Talk:2020 Nova Scotia attacks/Archive 6

Update
The article, including the lead, makes several statements about investigations that are "underway". Perhaps these should be updated as the incident was 3 weeks ago. I can't find updates online. Hillelfrei  talk   19:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's because investigations are still undergoing, and will be for the foreseeable future. The timeline is months. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is at risk of quickly becoming out of date. It was largely written in the immediate aftermath. For instance the girlfriend vs. spouse thing I mentioned above. And I just changed a bit where it said that causes of death are under investigation, meanwhile investigators like 13 days ago said 9 were caused by fire and the rest gunfire. Source. Once the official reports are issued the entire article would likely need to be re-written. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course, feel free to update things where appropriate as better WP:RS become available. I expect better information may come when the police investigation into Wortman's acquisitions of the vehicle, firearms and uniform are complete.  There will also likely be more following an investigation into authorities' failure to use Alert Ready, and the Serious Incident Response Team's investigation into the police shooting of Wortman and the incident at the firehall.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Killer's name

 * 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.

The article gives the name of the Perpetrator. This just encourages psychos too try to set new records of carnage. Indeed, by giving the name of these murder, the article incites future spree-murders. In my country (USA), inciting violence is not protected expression. We should remove the name of the murderer from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:C002:2830:10BD:14AA:FA03:539B (talk) 04:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia content is determined by principles other than what encourages or discourages "psychos". See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * See also WP:NOTCENSORED &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's standard to name the killer when it's reported by RS. However, is it relevant enough to be in the first sentence? Jim Michael (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is yes. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel the name should be omitted in the lede but only included in the "Perpetrator" section of the body of the article, the section addressing such questions as possible motive and factors pertinent to his life. As concerns referencing him in the lede I think such language as "a 51 year old male" would be most appropriate. It should be in the article but it shouldn't be given prominence of placement in the lede. I realize this is off-topic but my uppermost question is why should this be in the lede? Bus stop (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Because he's the one responsible for it. There are millions of 51-year-old males out there, and Wortman being 51 and male has nothing to do with why this shooting is notable. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Even omitting "51 year old male" would be acceptable. Reference could be to "an individual". It doesn't have to be to "a 51 year old male". Although I do think "51 year old male" represents good locution for this sort of thing. We know that such events happen. Human history is littered with murderous rampages. This incident isn't special because a person by that name perpetrated it. It is special for other reasons. The ability of guns in the hands of one individual to inflict harm on many individuals in a short period of time. The pressures of trying to remain economically viable under the pressures of an economy greatly throttled by Covid-19 restrictions. No doubt there are other reasons this happened. But his name isn't likely to be any such reason. It just happens to be what his name was. And the reader can easily look at the "Perpetrator" section to find that out. Bus stop (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And there are 7 billion invididuals out there. Wortman is the person that did this shooting, there is no point pussyfooting around that. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The perpetrator's name is largely irrelevant to this article. It is included in the article as a whole because it is a relevant piece of information, not because it is of any great significance. Placement in the lede attributes outsize importance to that piece of information. Bus stop (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That is simply wrong. These are events caused by Wortman. Why and how they happened are intimately tied to his person. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it is not "wrong". Your preferred first sentence would be consistent with an article title that coincided with the perpetrator's name. But a first sentence for the article as it is currently titled should view the perpetrator from the vantage point of the incident. It is the incident that is the title of the article currently: 2020 Nova Scotia attacks. Bus stop (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

If we used the standard lede formatting then Wortman's name would not need to appear in the first sentence. If we used something like The 2020 Nova Scotia attacks were a series of shootings that occurred on date in place ... we would be giving him less prominence. We have discussed this before, perhaps further discussion of the lede generally is required.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll reiterate my opposition to repeating the article's title in the first sentence, which is even stronger after the move. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think your opposition has been noted by the editors here. It has by me.  I still prefer the definition approach to these sorts of things.  I understood the opposition to doing so to be rooted in one of our policies or general style guidelines.  Is that so?  If so, what policy guideline?  Is this taken from MOS:LEAD generally, from MOS:AVOIDBOLD?  I have seen mention of WP:COMMONNAME being a condition for use of the title in the first sentence, but that does not seem to appear in MOS:LEDE.  Is it from somewhere else?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I can only speak for my own opposition. If you need a PAG, I'm arguing in what I see as the spirit of AVOIDBOLD, with an understanding that no PAG could ever cover every possible situation. Very few of these mass killings ever acquire a widely-used "name" – for most of the public, it's e.g. "that thing that happened in a theater in Colorado with that mental guy in a Batman outfit". But the positions of many editors assumes that all such events have a "name". The article must have some title – that's a technical requirement – and the frequencies of various word sequences on the web is a big factor in determining it, but that doesn't mean the article title represents a widely-used "name" for the event. I feel it's both awkward and misleading to treat the article's title as one in this way. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping me understand your position. I think I still prefer the definition approach, as it works as a compromise to push the perpetrator's name back a bit (which satisfies, or at least assuages some) and tells readers quickly what the article is about, but I get your argument that it falsely suggests that the term is "defined" and that the definition is a generally accepted WP:COMMONNAME.  I can live with leaving it as is for now though, unless a common name develops or the community demands that we remove the perpetrators name from the first sentence or part of the lede as seemed to have happened at Christchurch mosque shootings.  Of course there they seem to have done a weird half definition approach.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There are many mass shooting articles that don't grant killer the notoriety he craved in the first sentence. It should start with the victims like these articles: Christchurch mosque shootings, Charleston church shooting, Las Vegas courthouse shooting. Jesusjones1024 (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your uninformed opinion. Again, there is no Wikipedia policy basis for don't grant killer the notoriety he craved in the first sentence. Again, see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. This article does not exist to satisfy anyone's desire to discourage mass shooting by denying notoriety. Also, don't cherry-pick precedents to support what you misguidedly want to do in Wikipedia articles. There are many mass shooting articles that do name the perpetrator in the first sentence, including University of Texas tower shooting, 2017 Las Vegas shooting, Sutherland Springs church shooting, and 2019 Dayton shooting. Others, including San Ysidro McDonald's massacre, Luby's shooting, Geneva County massacre, 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting, 2014 Isla Vista killings, and one of the articles you cited, name him in the second sentence, and that is no better if the objective is to deny notoriety. Still others, including the other two you cited, name him later in the lead, usually within six or eight more sentences. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read the logical fallacy page, because I never referenced nor implied there was a policy. You (I'm guessing, since you've become emotional and defensive) wrote it one way. Specifically, you think the perperator's name is the most important detail in the intro of a mass shooting. I differ - and provided pages where others differed as well. I never said there were no pages that listed them first, nor that there was a right or wrong way. Hopefully you aren't either. The fact remains that you're calling people "uninformed" and "misguided" in reference to their opinion on the most subjective aspect any page: the intro. You also speak to others as if you are owed something from the Wikipedia community. I'm sure you expect everyone to click your profile and admire the quantity of edits.However, no matter the importance you attribute to your efforts, your role remains the same as anyone elses (i.e. very small).  Jesusjones1024 (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your comment spoke of denying notoriety, not relative importance of detail. These articles get a continuous stream of "deny notoriety" rants from people who don't know Thing 1 about Wikipedia editing, and I quite naturally surmised you were part of that. The "role" of an editor who knows Wikipedia policies and practices will always be greater than that of one who doesn't, as it should be. If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest that you assiduously avoid language like don't grant killer the notoriety he craved. I apologize if I offended you. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be a guideline/rule about where the killer should be named in an article about a multiple murder in which the killer's identity is known. Some such articles name them in the first sentence, some in the second, some in the third etc. Jim Michael (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "There doesn't appear to be a guideline/rule about where the killer should be named in an article about a multiple murder in which the killer's identity is known." There wouldn't be one. It is dependent on the title of the article, at least in part. Bus stop (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How does the position of the killer's name in other such articles indicate where it should be in this one? Jim Michael (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think other articles necessarily show us the form that this article should take. My feeling (as already expressed) is that the name of the perpetrator should not even appear in the lede. Bus stop (talk) 19:32, 8 May 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.

Girlfriend vs. spouse
The early news stories called her a "girlfriend", but more recent news are calling her a "common law spouse". See: 1. The article should reflect this new language rather than using the older language which was from a time when the case was less well understood. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree—"common law spouse" is preferable. Bus stop (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And getting her name would be rather useful since it's awkward to keep referring to her as spouse or girlfriend. More details on the nature of their relationship, and what transpired that night, will come out and will be needed to be put it. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree we should use "common-law spouse" on first instance if that is correct. Thereafter, we can just use spouse.  I do not think we should name her though.  Remember she is a non-notable living person (I assume), who didn't decide to have this happen to her.  I believe WP:BLPNAME and WP:AVOIDVICTIM favour avoiding use of her name in the circumstances.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Non-notable? She is a key witness, the first victim, and possibly the spark for this entire incident. She is the most important person for this article other than Wortman. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * She is non-notable in the way we define notability (ie she does meet WP:N or warrant her own article). All I am saying is that if we don't have to we should not go out of our way to publish private information about her. WP:BLPNAME and WP:AVOIDVICTIM seem to suggest that approach is appropriate.  Are you actually proposing we should?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
 * Did she meet the requirement stated in Common-law marriage? Jim Michael (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No idea. But if WP:RS say she was his common-law wife,  I think we can do the same.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we shouldn't be stating it if we don't know it to be true. The mainstream media sometimes use the term common-law spouse even in parts of the world which don't have common-law marriage. If the couple were cohabitees, using the term partner would avoid this issue. Jim Michael (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think doing our own investigations into whether they had been in a "marriage-like relationship" for at least two years is going to run foul of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, but the fact that the neighbour says she reported his domestic violence "years ago" would suggest that they were together for "years". All of that said, I think we report what the WP:RS say, as long as it is not off-side of any of our other policies.  I do not have a problem with "common-law partner" per say, but "common-law spouse" is easier, and allows us to reduce the wordy-ness by switching to "spouse" after a while.  Because "partner" has multiple meanings (ie. business, same-sex, "in-crime" etc) I don't think we can use that term on its own (ie without "common-law") first to describe her.  Nor do we want to suggest that she was his "partner" in caring out the crime.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Was the domestic violence years ago alleged to be against the same woman? When you say she, do you mean the neighbour or the partner reported it? Jim Michael (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * His common-law wife reported abuse to a female neighbour who reported it to police in 2013. I don't have any reason to believe that was a different "common-law spouse" but you have access to the sources, so you can read for yourself and make up your own mind.  I am not interested in doing a WP:OR investigation into whether she really was living in a marriage like relationship with Wortman for two years of more though.  I think that is a waste of time, and not our job.  Maybe it was a different woman, and he was in a new common-law relationship.  It doesn't really matter.    The WP:RS say the woman Wortman assaulted immediately prior to the shootings was his common-law, so we can use that label too.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Car
We speak of a "replica" police car - but this seems like a bad description if it was an ex-police-car. What would be better? All the best: Rich Farmbrough  (the apparently calm and reasonable) 10:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC).


 * Fake? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Decommissioned. WWGB (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think replica is about the best we can do without going into a very large description. This was a retired police car that he had redecorated and outfitted to appear to be an in service vehicle. Lights, sirens, logos, etc would have all been removed prior to its sale by the police. He had to replicate the look of an active police car. --Khajidha (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem to be a very close fit for the definition of the word "replica", which has nuanced meaning not present in the word "replicate". To my admittedly American ear, replicas of cars are not one-off amateur jobs, are not modifications of pre-existing vehicles, and are not for the purpose of deception. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Replica is what most sources use. I'd be ok with "decommissioned and rebuilt to look like a police car" however. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd be good with what I believe the RCMP called it originally... a mock up. Regards,  Aloha27  talk  15:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My (also American) ear doesn't detect any of these distinctions you are trying to draw. --Khajidha (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Wasn't the car modified/assembled from one purchased from a regular dealership? While Wortman had a history of purchasing decommissioned police vehicles, wasn't the one used in these events a civilian vehicle which he purchased at a civilian dealership and modified to look like a RCMP cruiser? That is what this seems to be saying. I also agree with, calling it a mock police vehicle could also work. That terminology was used among others by the CBC. I prefer replica though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Replica, duplicate, and mock-up seem acceptable. Also "facsimile police vehicle". Bus stop (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * While my Wikipedia senses would say to use the term used in the original sources, for the sake of argument, I think that the term we're really looking for is "restored". The decommissioning included the removal of several key features, and then the perpetrator restored the car to its original condition (or a close approximation thereof). 67.8.203.16 (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the car he used was a new civilian vehicle that had been modified to look like a police vehicle. While he had purchased "used" police vehicles in the past, it seems this one was a never a police vehicle (it was just made to look like one).  See my comment above for the reference. Happy to be corrected if there are other sources out there saying something different.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Replica. The creeper2007 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

All Firearms used were illegally obtained
All of the firearms used by Wortman were illegally obtained. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/rcmp-update-about-n-s-mass-shooting-investigation-june-4-1.5588433 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.228.162 (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Should the date or the event start the article?
Basically, should the first sentence begin with something like this, with the topic first, then the dates (What, Where, When, By Who)
 * A) Multiple shootings occurred in Nova Scotia during 18−19 April 2020, when Gabriel Wortman engaged in a killing spree throughout various locations.

or with something like this this, with the dates first, then the event (When, By Who, What, Where)
 * B) On April 18 and 19, 2020, Gabriel Wortman committed multiple shootings and set fires throughout the Canadian province of Nova Scotia.

&#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Support A per MOS:FIRST and similar well-developed articles, like Oklahoma City bombing or Moncton shooting. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support B, if I have to choose - Active voice is better than passive in a lede. The boy threw the ball, not the ball was thrown by the boy.  Still, I prefer the type of wording that exists at Oklahoma City bombing, ie "The Title was a series of shootings that occurred on date in place...  BUT I note that others have said this type of lede in inappropriate unless we have a WP:COMMONNAME for the article title.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you prefer the style at OKC bombing, that's option A. What, When, Where, By whom. Doesn't matter if the event has an "common name" or not the structure should be the same. Also the passive voice is generally more appropriate for encyclopedic tone, especially on events (see 9/11 attacks for another example).&#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, Option A is not worded in the same way as OKC bombing. There it starts with "The Oklahoma City bombing was...".  That is an active definition.  Option A here, does not start with a definition and is somewhat passive it communicates that a multiple shootings occurred (ie a ball was thrown) and then later indicates by whom (ie the boy).  OKC has a full stop after the definition and then goes straight into who (McVeigh & Nichols), though that sentence could be more active too (although the importance falls off a bit after the first sentence).  I think it is important that the first sentence of the lead is active not passive.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Active or passive voice isn't the issue here, but rather the order of information. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The current order of information is already perfectly clear. It's not like the "what" is buried in the second paragraph. It's literally the second clause in the very first sentence. Many similar articles do the same thing. As for the use of passive voice, it is indeed not the primary concern here, but it is something to consider. Generally speaking, passive voice is considered poor writing and something to be avoided if possible. PrimaPrime (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The passive voice is considered poor writing by people who don't know how and when to use the passive voice. The lead should start with the topic. That's what, not when. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Neither. It should start with a short intro paragraph like École Polytechnique massacre, then work its way into the details—date first. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 17:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * that starts with what first, not date first. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph, once we get into the details, I meant, starts date first. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 17:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the RFC isn't about how to start the second paragraph, but rather how to start the first sentence of the first paragraph of the lead. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, your first paragraph has some of the elements that I'd like to see in the second paragraph. So I'm still opposed to both of those options for the first paragraph. If this is an issue because people don't want to use boldface right now, then option B until a typical opening sentence can be used to introduce the article. Vaselineeeeeeee</b>★★★ 23:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with . Sparkle1 (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Vaseline. École Polytechnique massacre and OKC both use the "definition" approach, which I prefer.  It is active and easier to read in my view, though I note some others seem to think it is inappropriate to use this approach without a WP:COMMONNAME for the incident.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:BOLD "The most common use of boldface is to highlight the first occurrence of the title word/phrase of the article in the lead section." Nova Scotia killings is what the title is currently, and even though that may not be the common name, it is still the title and belongs in boldface. When the article is moved, the new title will go in boldface. The current state of the title shouldn't be a deterrence from using this system. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 19:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And per MOS:BOLDAVOID, there does not always need to be something bolded in the first sentence. PrimaPrime (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support B for now without a WP:COMMONNAME, or at the very least a settled title once that discussion has been concluded. The approach used in École Polytechnique massacre or Oklahoma City bombing is probably ideal, but that is because they have well-known, common names that developed over the years. It hasn't even been a week in this case. Instead, see 2017 Las Vegas shooting, La Loche shootings, 2019 El Paso shooting, Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, Charlottesville car attack, or any other number of examples for the date-first approach. PrimaPrime (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Why would date first depend on where or not something has a common name. The what events occured matter more than when they occurred. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what's in the first sentence & in which order, the killer's age shouldn't be in it. Jim Michael (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, we could just as easily re-write that as Gabriel Wortman committed multiple shootings and set fires throughout the Canadian province of Nova Scotia on April 18 and 19, 2020.. That might address both your and Headbomb's concerns. Although, I expect some might object to placing Wortman first in the article (ie killing him a name and fame, prominence).  This is part of the appeal of the "definition approach", our unnamed third option.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, what needs to come first. The article is about the killing sprees, not about Wortman. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * How about something like On April 18 and 19, 2020, multiple shootings and acts of arson were perpetrated by Gabriel Wortman at several locations in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia.. That satisfies listing the events before the perpetrator, but I do still strongly support listing the date of the events at the very beginning, unless we move to adding the bolded title of the article in the lede, which I don't think should be done under the current article title.—  Crumpled Fire  • contribs • 00:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a fan. That is the problem of not doing a definition.  Putting "multiple shootings" as the beginning of the sentence makes the action come before the subject and thus makes it passive not active.  It is way easier for humans (at least English speaking ones) to understand "A caused B" than "B was caused by A".  Using a definition allows the lede to remain active while putting the important details at the beginning and end of the first sentence (as is the case with École Polytechnique and OKC bombing)... ie "A is A."--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In theory, this could work as a compromise using the "definition" approach, although I again am against bolding anything in the lede unless and until a WP:COMMONNAME emerges:
 * PrimaPrime (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support B - Per . Also, active voice > passive voice. Love of Corey (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A in substance, but not in content. Subject matter should go first, but it should not start with "Multiple shootings." It would be easier with a WP:COMMONNAME, but I guess in the interim, it should reflect the name of the article. The Nova Scotia Killings occurred in Nova Scotia on April... and so on. Alex Eng <small style="font-size:80%;">( TALK ) 23:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not married to the wording, just the order of presentation. What needs to go first. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support B because it seems more natural to my ear. Shootings don't just "occur".Since it has come up in this RfC's discussion despite not being one of the options, I'll state that I oppose repeating the article title in the first sentence, bolded or otherwise. There is no event widely referred to as the "Nova Scotia killings" "2020 Nova Scotia attacks" . To whatever extent news reports use those words, they are a description, not a name. Refer to the term "Nova Scotia killings"  "2020 Nova Scotia attacks" to a hundred people two years from now, and without further information 99 of them will have no idea what you're talking about. This is starkly contrasted to Oklahoma City bombing, a very different kind of event. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  01:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC) (Edit to reflect move.) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A. The shootings are the critical issue here, not the dates on which they occurred. WWGB (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A The event itself is needed to be mentioned first more than the dates. Idealigic (talk) 11:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Both versions include the killer's name in the first sentence. Should it be stated there, rather than later on? I don't think his name is important enough for it to be in the first sentence. Jim Michael (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I generally oppose expansion of scope as counterproductive since it tends to send discussions in too many different directions at once. You didn't start it by any means, but this is becoming an RfC about anything related to the first sentence of this article. We don't need to nail down the entire first sentence in this RfC, and I see no reason why the name question couldn't be handled separately. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support B per . The descriptive when-where-what title will have to serve until a commonname emerges in sources, but that doesn't mean it has to be repeated in the lead sentence. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with Vaselineeeeeeee - The first sentence or two should be about the event; then option B can be the first sentence of the second paragraph Ikjbagl (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support B I would support the second beginning The creeper2007 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Move to 2020 Nova Scotia Shootings
I think that the term "attacks" should not be used in this case. The word attack seems like that it was a terriorism-related activity, or activity from a group of people. It seems like that most pages that are situated like this are all "Shootings". I propose to move to 2020 Nova Scotia Shootings. The creeper2007 Talk! 21:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Multiple people died in the arson attacks and their deaths shouldn't be whitewashed. This is similar to 2011 Norway attacks where both a bomb and shootings were used (and the perpetrator was an individual). Additionally you are incorrect "attacks" is only used for terrorism, for example Attack on Pearl Harbor. Finally your proposed title employs incorrect capitalization. Ribbet32 (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that attacks is problematic because it suggests a terrorism link. "Attack" is usually used for terrorism or for an attack by a military power in a military conflict or war.  It is seldom used in the criminal context and when it is it can suggest terrorism or a hate crime (ie a political motive).  That said we have already had several discussions on this, most notably this one.  I think a well advertised move discussion or RFC would be needed to override the limited consensus that existed to move it to this name.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Weapons used in the shootings
Gabriel used a Colt Law Enforcement Carbine, an AR-15, Ruger Mini-14, Glock pistol, and a Ruger P89 pistol in the shooting spree.

"Gabriel Wortman had more firepower than the officers he encountered: A Colt Law Enforcement Carbine, a Ruger mini-14, a Glock pistol, a Ruger P89 pistol" — Preceding unsigned comment added by FindingInfoGuy (talk • contribs) 19:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

April 2021: Does article need a lead sentence?
WWGB removed the lead sentence I added to the lead paragraph of the article. I maintain that articles need a lead sentence along the lines of [article title] is/was [description], even for events, rather than simply launching into a narrative of the event. WWGB has not given an explanation for their removal of the lead sentence. I would like to discuss this here. Please respond.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * WWGB not having replied, I'm putting a lead sentence at the head of the lead paragraph.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think that was an accidental rollback. Carry on. WWGB (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is utterly out of date
911 calls have been released. Video of Wortman execution released. Where is Banfield? Cops knew it was Wortman immediately. The article is fantasy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.33.183 (talk) 01:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So update it? Ben MacLeod (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)