Talk:2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides/Archive 1

Archive 1

Recent removal of sourced content

Serols, if you have any grievances of concerns regarding this article, please feel free to raise them here on the article's talk page. And when doing so, please remember to be specific, e.g. mention which information or which sources you find questionable.

Hello 94.252.115.157, gay village was the trigger for me, but you were right, sorry. Regards --Serols (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Significant acts of violence against LGBT people in Canada

So there's a link to Significant_acts_of_violence_against_LGBT_people#Canada, which I'd like to get a second opinion on. That pages describes itself as being "a list of notable incidents of homophobic violence, e.g. attacks on victims thought by the attacker to be lesbian or gay and attacked for homophobic motives." Insofar as I've read (admittedly not a whole lot), McArthur doesn't seem to have been motivated by homophobia. Are sure that that link should thus be there? PvOberstein (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The only thing I've seen in that direction is this story from yesterday's Toronto Sun where an acquaintance claims McArthur said f----t in an outburst, but it seems that was directed at individuals spreading stories about him rather than anything homophobic. He apparently had lots of photos of himself at Pride, was well known in the community, etc. What has been presented of his alleged crimes seems more predatory than hate-based to me. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the link shouldn't be present. If there were evidence that McArthur wasn't gay, but was instead motivated by such blinding homophobia that he pretended to be gay just to gain the opportunity to get near enough to gay men to kill them, then that would belong — but there's no evidence of that as of now, and a gay man being predatory against other gay men isn't the same thing as anti-gay violence. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Link that should be added

Can't edit as anon and have no interest in creating an account.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/03/06/bruce-mcarthur-was-previously-questioned-released-by-police-in-separate-incident.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.155.210 (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Here's one more link that will probably be added to the article sooner or later, even though McArthur was never actually convicted of this assault:

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/03/08/man-reported-to-toronto-police-in-2016-that-mcarthur-allegedly-attempted-to-strangle-him.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.40.9 (talk) 09:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2018

This artical set off an internal police probe . It should be added to talk as it is relevant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zipzag0 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/03/07/bruce-mcarthur-interview-toronto-police-probe_a_23379883/ Zipzag0 (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Please clarify what it is, exactly, that you want us to do with this — an edit request requires an action, not just a web url unattached to any desired action. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Article expansion

Just an FYI that I've been working on a thorough expansion of the article, I think I'm up around 4,000 words. I hope to have a draft ready next week at which point I'll ping major contributors for comments. I want to get this done and promote the article for DYK before the next wave of media coverage when excavations resume. Anyways, just wanted to give a heads-up and maybe ask to hold-off any major updates to the article. Thanks! – Reidgreg (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@PvOberstein, Werldwayd, Kelisi, AspergianDoodler295, Bearcat, Doodledoo, Vaselineeeeeeee, Cullen328, and Torontojeff: please find my proposed update here. It's a monster at about 8,800 words and more of a rewrite. It's pretty thorough, well-sourced and up to date (as of April 27).

I would appreciate it if other editors would not change my sandbox as it's a pain in the butt to merge page histories if/when moving the content here. I'd appreciate if you either suggested changes for me to make (here or on my talk page) or waited until after the move. I apologize, it's not very nice to say: look at this but don't change it. I just want to allow an opportunity for objections before publishing it here.

My big concern is that the scope may be too broad. I'm more interested in the investigation than the alleged perpetrator, and so I included criticisms of the investigation which may not strictly fit in a biography article. I am open to publishing this under a different article name, as suggested in the deletion discussion, but I'm not sure what that would be. There's no widely reported name for the disappearances or murders. "Missing Rainbow murders" sounds about right but I've never actually seen that anywhere. "Toronto's Gay Village murders" wouldn't work as many of the victims have not been linked to the village and it has been suggested some of the murders took place in McArthur's apartment, outside the village. But perhaps this is a discussion for after the article is updated and stable.

Of a lesser concern I'd note that quite a few figures were given differently in the sources, such as ages at time of death and dates of disappearances. I generally went with the majority of sources or what made most sense with the timeline. (For example, sixteen sources plus the police news releases gave Faizi's age as 42 while nine sources reported him as 44, so I went with 42. On the other hand, while a majority of sources said that Project Prism was "launched" in mid-August 2017, officers from Project Prism discussed the task force and investigation at an August 1 town hall, so I went with a minority of sources which said that Project Prism was created at the end of July.) I'd like to keep the article stable so please discuss if any of the sourced figures look wrong. (I've gathered about 200 sources I can search.)

Much thanks for your attention and your previous work on the article. I'll continue to work in my sandbox and if there are no objections in the next couple days I'll publish the update and request a copyedit. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You're correct that the investigation issues are much more the encyclopedic angle right now than the person himself. For starters, he still hasn't been found guilty in a court of law, so we still don't know the details of exactly what he did or why, and there really isn't that much actual biographical information about him known beyond a fairly basic sketch — which is one of the main reasons why I originally raised an objection under the WP:PERP rule against this article existing at all yet. The Toronto LGBT community's seething anger about how all of this has been handled is, if anything, the more significant and encyclopedic angle right now, at least until details of the case start emerging in the trial phase. That said, I haven't done a really detailed examination of your draft yet — I'm working on a different project at the moment that I want to finish instead of getting distracted — but I'll try to give it a lookover later today. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bearcat: any thoughts? I don't mean to rush, but I'd like to move the expansion over before the next big cycle of media coverage (what with the police scheduled to visit/revisit 75 potential crime scenes this month). I'm leaning toward supporting a page move (and restructuring) if we can come up with an acceptable name but we can do that afterwards. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

There's been more reports from McArthur's apartment, etc., and I felt bad about keeping this on hold for so long, so I made the update. Will check with requested moves for a better title. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

>>>Swearwords

I have edited an alleged quote from Bruce McArthur himself to read "fucking fagots telling stories about me!" After all, Wikipedia is not censored. Kelisi (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

MOS:PMC says that a quotation should appear exactly as it does in the cited source; Wikipedians should never bowdlerize words by replacing letters with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols, except when faithfully reproducing quoted text that did so. The linked section, WP:BOWDLERIZE further states: when quoting relevant material, rendering a quotation as it appears in the source cited trumps this style guideline. "this style guideline" being to not mince words with symbols as Kelisi suggests. So I think that's pretty clear. I've reverted it and thrown in a [sic] for good measure. – Reidgreg (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Interesting case. The source reads I'm tired of these f---ing f---ots but that does support the quotation as I'm tired of these fucking faggots... There's no doubt that this is what the source claims McArthur actually said. When the source is clearly itself bowdlerised in this fashion, it seems to me that whether we follow it is a matter of style not substance, so we should report the quotation in the uncensored form. That's not according to the letter of the policy, but it better conforms to its spirit and intention IMO. Andrewa (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Others might disagree, but I think that if it's clear from context and the source, then it's probably okay to uncensor, because it's a quote of the person who said it, and not of the source that reported it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Exactly. But that's not what the MOS says at all. So, do we just invoke IAR, or do we need to tweak the MOS (which has proved difficult in recent times)? Andrewa (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that it would be better to make it clear that we're producing it as bowdlerized in the source, rather than infer the underlying quote and misrepresent that the source had printed that. Dicklyon (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

However, the article currently uses the bowdlerized words in a section of quoted text from the video; the quote overlaps but is not the same as the portion quoted with bowdlerization in the article title. So what I said just above does not apply; the question here has been misrepresented, so my answer didn't fit. Dicklyon (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, it's more complicated still, I see. The version in the text can't be found by searching for "f-" because it uses dashes. That was also mis-quoted in the "sic". This one is so typographically broken that I'd hate to see us copy it. The headline writer at least had the sense to fix it. And quote the whole sentence please. Dicklyon (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I think I see what happened: the software (perhaps like TeX?) translated 6 hyphens to 2 em dashes (3 hyphen to em dash) and 2 hyphens to en dash, in the article. With such sloppy typography, it would be lame to copy them literally, and perhaps to copy their inferred intent, too, like the headline writer seemed to be trying to do. Dicklyon (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Reidgreg, although I can somewhat buy Andrewa's point. I don't think Wikipedia should un-censor the information, even when we know what was really said, because our job is to regurgitate the source material. The Canadian news made the unfortunate decision to bowdlerize and I don't think it's our place to undo that. Consider if it were an article about an Islamic subject and the source material used pbuh. Although MOS:HONORIFIC prohibits pbuh, if we're quoting the source then we can't un-censor the quote just to stick to our MoS. If you remove the quotation marks and write "fucking faggots" in Wikipedia's voice, you can still cite that source and be fine. If you quote the source, I think you have no excuse to edit the quote. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

If you remove the quotation marks and write "fucking faggots" in Wikipedia's voice, you can still cite that source and be fine. Not sure I understand this, but it sounds like it may be a good course of action. How exactly would we do this? Andrewa (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 18 May 2018

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

The result of the move request was: No move. Consensus is against moving to the option originally proposed, and no consensus has emerged for any other alternative. Feel free to try again without prejudice if a better option is identified. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Bruce McArthur → Missing Rainbow murders – This article is about an alleged serial killer. Per WP:PERP A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article. The article should also be renamed in line with its content: the body is 40% investigations, 30% controversies, and 20% biography. However, there really isn't a broadly used name for the investigation that doesn't include the alleged killer's name, e.g.: Bruce McArthur investigation, McArthur serial homicide probe. It had been a missing persons investigation until the subject's arrest, and so subsequent media coverage of the murders generally included his name. "Gay village murders" and "Toronto gay murders" don't really work as not all alleged victims disappeared/died in that neighbourhood and some did not openly identify as gay. The proposed name is taken from the Missing Rainbow Community disappearances, which is the best I've come up with while avoiding the subject's name. Any better ideas? – Reidgreg (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Unless the perpetrator's name is well-known, such as the extreme example of Charles Manson, these types of main title headers are renamed or redirected to the article describing the crime — for instance, the lengthy article Thomas Hamilton (spree killer) was redirected to Dunblane Massacre.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as the perpetrator's name is well-known. Unless information provided is broad about the missing rainbow murders, this should remain as it's own page. Information on this page directly talks about McArthur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Handoto (talk • contribs) 14:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: if it is not felt to have the same BLP issues I'd be fine with "Bruce McArthur serial homicide investigation" or the like, which is more recognizable. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

  The above-suggested Bruce McArthur serial homicide investigation or, if there is a preference for avoiding the mention of perpetrator's name, 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides may be submitted for consideration.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - What a badly-conceived idea of an alternative title. "Missing Rainbow murders" is not neutral, but rather a very "loaded" word we don't need as title of various incidents that may or may not be related to the rainbow movement. Furthermore the term suggested is very arbitrary and is not widely used in media at all. Lumping murders stretching many many years under one "Rainbow murders" emblem is just appalling. Bruce McArthur is so notable now trying to describe it anything else is just futile. werldwayd (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. It may be helpful to consult the points made three months ago in WP:Articles for deletion/Bruce McArthur, including the argument that while the article for Larry Nassar was deleted and subsequently recreated after his conviction, a separate article entitled USA Gymnastics sex abuse scandal has existed to chronicle the details of the case. If/when McArthur is convicted, a separate biographical entry can also be recreated. In the meantime, however, this article, renamed 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides or similar, should exist to relate the details.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose the name "Bruce McArthur" is instantly WP:RECOGNIZABLE in Canadian news now; I watched a number of short CBC docs on the Bruce McArthur case and don't recall "Missing Rainbow murders" coming up once; "missing men in The Village" came up more. This RM is kind of the equivalent of moving Cody Legebokoff to The three in apartments and one just off Highway 16 murders. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose my nom and Support 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides which is neutral, clear, descriptive, non-ambiguous (the last serial killers known to have been active in Toronto were in the mid-1990s¹) and has no BLP issues. If the "many many years" above refers to the mid-1970s cold cases, none of those have been linked to McArthur (or to the 2010–2017 killings) at this time. The investigation may turn up additional killings before 2010 or outside of Toronto, but we can only work with what the article is now, not what it might become at some point in the future. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support some move from the current title per aforementioned policy. —  AjaxSmack  20:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Who calls the case that? Perhaps those who feel close to the victims, but that would make it a very emotional name for the case. That alone is ample argument against the move. I think that we shall all have to wait for the investigation and trial to end. At the moment, we cannot definitively link all these murders (although I have little doubt that that will eventually become possible). Once that happens, we can decide on a non-emotional name for the case. Kelisi (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

  The remains of seven of the alleged homicide victims were found in planter boxes at the same residence, so I feel they're linked well enough as related subjects. The descriptive name by Roman Spinner is NPOV. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think the proposal is the right new title for the page, but WP:PERP considerations do mandate that the article be moved to some title other than the accused murderer's name. So count me in support of Roman Spinner's alternate proposal, but not the original proposed title or the retention of the current page title. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The suggested move seems unnecessarily obtuse.Avg W (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Depsite the "no move" close, I have moved the page anyway, to 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides. WP:BLP is the most important consideration here, and most editors above agreed that some move was necessary (i.e. away from the name of the suspect). I obviously have no objection to any move to a better title, but for now a non-consensus BLP-compliant title is better than a non-consensus non-BLP-compliant title. Fram (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The page should be rewritten / reordered to focus first and foremost on the homicides and the investigation, and make the biography a part of it. Fram (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the move. For those who object to the move, I'm open to another RM, I just want the article to be stable and have no serious policy violations. This name may have to be tweaked from time to time as the case develops, but for now this is what we've got. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with the move, as his name was very WP:RECOGNIZABLE. There was a lot of information on him as an individual as well, not just his crimes. Unsure of what the "no move" conclusion purpose was for then. I'd at least like to see a draft article created and approved to ensure there are no policy violations. Handoto (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:PERP unconditionally rules out maintaining biographical articles about people who have been accused, but not convicted, of crimes — the legitimate article topic here at the present time is the crime and the investigation, not a BLP of him as a person, so his name isn't the appropriate page title as he isn't the primary subject here. A person who searches for his name will still get to this page anyway, because it's still in place as a redirect, so the recognizability of his name isn't a reason why the page's title should violate the PERP rule. Bearcat (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The question is whether, if we exclude all the information about his alleged crimes, would he still pass notability requirements to have his own biography article? Generally I would say no. However – and I may be opening a can of worms here – there may be some wiggle-room because of his previous conviction in the Halloween assault. I'm not sure if Wikipedia has special rules for pardoned crimes. It's a relatively small part of the article, 3 paragraphs but it has about 10 sources. So it's possible to make an argument that that assault conviction is notable enough for McArthur to have a separate biography. Nonetheless, as the article is primarily about the alleged crimes, investigations and related controversies, I would prefer the current title and would be against splitting information out into a separate biography article at this time. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

No, the assault conviction would never have gotten him an article in and of itself — it got zero media coverage at the time, so we can't retroactively assign it BLP-notability status after the fact just because it came up in the coverage that he started getting after being arrested for the murders 17 years later. And even if it had gotten some media coverage on its own, assaults are far, far too common in this world to deem a person encyclopedically notable just for being convicted of assault per se. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, that's a good point, the media coverage of the assault came after his recent arrest, in the context of the alleged killings. It seemed like a stretch to begin with. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Removal of hyphens

Should it be "sex worker" or "sex-worker"? It has been suggested that a misunderstanding can occur in a wording such as "male sex worker" (does that mean a sex worker who is male, or a worker of the male sex?). My contention is that this is a non-issue. Proper English does not use "male sex" as an adjective to mean "male". Do we say "a male sex teacher" or "a male sex politician"? No, the word "sex" is needless here, quite redundant, and it is highly unlikely that any reader would misunderstand "male sex worker" to mean "male worker", especially given the context. Anyway, no dictionary lists "sex worker" with a hyphen. "Sex-worker" is quite simply bad writing, and there is already far too much of that on Wikipedia. Can we reach a consensus on this? Kelisi (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The cited sources specify the term without the hyphen. Wikipedia reports what the sources say. Scr★pIron^IV 18:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

This is an issue of style and clarity. This discussion is in reference to two hyphens:

• a male sex-worker who wanted to show McArthur his Halloween costume
• a homeless transgender sex-worker

Technically, this is called an object–verbal noun compound. Some writers hyphenate these consistently, others only for disambiguation.

Without a hyphen, the above phrases are ambiguous and confusing. This is especially true here, when "sex worker" is preceded by a gender term, since the reader may associate "sex" with the gender term rather than "worker".

The hyphens make the association between "sex" and "worker" explicit. This makes it flow easier so the reader won't pause to determine the meaning from context.

I feel that "sex worker" shouldn't be hyphenated all the time. With "teenaged sex worker" or "hispanic sex worker" there aren't the same issues. But here I feel it should be hyphenated for clarity when there would otherwise be ambiguity. As noted at this Language Reference Desk discussion, either style is acceptable in English, leaning in preference of a hyphen when there is ambiguity.

I would note that the hyphenated version was established in the article first, and that acceptable styles should not be changed without a good reason. Therefore I am reverting it back to the original style. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

But there is no ambiguity. Why do you think there is? Nobody whose English is beyond the beginner level – and certainly nobody whose mother tongue is English – would ever misunderstand "male sex worker" in the way that you suggest. Kelisi (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Reidgreg, the hyphen is appropriate here to remove ambiguity. While many Wikipedia editors eschew all hyphens and even commas, in this article there are other adjectives being piled onto "sex worker" that make it necessary to maintain clarity. The above example, "a homeless transgender sex-worker" definitely needs the hyphen. We should retain it in "male sex-worker" too. Yoninah (talk) 10:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity here. The phrase is not hyphenated, and there is no need to create new variations for this article. The sources do not use it, and Wikipedia should not, either. Scr★pIron^IV 12:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, "sex-worker" on its own doesn't need it. But the minute you start piling on adjectives before it, you do need it. Yoninah (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

What ambiguity? There is none! If a "teenaged sex worker", for instance, is somebody who works in "teenaged sex", then the correct formulation is "teenaged-sex worker", because such phrases used as adjectives are supposed to be hyphenated, as in "present-day situation" (one that I am forever correcting) or "high-school student" (which is not a scholastic learner who is experiencing the effects of mind-altering substances, which would be a "high school student"). If, however, it is, as it were, a "Hot Child in the City", then that is a "teenaged sex worker". There is no ambiguity without the hyphen. A hyphen adds nothing. And it is wrong. Kelisi (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kelisi and ScrapIronIV: An earlier comment from Kelisi reads "it is highly unlikely that any reader would misunderstand" suggesting that some ambiguity was perceived by the editor at that time. As for sources, whatever style choice writers use at A or B or C is completely irrelevant, as Wikipedia has its own style. The remaining argument is that it is [grammatically] "wrong" but I have provided links where this use of hyphens is explained. I don't know what's left to justify the removal of the hyphens except a rather intransigent WP:IDONTLIKEIT. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Reidgreg, I have just read the MOS section on hyphens, and exhaustive though it may be, it does not mention any such usage as you insist upon. It mentions things like the examples that I gave above ("present-day situation"; "high-school student"), but nothing akin to "male sex-worker". Indeed, it only recommends stringing adjectival phrases together, not nominal ones. In my experience at least, what MOS describes is the normal state of affairs in English writing. Perhaps you misunderstand what MOS is going on about. After all, you seem to have missed the irony in my use of "highly unlikely". Furthermore, quite contrary to your claim that we are only left with "a rather intransigent WP:IDONTLIKEIT", we are in fact left with the facts that a) no dictionary spells "sex worker" with a hyphen, and b) MOS in fact does not recommend its use in the way that you seem to think it does. It seems to me that "a rather intransigent WP:IDONTLIKEIT" might be all that is being used to justify inserting a hyphen. And I'll say once again that there is no ambiguity to be avoided here anyway. Kelisi (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest that it is counter-productive to use irony or sarcasm when discussing the merits of an edit. I don't believe the stated justifications for your edit outweigh the concerns noted. Spelling is a non-issue. I don't believe that the MOS specifically recommends against this use of hyphens. Even if it did the clarity issues trump it for these two hyphens. (The MOS starts with a note that occasional exceptions may apply.) – Reidgreg (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

If a source makes a spelling error, we're not locked in to replicating that spelling error if we're not directly quoting its words verbatim (and even if we are, we have to add a [sic] after the spelling error) — so whether McArthur's sources hyphenate "sex worker" or not is irrelevant to the question of whether we should hyphenate it or not. So this needs to be discussed stricly on the merits of whether clarity of meaning demands a hyphen or not, not on the matter of whether the cited sources have hyphenated it or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I shall say it again: no dictionary spells "sex worker" with a hyphen. I did look. So "sex worker" is not a misspelling. Kelisi (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

(1) Spelling is irrelevant: "sex worker" and "sex-worker" have the exact same spelling. Hyphens are not part of spelling but are used for conjunction to associate words (and other uses which don't enter into this discussion). (2) Object–verbal noun compounds like "sex worker" may be hyphenated or not as a matter of style. Wikipedia does not follow the styles used in sources. To the best of my knowledge, the MOS neither endorses nor discourages either of these styles; assuming I am correct in this means that either style can be used. MOS:STYLERET notes that the Arbitration Committee has stated "When either of two styles are [sic] acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." It is thus up to the editor who removed these hyphens to provide a substantial reason to justify the change. (3) I feel the first two points are enough to revert the removal of these hyphens from the established and stable version of the article. However, for the sake of peace and understanding among editors, I will again attempt to explain the very definite clarity issue involved. Two out of four editors who stated an opinion in the above discussion acknowledge this clarity issue. With "male sex worker", what is the association of the words, which two are most closely related? A hyphen makes the intended association explicit so the reader doesn't have to pause. The hyphen provides a benefit and does not in any way detract from "proper English". (4) Even if the MOS discouraged hyphens in object–verbal noun compounds (which I don't believe is the case) exceptions may be made to the MOS for clarity and point 3 would trump MOS. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Spelling is relevant: "sex worker" and "sex-worker" have different spellings. One has a hyphen and the other doesn't (and yes, things like hyphens and apostrophes are part of spelling). Wikipedia does not necessarily follow the styles used in sources, but if a source uses "sex worker", it does. The MOS makes that clear. Please read it and understand it. As for providing a substantial reason to justify the change, I have done that: "sex-worker" is wrong; no dictionary lists that spelling; there is no ambiguity to be avoided in the first place. With "male sex worker", the association of the words is "adjective, qualifying noun, noun". In English syntax, a qualifying noun goes right before the noun. An adjective before that modifies the phrase formed by those other two. It can be made to modify the qualifying noun instead by using a hyphen, as in "the present-day school", which differs in meaning from "the present day school" (in the former case, it is not necessarily a day school, whereas in the latter case, it definitely is; this is signalled by the lack of a hyphen), or there is the case of "hot box detector", in which I would argue that if you mean the trackside gadget for spotting malfunctioning railway equipment, you should write it "hot-box detector", because it's the box that might be hot, not the detector, which detects hot boxes, not simply boxes. Having said all that, I'll say this: "male-sex worker" is not a possible collocation. We don't use "male-sex" as an adjective, at least not to describe a person. The word for that meaning is simply "male"; therefore, "male sex worker" simply cannot be misunderstood to mean "male worker". It can only mean "sex worker who is male". There is no ambiguity to avoid. Kelisi (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kelisi: Thank-you. I will call for a third opinion (technically sixth, but its mostly between us) which I hope will put this matter to rest. I really don't want to call an RfC for something so WP:LAME. Dear 3O Respondant: The above dispute is about the (repeated) removal of hyphens from a male sex-worker and a homeless transgender sex-worker. A summary of the dispute may be found in the two long paragraphs above, dated 21 June and 10 July 2018. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. By the way, you only use a hyphen in "thank you" if you use it as an adjective or a noun, never if it is an interjection. Kelisi (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I removed this entry because at least four editors are involved in the dispute. Perhaps you should try WP:Requests for Comment. Borsoka (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kelisi: According to Wikipedia:Third opinion/User FAQ disputes with two viewpoints but multiple editors "may be suitable for a third party request but should be negotiated on the talk page by summarizing the two viewpoints clearly in advance and agreeing that the parties prefer a third opinion as a light-weight process to use." So it's up to you. If you agree to 3O you can ask Borsoka back, or otherwise take your choice of bringing it to another forum like Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard or Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Since you want to change the established version of the article, I feel I should give you the opportunity to state your case first. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have stated my case exhaustively. It is above. Note also Borsoka's message. Kelisi (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

ATTENTION — There is now a discussion about this ("Removal of hyphens discussion") here.

Kelisi (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

This was closed at dispute resolution for "Stale, also insufficient participation." I interpret that to mean that editors felt it was a waste of time (to participate or to mediate). So rather than pursuing this further I've removed or rephrased the material related to the dispute. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

When McArthur moved into Leaside Towers

Failed verification – edit summary: § Gay bachelor: I could not verify the 2007-2008 figure using the adjacent sources. Requires confirmation to determine when he began living at Leaside Towers.

@Dheppens: Thanks for your attention. The source is the reference named "GallantHid" which a previous version of the article might have had as "TorstarHid", it is linked here. About halfway down the file is this paragraph:

The police called Cribbin the day after McArthur was arrested for the first two murders. Cribbin said he realized there were photographs of him and the detective asked if he'd seen any cameras in McArthur’s 19th-floor apartment, where the accused reportedly lived for the last 10 years.

That would place McArthur living there in late January 2008, but 10 years is a bit of a round figure and so I put 2007 or 2008 to give it a little leeway. Other sources have him living on Don Mills Road in 2003 and on Thorncliff Drive in 2014, so it fits in that timeframe. Is that good enough? – Reidgreg (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Dheppens: you don't appear to have made any edits since placing the {{failed verification}} tag. I feel it's adequately covered by the source so I've gone ahead and removed it. Please discuss here if you disagree. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Use of infobox(es)

@135.0.82.137: thanks for adding the infobox to the suspect biography section. I've been a little cautious with BLP concerns and Template:Infobox criminal says in its documentation that This template is generally reserved for convicted serial killers [...] but it seems to be alright; it doesn't place any controversial text on the page. What about an infobox for the crimes themselves (to go in the lead)? I've used Template:Infobox civilian attack for mass shootings and Template:Infobox event for single crimes, but I'm not sure about this article which is about several killings over several years. The unsolved Claremont serial murders also uses Infobox criminal (a redirect from infobox serial killer) with a media name (which we don't have here). – Reidgreg (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Reverts regarding "inaccurate information"

I reverted some edits by the IP 2607:fea8:705f:ff2c:3185:7b17:ac03:69c8 which claimed "inaccurate information". The references named "GallantMinimal" and "GoodfieldReoffend" cite court documents unsealed in June which were not available to the National Post when they published their story on McArthur on February 2. I feel that the newer information is more accurate. If you disagree, please discuss here. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

"Staged"

This statement has been commented out for now for the following reasons:

• The writer failed to explain what this somewhat less than widely used slang word means;
• It is a slang word to begin with, and en:WP is supposed to be in Standard English;
• The statement is referenced, but the referenced article says that the police would not explain what the word meant;
• In view of that last point, it means nothing to many people;
• There is no WP article about "staging" (not in any sense that would apply here, anyway);

From what I managed to find in the Urban Dictionary, I believe that it means that Bruce McArthur shat on his victims' bodies (but we can say "defecated" in the article, I suppose). I suggest that we wait until the term is explained in another source directly linked with this case, comment the statement back in with the word "staged" replaced with something more meaningful and in accordance with that source, and use that source as the reference. Kelisi (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Another source, however, seems to put the lie to my conclusion about what "staging" means here. All the more reason to leave this statement out for now, I say.Kelisi (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I have found this:

Staging can mean simply moving a body around to evade investigation, or it can be more involved, such as putting a body somewhere to take photos, or dressing up a body, Det. David Dickenson explained to Global News.

Perry said typically serial killers would stage bodies, either in states of dress or undress, to take photos or video, “so that the subject can revisit their act long afterwards.”

That's here. I am still a bit confused, though, as to why the police would not define the word at the outdoor press conference yesterday morning. It was as if the meaning was something dirty that they didn't want to say on television — as if that Urban Dictionary definition that I found were the right one after all.

Well, there we go. Kelisi (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, you've had a nice little conversation with yourself (above). I'm not sure if you have the same issue with the edit at the end [of your comments] as you had at the beginning. I didn't want to combine sources (WP:SYNTH) but left it to the reader to put together the earlier reports that McArthur took post-mortem photographs of the victims with the court statement that he staged victims, to mean that he staged the victims for photographs. I feel that's pretty easy to put together for anyone who reads the article or is familiar with the case. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

What I thought was obvious has now been confirmed (CBC News) "Staged photos and souvenirs". I have updated the article accordingly. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 31 January 2019

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is consensus that this is about the events, not just the person, and that an article about the killer can be split off if necessary.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

---

2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides → Bruce McArthur – This was the original title; it was moved for BLP reasons. McArthur has now pleaded guilty and all reliable sources identify McArthur as a serial killer. [1] [2] [3] BLP concerns no longer apply. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support All other pages about serial killers use the name of the murderer for the page. Alex of Canada (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Alex of Canada: that's an other stuff exists argument, and I'm not sure if all is accurate. I'd appreciate if you could look at the particular needs of this article rather than making a blanket statement. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not OTHERSTUFF; WP:CONSISTENCY is policy in titling articles. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose The present article is about the crimes, not the person, and has a scope far broader than a biography. This should be a content split discussion rather than a move discussion. The article is a bit big and while I plan to summarize a lot of the material as facts are established in court, I wouldn't mind having the biographical material split out. However, I think that needs to be discussed in depth, and to include other potential content splits like the external review of TPS missing persons cases. – Reidgreg (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

  The prosesize script places the article at 11,152 words and 68k characters, which exceeds the recommendations of WP:LENGTH and is in the "Probably should be divided" recommendation of WP:SPLITSIZE. I ask that this discussion be closed in favour of discussing a split/fork of the article's content. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

  According to these pageview stats only about 1 in 15 readers is going to the redirect at Bruce McArthur – almost all of them go straight to the article at 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides. – Reidgreg (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Probably because if you search "Bruce McArthur" on google you get a link to 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support I saw this news item the other day, and searched for his name here, only to be surprised to be redirected to the current title. The current title is overly complex, possibly contains WP:OR, and becomes less and less recognisable as the years go by. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Lugnuts: How is this title original research? It is a descriptive title. The recent agreed statement of facts (link) establishes that the eight murders all happened in Toronto between 2010 and 2017. This is not disputed. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Eight murders. Or is that eight homicides? There's one issue for starters. This article has been developed over time while the case was still live (IE during WP's existance). It's not an historic case that pre-dated this encyclopedia, when facts about who did it would already have been known. The current title is too clunkly, esp. with the date range. Now look at this case in five or tens years from now. How many people will know the precise dates? Was it 2010 to 2015? Or did it start in 2009 and continue to 2016? Continue that variation by putting a year either side of the start and end period. Just ask a small sample of your friends a quick-fire question: What year did 9/11 happen? You might be surprised at how many get it wrong. And before anyone jumps down my throat, I'm not comparing these killings to 9/11, just pointing out how difficult it can be to remember even the year of when X event took place. And finally, we wouldn't have the article at 1978–1991 Milwaukee serial homicides for Jeffrey Dahmer. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
      • (So it's not OR then?) I'm all for there being an article at Bruce McArthur. I'm also all for a better title for this article, if you can suggest one. But it doesn't make sense to move the whole article to Bruce McArthur only to then split it and move some back here. Jeffrey Dahmer has the exact same problem: it's 10551 words (63 kB) and ought to be split. There wouldn't be any navigation issue if readers can follow links from the biography article to the crime article(s). A content split for this article should consider the related articles Death of Alloura Wells and Murder of Tess Richey, and how to gather the overlapping effects from the separate crimes. Then there's the matter of the Mad Stabber murders of the 1970s. Should those get their own article or would you have them pile on with a single article at Bruce McArthur? How big does this have to get before you'd agree to have the crimes and biography in separate articles? – Reidgreg (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Support as mentioned above, keeping consistency is important. All other pages use the killer's name. While I understand the original move from Bruce McArthur, he has now pleaded guilty, meaning he is no longer a suspect of the crimes listed in the article here. This page should identify McArthur as a serial killer. Handoto (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• Keep present page, but support creation of a separate Bruce McArthur article as well: The article is more than just a biography of McArthur, so the continuation of the present article under present (or possibly amended title) is very vital. But part of the article may be presented under a Bruce McArthur bio page, provided an adequate resume of such is well-placed in the present article. werldwayd (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• support I was surprised to see that this wasn't already the case --Torsodog^Talk 00:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose move but support split of biographical test to separate article. This article is about a lot more than Bruce McArthur and would not be appropriate in the Bruce McArthur page. The Michigan murders article is like this one but doesn't have as much info about the murderer. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 05:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose Two different issues, do not conflate Kanatonian (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support See Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, Dean Corll, etc. BagInACampfire (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The prosesize script says that those pages are 10,551, 15,879, 11,797, and 10,005 words (respectively). They are each large enough to be split. This is a textbook other stuff exists argument, as some of these other articles display even worse examples of the problems this article is facing. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    • It's not OTHERSTUFF; WP:CONSISTENCY is policy in titling articles. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

      WP:CONSISTENCY refers to the pattern of titles, which I believe means formatting and phrasing, for example to title biographies in the form <first name> <last name>. It also says that these should not be seen as rules. Category:Wikipedia naming conventions does not include anything about serial killers or crimes. Other stuff exists does not represent a previous consensus. I understand what you're saying, and the value of it, but I believe you are making an interpretation beyond what is actually stated by this policy.

      What I've been trying to stress from the beginning is that this should be a content split discussion. If the content is split, the subjects (of the two halves) will be determined by how we split the content. Then, depending on the subject and content, we can determine suitable titles for the article(s). Also, if the article is moved, editors are going to jump in to rephrase the article to suit the new title, which will have to be undone or redone following a split. It would be wasted effort all around. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

      @Ribbet32: I read a little more on WP:CONSISTENCY and, in the absence of an established common name, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) specifically recommends the <when> <where> <what> format of 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

  • For counter-examples, in addition to Michigan murders mentioned by PopularOutcast above, there's also Peterborough ditch murders, 2006 Noida serial murders, Atlanta murders of 1979–81 and the GA Ipswich serial murders. The latter two have separate articles for the killers. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose a simple move, because this article contains entirely too much content that is irrelevant to a biography of McArthur himself — the anger about the police handling of the investigation, and the way it's fed into the controversy about whether the cops should be allowed to march in uniform at Pride Toronto or not, are a very separate topic from McArthur as a person — but support a content split, so that McArthur and the investigation are treated as two separate topics with separate articles. Yes, now that he's been convicted the old WP:PERP issues that militated against a biographical article about him no longer apply — but the now-recreatable biographical article should consist of portions of this article getting spun out as a separate topic, not just the sum total of everything that's present in this article, because not all of the content here is relevant to a standalone biography of him. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose move, support split per the others. There are two articles here, one about the crimes and other other about the perpetrator. Thryduulf (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CONSISTENCY. Nearly all other articles dealing with serial killers and their crimes are named after the individual responsible for the crimes. ExRat (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you have an actual reason why a wholesale move of this article, which contains a lot of content that is either tangential or entirely irrelevant to McArthur as a person, would be somehow preferable to splitting this article so that McArthur as a person and the event as an event are two separate articles? Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Now that I have thoroughly read the article, you bring up a very valid point. Whilst most articles on serial killers are quite straightforward and generally focus on the individual charged and an overview of the crimes, this article differs significantly in that it focuses on the investigation, controversies surrounding the investigation, legal proceedings, etc. I now support a split into two articles. ExRat (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I also note that the consistency clause of the article naming guidelines is not the only factor to take into account. It is but one of several pieces of guidance, and there's nothing that says consistency is the most important, ruling, or only criteria which should trump all other considerations. You can't just cite it as though it would somehow absolve you from actually giving reasons to change it. --Jayron32 18:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose moving or renaming this article. Article scope is more about the crimes than a full biography of the perpetrator. Agnostic on creating a different article to handle his biography separate from the crimes. --Jayron32 18:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Support for Splitting - there are arugments to be had on both sides, but since both the crime spree and the perpetrator seem to have enough coverage and content to pass WP:GNG, I think spliting the two article would be perhaps the best option available rather than having this inevitable move discussion every year or so. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I'm going to ask to hold any further move or split discussions until the article is more stable. I have been the primary editor of this article since its major expansion last spring, I did its DYK and ITN promotion, and plan to eventually take it to GAN. I know that I don't own the article and that my opinion on it shouldn't carry any extra weight, but chances are that I will end up doing most of the work as this article moves forward. I am taking a long view with this article and want to make the best use of my time, and would prefer to avoid doing more rewrites than necessary. I feel that it would not be appropriate to do major rewrites or make major decisions about the article while there continue to be frequent updates on the subject (i.e.: while the subject and article are unstable). So I would ask for patience to wait until the subject stabilizes. Then I can do a rewrite and/or we can discuss splits or moves as appropriate to a stable version of the article. There is nothing terribly wrong with the article as it stands; it does not have any major guideline violations. It is a little long, but is comparable in length to the GA Ted Bundy, so it doesn't seem like that's a huge problem. Thank you for your consideration. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

GillisRuling source

@Heart of Destruction: thanks for spotting the title change with that source. That was a 'breaking news' story and unfortunately I did not archive it. The story at that url has since been completely rewritten, so I adjusted the citation (GillisRuling → GillisConcurrent) and the quotation which it no longer fully supported. Should be good now. I also checked a CBC 'breaking news' source and it's still okay (they added to it rather than rewriting). – Reidgreg (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Muslim victims

{{WP Islam|Islam-and-Controversy=y|class=B|category=no}}

Given that violence against Muslims is an important topic as well as violence against gays, it is odd that none of the victims is directly identified as being Muslim or a person of a family of that faith. Would there be objection to mentioning this aspect of these terrible murders as there is a high probability that many of these middle eastern and South Asian victims might be muslim? Bachcell (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Bachcell As none of the victims were outright Muslim, it would not be appropriate to put this tag on the talk page. Thanks! Mgasparin (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not clear that all or most of the victims were Muslim, or even that religion was particularly relevant. We certainly know that most of the victims were South Asian, but they appear to be very split between people from countries (Iran, Afghanistan) where they could be presumed as possible Muslims, and countries (India, Sri Lanka) where they would be more likely Hindus or Buddhists. And even Iran and Afghanistan still have Christian and Hindu minority groups as well, so just because somebody was from one of those countries doesn't automatically prove that they're Muslim per se.

Most of the victims have not, in fact, had the question of their religion clarified on the record by the police or the media at all. So it's not our job to guess that maybe some of them were — our job is to wait until the media and the police actually tell us whether some of them were Muslims or not. Bearcat (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

It's stated in the article that one of the victims was the son of a Muslim cleric. Another wanted to make sure his daughters got everything they wanted for Christmas. However, I never got the impression that religion was important except for possibly being part of the general cultural homophobia that kept (some) victims in the closet, leading secret lives, which made them easy targets for McArthur. But I didn't feel there was enough in the sources to state that explicitly and was leaving it for the readers to conclude (or not). I'll consider this as I go over sources for a rewrite, but I don't remember it being explicitly addressed in the media. There's plenty about race, but I don't recall much about religion. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)