Talk:2018 Toronto van attack

Editing the article in accordance with WP:BLPCRIME

The article currently explicitly states that the suspect committed the crime in the lede. Since the suspect hasn't actually been convicted, it's extremely poor form and a BLP violation to prejudge the suspect in that way. Regardless of your personal opinions or the likelihood the suspect will be acquitted, it's wide consensus not to imply a living person has committed a crime until they've been convicted. I've added "allegedly" and other qualifiers to some parts of the article to reflect this. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 21:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Chess: Minassian did confess to the crime. Does or should that make any difference? Alaney2k (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Alaney2k: There's a lot of ethical reasons why it's wrong to characterize someone as having committed a crime before they've been convicted but probably the most important one is that in many countries (including the US) libel law is relatively strict on banning accusations of criminality if they're not true. While yeah, the suspect probably confessed to the crime in question and it's pretty clear how the trial is going to go, the truth is we shouldn't be evaluating whether people are criminals or not when that's the job of the judicial system. The court is the organization that determines someone who's a criminal and it's appropriate to defer to them in almost all cases when possible. The exception is when the criminal died I believe for whatever reason. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 22:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Alek Minassian's Religion

It says in the article that Alek Minassian had been raised Christian. I've read before that he identifies as an atheist, and in a police interview, he said his parents never raised him in any religion.--Splashen (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Splashen: Would you mind providing some links to reliable sources that support this? Or be more specific in where we could find this information? Right now we can't verify if what you're saying is true or not and can't include those claims until they are. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 02:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, here is one right here.--Splashen (talk) 06:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC) https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto-van-attack-police-interview

I don't know if his religion should be mentioned as religion isn't a motive for him. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 14:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Primary motivation/Ideology was not incel according to judge in final sentencing, this article is just plain wrong, and yes wikipedia does use primary sources sometimes

Nevertheless, I am inclined to accept the assessment of all of the experts that [Minassian] did lie to the police about much of the incel motivation he talked about and that the incel movement was not in fact a primary driving force behind the attack. I note as well that [Minassian]’s father commented that when his son was talking to Det. Thomas, he was using the tone of voice and demeanour that he would use when doing a presentation, as if he was acting a part. [...] he has never expressed hatred, or even anger, towards women, not even in his initial statement to the police [...] Accordingly, I agree with the assessors that [Minassian]’s story to the police about the attack being an “incel rebellion” was a lie. [...]I am sure that resentment towards women who were never interested him was a factor in this attack, but not the driving force. Instead, as he told every assessor, he piggybacked on the incel movement to ratchet up his own notoriety.

--Justice Anne Molloy, final sentencing of Minassian https://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2021ONSC1258.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:0:C2:59F3:F307:3420:F033 (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

It's simple enough to find a secondary source: [1]. Acroterion is correct that we avoid using primary sources in the way you were attempting. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I just realized that this issue had already been brought to talk. I gave the user a Template:Welcome-suboptimal greeting. Hopefully they'll ask for help rather than continue warring over this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 29 September 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. per discussion consensus. This was a close one, with valid policy referenced on all sides. That said, it appears CONSISTENCY was most persuasive to discussion participants, more so than NOYEAR. Lastly, multiple sources appear to describe this with the year included. Questions? Ping me on my talk, as always. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Toronto van attack → 2018 Toronto van attack – The current convention on article titles for events, WP:NCEVENTS, demands that in the majority of cases a date come before the article title. I see no good reason to make an exception here, especially given the fact that the article previously had the date in the title, until a unilateral move that did not respect the requested move process for controversial moves. Currently, this is one of the few articles from the List of vehicle-ramming attacks that lack the date in the title; adding the date would make it WP:CONSISTENT with the rest. Pilaz (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 13:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support the new name requested -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NOYEAR - The year is not needed to disambiguate this from any other article, so, per WP:CONCISE, it is better without it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  What about WP:CONSISTENT? NCEVENTS isn't primarily about disambiguating articles, it's about standardizing them in one single format. Pilaz (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  Adding to this, WP:NOYEAR applies when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it, but many sources refer to the event preceded with the year, which is a telltale sign that WP:NOYEAR shouldn't apply here: Reuters, the Canadian Encyclopedia, Toronto CityNews, GlobalNews.ca, this peer-reviewed paper, etc. Pilaz (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support as per Pilaz's WP:CONSISTENT argument — Python Drink (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: WP:NCEVENTS describes it as a "judgement call", between how "some articles do not need a year" and how "in the majority of cases, the title of the article should contain... when the incident happened". I don't know how to make the judgment call here. Is it comparable to, say, Virginia Tech shooting (one of the examples listed)? "Deadliest vehicle-ramming attack in Canadian history" vs. "deadliest school shooting in the U.S."? I don't know. I'll just say that, if someone wants to make the case in earnest for omitting the "when", I'd expect it to be made based on something about the specific event, and not just on generalities that apply equally well to any event. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Thankfully there have been no more van attacks in Toronto. "2018 Toronto van attack" implies, to me at least, there are other such attacks from which this one should be disambiguated. For that reason I find the proposed title misleading. Additionally, it is not as concise as it can be. Surtsicna (talk) 06:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Ambiguity is always best avoided. Probably not the only van attack ever in Toronto. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2022 (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.

Should motive be altered?

Given that, as written in the article, Minassian is suspected to have lied about his "incel" motive, should the motives section of the infobox not be changed to reflect this? Or at least with a note that the motive is contested.

See this quote by Ontario Superior Court Justice Anne Molloy, from the legal proceedings section of the article: "I am inclined to accept the assessment of all of the experts that Mr. Doe did lie to the police about much of the incel motivation he talked about and that the incel movement was not in fact a primary driving force behind the attack." Macxcxz (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I've just adjusted it to "Notoriety, misogynist terrorism". I think it's probably reasonably to leave the latter in place given that the judge agreed with experts that that may have played a role (as discussed in more detail in the article), but I'm certainly open to other thoughts on that. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)