Talk:2020 Nova Scotia attacks/Archive 5

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


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


 * Graylandertagger—it avoids specificity while making generally the same point. This isn't necessarily factual or quantifiable and we are still aiming for accuracy and precision by putting it in the category of one of the most deadly or one of the deadliest. Bus stop (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You can't aim for accuracy by choosing arbitrary question-begging vagueness over easily quantifiable reported facts. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Fine. Your choice. I was merely suggesting the change since, even though it was the deadliest by a lone perp, I thought it would be more consistant to take into account the Blue Bird Cafe fire seeing how that was an act of mass murder aswell. I wasn't trying to come off as advocating for Wikipedia to have quote on quote Olympics for these events.Graylandertagger (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I knew what you were going for, for what it's worth. And if you find a source saying what you want Wikipedia to say instead, I'm not particularly attached to "my" choice (or the Associated Press, a decent bureau, but not perfect). I see where WWGB is coming from, too, though. We've both seen things in these mass casualty event articles, sporty things, disturbing things. Sometimes we remember, and lash out at editors who weren't there. Anyway, I hope you at least walk away from this remembering a rampage is a course of violence, while most fires are only set once. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Battles and military engagements are not mass shootings. So yes, this is the deadliest mass shooting/shooting spree/whatever you want to call it. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

"2020 nova scotia attacks" - wikipedia
This gets precisely one Google result, from wikiupdates.info, and twelve if I include Wikipedia mirrors and redirects. Clearly among the least common names possible. I'm not suggesting it should be fixed in the near future, just noting how broken it presently is. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's one of the problems with the current title. It makes this article less likely to be found by people who are unfamiliar with WP. Jim Michael (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirects still work, and it's linked on the main page (for now, under the wrong attack type), so it could've been worse. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirects work fine. I think our primary concern is appearance—what will look best adorning the top of the page? Bus stop (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Nova Scotia [common singular noun]", like how writers write and speakers speak. Sometimes we read "tragedy" or "shooting", sometimes hear "rampage" and "massacre". But some of us pretend that's not good enough, Wikipedia should innovate, not follow. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that this article should be titled Nova Scotia [common singular noun]? Bus stop (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you want to step outside and rephrase this like gentlemen? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 *  Reply - Why don't y'all start another RFC or move request? --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm in favour of discussing another possible title change. Jim Michael (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, be bold! --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's unclear whether the recent move was an interim move or intended to be lasting. Jim Michael (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, any move is only as permanent as permanent is. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems Bus stop has declined to settle this the old-fashioned way, so screw it, let's try Nova Scotia shooting again. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Or Nova Scotia shootings. Bus stop (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I support Nova Scotia shootings or 2020 Nova Scotia killings. Love of Corey (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You didn't seem too supportive when you unilaterally moved it from your first choice to start this all, but whatever, people change, count me in for resetting to common plural noun. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Screw you. That was before it was more obvious people died from fires. Love of Corey (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * stay WP:CIVIL here. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Tell that to . Love of Corey (talk) 07:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't really going to fight Bus stop. And wasn't knocking you for changing your stance, sudden 180s just make me wonder. Thanks for explaining a bit, and no hard feelings about the first part! InedibleHulk (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I saw no fight. I admit to being anonymous. Bus stop (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's exactly why I chickened out, you have no known weaknesses, like a ninja. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Bus stop (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's it, I'm voting for 51-year-old rampage! And yes, exclamation mark included! But no, not really, let's do this while we're still unanimous! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nova Scotia shooting(s) / killing(s) are unsuitable because this rampage wasn't the only shooting / killing in NS. Jim Michael (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But it's the only one named after the province, rather than a certain town, creek or field, so still distinctive. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I tend to think Nova Scotia mass shooting, Nova Scotia mass shootings, 2020 Nova Scotia shootings or something like that is the best title. While there were also fires of course, the shootings seem to be the most significant aspect of the incidents and most of the headlines I have seen seem to refer to this as a shooting (though I have also seen rampage, massacre, and spree killing/killing spree). I think those words are less appropriate as they are a bit loaded with motive or mental state of the perpetrator or judgment about the acts themselves which may not conform with WP:NPOV (despite use of these terms where they developed into a WP:COMMONNAME for historical reasons). I also dislike "attack" because since 9/11, I think most people associate the word with "terrorist attacks" as opposed to crimes. I think it would be helpful to have a RfC on this which is listed broadly. It possible, it would be good to narrow out some of the options that really do not have any support to avoid some of the complexity of the last discussion. If that is not possible though, we could just list them all and let folks vote. I put together a possible RfC in my sandbox. Options could be removed from that of course, or added.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Firearms regulation in Canada
This is something we will need to keep an eye on and expand on in the article as appropriate.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Detailed timeline:
A simple easy to use timeline of events. Timeline Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks very good. Bus stop (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata

 * Q91922353: Heidi Stevenson
 * Q91129213: 2020 Nova Scotia shooting

Dead and injured dogs
A fair bit out there about two dog victims, both of whom lost their owners but survived being shot. I think they're noteworthy, but another guy doesn't care. What say you? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, as long as you don't name them. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  11:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If RS say that Wortman shot dogs as well as people, it should be included. Jim Michael (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on. This is Wikipedia, not dogipedia. Maybe he stepped on some ants also? WWGB (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources don't say, but he stole the Shepherd's car (which we note by model, despite this not being Auto Trader). InedibleHulk (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Deliberately shooting dogs was part of the killing spree. Jim Michael (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps most historically, these dogs got free health care. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And perhaps "ironically", CTV Atlantic, which first made him "famous" for generous dental work, reports his final canine victim was shot in the teeth and owned by a denturist. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In the canine teeth? Thanks, we'll be here all week! &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you know the Shepherd from Death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi not only has his own name and infobox number, but a photo? Can ***ger at least have her full name? Seriously, it looks bad censored. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We bypass sources at our own peril. Selective omission of that which is found in good quality sources is tantamount to creative writing. Of course we should be mentioning the canines that were shot. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is a benefit as well as a liability. Bus stop (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * BBC also notes two dead Labradors, no clear names or injuries, in a burnt house. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * One of these days I'll find the energy to boldly add content to an article including all information found in good quality sources. When reverted, I'll link to some of your comments on the question, and we'll see how that flies. My expectation is that editors, by overwhelming margin, will prefer "selective omission of that which is found in good quality sources". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Mandruss—we should stop pretending that WP:INDISCRIMINATE allows us to selectively omit anything that suits our fancy. Wikipedia doesn't base articles on subject matter. Wikipedia bases articles on the coverage of topics in good quality sources. Bus stop (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No competent editor selectively omits "anything that suits our fancy". We use our brains and selectively omit things that are not relevant, are not significant, and so on. Any intelligent 8-year-old could be taught to transfer information from news sources to Wikipedia articles with rewording to avoid COPYVIO. As you've been told countless times by countless experienced editors, to deaf ears, coverage in sources is one factor to consider but far from the only one. It is Step 1 of a filtering process that transforms news to encyclopedic content. Your view of Wikipedia editing is narrow and simplistic, and has precious little support. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I support Bus stop's simple and focused approach, at the risk of getting hatted for humanizing him again. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see a good reason to omit the fact that dogs were among the victims of this killing spree. Jim Michael (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Any reason to omit their names, breeds and/or ages? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the reason is that those details are trivia. Jim Michael (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Mandruss—we aren't trying to show the reader how the topic ought to be covered. We should be endeavoring to show the reader how good quality sources actually have covered the topic. Do you see the distinction? This isn't our creative writing project. Adherence to sources is not something that is merely optional. Bus stop (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Adherence to sources is not something that is merely optional Huh? I have never suggested we should not adhere to sources. That's verifiability, and it has nothing to do with this issue. While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. That is part of a Wikipedia policy and it directly contradicts your views here. And this is not the first time this has been pointed out to you.Here's a small sampling of how good quality sources have covered this topic, currently omitted from our article. Please get to work adding these items and all others like them, or admit (at least to yourself) that you yourself endorse what you call creatively call "creative writing".
 * RCMP gave the new death toll, which excludes the shooter, Tuesday night in a news release.
 * It's not clear if police still expect the number of victims to rise.
 * the piles of flowers and mournful notes at memorials across Nova Scotia are growing.
 * On Tuesday, police maintained a blockade at the top of Portapique Beach Road.
 * Only investigators and residents were allowed to pass through the roadblock on Tuesday,
 * Gabrielle Sullivan-Sparks drove in from Great Village, a town 10 kilometres east, bringing a potted hydrangea and a solar-powered lamp to make sure the memorial would "have some light all the time, at night."
 * People in blue and white forensic suits moved about.
 * At Debert Elementary School, home-crafted hearts dot a chain-link fence in memory of Lisa McCully, who taught there.
 * Sullivan-Sparks said the grief being felt across the province was made all the more difficult by COVID-19.
 * Strang and Premier Stephen McNeil [...] have also denied national and international media outlets that want to send reporters to cover the shooting, and have requested exceptions to the order for travellers to self-isolate for 14 days. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

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


 * Mandruss—in the above you are suggesting I add material to an article. But bear in mind that this is a collaborative project. People voluntarily add material to build an article. Yes, sometimes people also remove material in an effort to improve an article. But should you be devoting so much effort to telling people they should be doing or not doing anything? In my opinion your modus operandi is shortsighted. There is a reason that Wikipedia works and that reason is not that we have traffic cops. You are setting yourself up as a gatekeeper of information. Such a role is not as important here as you might suppose it is. There is latitude for ebb and flow of information into and out of an article that doesn't violate policy or practice at this project. Bus stop (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But should you be devoting so much effort to telling people they should be doing or not doing anything? You know what, Bus stop? I've learned to ignore your inane comments most of the time. From time to time, however, you can expect me to shoot down your reasoning once again, for the benefit of newer editors who may not know better. That's one way I can make a significant contribution to the project, improving articles indirectly. You are setting yourself up as a gatekeeper of information. Bullshit. I am "setting myself up" as an editor who understands and makes every effort to comply with Wikipedia policies. I've reached my Bus stop tolerance limit for the time being, so have a great day. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Does anyone who's commenting in this section want the fact that dogs were among Wortman's victims to be omitted from this article? Jim Michael (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Mandruss—you say "I am 'setting myself up' as an editor who understands and makes every effort to comply with Wikipedia policies." May I respond to that? Policy is not difficult to understand; if a new editor doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, they can very easily get up to speed in a very short period of time. Having said that, I give you credit for being much more knowledgeable than I am about many technical matters pertaining to editing. Bus stop (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@ - I think we are all on the same page that the fact that dogs/animals were injured or killed should be included. The question of the detail to go into about the dogs is where we seem to potentially be wasting time. Let's add in the info about the dogs, if we really have to talk later about whether doggie names, ages, breeds, and photos are required we can have that discussion in another section. Hopefully, we do not as that would certainly be a waste of time.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We are supposed to reflect sources. This question can't be addressed in the abstract. In the final analysis we are not at liberty to add or deliberately omit information based simply on arguing amongst ourselves. The question before us concerns what language best reflects the sources, as well as what most appropriately fits into the article in its present state as well as future states as can reasonably be expected. Bus stop (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course, we can omit things that appear in reliable sources if it doesn't fit within our other policies or the consensus that we reach here and across the project. That is what WP:ONUS is all about.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * You say "Of course, we can omit things that appear in reliable sources". But I did not say we can not "omit things that appear in reliable sources". WP:ONUS says "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted". It is therefore axiomatic that we can omit information when consensus deems that such information should be omitted; consensus is a bedrock of policy. The question here is whether to include this information or not, and what language to use, and which factors to mention. Bus stop (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Just one quick sentence about any animals he deliberately he killed is fine. But obviously, we can't include them in the death toll. Only extreme animals rights organizations would do that. Love of Corey (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This is reliably sourced and I think some information on it warrants inclusion, probably mentioning the breeds of the dogs. Bus stop (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And why would we need to mention the breed? Why is that relevant?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless Wortman was known to have singled out specific breeds...I'm not sure how that would be relevant at all. Love of Corey (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Love of Corey - Agreed, animals should not be included in the count in the infobox. Readers assume this means people. It is fine to mention it in the prose (but should not be mixed into the human casualties). I guess we could also put a footnote in the infobox noting that he also killed animals that are not included in these numbers, but I am not sure that is even necessary or appropriate.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The dog casualties should be mentioned, but not included in the ibox or first sentence. Jim Michael (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Darryl Kerrigan—you say "why would we need to mention the breed?". I would mention the breeds because it is plain, concise English. It is as easy to say a "poodle" as it is to say a "dog". Furthermore, you say that it might not be "appropriate" to mention the killing/injuring of dogs. Do you find something inappropriate in the inclusion of such information? Bus stop (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Got it. The breed is not relevant, but you like it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not that I "like it", Darryl Kerrigan. It is what happened: in addition to shooting humans, the perpetrator shot a german shepherd and a miniature pinscher. You are standing on ceremony over an unimportant point. Reasonable people can disagree over whether to mention the breed. I merely made a suggestion. Now I'm explaining my suggestion ad infinitum. Bus stop (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll oppose breeds, since they're unusual victim descriptors in racially-uncharged killings, but names and ages are as routine for pets as for anyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Dog breeds are just one more piece of information that can be added at a proximal point in time and subtracted at a distal point in time. Bus stop (talk)
 * Aye, opposition is futile, all are but dust, the wind blows and it, too, shall pass. Just saying, I'm not "dog racist". Presently, anyway, maybe when I'm older, hard to predict. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It was a german shepherd and a miniature pinscher that were shot. Why would we omit that information? Do we just go around omitting information willy-nilly? Bus stop (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Willy and Nilly are great dog names! WWGB (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Bama and Remi were the great Labrador retrievers whose fiery demise probably amuses you, if anyone else cares. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I prefer basic: Name, age, hometown. But it depends on context. In the Events section, just "dog" is fine, gendered pronouns if need be. Only my two cents, though. Yours are cool, too! InedibleHulk (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WWGB—I don't think the names of the two dogs should be mentioned nor do I think anyone has suggested the names of the two dogs be mentioned. Bus stop (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In the Victims section, yes, I prefer basic name, age and hometown. I've been saying this for five years or more beside you. I won an Emmy from Wikipediocracy for naming Hannah Anderson's dog (Cali) even before recognizing well-sourced victims and repeatedly badgering the other team was cool. If you pinch a pinscher, does it not bleed? Wake up! InedibleHulk (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "In the Victims section, yes, I prefer basic name, age and hometown." I agree. Bus stop (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But you prefer to reserve that section for human victims, and I think dogs are fine (if not misleadingly presented as humans), I gather. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I just prefer the inclusion of information. Information can always be removed at a later time. Every decision is not a showdown. Information can also be altered at a later time. The battleground mentality requires decisions to be made prematurely. An article should be an "eventuality". It should emerge from successive edits. Bus stop (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think the names of the two dogs should be mentioned - But the names have been reported in good quality sources! You are setting yourself up as a gatekeeper of information! (For those playing at home, this is irony.) I'd say your editing "principles" vary widely depending on the situation, depending on whether they serve your immediate needs. That better describes a weapon than a principle. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * —thank you for pinging me. If you wanted to include the names of the dogs, I wouldn't oppose you. Your problem (I hope you don't accuse me of personal attack or some such thing for simply speaking bluntly) is you genuinely have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. And you are a rule-monger. You support intolerance. And I mean all this with compassion. I don't hate you. Closer to the truth would be I love you. (But of course I wouldn't go that far.) You've got the wrong idea about Wikipedia. (Slight hyperbole.) Unlike (as an example) the print version of Brittanica, this project is comparable to a living, breathing thing. That being the case, the names of the dogs could happily sit in the article—or eventually be removed. Wikipedia is never finished. You, and many other editors, like the fight. "Tolerance" is my byword, in article space. I think the "Bold" in WP:BRD is often misunderstood. It does not stand for any edit. "Bold" is when you have an idea or insight for how you can improve the article. It is quintessentially "bold" if it is a "big idea", involving an idea or insight. You wrote (in archives now) "There is zero basis for your reasoning in Wikipedia PAGs. Per Wikipedia PAGs and per widely accepted practice, any editor is free to BRD-revert any edit that they feel does not improve the encyclopedia, for any reason whatsoever." Do you recall what that is for? That is for someone reverting me after I added the age to the lede. There was no great insight in removing the age which I had just added to the lede. That's just disagreement. That is not quintessentially what the "B" in WP:BRD stands for. Furthermore collaboration requires restraint. In many of my edits, all over the encyclopedia, I try to only make minimal edits, especially when I'm altering something someone else just did. Unless it is severely problematic, I try to work with their edit to bring it more into line with the way I think it should be. Or I do nothing. "Bold" doesn't mean take sledgehammer to it. Bus stop (talk) 06:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your problem (I hope you don't accuse me of personal attack or some such thing for simply speaking bluntly) is you have well-developed ideas about what Wikipedia editing should be, largely disconnected from both PAGs and widely-accepted practice. Editors point you repeatedly to policies (such as WP:VNOTSUFF) and your response is repeatedly that the policies don't mean what they say. You couldn't care much less when you are repeatedly in a small minority as to your ideas – any number of editors telling you your ideas are wrong are simply wrong themselves, and I've seen that include admins. The once or twice you have taken your ideas to more public venues, they have been defeated there. And you're persistently blind to all of this. That couldn't be more contrary to fundamental Wikipedia principles. Bottom line: Disruption is not met with tolerance and love at English Wikipedia – even (especially?) when wrapped in "Can't we all just get along" exhortations – it has NEVER been that way – but you are free to fork your own kinder, gentler encyclopedia where it is. Let me know how that works out for you. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You are misconstruing what I said. There is a distinction between Talk page use and article space editing. You are blurring that distinction entirely. I did not refer to tolerance in Talk page space. Bus stop (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of your disruption occurs on article talk pages, so that's where my focus is and that's what I addressed. I understand that you don't want to talk about that. As for article editing, I approached you about some of that on your UTP and you ignored me. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll add one more thing. When I mentioned that I endeavor to make minimal edits, especially right after something was done by somebody else, it is not because I don't care about the article. Bus stop (talk) 07:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * FINE - fine - I've been bold and put the mutts' names - 'precious' and 'barney-boy' - in the article. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.24.147 (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The names (breeds, etc.) of dead dogs in an article about a mass murder is simple trivia, (and, frankly, trivial and not encyclopedic) sourced or not. GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 18:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I added mention that two dogs were injured. If someone thinks that should be mentioned somewhere else in the article, have at it.  It seems clear that there is consensus against including their names or breeds.  Let's let this archive.  We seem to be done here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
 * ^^^^ I agree with that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Type of gun used?
Since this event is now Canada's version of the Port Arthur Massacre (i.e. implementation of nationwide ban on assault weapons), it's important for the public to know if the weapons used are now the weapons banned.

However, I've been unable to find a source for exact weapon type. As soon as it's found, it needs to be added. Jesusjones1024 (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Canada has banned "assault weapons" (select fire automatic, magazines larger than 5 rounds) for decades and no are available to the public in Canada. "Assault-style weapons" is a term that has no meaning and concrete definition. It is a McGuffin for propaganda purposes. So if it is important to the Canadian public to know if the weapons used are now the weapons banned - no, at least due to the fact that handguns aren't banned. - RSoldat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.147.101.167 (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Assault weapons" and "assault/type weapons" are used interchangeably (and officially undefined). What you're describing is an "assault rifle" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle Semantics aside, for this massive ban to make sense as a means to prevent another massacre, the gun used has to be on the ban list. I can't find a source to corroborate this - and it's suspiciously not being mentioned openly.

Principal models being prohibited: M16, AR-10, AR-15 rifles and M4 carbine Ruger Mini-14 rifle US Rifle M14 Vz58 rifle and CZ858 rifle Robinson Armament XCR rifle CZ Scorpion EVO 3 carbine and pistol Beretta Cx4 Storm carbine SIG Sauer SIG MCX and SIG Sauer SIG MPX carbines and pistols Swiss Arms Classic Green and Four Seasons series rifles Jesusjones1024 (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As opposed to an already law banning murder. This law will never stop criminals. There should be RS's in news journals refuting the effectiveness of such laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.24.147 (talk • contribs)
 * Sorry. I've had a look. I couldn't find many mainstream sources "refuting the effectiveness of such laws" about murder. Most sources I could find were more along the lines of specific penalties or types. Nil Einne (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Such refutation/criticism would not be relevant to this article, but rather apply to articles with about gun laws and such. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. I'm doubtful that they belong here, but refutations/criticism of the effectiveness of laws restricting murder belong here much more than they do articles on gun laws. Refutations/criticism of the effectiveness of laws restricting gun ownership or purchasing would belong in articles on gun laws, but that's not what I'm talking about as the IP appeared to be mostly asking about refutations/criticism of the effectiveness of laws restricting murder rather than refutations/criticism of the effectiveness of laws restricting gun ownership or purchasing. Nil Einne (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * —WP:MEMORIAL addresses the creation of articles, not content within articles. Notice the wording: "Subjects of encyclopedia articles..." Bus stop (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Editors citing NOTMEMORIAL are referring to its spirit, not its letter, so your repeated references to its letter are a straw man. Wikipedia Pillar 5 says, "The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording", and to many editors the spirit of NOTMEMORIAL is that Wikipedia should not be used to memorialize non-notable individuals. You are free to disagree with that interpretation, but you are not free to imply that editors are not free to agree with it, or that their arguments are "incorrect" or lack legitimacy. Despite multiple requests, no editor has yet explained why memorialization should be acceptable as content within articles while being unacceptable as creation of articles. Please stop framing your responses as a debunking of NOTMEMORIAL arguments. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Individual names should only be given if the perpetrator targeted them specifically. Most mass or spree killings are just "I'm gonna kill whoever gets in my way", the victims are just the unlucky ones. --Khajidha (talk) 10:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In this case it is apparently a mix of specific and non-specific targeting, so I'd say yes in this page.--Eostrix (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My comment applies to each victim individually, not to the list as a whole. If one victim is specifically targeted and others are not, we should only name the one. --Khajidha (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Consistent with this decision, victim names will only be added if that is agreed by a majority of editors contributing here. WWGB (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The colleague WWGB quotes WP:NOTMEMORIAL. But when the killings involve his ex-girlfriend (some use the term ex-wife) and her new boyfriend, in those two murder cases, it is not just a "memorial case", so that rule would not apply. We are talking about actual motives and "targetted killing of the two". There names are very relevant as information. werldwayd (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What? I did NOT quote WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I linked to a discussion on the listing of victim names. Thank you. WWGB (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed on those two names. --Khajidha (talk) 11:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources should guide the development of the article. If sources by-and-large ignore the identities of victims, we should follow suit. But if multiple good quality sources expand on the identities of victims, then we should briefly summarize this information just as we briefly summarize and report other information. Bus stop (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Namimg random victims is sheer sensationalistic journalism a d is inappropriate in an encyclopedia. --Khajidha (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion—but which should matter more—your opinion or the judgement assumed to be exercised by sources of good quality? Bus stop (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * When that judgement results in sensationalism, it is demonstrably flawed. And, as you yourself stated, we summarize sources. We are free to leave out extraneous details. Like the names of people who just had really bad luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khajidha (talk • contribs) 14:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is axiomatic that not everything found in sources should be found in a Wikipedia article. We pare material down to give a reader a good representation of a cross section of reliable sourcing on a topic being addressed. You argue about inappropriateness and sensationalism—but your sensibilities are not of utmost importance. Ultimately sources should determine the content of articles. Bus stop (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ultimately sources should determine the content of articles. That is clearly wrong, since we routinely omit information reported by a relative handful of sources. Wikipedia's mission is different from that of a newspaper, and a lot more than "it has been reported" goes into inclusion decisions. The evaluation is more nuanced than you make it out to be. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * As a compromise, I've gone down the route of the 2017 Las Vegas shooting and the Sutherland Springs church shooting and created an "External links" section with a link to the National Post article linked by the OP. Hopefully this is good for now until a final consensus is reached. If there's a more up-to-date article on the list of victims, please link it there. Love of Corey (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Nothing is requiring us to relegate information on victims to an external link. In my opinion information on the victims should be integrated into the article, as we see at for instance Ghost Ship warehouse fire, Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, Charlie Hebdo shooting, Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Orlando nightclub shooting, Virginia Tech shooting, and Columbine High School massacre. Bus stop (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Like I said, "Hopefully this is good for now". It's just to keep everyone happy until a decision is made here. I'm personally neutral about the whole thing. Love of Corey (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I oppose naming all victims in this article, for the usual reasons, which can be found in the previous discussion of this type (permalink) and many before that. I think the entry in the External links section is a fair compromise and the best solution proposed to date. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mandruss that a victim list under External Links is a good compromise, and may be the best way forward to resolve the ongoing dilemma of naming victims. WWGB (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * These dead people have been the top story on The National for three consecutive days. That means they're not only more noteworthy than Wortman, but bigger than the coronavirus. To exclude such famous names from their own article despite such coverage in the real world would be stupider than usual this time. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Even the Canadian Prime Minister in his attempt to stop the press from mentioning even the perpetrator's name said: "Instead of focusing on the shooter, all our attention should be paid to the victims, their families and friends". What we are effectively doing is reducing the victims by reducing them into a number. Anything else about them doesn't matter. We are saying, now you know the number of the no-name deads. That's all you need. Now go and do something else and just forget about them. All the media without exception have detailed their backgrounds. And here we are arguing to make them non-persons and just some statistic. werldwayd (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Technically, we're doing the opposite. They're the ones with the problems. One has allegedly arguable privacy concerns, one has apparent reading difficulties and one is generally right but overconfident about that. Sometimes they're effective in their doings, sometimes we are. Little by little, we all get tired of each other untill the next massacre. I'm semiretired, so if you want my spot on our side after this round, be my guest! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Including the victims names, ages, occupations, personal lives etc. is of no relevance or use to anyone - with the exception of the fraction of a % of readers, those who personally knew them. Jim Michael (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Speak of the #2 devil. How's it going, Jim? Have you thought about reading up on this particular case, or are you going to tell me the CBC is sensationalist tabloid bullshit next, per tradition? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've read enough & I know that stating names, occupations etc. cannot help our readers to understand this massacre. If for example, the victims include a 44-y-o salesman named David Smith who was divorced & had a son, daughter & dog & that he played golf at the weekend - there's no way that any of that can be of use to our readers. Likewise if another victim was a 67-y-o retired cook called Jane Jones who was widowed and lived with her three cats & enjoyed watching soap operas. No-one's going to be pleased to know those things & be sure to mention such details when talking to someone about this massacre. A person could cover this massacre in detail for a dissertation for a university course & still would have no need to mention such irrelevant details. It doesn't matter how many media sources give the biographical details of the victims - they're not encyclopedic. Jim Michael (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this does not belong here, unless they have special connections to the killer. An external link to the CBC (or national post, or whatever) list of victims is enough. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * —reliable sources are showing us which material is pertinent to the Nova Scotia killings, which happens to be the title of the article. From where might you derive that this article is limited to "the killer"? Bus stop (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The sinking of the titanic killed over 1,500 people. We don't individually named them because these people simply happened to be on a boat and have have nothing to do with the boat sinking. Likewise for the people killed by Wortman. If there's a connection to the killer, we can mention those people and their connection, but the random ones are exactly that. Random killings. No insight is gained by naming them.&#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * For practical reasons we can not include "over 1,500 people". You go on to say "If there's a connection to the killer, we can mention those people". But this article isn't solely about "the killer". The title is "Nova Scotia killings" and sources are clearly telling us the lives of the victims are relevant to the "Nova Scotia Killings". Bus stop (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * —I realized I didn't ping you (so I'll do so now) just in case you wish to respond to a response to a response. Bus stop (talk) 12:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Same old Jim, same old imaginary victims. You should write police stories. Seems to come easier to you than recounting actual key characters. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm really definitely not understanding, Jim Michael, why material of this nature should be omitted from the article. I think you think that you know what is best for readers. Reliable sources show us what is "best" for readers. I think that your sensibilities concerning what is "sensational" is of secondary importance. Bus stop (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * You write "No-one's going to be pleased to know those things & be sure to mention such details when talking to someone about this massacre." Is it your conception of a Wikipedia article that it should provide details likely to be mentioned by people when talking about this incident? That, in my opinion, is a parochial concern. Our purpose is wider than that. We are reproducing reliable-source coverage of a topic. That is a more basic concern than merely what people may talk about. We should not be weeding out that to which we have personal objections. Bus stop (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What people say about it isn't the only or main bar for inclusion - I was using it as a means to show how unimportant the victims' details are to understanding what happened. It's not a mere personal objection, nor is it only to avoid sensationalism. During the last couple of years an increasing number of editors have voiced their disagreement with including names & biographical details about the victims in articles about mass death incidents. Being included by the news media doesn't mandate our inclusion of it. Jim Michael (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I oppose the initiative to truncate articles in accordance with the misguided reasoning of a relatively small group of editors. This is in response to "During the last couple of years an increasing number of editors have voiced their disagreement with including names & biographical details about the victims in articles about mass death incidents. Being included by the news media doesn't mandate our inclusion of it." Bus stop (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You describe excluding names & other details of the victims as misguided - I see it common sense. Jim Michael (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You write "I was using it as a means to show how unimportant the victims' details are". To determine "importance" we should be considering prominence of coverage of material in good quality sources. Bus stop (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, I agree with Jim's view. I do not think we should be including a list of victims unless there is something about them which is especially notable or relevant to the article (ie. details about the type of victim a killer targeted, his motive, perhaps how the warning system failed, etc).  Our job is not to memorialize the victims, and frankly I think regular people should have some right to privacy and to be forgotten unless there is a good reason to include them.  If people really want to figure out who the victims are, they can read CBC or many other media out there.  We don't need to list them though.  Similar discussions have occurred after many other large tragedies.  One such discussion occurred following the Christchurch Mosque Attacks.  I have evolved these views based on the discussions following events like that.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Darryl Kerrigan—the victims are as much a part of the article as anything else prominently covered by good quality sources. I don't think we should second-guess or override good quality sources. We have the option of omitting that which is truly indiscriminate. But I don't think that applies to the victims any more than it would apply to the perpetrator. Bus stop (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We surely do have the right to make a decision to omit that information. We have done so before.  We have also included it before as can be seen at our article about the Orlando nightclub shooting and was discussed in the Christchurch discussion I previously linked to.  As  alluded to before, these discussions tend to happen every time there is such a tragedy.  Sometimes they go one way, sometimes the other.  WP:MEMORIAL is not consistently applied, or at least the interpretation that would prevent these sorts of lists of victims is not uniformly applied.  I think it should be.  Others disagree.  So far the issue remains unresolved.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Darryl Kerrigan—WP:MEMORIAL is not only not applied but it is inapplicable. It refers to subjects of articles. Not content within articles. These are two different things. Notability tells us "The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it." We are not considering starting an article on a victim; we are discussing inclusion of information on victims in this article. Bus stop (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is one interpretation of MEMORIAL, but not one that is universally accepted.  already expressed this above.  It stands to reason though, if we are not permited to memorialize people/groups in their own articles or create obituaries, devoting a large portion of an article about an event to the victims would have the same effect.  The narrow interpretation of MEMORIAL you propose is not universally accepted.  This discussion, already linked to above, makes clear that many believe that the spirit of MEMORIAL (or a broader interpretation of it) includes the treatment of victims in articles not just whether they should have their stand alone articles.  But as I said, clearly the community has not reached a final consensus on what to do in these situations, favouring a "case by case" determination.  In this case, I do not think there is any reason for us to deviate from the "spirit of MEMORIAL" or its broader interpretation.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Darryl Kerrigan—there is no memorialization taking place. I am not memorializing. You can say I am memorializing. But I most certainly am not. I am permitted to memorialize. But in fact I'm not memorializing. I am permitted to memorialize because no policy prohibits me from memorializing. You would have to know the content of my heart or brain to know if I were memorializing or not. But I can tell you categorically, if you believe me, that I am not memorializing. An incident took place. Wikipedia addresses itself to the task of representing that incident—per reliable sources. WP:MEMORIAL has nothing to do with this. All that matters, in my opinion, is providing a representation of the coverage provided by good quality sources. I think that our representation should be as unmediated as possible. Why should this article be burdened by any editor's preconceptions of what it should be? The way forward is simple: follow reliable sources. If they give scant coverage to victims—then leave it out. If they provide good coverage—include it in the article. Bus stop (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

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


 * Darryl Kerrigan—we aren't inordinately focussed on the perpetrator. You are referring to reasons the perpetrator might have had in mind prior to committing an act leading to the death of someone. This would be only one perspective on writing the article. Why should I accept that framing of the subject of this article? (I am not rejecting it. But there are multiple facets to the coverage of this incident.) I would prefer to accept the framing of the subject of this article as presented to me by a multitude of good quality sources. We have articles like University of Texas tower shooting. I think it is a good article. I am not virtue signalling, obviously. I am unflinchingly stating it is a good article based on factors like accuracy and thoroughness. Bus stop (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because something appears in WP:RS does not mean we need to include it in the article. That just means we can verify it is true, reliable, not that it is encyclopedic and should be included.  Yes, some of the factors I have suggested as relevant can be seen to view things from the perspective of the perpetrator.  I am not framing it in that way though.  I framing it from the perspective of why the tragedy happened, and why it happened the way it did.  Motive and victims he chose are relevant to that.  So might be characteristics of the victims which put them at higher risk.  That is why the failure to use Alert Ready and whether victims would have seen those alerts, but didn't see the Twitter ones is also relevant.  As might be other characteristics of the victims.  It is also helpful to understand the sequence of events.  Anyway, I am not sure if it is helpful for us to continue an abstract discussion about this divorced from actual proposals.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * You say you are "framing it from the perspective of why the tragedy happened". At this stage we are not trying to explain why the tragedy happened. Sources haven't told us why the tragedy happened. Authorities and historians may not ever know conclusively why the tragedy happened. In the meantime Wikipedians are expected to draw upon reliable sources to verbally convey to readers what is known about an incident. We do this so that a reader can get up to speed on what the best quality sources say about an incident of this sort. Information pertaining to victims is not taboo. You are not explaining why information pertaining to victims should be as severely restricted as you may be suggesting. Bus stop (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * At this stage we are not trying to explain why the tragedy happened. - Exactly, when we have sources that speak to motive, effect of the failure to issue an alert etc. there may be a reason to include certain details about the victims. I do not see reasons to include random details about the victims without that (subject to other reasons to include I have alluded to, perhaps understanding the sequence of events, victims that were notable before their death etc).  But as I have said, let's talk proposals. I am done with this philosophical discussion.  Both of our positions are known.  As are those of other editors.  If you want to talk proposals, then lets do that.  I do not think either of us are going to convince the other to generally see things from the others perspective though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems you are trying to make the article an expression of your personal likes and dislikes as opposed to a reflection of the general coverage of this topic in good quality sources. Bus stop (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Read above. There have been many discussions about these issues where many editors have said they do not believe it to be encyclopedic to include lists of victims names.  I would ask you to WP:AGF as I have done.  Unless you make a specific proposal, I do not intend to respond further to this thread.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think editorial sensibilities should play an important role in writing articles. The article is a product of many hands. If you don't want to write about the lives of victims then please just desist from that task. Bus stop (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, the WP:ONUS is on you to establish a consensus to include things in an article. Based on the discussion above, you don't seem to have it.  Perhaps, if you make a proposal you might.  Otherwise, you should WP:Desist.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * You're talking to Bus stop, the most persistent typist this war has ever known. He knows ONUS inside and out. He can not be stopped, only reasoned with. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The mantra is The reader doesn't need to know. Bus stop (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not merely that - it's that it's of no use or relevance to readers to know the victims' identities. Jim Michael (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You say that "It's not merely that - it's that it's of no use or relevance to readers to know the victims' identities." Then how do you explain the delving into the lives of victims that we find in reliable sources addressing the Nova Scotia killings . That, by the way, is the title of the article. Bus stop (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We've discussed on a few talk pages of articles of mass murders why the media love to do that. It's a means of publicising their own organisations & maximising the number of readers/viewers they attract.
 * I don't know what point you're making about the title. It's likely to be moved, but regardless of that, most of our articles about events in which many people were killed don't include the names of the victims.
 * If it's proved that the killer targeted a particular demographic, that fact would be relevant enough to include. However, the names still wouldn't be. Jim Michael (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * You say "It's a means of publicising their own organisations & maximising the number of readers/viewers they attract." This is unsubstantiated. It also would seem to have little to do with Wikipedia, as this is a project quintessentially dependent on sources and I think we place a high value on adherence to sources. You also say "most of our articles about events in which many people were killed don't include the names of the victims". This is of course false. In fact most such articles do include rudimentary information on victims including their names. This can be said to be standard practice. Bus stop (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Obviously we are not going to include hundreds of names so such articles are excluded from my above assertion. Bus stop (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Where do you draw the line as to how many victims are too many to name in a WP article? Jim Michael (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * —you ask "Where do you draw the line as to how many victims are too many to name in a WP article?". I think the more pertinent question is why we should refrain from doing that which can practicably be done. Bus stop (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * At what point would it become impractical? Also, why do you think practicality is more important than relevance? Jim Michael (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * —is it your opinion that depicting decedents is impracticable at this article? (Merriam-Webster defines "practicable" as "capable of being put into practice".) Bus stop (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, but it would be giving undue weight to details of no relevance to the vast majority of our readers. Based on your reasoning, Oklahoma City bombing should include a list of all the people who were killed. Jim Michael (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * —we are talking about this article, not Oklahoma City bombing or articles in general. Bus stop (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We've been in similar conversations on many talk pages of mass murder articles, so it would be helpful if you said when the number of victims is too many to name. You either haven't decided that, or you have but won't say.
 * You say that most of our articles about mass death events name the victims, but to use recent mass murders as an example, do you think that most articles in Category:Mass murder in 2018, Category:Mass murder in 2019 & Category:Mass murder in 2020 list the victims' names? Jim Michael (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

—if you are going to point to the all-too-numerous articles on bombings in parts of the world where victim identification is commonly missing from reporting, I think that is an argument for inclusion of this information in this article. Shouldn't we be following the sources that apply to the incident being covered? Bus stop (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's one of the reasons to exclude the names. We should be consistent, rather than Western-centric. Jim Michael (talk) 08:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * —you are saying "We should be consistent". Who is the "We" to which you refer? Are we going to provide information on victims in the "22 April 2018 Kabul suicide bombing" article? Probably not. That is because sources pertinent to that part of the world typically don't publish such information. Reporting practices are different in different parts of the world. Your argument is that a blackout of information in one part of the world should result in a blackout of information in another part of the world. Bus stop (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We means WP & its editors. If the victims' names were an important part of understanding the event, I'd agree that we should include them even if they're not available for many articles. They're not, so adding them is part of WP's Western-centrism. Jim Michael (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * —background information on the lives of victims including their names are "an important part of understanding the event". This isn't a creative writing project. We don't emphasize information and deemphasize information willy-nilly. Reliable sources are telling us what is "an important part of understanding the event". Can you tell us why we should not provide background information on the lives of the victims including their names just as we do at Ghost Ship warehouse fire, Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, Charlie Hebdo shooting, Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Orlando nightclub shooting, Virginia Tech shooting, and Columbine High School massacre? Bus stop (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Those events occurred prior to 2019. Since that time, there has never been consensus to include victim lists. Wikipedia has moved on. WWGB (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * —when you sign up for addressing topics via Wikipedia, you implicitly sign up for adhering to sources—not veering off willy-nilly into your own conceptions of how a topic should be addressed. Bus stop (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I note that you did not rebut my comment above. I repeat, Wikipedia has moved on. WWGB (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * —Wikipedia has not "moved on" from the principle of adherence to sources. Sources tell us what is pertinent to a topic that we are attempting to address, not the other way around. Creative writing doesn't happen to be an option available to you at Wikipedia, and that would include the creative omission of a dimension of the coverage of an incident that is given prominence in good quality sources. The burden is on you to tell us why we should in essence turn a blind eye to the lives of the victims of the Nova Scotia killings. The lives of the victims are pertinent to the coverage of this topic if reliable sources are to serve as a guide. Bus stop (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Standing with the unburdened majority of editors who eschew victim lists, I am moving on from this discussion too. We will of course never change each other's position, so debate is futile. I will leave the final word, as always, to you. Over and out. WWGB (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * not veering off willy-nilly into your own conceptions of how a topic should be addressed. Pot, meet kettle. (I am astounded that others continue to engage this editor, helping him flood one article talk discussion after another with circular argument. I can only assume that some editors enjoying arguing for its own sake.) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Bus stop, I don't think that any of those articles you mention should include the victims' names. The reason that they do is that at the time those articles were created, a high proportion of editors of articles about events in the Western world in which many people were killed wanted the names to be included. During the past couple of years, consensus has moved against that. Jim Michael (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Some of them happened before this issue was really on anybody's radar. Others can be explained because a lot depends on who happens to show up and who the closer is. It's fairly random. All we can do is keep showing up. It's a dumb game and a shameful time sink, but it's the "case-by-case" game imposed on us by the wider community, most of whom have had little or no firsthand exposure to this issue (and few of whom ever have to waste their own time as a result of their misguided positions). C'est la vie. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Canada (and the United States) report on this aspect of the topic, . The "Western world" is not the decisive factor here. The decisive factor is how reliable sources cover an incident. Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose including names of victims who aren't notable and weren't targeted. —valereee (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose adding victims' names, in case there's still any doubt about this. Per Valereee, if a victim was ot notable and was not specifically targeted there is no need to name them. Meters (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per reasoning given above.  Aloha27  talk  20:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE including names of victims who weren't targeted per wp:Memorial. GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 14:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you please not misapply policy? WP:MEMORIAL addresses the initiating of articles on non-notable, deceased people, ostensibly for the purpose of memorialization. We are discussing content in this article, not the creation of new article. (And if anyone invokes the "spirit" of WP:MEMORIAL I'm going to call Ghostbusters.) Bus stop (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Invoking the spirit" is per Wikipedia Pillar 5, notwithstanding your dismissive disregard for that pillar. If you know of a community consensus that the spirit of NOTMEMORIAL does not apply to this situation, please link to it; if not, your repeated admonitions are inconsistent with Wikipedia principles and out of line. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I hear what you are saying, Mandruss, about Wikipedia Pillar 5, but I would maintain that there is a difference between creating an article for the purpose of memorializing a person (which is what WP:MEMORIAL is literally about) and including information relating to the lives of decedents in an article on an incident such as this. I am in favor of supplying readers with an abundance of accurate information that is prominently found in good quality sources addressing a topic. And no, I don't try to anticipate readers' interests, in fact I try to do as little weeding out of material (as found in good quality sources) as possible. Bus stop (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think you're really seeing my point, which is: You are entitled to the opinion you stated above. But, per Pillar 5, you are not entitled to tell editors who disagree in the spirit of NOTMEMORIAL that they are misapplying policy, which you did above. Do you see the difference? I hope you won't say that it's ok for you to do that when the editor fails to use the words "spirit of" in their comment. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think there is a distinction that you should be making between these two admittedly "spiritually related" areas. Bus stop (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what that means. The point is that you seek to effectively disqualify spirit-of-NOTMEMORIAL arguments, and you can't do that. You can only disagree with them. Two equally legitimate viewpoints. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You refer to my "dismissive disregard for that pillar". Stop being silly—I'm not "dismissing" any "Pillar of policy". Notwithstanding the plus side of Pillar 5 it has a potential downside as well. The purpose of policy is to delineate that which can be done and that which should not be done. Extending that delineation to suit your interests runs the risk of misapplication of policy. That would be a policy written for one purpose redeployed to serve a different and possibly unrelated purpose. You would like WP:MEMORIAL to serve as support for omitting prominently found material from an article and I reject the extended meaning in this instance. I'm not rejecting Pillar 5. Bus stop (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Just to make it official, my position is Oppose naming people who were not notable and were not specifically targeted. --Khajidha (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, in case it wasn't clear from above - Now can we let this long-winded section retire to the archives? If someone really wants to make a proposal for a list of victim names, or inclusion in some other way, let them start a new section with an actual proposal.  I think it is time we all drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Realistically, I'll be surprised if the thread stays idle for the required seven days as a result of your comment and my agreement with it. I would support a close, which is perfectly kosher when a discussion has run its course, per Closing discussions. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)