Talk:2022 Langley shootings

AfD
I can't create the AfD page as a IP editor, but I would like it nominated on the grounds of wp:NOTNEWS. Coverage of the topic is *exclusively* from news sources covering the incident. There is no evidence that this event will be an enduringly notable event, ... considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. I would support this article being draftified until such time as evidence emerges that this incident is enduringly notable (for instance, if it continues to recieve coverage and attention from sources months later, or is later shown to be integral to understanding some kind of legal reform, etc). 128.189.112.147 (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In particular, WP:EVENTCRIT, suggests the following guidelines:


 * An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. - no evidence of this at this time
 * An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. - not the case as all the sources used, along with sources found, are reformulating the same reuters/CBC piece.
 * Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle - unclear right now as it literally happened today
 * Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted. - this is indeed true, but again, all the sources are regurtitating the same reuters/CBC source, thus should be counted as less valuable, as sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted.
 * 128.189.112.147 (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Most unlikely to succeed, especially as it a relatively rare event of this type in Canada. Johnbod (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just create a user account of your own. And while you're at it, please read WP:AFDHOWTO to learn the actual process of starting up an AfD as opposed to committing a low-effort copy-and-paste job. Love of Corey (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Per corey's instructions I have made an account. CoreyToldMeToDoThis (talk) 03:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Non-admin closure completed per WP:SNOW. WWGB (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

image
any images of the shooting that aren't copyrighted? MrMemer223 (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * also can we add a section to the reactions to the shooting MrMemer223 (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There probably are images, but someone, maybe you, needs to find them and upload them.---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 04:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * well i'm scared because wikipedia copyright thing is very sensitive MrMemer223 (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Should a "victims" and "perpetrator" section be added?
I feel like there is enough information to include a section on the victims and a section about the perpetrator. Silent-Rains (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I support. This is not a controversial edit, so I think you could go ahead and do it. If anyone disagree they can revert. CT55555 (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * It is typical to include sections on the perp and the victims. However, the inclusion of victim names requires specific consensus on this page. WWGB (talk) 01:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not know that. Can you please direct me towards the policy or guidance that informs your comment? CT55555 (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * consensus that these scenarios should be handled on a case-by-case basis WWGB (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That was a proposal that did not pass. And it was about adding victims who were not notable. And it did not conclude that consensus needed to be reached on the talk page, it didn't conclude anything other than things are handled on a case-by-case basis - i.e. differently each time, based on circumstances. That is not synonymous with needing to get talk page consensus. Not that there is any harm in getting consensus, if you have concerns, let's discuss them here (please say them) but if the victims are mentioned in news, I think there is no problem here. CT55555 (talk) 04:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The Langley victims do not satisfy Notability (people), that is, they are not individually notable. Hence the need for handling on a case-by-case basis. How do you think a "case-by-case basis" would be determined other than by talk page consensus? WWGB (talk) 04:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think if there was only one way to handle this (i.e. talk page consensus) the link would say that. I think "case-by-case" means there are multiple way to handle it. I doubt I cam imagine all possibilities. Some suggestions include:
 * making bold edits, seeing if someone reverts
 * informed careful decisions, considering the circumstances
 * I think the context of the discussion linked above is important. It was an event that happened at a gay nightclub. It is reasonable top assume that some victims were in the closet and naming them would out them. Over 100 people were killed or injured, and so each of them are less of a key part of the big picture. It's a different set of circumstances here.
 * Most murder victims will be not notable until their death. But Murder of George Floyd, Murder of Sylvia Likens, Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard, Murders of Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner, Murder of James Bulger just to pick the first ones that come up when I type "murder" would be very weird and mostly useless articles if we felt the need to keep the victims anonymous because they were not notale before being killed.
 * But while we debate the process/guidance, can you also answer the practical question please: do you have any reason to object to the edit? (i.e. can you help us reach consensus here please?) CT55555 (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * (1) The dead do not satisfy any of Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. (2) The names of the dead are meaningless to almost all readers of Wikipedia, hence their inclusion does not benefit the project. (3) Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true". WWGB (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think its common to know who was shot, in an article about a shooting. Can you give us other compatible examples of articles about shootings where the names of the people shot were not included? I'm finding this very difficult to understand. We don't need to know the victims for the information to be encycloipedic, encyclopedias teach us names of things and people. It's not just that it's true, it's a key component of the notable event. CT55555 (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Recent shooting articles without victim names: 2022 Pittsburgh shooting, 2022 Sacramento shooting, Highland Park parade shooting, 2022 shooting of Kentucky police officers, 2022 Chattanooga shooting, Collierville Kroger shooting, 2021 Hialeah shooting, 2021 San Jose shooting, 2021 Colorado Springs shooting, Indianapolis FedEx shooting, 2021 Orange, California office shooting. There are many others. WWGB (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Every example you cited is a different country, USA, which is a global outlier in most things gun related. Maybe we could compare shootings in the same country?
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:21st-century_mass_shootings_in_Canada is a good starting point
 * 2020 Nova Scotia attacks only lists the police victims, but links to the list of 22 victims, public enquiry ongoing/recent, poor information flow a theme in the enquiry.
 * Fredericton shooting does name the victims
 * 2018 Toronto shooting does name the victims
 * Quebec City mosque shooting does name the victims
 * La Loche shootings does name the victims
 * Moncton shootings does name the victims (all police)
 * Edmonton shooting does name the victims
 * These are all the most recent comparable (i.e. same country, mass shootings) and they all name the victims, except the most recent one which only names the police victims, in the context of there being 22 victims and the public enquiry being ongoing.
 * These are not cherry picked examples, these are the list of most recent mass killings in Canada. I think USA is a global outlier in terms of number of gun crime, justice system, prevalence of firearms and a very unique country to use as an example. I think national comparisons are more sensible. CT55555 (talk) 01:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I support the edit, more information on the victims and the perpetrator will be informative. Two dead victims and one perpetrator can be covered in the article with no issues. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I believe the names of the victims should be on the wikipedia article. This is an article about the event, not the perpetrator. The victims are just as relevant to this event as the perpetrator is. (User:Silent-Rains) discuss 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Rough consensus reached?
User:Silent-Rains proposed the change. I support. So does User:לילך5. User:WWGB opposes. Everyone has justified their position. User:WWGB do you accept that we have an approximate consensus, even if you disagree with it? CT55555 (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, names added. WWGB (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I appreciate you going with consensus even when you disagreed with it. CT55555 (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)