Wikipedia

Talk:2020 Nova Scotia attacks/Archive 4

< Talk:2020 Nova Scotia attacks
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Jim Michael in topic age in lede
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Requested move 20 April 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago147 comments78 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There is a significant consensus in favour of the proposed requested move. The first point is the lack of consensus for moving to alternative terms ("massacre", "shooting", in order of importance) but there are several addendums to the same: 1) most other participants were in favour of the original move, 2) a significant portion of this minority was acceptable to the majority viewpoint of using "attacks" as an alternative 3) both the viewpoints were amicable to including the year "2020". Most participants who were in favour of "attacks" pointed out that killings or shootings were not the only attacks that took place (adding that the lede line itself includes "set fires"). This was not sufficiently contested by the other participants. --qedk (t 愛 c) 07:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Nova Scotia killings → 2020 Nova Scotia attacks – Tragically, these are not the only murders that have ever taken place in Nova Scotia. This title is extremely broad. Per wp:CONCISE and wp:PRECISE. Bneu2013 (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

"2020 Nova Scotia spree killings" might be better. It is a spree killing by definition. There doesn't seem to be any official name that the media is calling this. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I would agree with 2020 Nova Scotia spree killing as a better article title. But waiting for more sources to append a name to the attacks might be worthwhile. There's no rush here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I also agree with 2020 Nova Scotia spree killing as being the appropriate title moving forward as it is both specific and non-presumptive with regards to any facts not in evidence.

What's unencyclopedic about spree killing? Jim Michael (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I personally have never seen "spree killing" or anything along those lines being used in an article title. "Killings", "attacks", "shootings", etc., seem to be the norm. Love of Corey (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
All of these events you mentioned happened in specific towns/cities/areas, Nova Scotia is a province with many "killings" in it's past Gromte (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure I follow the above comments. Please elaborate. There has been no reasoning behind the retention of the date in the title other than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I have stated it reduces the ease of finding the article and is unnecessary disambiguation. Sparkle1 (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
The point is that plenty of articles are named with the year number. The ease of finding articles is managed using redirects; naming is so inconsistent that the task would be impossible otherwise. 109.186.146.69 (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
You think there's only been 1 stabbing in Melbourne & that a shooting in Nova Scotia is more likely to recur than a stabbing in Melbourne?! Jim Michael (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the new title as proposed: 2020 Nova Scotia attacks. This follows naming conventions of other Wikipedia pages. Nova Scotia is a large province, and other killings have taken place in the past. In 2017, four people were killed in Upper Big Tracadie, Nova Scotia. In 1992, three were killed in Sydney River, Nova Scotia. Larger massacres have also occurred in the province in 1747 and 1751. Adding 2020 to the title will ensure this attack is differentiated from those that have occurred in the past. EastCoastHistory (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Attacks is too general not enough information. People were not just attacked 18-19 were attacked and killed. That's the story. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Reflects the actuality of the situation and refers to the year, putting the page into more context. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The new proposed title: "2020 Nova Scotia attacks" makes more senses considering it was drawn out and their were multiple different forms of attacks committed ranging from arson, shooting, home invasion, etc.(KNorth192) (Talk) 20:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Numerous people were adversely affected by the arson attacks, and numerous people appear to have experienced significant injuries, but not killed, so 'attacks' is much more appropriate and respectful. The possibility for there to be significant "Nova Scotia killings" at any given point in the future also opens the article title to needless ambiguity. By all indications, that term is not being sufficiently commonly used in the media, so there is no reason not to include the more specific, customary article title of [year] [location] [type of attack]. See 2017 Las Vegas Shooting or 2019 London Bridge stabbing as examples. FlipandFlopped ツ 20:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support change, maybe not 2020 - I am not sure using the date is ideal. Sadly, there have been many killings in Nova Scotia's history. There have also likely been or will be other killings in the province this year. This article is not about all killings in the province this year or ever. It is about this specific event which took place between April 18 and April 19, 2020. Perhaps a more specific name will emerge in use by media and politicians, or perhaps it is appropriate to include the names of the towns in a name. Not sure what the best way to deal with this is, but I don't think we can leave it with a generic name that could be construed to refer to other killings or deaths in the province that are unrelated to these events.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Until a better WP:COMMONNAME exists, 2020 Nova Scotia killings or 2020 Nova Scotia shootings may be the best of temporary names. That would be an improvement over the existing name, but not a great long term solution.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
That seems to be too wordy, though, and I haven't seen that kind of title used ever. I'm not sure what's wrong with "killings". The 2014 Isla Vista killings is a high-profile article that uses "killings" in the title, and there are some similarities between these two incidents, so I'd say this title format is appropriate and relevant for now. Love of Corey (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Of course sources don't use it. Nor would people likely say it. It is intended to identify the article for all time. (After coronavirus inherits the Earth.) Bus stop (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Fuck the coronavirus, too. Just use a common name. People will know the one they and the papers use, and so will their descendants (till 2148, at least). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Coronavirus be damned, I agree. But I can't agree that an article title should mimic or conform to spoken language, as you seem to be suggesting. In this sense I, to a degree, disagree with WP:COMMONNAME (which for this article at this time none exists). Even if "the papers use" a term of reference, our choice in article title can take different factors into consideration. In my opinion an article title should have an element of "formality", but I also understand that you hold the diametrically opposite opinion. Bus stop (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to Portapique and Wentworth killings -- The murders didn't span the whole province of Nova Scotia and were confined to Portapique and Wentworth Valley. The perpetrator may have been killed by police in Enfield, but there were no "killings" there at all. Most were killed in Portapique and three later in Wentworth Valley. A case in point, and this was pinpointed by one of the colleagues was Sydney River McDonald's murders at the McDonald's restaurant in Sydney River, Nova Scotia, Canada. Three people were murdered there. So it is also a Nova Scotia attack or Nova Scotia killings as well. But we didn't name that article Nova Scotia killings, but Sydney River murders or killings mentioning the actual specific location. I think Nova Scotia should not be mentioned at all in our title unless proven that he killed people in other locations. I am for the title Portapique and Wentworth killings In such a case mentioning the year is redundent as there were as far as I know no other "killings" in Portapique. A very good case in point is the massacre in Hungerford, Berkshire, England. Wikipedia doesn't call it the Berkshire massacre (a bigger geographical unit) but the Hungerford massacre, the smaller more specific local geographical location. Nova Scotia is synonymous to saying Berkshire. We need to go to Portapique synonymous of saying Hungerford. werldwayd (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as the current title is far too broad. "Portapique killings" is also not appropriate since the scope of the article covers much more than the events in Portapique. Ben MacLeod (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Based on your concerns, Ben, I have expanded my proposal to moving the article to Portapique and Wentworth killings. I don't think it went further than that. Involving the whole province of Nova Scotia in this is erroneous logic. Nova Scotia may be one of the smaller Canadian provinces, for an outsider, but it is still a wide area. werldwayd (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I see your point. However, there's an issue with that title too – the article states that the RCMP constable was killed in Shubenacadie, which is located in another county altogether. A relevant precedent might be 2011 Norway attacks. I don't think that title implies that the attacks spanned the entirety of Norway. Ben MacLeod (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree. In fact, "2020 Nova Scotia killings" seems even more justifiable in this case because three, maybe more locations were involved, rather than the two in Norway: Oslo and Utoya. Love of Corey (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
As is bolding Support under a request to propose an alternative. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I now think 2020 Nova Scotia Massacre is probably the best Gromte (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, this seems to meet WP:SNOW standards, the time has come to action this. There are two templates taking up an inordinate amount of space at the top of the article, let's get rid of one of them and move on. Only an administrator can move the article at this time, so I would implore one to take appropriate action when possible.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 17:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, we should move it from Nova Scotia killings → 2020 Nova Scotia attacks as envisioned by the original proposal. That appears to be supported by the above and is vastly better than the current title. Though I agree with NickCT's original comment above that the move might not be the "final" title, and do not think the move should prejudice a further discussion there of some of the alternate names discussed here (ie. 2020 Nova Scotia multiple homicide incident, 2020 Nova Scotia killings, 2020 Nova Scotia shootings etc.) or the development of a WP:COMMONNAME down the road.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
@Darryl Kerrigan and Crumpled Fire: - Thanks guys. This will be a technical move because it's a move over redirect. Nnadigoodluck - Per the discussion on your talkpage, can you just close this RM and perform the move? NickCT (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Per Nnadigoodluck's suggestion on their talk page, I have asked for a move at WP:AN/RFC. The entry is found here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 
let it snow
Agree, let it snow. Ribbet32 (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, apparently our assessment that this is a WP:SNOW move has been rejected at WP:AN/RFC. Perhaps, we should do an RfC on the options (ie attack, killings, mass shooting, shooting, multiple homicide incident etc). There are now so many options, I do not see how we reach a consensus in this section without going through the options. I had hoped we could have done that after an inital move to a less bad option, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Maybe it would be if people weren’t partially supporting and coming up with their own titles as part of their vote. This RM is all over the place. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 02:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose It was a MASSACRE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.228.162 (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose identifying as "2020" so soon. The year is less than 1/3 over; there could be another incident like this in the next 8 months—what would you call that? At the end of the year, maybe call it the 2020 whatever, but not before. "Attacks" may be better than "killings", though. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support NS killings is too general --Cornellier (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment The term "massacre" is appearing widely across well-known news outlets, and I would agree is probably most applicable in this particular incidents. And, it would not be inconsistent with other articles. Suggest Nova Scotia massacre of 2020 or 2020 Nova Scotia massacre. ⌚️ (spennythegent talk) 03:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – the specific naming convention here is WP:NCEVENTS, which prescribes the inclusion of when, where, and what in most article titles about topics like this, even in cases where there aren't any other articles titled "Nova Scotia attacks". I am less concerned with whether to label it "attacks", "killings", or "massacre"—"attacks" seems to be the most neutral-sounding. Mz7 (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Reservations about use of the word massacre. Massacre is a loaded word. The generally accepted term is when it is perpetrated by a group of political actors against defenseless victims of a certain ethnicity or religious group or class of people like in the Armenian massacres or the Rwandan massacres or the Khmer Rouge massacres, basically an attempt to annihilate a large group of people to obliterate their sheer existence now or in the future. It also involves deliberate planning at very high levels prior to execution of a massacre act. A deranged fellow killing some of his countrymen in a massive rage is not a massacre. Tragic as it may, these are killings. werldwayd (talk) 07:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support 2020 Nova Scotia massacre. Doubtless won't be the only attacks or killings in Nova Scotia in 2020; quite probably will be the only event commonly described as a massacre. But whatever, we definitely need the year. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
This will probably be the only notable attack or killing in NS this year. I'm not aware of any other mass killing event in NS having been referred to as a massacre, so if massacre is included in the title, the year isn't needed in it. Jim Michael (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Why would you use other years? This is unprecedented in hundreds of years of Nova Scotia history, and also in the entire nation this century. Nfitz (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Because technically the 1917 Halifax Explosion is also a "Nova Scotia massacre". delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 21:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
It wasn't, because it was an accident. Jim Michael (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Unless there was new evidence that only came to light recently the Halifax Explosion was not a deliberate attempt to kill people so it wasn’t a massacre.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, I feel like it's "attacks" that sound too tabloid-ish for a Wikipedia article title. It sounds more aggressive as a noun. Plus, let's not forget the 2001 Isla Vista killings and the 2014 Isla Vista killings. They use "killings" just fine in their titles without any objections. Love of Corey (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how, per 2001 Isla Vista killings and 2014 Isla Vista killings. Love of Corey (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note - Since the last request was rejected and archived, I have made new request here for this discussion to be closed once it has been open seven days.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Vote for new article title

1. 2020 Nova Scotia attacks

  • None of the options are perfect, but this one seems the least bad for now so we can at least get the year in the title. The page can always be moved later if RS consistently refer to a "massacre," etc.; police themselves have used "rampage." PrimaPrime (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I think this one fits best, because it incorporates the arson which may or may not have contributed to deaths. Even if the arson didn't contribute, I still think including it within the title instead of killings, massacre, homicides, etc. fits better with the scope of this incident.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 17:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

2. 2020 Nova Scotia killings

3. 2020 Nova Scotia rampage
4. 2020 Nova Scotia massacre
5. 2020 Nova Scotia multiple homicide incident
6. 2020 Nova Scotia spree killing
7. 2020 Nova Scotia spree killings
8. Nova Scotia killing spree

9. 2020 Nova Scotia multiple homicide
10. 2020 Nova Scotia shootings

I prefer 2020 Nova Scotia shootings, followed by 2020 Nova Scotia multiple homicide or 2020 Nova Scotia multiple homicide incident, and lastly 2020 Nova Scotia killings. I am not a fan of Attack, because, for some readers, I think this will suggest it was a "terrorist" attack, which it appears not to have been (though this is still leagues better than the current title). I also dislike massacre, spree killings or rampage as those seem inflammatory, non-neutral and not particularly modern mainstream Canadian ways of talking about this topic. Massacre is quite a loaded term, though we have used it historically. Rampage may suggest something about the perpetrator's mental state, which I very much do not want to get into in the title.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
What about the arson involved in the incident? Should that not be considered in naming the article?— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 22:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
No title is going to be perfect here, the main occurrence were the shootings. We are going to end up with a title that is too specific, too vague, too loaded (ie not neutral) or too long (if we try to fit everything in). I think that is the best fit balancing all of those factors. If there were people killed by fire alone then perhaps shooting is not appropriate, but I am not sure that is the case. We could include "ramming" or false "traffic stops" if we try to be too specific in the name. If we just say killing, that ignores the specifics that this was a shooting incident, in favour of including the general other (ie arson, ramming etc).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Best title, in my opinion, would be 2020 Nova Scotia spree killings. Bus stop (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Could the people who want the year in the title when it's unnecessary (such as when massacre / rampage / spree is part of it) say why they want the year in it? Jim Michael (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Certainly. Thanks for asking. The year contributes to instant-identification of the subject being addressed. I reject the argument that the year is superfluous. This is a non-judgmental descriptive title. I am placing minimum emphasis on the aim for "conciseness" which says the title should be "no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects". Please present your counterargument—why should the year be omitted? Bus stop (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Per your explanation & WP:NOYEAR, the year isn't needed in the title & is superfluous. Jim Michael (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Jim Michael, there is an argument for omitting the year per WP:NOYEAR, but it fortunately says "As this is a judgement call, please discuss it with other editors if there is disagreement." WP:TITLE talks about "descriptive titles". That is what this would be. I am not aware of a commonly accepted reference for the incident. As I am (or we are) concocting out of thin air a title to represent the incident, I lean towards instant recognizability. I feel that priority should be given to incontrovertibly identifying the subject being tackled in the article. When the reader is reading the lede they should have a title in their field of vision that assures them of the identity of the subject matter being addressed. Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I would agree the year is not needed if we use a more specific (but perhaps inflammatory) title using one of the descriptors massacre, spree killings or rampage, but it likely would be needed for the more general "Nova Scotia killings", "Nova Scotia attacks", "Nova Scotia shootings" etc.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Strictly speaking the year is not needed. I support the inclusion of the year. I am not trying to find the absolutely shortest title for the article. In my opinion the extra few characters required to represent the year do not represent a terrible violation of our aim for the most "concise" title possible. Why is it so important to have the briefest title possible? Bus stop (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
If a general term such as attack(s), shooting(s) or killing(s) is in the title, then the year is needed. If we use spree, massacre or rampage, then we don't. It's better to be precise. Using one of the latter terms is more descriptive & wouldn't leave any ambiguity. In addition to our policies favouring no year, including the year unnecessarily falsely implies that this wasn't the only massacre, rampage or spree killing in NS. Jim Michael (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
"In addition to our policies favouring no year, including the year unnecessarily falsely implies that this wasn't the only massacre, rampage or spree killing in NS." It doesn't imply anything of the sort. Bus stop (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
If someone said "the 1987 Hungerford massacre", you don't think that implies that there has been more than 1 massacre in Hungerford? You wouldn't find it strange that they unnecessarily attached the year to the event? Likewise "the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting". Jim Michael (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
There is no common name as far as I am aware for this incident therefore any title we choose is a concocted title. In my opinion we should be trying to cover all bases. That is why I feel conciseness can take back seat to thorough descriptiveness. Bus stop (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Poll created by --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Interim Solution

My reading of the above is that there is a consensus that the article should be moved (ie that we agree the current title is bad), and that most of us agree 2020 Nova Scotia attacks would be better than the current title (even if not perfect), but that we are not in agreement on what the final title should be. Does anyone object to me moving it there (as initially proposed), while we continue to discuss the final name? If this is done, I recommend we start an actual RfC following the move which would include the options in the discussion above and any others editors think should be on the list.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 09:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Reply - @Darryl Kerrigan:, we have less than one day remaining until a week of discussion on the move request has transpired. Once this is over, and an uninvolved editor has closed the discussion, we can move the article, if that is what is decided. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
We are unlikely to get a quick close. And I do not see any consensus in the above about the specific name to use, beyond some agreement that the proposal is better than the current title. Sure, we can wait for a proper close, but in my experience that is likely to take anywhere between 1-3 months (given the backlog at WP:AN/RFC). All the discussion above seems to have done is cement a option no one wants. Can we agree to WP:IAR and move it, and continue the discussion or wait for a close for a final title? Otherwise, the title will remain one that there is pretty uniform consensus against until we get a close, whenever that is.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Just append "2020" to the present title, as there is nearly consensus that the year should be there, and then continue an RfC for the wording that is to come after "Nova Scotia". This is a two-step plan. Immediately change the title to "2020 Nova Scotia killings", and then initiate an RfC to address the word(s) at the end of the title. Bus stop (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Fuck "2020", it's awkward and nobody uses it to describe this...thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • When there is difficulty with the first words and the last words, that difficulty can possibly be alleviated by breaking the RfC into 2 RfCs—one RfC for before "Nova Scotia" and one RfC for after "Nova Scotia". Bus stop (talk)
Okay, based on Jax 0677 and Bus stop's comments above, I propose we move it to 2020 Nova Scotia killings and open up a RfC (or two) to continue the discussion and search for a final name. Baring any substantial objection or a close in the meantime, I intend to do so soon (unless someone beats me to it). It should go without saying, that such a move would be an attempt to improve the article while debate continues and should not be interpreted as consensus for this title as a final name for the article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
So much for that plan. I cannot move it because a redirect already exists at 2020 Nova Scotia killings. I am getting an error message: The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. While that should be allowed per WP:MOR, our bureaucratic processes here are not helping. We can make a request at WP:RMT, perhaps as we should have done at the beginning. What a waste of everyone time. Disappointing, that WP:RFCL didn't just do this days ago when requested.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I have asked for a technical move.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
...Which I have reverted since requesting open discussions be closed is not the purpose of that page. Steel1943 (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Steel1943, thanks for that. How would you recommend we deal with this then? We have had many editors suggest this should be moved and we should ignore rules to improve it during the lengthy delay that will be any final resolution. There have been several discussions here to do that and that the deadline is now. Editors previously suggested this was a WP:SNOW close, or at least a sleet one. A request at WP:AN/RFC was closed telling us to wait seven days, despite requests to move it and continue discussion. Now we are waiting indefinitely for a second close request at WP:AN/RFC which if I were a betting man would say will result in no-consensus for any particular title as we now have about a dozen proposals which have been discussed. There seems to be a consensus that the existing title is bad, are we really incapable of timely incremental improvement here?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
@Darryl Kerrigan: Virtually, the only two options to get this closed are:
  1. Wait for someone to notice this discussion on Wikipedia:Requested moves who also feel confident enough to close it (which honestly does not seem to be your preferred option), or...
  2. Go to WP:ANRFC and follow the directions to request this move request be closed (and post the request in the section #Other types of closing requests.
I'd say your best option would be to use WP:ANRFC. But ... per the above, looks like you have already put in a request there. So ... the due diligence to request this be closed has already been done through the proper channels. And I hate to have to put it like this ... but now, we wait. (I suppose the last option would be to post this on WP:AN directly, but I figure doing that would just refer the poster to WP:ANRFC anyways, along with WP:TROUT-ing them.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, sounds like the end of the road. Thanks for the advice, and humour.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:04, 27 April 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.

Firearm Use, Procurement, PAL

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This is an open question. Gabriel Wortman, according to the RCMP, did not possess a firearm acquisition certificate.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/3a83av/nova-scotia-gunman-was-not-a-legal-firearms-owner-rcmp-says

Any firearms he had were obtained illegally. Canadian law stood in his way to procure his weapon(s). He didn't pay any attention to the law. He had his PAL taken from him due to a conviction. The article glosses over this ambiguously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.228.162 (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

That's not a question at all, but it's in the Investigation section. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The PAL part was hidden in a pipelink, should be a bit more visible now. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

age in lede

Latest comment: 4 years ago23 comments5 people in discussion

Is it OK to write, in the lede, "On April 18–19, 2020, 51-year-old Gabriel Wortman committed..."? Obviously Headbomb and Jim Michael are strongly opposed to this. Hoping others will weigh in. Pinging Headbomb and Jim Michael. Bus stop (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The killer's age is rightly in the article, but is not relevant enough to be in the lead & nowhere near relevant enough to be in the first sentence. Jim Michael (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
"is not relevant enough to be in the lead" Jim Michael—Why? Any reason? Just your opinion? Bus stop (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
It's not significant to the killing spree. Jim Michael (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
You are avoiding the question. Why are you reverting my edit? Are you perhaps opposed to collaboration? Was it a person of a different age who committed the killing spree? Are you committed to WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior? What is it? You and Headbomb reverted my edit concerning the person's age immediately. Can either of you explain any of this? There is nothing wrong with the edit I made. Please stop throwing your weight around. Allow others to edit. Bus stop (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
You need to assume good faith. You know that I'm a constructive editor. Us disagreeing about one issue doesn't mean that I'm hostile to you. I reverted the edit, not you. I'd have done likewise regardless of who made that edit. If I didn't like constructive teamwork I wouldn't choose to be a WP editor. I've allowed many edits to take place, including most of yours. As you can see, we didn't revert you immediately - I did so 52 m after your edit & Headbomb did so 11 m after your next. GW's age isn't disputed; the issue is that it isn't leadworthy. Jim Michael (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
That is an immediate revert. We are nor talking about 52 days after I made the edit. We are talking about 52 minutes after I made the edit. That is immediate. The point is that there is nothing wrong with the edit I made. Thus you and User:Headbomb are throwing your weight around. I am willing to "assume good faith" but you haven't presented anything approximating a good reason for immediately reverting my edit. Why was it so damnably important that my edit be reverted? Bus stop (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
It was nowhere near immediate. He & I independently happened to make the same revert on the same day. You're taking offence as though it's personal, when it isn't; you're also assuming bad faith. The reason for removing GW's age from the lead is that it's insufficiently relevant to justify being there. His age had no effect on his killing spree. Jim Michael (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, the age is inconsequential to anything. It's good in the section about the perp, but it's not important to the shooting itself. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Dissecting what went down there, Jim Michael did a perfectly legitimate and routine BRD revert, saying "far too trivial for the lead". I would have said "excessive detail for the lead", but I nevertheless understood his meaning. Bus stop then committed three significant errors.
  • He re-reverted, contrary to the nutshell at WP:BRD: If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus. We are not allowed to keep re-reverting until opposing arguments make sense to us, discussions are not held by re-reverts and edit summaries, and this is an error far more often made by new editors than by editors with Bus stop's experience.
  • He strawmanned Jim Michael's edit summary in his, saying (The age is "trivial"?). Jim Michael didn't say the age was trivial, he said it was far too trivial for the lead. That is clear failure to hear, and I must say part of a distinct pattern that approaches disruptive editing.
  • He then came here and accused other editors of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior for simply complying with standard editing process. If any battleground behavior occurred, it was his. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree that Wortman's age can reasonably be withheld from readers until they reach the Perpetrator section. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Mandruss—we have to be tolerant. Just as important as the imperative to improve the article by successive edits is an unwritten imperative to be tolerant. Bus stop (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
You are confused, as usual. Re-reverting because you disagree with the rationale of a legitimate BRD revert is not improving the article by successive edits. No, we do not have to be tolerant of persistent, ongoing, dogged disruption by one editor who should go back to first grade at Wikipedia Editor School. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Mandruss—being tolerant means not immediately reverting innocuous edits. You seem to think this is a WP:BATTLEGROUND. You also seem to think that we are aiming for a maximally refined product. Wikipedia isn't the counterpart of Brittanica. The reader understands this. The reader understands that they are spelunking around user-generated material. Precision and accuracy are our bywords, not refinement. We aren't trying to achieve a finished product, certainly not a refined finished product, although I will concede that this could vary by topic. I should be immediately reverted if I wrote that the age was 53. But edits that are within the ballpark of acceptability should be tentatively tolerated. Bus stop (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
There is zero basis for your reasoning in Wikipedia PAGs. Per Wikipedia PAGs and per widely accepted practice, any editor is free to BRD-revert any edit that they feel does not improve the encyclopedia, for any reason whatsoever. You don't get to decide the parameters under which other editors are permitted to challenge your edits. If you disagree, Village Pump is thataway. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Mandruss—you are not an auteur at Wikipedia. You are a participant. Bus stop (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm an indentured servant who got held back a month from doing his time by an intolerant mob of Wikipedian self-police, then was suddenly locked in indefinitely by a paranoid mob of Ontarian overlords, and I don't even find ages leadworthy in biographies, unless someone hits 100. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
This isn't a bio. And 51 is the age at which he committed the shootings. And his name is in the first sentence of the lede. In my opinion, age and name are of approximately equal importance in the lede of this article. He didn't commit this act at an earlier age (or a later age). In this thread I read from Jim Michael that "It's not significant to the killing spree" and from Headbomb that "Indeed, the age is inconsequential to anything". The age—51—is the age at which this person committed a mass shooting. We don't need a reliable source to tell us that 51 years of age is significant to this article. Any age at which someone does something like this is significant. And it is the terminal age, as the reader will find out. The perpetrator will not do anything further in his life because his life is over. He has a name and a terminal age and a legacy of mass murder. The article is about the mass murder. In my opinion his name and his age should be considered within the ball park of that which is valid for mention in the lede and should not be reverted on sight. I would be more tolerant than Jim Michael and Headbomb, both of whom reverted my edit. Immediate reverts should be reserved for that which is highly problematic. Perhaps someone can tell me why the name warrants inclusion in the lede but the age does not. Bus stop (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
There's a million facts that are true and verifiable. Yes Wortman was 51. But he was also wearing shoes. He was bald/balding. He had teeth. None of those things are lead-worthy. See also WP:DEADHORSE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Headbomb—it is almost axiomatic that collaboration requires a degree of tolerance. Bus stop (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Sure, but see also the grey fallacy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
You think we should both have waited a minimum amount of time to revert your addition of GW's age to the first sentence?
Why do you think his age to be significant to his killing spree? Is it because he was older than most spree killers? Would you still have wanted his age in the first sentence if he'd been 21 or 31 rather than 51? Jim Michael (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
"Even" in bios, I "hate it". InedibleHulk (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Nova_Scotia_attacks/Archive_4&oldid=1136476155"