efforts, just do them. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

So in other words it's completely irrelevant to Wikipedia. This article will probably end up something similar to the 2014 Isla Vista killings. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Well spoken, werldwayd. 94.219.99.220 (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Hiding the deaths of women

The fact that some of the victims of this atrocity - an atrocity reportedly carried out by a man - were women has been removed as "not significant" and "undue". It is neither of those things. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Presumably in any shooting, there'd be about 50% women killed. I've seen no demographic breakdowns or media indication that there was some kind of bias or motive. Can User:Pigsonthewing point to a source? The one you had on this comment, makes no indication of the gender of the victims. Nfitz (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • It does, unless you think "Ms" is a male pronoun. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "Heather O’Brien, a nurse and grandmother" [3]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• Correct me if I'm wrong, but I agree with Niftz when they said that we shouldn't put weight on gender while we still don't know the motive of the shooting. If it's anything like the École Polytechnique massacre, then we have a reason to mention it, but otherwise it's just random information. puggo (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Agreed, I think the issue is one of WP:DUE and undue weight. There is likely nothing wrong with identifying the gender or other facts about the victims. The issue is saying there were "MORE" women then men killed suggest that is significant perhaps because there was a anti-feminist or perhaps sexual motive for the crime. We absolutely should not be suggesting anything about the motive that is not reflected in WP:RS. In considering if we give prominence to the genders of the victims we need to ask ourselves why that is relevant or important over other factors or facts about the victims or perpetrator.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
    • "The issue is saying there were "MORE" women then men killed" Nobody said that. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
      • The BBC article (which does seem to be changing as time progresses) does appear to identify 2 male and 3 female victims (if I make assumptions regarding names, etc.). But it doesn't identify the other dozen or so. Too soon ... unless there's a source that's indicating there was a bias in the motive or actions (which there certainly was in 1989). Nfitz (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Kyoto Animation arson attack notes that "It was reported that two-thirds of the victims (at least 20) were women, as the studio was known for hiring female animators." It is supported by this source. Bus stop (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
        • Unless a reliable source connects this to gender-based motives, this is WP:UNDUE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
        • This shouldn't be included except if the motive was hatred against women.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
          • The motive need not be hatred of women. All that is necessary is a source that would support an assertion that most of the victims were female. Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
            • But why are we mentioning the demographics unless it's of direct interest? It implies there was an explicit motive based on gender. puggo (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
              • We shouldn't, indeed. Based on the Sun below, which is a problematic source, the initial killings may have been motivated by revenge at the ex, and then after that it's pure speculation. The talk in town (I'm in the area) is that this is initially revenge at the ex, followed by settlement of petty disputes with neighbours, and then random killings until suicide by cops occurs. But the point is that until the RCMP says anything, it's all speculation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
            • "All that is necessary is a source that would support an assertion that most of the victims were female." Why, when - as already pointed out above - no one is claiming that to be the case? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

This section appears predicated on hysteria and as if there is an intentional POV being pushed here. The sources provided show no such thing. The sex of the victims shoudl play no role in the objectivitiy of writing a neutral article. The only way this information being claimed could be true is if reliable sources provide reliable and verifaible proof, not just theories or conjecture that this is occurring otherwith this feels like a sopbaox section. Sparkle1 (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

"...hysteria..." AFAICT, WP:AGF has not yet been suspended. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, thanks it is hard to figure out exactly what you are objecting to because you have not provided a link or wording that you object being removed. I assume you are talking about "several others of whom were also women"? If there is something else we are talking about here let us know. I think that wording has the same issues. It suggests the fact that those victims were women is significant, possibly as a motive or for some other unstated reason. Why do you think we need to highlight their gender in that sentence?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

No, it suggests - and cites - that some of them were women. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

But why does it matter that they were women? And that the other victim was "also" a woman? Why do we give that prominence over their races, occupation, hometowns etc? Giving it prominence suggests it is IMPORTANT. If we are going to suggest it is important, we have to say why. If we don't some will assume we are emphasizing it for those sorts of reasons. Talking about one female victim and then saying others were also women might also suggest a pattern. I do not think anyone here is saying we cannot provide relevant details about the victims but that wording was not great, and giving unnecessary significance to the gender when we do not have WP:RS on the motive is not appropriate.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The wording I proposed is that which I added to the article, and which was subsequently removed from it - but nowhere have I insisted on that particular wording. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• At this point, calling special attention to the genders of some of the victims without any source specifically doing so constitutes OR. If additional information comes out that makes victim genders relevant to the article, then it should be included. I haven't found anything thus far.
  Also, Pigsonthewing, could you please tell me why you chose to title this section Hiding the deaths of women? AFAICT, WP:AGF has not yet been suspended. AlexEng^(TALK) 21:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "calling special attention" No-one is asking for that. "...to title this section" Because that's what happened; HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

HTH. It doesn't. Are you suggesting that editors are deliberately hiding the fact that women were killed? Why? Is there a good faith reason for doing that?

No-one is asking for that. You are, if I understand correctly. Your change specifically calls out that some of the victims are women. For what reason did you draw special attention to this fact? Would it be equally valid to point out that several of the victims were white? Canadian? English-speaking? Involved in occupations that involve caring for others? AlexEng^(TALK) 05:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

If some of the victims were also women, and you need to pinpoint that so persistently, then it also follows that there was let's say, a male victim, and some or many of the other victims were also men. You see where this line of thinking logic is leading? Gender is relevant only if he specifically wanted to target members of a certain gender almost exclusively to the other. werldwayd (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Police have been very quiet about motive so far. The unconfirmed rumors are that it started as some kind of domestic violence or an attack on an ex-gf and her new boyfriend and then spiraled out from there. When that gets confirmed that absolutely should be added to the article. But right now we really don't know if gender or relationships played any role in the attacks. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Other than his spouse and her partner, there so far seems little rhyme or reason. And now that there's photos online of all 22 victims, gender doesn't seem a factor. Only things that jumps out is that they are all white - and that surely is also not a factor or relevant. Nfitz (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

That everyone is white is really not surprising given the demographics of the region, which is about 95% white. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Even the Halifax explosion only took out around five blacks and nine natives, at least per Wikipedia. Africville was apparently protected by the "shadow effect". That would probably be called something else if it happened again today. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Deadliest mass shooting in Cnd History?

the claim that the series of events is the deadliest mass shooting in Canada should be updated to reflect that it's the deadliest mass shooting in modern canadian history and not canadian history as a whole. seeList of massacres in Canada as there have been previous more deadly events agaisnt Indigenous people in the 19th century. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Keywords: "The deadliest attack involving the use of firearms". It doesn't necessarily imply "the deadliest massacre in Canadian history". Love of Corey (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Key words in the source are "deadliest such attack" following "rampage". InedibleHulk (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

ok i understand that's how the source wrote it, but the new wording of being the "deadliest rampage in cnd history" is both misleading and ahistorical as it eliminates evidence of where it happened agaisnt indeginous peoples in acts of genocide throughout the founding of the country. that being said, we should just have to rely on the source to make that judgement, do your own research on the other massacres on the wiki list they were more deadly, even in that isn't included in the reporting immediately after the event took place. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

You may be confusing "rampage" with "massacre". Military or other group offensives are rarely, if ever, called rampages or sprees. But certainly massacres, now and then. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)