Talk:2021 London, Ontario truck attack

ITN nomination

The article has been nominated for WP:ITN Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#London, Ontario car attack.VR _talk 21:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Move to "London, Ontario truck attack"

I'm going to move this page to "London, Ontario truck attack" because that's what the sources are calling it (eg NYT). Since I'm the one who original created the page at "London, Ontario car attack", I don't expect this to be controversial and am skipping the WP:RM process.VR _talk 00:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with title, but should be clear it was a pickup truck[1] and not a larger truck.VikingDrummer (talk) 09:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)sock puppet of banned user-GizzyCatBella🍁 13:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

"Truck attack" is concise enough. Details on the specific vehicle involved don't need to be in the title, they'll be elaborated in the article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. What's more important is the larger picture - it's rightly identified as a "vehicle-ramming attack" in the attack type, and it's this larger context that is more noteworthy, especially as coupled with the motive, which is hate-related. OughtThoughts (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

On second thought, is the vehicle type important, or distracting? There is a Wikipedia article (which is referred to in this article) called "vehicle-ramming attack" that covers all these vehicles and any others that may spring up. Arguing about car vs. truck vs. pickup truck may be missing the larger point - the tactic of

a) using a vehicle to attack

b) people who are usually

i) random

ii) defenseless

iii) not expecting the attack, and

c) which is perpetrated as some expression of an ideology.

We should not miss the forest while obsessing over the trees. Maybe all future article titles of this unfortunate ilk should simply include "vehicle-ramming attack" to put focus on the larger problem. OughtThoughts (talk)

Too long. Per the Rule of Three, Toronto machete attack and Toronto van attack, I'd go with London truck attack. But I appreciate how many would claim disambiguation from the "real" London is probably needed. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

And yeah, there are big differences between getting hit by a truck and a car, like weight and angle of impact. "Vehicle" is simply not precise, at all, beyond less concise. Hard to find it in an actual common name for any mass casualty event (unlike how "London truck attack" easily dominates today's RS headlines and leads). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

London can't be used alone, it commonly refers to London, England.VikingDrummer (talk) 06:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC) sock puppet of banned user-GizzyCatBella🍁 13:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Aye, but it also can be used because it's not alone, this is the only London where the truck attack happened. If it was Old London, it'd be too confusing to call it a truck, so that redlink's available and sources use it. We're essentially both right, hence the contention. It's inevitable and rarely flinching, like arguing about religion. Anyway, may a thing like this never hit Old London's people, by any name. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• There's other options. With no other attacks in London, wouldn't "London, Ontario attack" be better. Also, how is the choice of weapon important ... "London, Ontario Muslim attack" or "London, Ontario massacre" would be sufficient and consistent. We have Concordia University massacre for 4 deaths and 1 injury and not "Concordia gun attack". We have Shedden massacre for 8 shootings, not "Shedden gun attack". We have Lennoxville massacre for 5 shot. This recent trend to include the weapon and the word "attack" seems to miss the point. Nfitz (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

  Dropping the "truck" just makes it less precise. "Massacre" is vague, too, but in those cases, that's the common name. London massacre is surprisingly free, if it ever catches on for this truck attack. We can complain about headline and tagging trends all we like, but jobwise, the guideline says we're meant to base our mainstream crime titles on them. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• This attack - and the large majority of those with a death toll of 4 - aren't usually referred to as massacres.
• There have been truck attacks in London, UK - in the form of truck bombings. Ontario needs to be retained in the title.
• There have been massacres in London, UK, but none of them is known as the London massacre. Jim Michael (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

My original inclination was London, Ontario massacre (and this would fit the Rule of three (writing)), based on the fact that London mayor called it "mass murder" (and what is a massacre if not mass murder?). But most newspapers are preferring to use the term "attack".

If we're gonna do "London, Ontario Muslim attack" then it should be London, Ontario anti-Muslim attack to be clearer.VR _talk 14:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

We shouldn't have murder, terrorism or anything which indicates ideology in the title because the suspect is likely to be tried. We don't want to prejudice proceedings & we don't know that religion was the motive. Jim Michael (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

"Truck attack" is concise enough, again. There have been attacks involving trucks in London, England as has been said so retaining "Ontario" is the most sensible way to disambiguate; "massacre" is a value judgement; adding "Muslim" in any form to the title suggests that this is the only anti-Muslim violence that has occurred in the city (I tell you as I grew up there that that is far from true); plus everything that Jim Michael said here. The current title is the right one. Details on the specific vehicle involved don't need to be in the title, they'll be elaborated in the article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC) (copied and modified from a comment I made on this page at 10:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC))

Yes, many articles include car, van, bus, truck or train in their titles, but we don't usually specify the type. Jim Michael (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Name featured co-worker?

He pops up three times here, rapidly but mixed with claims from police and another co-worker. Could possibly be mistaken for three co-workers; naming him (and giving him his own short paragraph) would be clearer. Name has been publicized by Global News (currently Ref 18), so no apparent privacy problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Naming of victims

Given the wide publicity of the names of the victims, I do not believe it could be considered a privacy concern to list them in this article. They are published in almost every news article on the matter. Braydon r (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree, for the dead. They're mentioned in straight news and profiled in features, locally and globally. Bit more hesitant for the living minor son/grandson/brother, but not very. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

We shouldn't name non-notable victims. There have been many long discussions in recent years on this matter on talk pages of various articles in which multiple nn people died. Media outlets naming them doesn't mean that we should. Naming them adds nothing of use or relevance to over 99% of readers. Jim Michael (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The ayes have the clear two-third majority, and the nays again have no policy-based reason to ignore the significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, let's just project the winner and get it done this time instead of fucking about in foolish circles for a month or more first. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Jim Michael here. They're all WP:LOWPROFILE individuals, naming them would not add anything to the readers' understanding of the subject (i.e. the attack itself). The privacy concerns are especially strong for the surviving minor. I favour a conservative/restrictive interpretation and application of WP:BLP. You say that there is no policy-based reason to ignore the significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, but that misunderstands both what WP:Significant coverage is and how WP:VNOTSUFF works – not including information is the default, we only include that which actively improves the article. TompaDompa (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

It's a story about dead people, relaying who they were is as basic an improvement as the where, what, when and why, hence newswriters not omitting this. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

If it's a straight majority you're after here (notwithstanding WP:NOTAVOTE and WP:CONSENSUS) then I am also opposed to including the victims' names. Early reports indicated the family asked for privacy. Of course news outlets were going to disrespect that but we don't have to. If you want a policy, WP:BLPPRIVACY, WP:NPF, WP:BLPNAME, and WP:BDP. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I also oppose adding the victims' names. Per the BBC, "Two women - aged 74 and 44 - a 46-year-old man and a 15-year-old girl were all killed. They have not been named, in accordance with the wishes of the family." Unless there's a strong policy argument why their names should be included (and I haven't heard one), those wishes should be respected.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 11:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Per Kate Dubinski of CBC News (currently Ref 9 here), "The victims' names were confirmed to CBC News by family members." Wishes apparently change. So should we? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

They've also since had a very public funeral. The dead, anyway. The boy is different indeed. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Naming the dead victims draws attention to the surviving relatives, including the injured child victim whose privacy should be respected. He's 9 & it would be ridiculous for anyone to suggest that he could have made an informed adult decision to waive his right to privacy. Jim Michael (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Noting the kid was the sole survivor of this high-profile incident already draws attention to him. Naming the dead won't change that. But yeah, living minors do have privacy rights, forget about his name. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - I see no reason we should name the victims, and every reason we should not. When it comes to mass-casualty incidents, we do not name victims unless they were individually notable (i.e. The Day the Music Died) or they weren't low-profile to begin with (Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 16:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Or unless they were killed in either of this article's See Also events, the Toronto van attack and Quebec City mosque shooting. Most other Canadian MCEs, too. Precedent and consistency aren't for nothing. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

That sounds more an indictment of those articles than a cogent argument to immortalise low-profile people by associating them with what is ultimately a lethally-tragic turn of events. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 16:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is immortalized in any of them, just plainly noted as the dead ones, per reliable sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

In the large majority of WP articles about events in which multiple nn people died, they aren't named. The reason that they're named in a significant minority of articles is that they were written before consensus became established to not do so. Naming the victims doesn't help anyone. No-one finds out about the death of their best friend from reading in a WP article that (s)he died in a mass-casualty event. Jim Michael (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Of all the Canadian things-like-this, I've only noticed victim names missing from two. Plenty in the rest of the English world, too. They're absent from most non-English sorts, but that's because their police and neighbours don't tell our news, or our news doesn't ask, or doesn't care to tell. Whole other ballgame. If there wasn't already an article about their deaths, the Afzaals would easily meet GNG and have their own article, just based on the same level of coverage Veltman's also getting. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The victims couldn't come close to being notable enough for an article - they'd fail because their only notability is being killed. Jim Michael (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the coverage of their killings was enough to create this article. That's how BLP1E works. The event article is the place to discuss people who are notable for only that event. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the killing of a Muslim family in London, Canada was widely attributed to Islamophobia? Source: "This, and other killings and violent attacks of Muslims in this country in recent years are examples of how Islamophobia is present in Canada, Trudeau said"[2]; "'An Islamophobic act of terror like this has no place in Canada,' Conservative leader Erin O'Toole said...'This is an act of Islamophobia and terror,' NDP leader Jagmeet Singh said"[3]; "MPs unanimously back call for emergency summit on Islamophobia after London, Ont. attack"[4]
  • ALT1:... that three generations of a Muslim family were killed in London, Canada last month? Source: "Canadian Muslim family loses three generations in attack"[5]

Created by Vice regent (talk). Self-nominated at 23:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: - Zahia Kaddoura
Overall: The Copyvio detector showed that violation is unlikely. The second hook is more interesting. This is my fourth review, so I wasn't sure how to check for qpg since the creator didn't mention any other reviewed article on the template page. Salukk (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• QPQ not needed. Relying on review of other requirements by Salukk above. @Salukk: QPQ is not needed, because they nominator has nominated fewer than than 5 DYK. You can check this in the future by selecting QPQ Check in the DYK Toolbox at the top. QuakerSquirrel (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

QuakerSquirrel and Salukk I have now reviewed Zahia Kaddoura.VR _talk 17:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 9 September 2022

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 01:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

---

London, Ontario truck attack → 2021 London, Ontario truck attack – The naming convention for events WP:NCEVENTS states that a majority of events should display the when, where and what of events. Right now, this is one of the few articles from this list of vehicle-ramming attacks without the year in the date. I therefore think it would to add the 2021 to make it WP:CONSISTENT with other titles in this category, and no obvious reason to diverge from the naming convention comes to mind. Pilaz (talk) 15:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2022 (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.