Talk:2020 Nova Scotia attacks/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Questionable claims about the shooting of Officer Morrison

Under the timeline for April 19, the article reads Witnesses reported that Wortman then ran towards Stevenson, shooting and killing her, and wounding another officer but the referenced source does not say this is the case at all. The source says witnesses saw another officer dragging her from her car, but the witnesses are presumably unable to distinguish between an RCMP officer and a killer dressed as an RCMP officer, The eyewitnesses are not quoted in the article as saying the other officer was injured. The article says another officer was indeed injured, but does not state where in the timeline his injuries occurred. The wikipedia article seems to make an assumption that he was also shot during the killing of Heidi Stevenson, but this is an assumption not evidenced in the quoted source material. It is known that there were other officer-involved firearms discharges that occurred over the entire course of events, and it is possible he was wounded in another of these incidents unless reliable information suggests otherwise. In short, one cannot conclusively say the person seen dragging Officer Stevenson from the car was Officer Morrison or this was the event in which his injuries occurred without citing further sources.Adwoodworth (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Andrew Woodworth

To help you clarify. RCMP Cst. Chad Morrison was shot and wounded, however it doesn't say by who, although we all assume it was the gunman, and it doesn't specify when in the timeline. He could of been shot early or later and possibly in cross-fire. Air Java (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Darcy Sack's account has both a male officer and a male police partner. One ran up to one of the cars before "we heard gunshots" and the other looked "something wrong" after. If there were (seemingly) three cops and one was a woman, Morrison should be the one at this scene/time. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

References

But yeah, nobody I've read or heard has said they saw Stevenson die, either by gunshot or car crash. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't take anonymous leaks as official reports

If something is cited to "a source familiar with the investigation", don't pin it on "police", "authorities", "investigators" or "officials". Those people identify themselves as such. If "law enforcement source" says "investigators believe..." in CNN, then ABC attributes the same thing to "investigators", that's just the same claim recycled. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

You don't like CNN, don't you? Love of Corey (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't like misrepresentation of sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

If ABC News was piggybacking off of CNN, then they would've worded it as "source" rather than just say "law enforcement officials", now would they? Love of Corey (talk) 09:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

No, obviously, but it used the same claims near-verbatim without naming even one official/investigator. It names Leather just fine. If multiple investigators have made it official, why doesn't Canadian media mention that? This is how rumours have always worked, Chinese whispers-style. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, all such shadowy off-the-record molecrap should be explicitly attributed to the outlet or reporter running with the scoop, just be honest. It doesn't mean they're wrong, only anonymous. Maybe wrong, many are, but all different from the official RCMP. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

For those unconvinced Meredith Deliso and/or Ivan Pereira bend the truth, since when do police say "allegedly", in Canada or the States? They're the allegers. Unlikely story. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Including victim/perpetrator's names next to properties

Extended content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. An earlier edit of this map and caption included the named owners of the properties. I tend to think this is very personal information which I am not sure we need to or should include. What do folks think? Is it appropriate for Wortman? For his victims? Should we avoid this all together? Or is it really encyclopedic and necessary to understanding the sequence of events?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC) I disagree with the rationale of not naming victims per WP:MEMORIAL, but I certainly do think including their addresses is a bit much, especially if those people aren't mentioned by name in the main text. PrimaPrime (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC) On second thought, I have removed this altogether. The sequence of events is clearly relevant, but this should not be included without proper sourcing. And I think even then we have to have a discussion about it. Including addresses could have real world implications for people and perhaps run foul of WP:BLP notwithstanding that Wortman and most of his victims are deceased (some are not, and they have families). I think something like this should be included if properly source, but we need to discuss it first. I would welcome some input from editors a little more well versed in BLP issues to comment here and provide some guidance.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC) Note - I posted a notice on the BLP noticeboard and on the talk page of the editor who appears to have created the image.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC) I also felt uneasy when I first saw this map. I am concerned that it may breach WP:PRIVACY issues. Also, the file relies on WP:PRIMARY sources, and may also involve WP:OR. I have no problem with a simple map that illustrates the perp's attack path, but the inclusion of names and addresses is a worry. WWGB (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC) The photo was added by Canadaolympic989 without so much as an edit summary. Maybe we should ask them. Love of Corey (talk) 09:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC) Names (& more concerningly addresses) are still on the map that's linked in the first comment in this section. Surely they should be redacted out of privacy concerns, including from the talk page? Even the editors who are arguing for the victims' names to be included haven't indicated that they want their addresses to be. Jim Michael (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC) "Even the editors who are arguing for the victims' names to be included haven't indicated that they want their addresses to be." The addresses would be indiscriminate information but the names would not. Bus stop (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC) The addresses are worse than merely indiscriminate info - they're an invasion of privacy & they not be anywhere on WP. The addresses should be removed from the file & its history. We don't want to encourage or assist people regarding visiting the attack sites. Jim Michael (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reactions: Leah Parsons, mother of Rehtaeh Parsons

This should be added to the reactions section, if we think it is sufficiently notable and encyclopedic.[1] It appears that Constable Stevenson was one of the officers who informed and liaised with the family following Rehtaeh Parsons' suicide attempt and death several days later. I will try to come back to this later. If someone wants to take a stab at it now, have at it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

That's irrelevant to this case. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course it is "relevant to this case", Headbomb. Constable Heidi Stevenson multiple times visited the home of Leah Parsons following the death of Rehtaeh Parsons. Is there some reason information relating to this should be omitted from the article? Bus stop (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

There's a perfectly valid reason. It has nothing to do with the shooting spree that occurred. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources should be the decisor as to what is relevant to the article. Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

She's an ordinary person who had a future dead cop help out, as part of one of her many cases. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, and until reliable sources states that Rehtaeh or Leah Parsons as being relevant to this shooting, this is unimportant. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Or until Leah has an article, like irrelevant Melania and CN Tower. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb—you say "until reliable sources states that Rehtaeh or Leah Parsons as being relevant to this shooting". Reliable sources never state that anything is relevant to anything else. Reliable sources are not mindful of Wikipedia when they publish material. We derive "relevancy" by comparing reliably sourced material with the titles of our articles. Bus stop (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course, it is irrelevant to the case itself. It would be in the reactions section. It is a relevant reaction to what happened. Including it is a bit borderline in my opinion, but it is not really that much less notable than the Melania Trumps' condolences or the symbolic tributes at CN Tower and Niagara Falls. I do believe InedibleHulk has a point there. Rehtaeh Parsons' case was very high profile in Nova Scotia and Canada. I am not convinced it should be included, but calling it completely irrelevant isn't exactly fair either. That said, it is legitimate to ask, how long the reactions section should really be if the article is to remain encyclopedic.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Sidney Crosby, Colleen Jones and Al MacInnis are getting substantially more press for their sympathies, just saying. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. It is a judgment call and reactions sections can go on forever. At some point there needs to be some culling of information which is not needed for an encyclopedic article. That said, perhaps Leah Parsons' comments are more significant because she is local, and had a personal connection with Constable Stevenson rooted in another Nova Scotia tragedy. As you may have noticed, I have now added content to the reactions sections about the GoFundMe campaigns, and the fraudulent one that was taken down, as well as the virtual vigil scheduled for tomorrow. Maybe that content has another legitimate place in the article, but at some point it starts to be silly if the reaction section is much larger than others about the actual incident. I will take no offence if it is edited or removed, pending discussion about what should be included, could be included, and what is too much.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with GoFundMe, most readers have probably heard of it and it's a slightly fresh departure from boilerplate leader stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

If the GoFundMe campaign is covered in media, I'm fine with it too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

"Shubenacadie/Milford"?

Reaching out to any Canadians or Nova Scotians. Is there really such a name as "Shubenacadie/Milford"? When I first read the BBC article that named it, I was wondering if it was an error or if it was a broader name for some micropolitan area. Love of Corey (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I live in Nova Scotia. Shubenacadie and Milford are about 5 miles/8km apart. The area is about as rural as you can get. Hope this is of help.   Aloha27  talk  21:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

So would you say "Shubenacadie/Milford" is an appropriate title? Or an error? I was expecting a comma between the two towns. Love of Corey (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

To be honest I would have no problem having the area described as that. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  22:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

It probably just reflect the uncertainty of where exactly the event was and this describes a general area that fell technically either into Shubenacadie or Milford, but who no one would really identify with either specifically. You can see this with Highway Trunk 2 between Shubenacadie (slightly North) and Milford. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Milford is a separate village adjacent to shubenacadie or shubbie as the locals will call it. Nova Scotia has hundreds of villages in each county and the residents are proud to be part of each one they are in. Also the trunk 2 highway is only is more generally known as Highway 2. It was the old North - south highway before the larger, 102, was built. There is a crime scene in both Milford and Shubbie. Probably best to separate them. Shubbie is where he killed his last victim and got his Mazda 3 before stopping at the big stop for fuel and running into an ERT officer and Dog officer in an unmarked SUV also gassing up. Air Java (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Title

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

---

Way too ambiguous. Are we really saying this is the only instance of killings in Nova Scotia history? I realize the police won't confirm this was a shooting only. But at least make it 2020 Nova Scotia killings. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Was Sydney River McDonald's murders not Nova Scotia killings? Yes, the title is different, but that's no reason not to put the year in the title. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

We'll have a clearer picture within days and a common name within weeks, till then, this three-word title is specific enough for me. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Could you tolerate "rampage" or "massacre" in the meantime? Nova Scotia has had fewer of those. And some press already uses it, unlike "2020". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree the current title is too ambiguous, I would also be in favor of 2020 Nova Scotia killings. Alternatively, something like Nova Scotia spree killings would also suffice.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 03:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Technically a single spree killing, but other than that, fine by me. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I also like Nova Scotia spree killing, in line with such articles as Quebec City mosque shooting which exclude the year but are a little more specific than just "killing" or "shooting." PrimaPrime (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Let's do it Ribbet32 (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Article has been move-protected for three days due to move warring. That will at least give us more time to discuss and for others to provide input.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 04:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm more in favor of 2020 Nova Scotia killings. Seems appropriate and has precedent. Love of Corey (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm now starting to wonder if we should think about using the term massacre; there are now at least 19 people killed or injured, and the École Polytechnique massacre, which had less victims, uses the term massacre in its title. Something like Nova Scotia massacre would work for me. I'm also beginning to wonder whether "2020" should be brought back in if we keep "killings" in the title, as merely "Nova Scotia killings" as a descriptor just seems too ambiguous to me; as others have said, it isn't the only "Nova Scotia killing" that ever occurred. Yes, the events took place throughout different areas of the province so we can't narrow down the geography any further, but I do think we should add another disambiguator like "2020" if we don't go with massacre.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 04:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

From what I've observed, the use of "massacre" in the titles of mass murder cases such as this seems to be more antiquated more than anything else. The École Polytechnique massacre occurred in 1989, the Columbine High School massacre occurred in 1999, and we have stuff like the Wounded Knee Massacre which happened a long, long time ago. I've never seen any articles on more recent events that use "massacre" in the title, unless I'm mistaken. Love of Corey (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I was around to see the first two on a screen, so modern enough. But yeah, Nova Scotia and the military sort go way back to sketchbook times. All words about killing are pretty old. Some are still Latin! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the title is Wayyyy too ambiguous. If it ware up to me, I would change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.158.71 (talk • contribs)

2020 Nova Scotia spree killing anyone? ~ AC5230 talk 10:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

There have been many killings and some massacres in Nova Scotia's history, the current title is bad, and even if it remains at this title, it needs a hatnote. Considering all the wars that have taken place in territory now Nova Scotia, there have been many deaths due to being killed deliberately. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk)

Agreed, title is too general and moving it to 2020 Nova Scotia killings or 2020 Nova Scotia massacre would solve the problem. HillelFrei^{• talk •} 16:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree that Nova Scotia Killings is a terrible title choice. Because there are no other specific characteristics, it needs a year, and because it's not a localised event, massacre would be a poor choice. 2020 Nova Scotia Killing Rampage or Killing Spree would be more appropriate. Tallard (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Needs to have a year in the title. And I do not like the word killings Zfamdam (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

2020 Nova Scotia killings would be better. Devdevo1919 (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not gonna lie, if we're going to call it anything related to mass murder, then this would classify as a massacre than anything. You can see that most of these people were unfortunately killed in cold blood, and there seems to be no relation to the shootings and the suspect other than his business went bankrupt due to COVID-19. It should be titled the Nova Scotia mass shootings, or the Nova Scotia massacre because all of which still falls into the category of mass murder, and on top of that the title is horribly put. It's like Sijekovac killings or Križančevo Selo killings; too broad, not enough emphasis on what happened. Balkanite (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

2020 Nova Scotia massacre is the right title. - Mrpresidentfaris (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I would agree 2020 Nova Scotia massacre is the right fit in this case, and is a term referred to most news outlets currently. It likely will be how it is referred to locally, and reflects the magnitude of the event in our nation's history. The title will as well, maintain consistency with other article titles for similar events. - User:Spennythegent (talk) 04:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

As an Ontarian, I'm curious. Do you guys really say the year? What about the Moncton shooting and Fredericton shooting? Pretty similar, at least from here in Shedden massacre/Toronto van attack land. Consistency is cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there really no WP policy to standardise article names for incidents like this? Every time something similar happens, there's an almighty debate about what to call the article. At least with the comparable UK articles the consensus seems to usually (though not always) settle on year + location + type of incident, eg. 2019 London Bridge stabbing. So following similar format, this one could be '2020 Nova Scotia killings' or something to that effect. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The news and (sometimes) books we theoretically look to for WP:COMMONNAME virtually always omit the year, just place plus type, like Manchester Arena bombing. Threes work best. Nova Scotia massacre! InedibleHulk (talk) 11:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Throwing my support behind a more descriptive title, this is far too vague. --Selxxa (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

"More descriptive title" is even vaguer. Do you want to describe the shooting, the burning, the dying, the stealing, the crashing, the impersonation, the what? I think "massacre" is just vague enough to encompass the lot. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

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

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Atlantic Denture Clinic (3).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:07, 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/wiki/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 [currently] 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 Wikipedia. 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)

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.[2]

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)

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.[15]" 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)

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)

• Really not sure that Trudeau's commitment to more restrictive gun laws is lead worthy. Weather or not it's opportunism is best left to politicians to hammer out, but it's likely WP:DUE to mention in the Nova Scotia killings#Aftermath section. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:13, 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)

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)

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)

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 Wikipedia. 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)