Talk:2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides

are you creating a new Bruce McArthur article?

He was declared guilty, therefore is a serial killer.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabianbarthe (talk • contribs) 14:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

As concluded here, the consensus was made that this homicides article would not be moved but that a separate page would be created for McArthur. At this point, it's a matter of separating the 2010-2017 homicide info (which will remain here) and some McArthur info (which will be used on the new page). I believe people are waiting for the McArthur case to cool down to sort information. Handoto (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Handoto: While splitting was suggested as an alternative to moving, a decision to split was beyond the scope of that move discussion. The move discussion closed with consensus to not move. There was no consensus about a split. It was stated that an article about the killer can be split off if necessary [emphasis added], but the necessity of this has not been determined. I'd appreciate holding off another discussion until I manage to do a bit of a rewrite on the article. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Sensitivity and privacy concerns

Can I get some other opinions on the article's sensitivity toward the victims and their families? I reverted this IP edit which took the sourced information with history of drug use out of a table. The IP's edit summary stated selim was a very nice person, and such a comment like drug use, is offensive to him and his family. I felt it was relevant because it represents a vulnerability of the victim (which is what that column of the table was trying to convey), because [Selim] Esen and McArthur had both used the same drug rehab program, and because recreational drugs were allegedly used by McArthur in an alleged attack (which may have been a murder attempt).

I have tried to be sensitive while presenting the relevant and established information about the subjects. I tried not to present people as gay if they did not openly identify as gay, for example, and I tried not to name people who were peripheral to the case or to list complete addresses.

I would also appreciate thoughts on a few specifics:

• Should McArthur's son, daughter and wife be named? (I'm thinking it isn't necessary, though it's easier to write his son's name than "McArthur's son" repeatedly.)
• Should the victim of an alleged assault be named? In this particular case, there is documented evidence consistent with McArthur's pre-kill rituals, and the person's name was published a number of times. Guidelines say we can use his name. However, he was traumatized by the attack and then again by survivor's guilt, and I don't want to make it any more difficult on this person.
• When it comes to images, should one of McArthur's widely published smiling photos be used? Some found these objectionable, that he appeared to be gloating. (I'm not a big image person and will have to look into this further.)

Just looking for general thoughts or perspectives I may have overlooked.

• I agree with your reversion of the drug use content — for starters, using drugs is not automatically in conflict with being a nice guy. Some drug users are nice guys and some are not, but there's no inherent relationship between the two things and it's not our role to pretend there is.
  For McArthur's family members, I'd default to excluding their names on WP:BLPPRIVACY grounds. They're suffering enough as it is (I know I'd need a shitload of therapy if I ever found out that my dad was a serial killer) without having their names permanently linked to his on one of the most widely-read websites in the world — so we really shouldn't violate their privacy unless a really good reason, much more compelling than "somebody in the world might want to know", emerges to make including their names in the article important. (For example, if three or four years from now one of them publishes a memoir about their process of coping with the revelation, that would be strong grounds for adding their name here.)
  For the assault victim, I'm of two minds — I can see both sides of the argument, though again my instinct would be to err in the direction of his personal privacy rights.
  For photos, I'd think there would be valid grounds to include one of the "smiling" photos (assuming a legitimate fair use claim can be made for it, since there's a prior copyright issue), so long as the article actually contextualized it with some text about the fact that there was controversy around the police's use of a photo that made him look like a happy-go-lucky grandpa. It probably shouldn't be used in the infobox, but there would probably be a valid case for a sidebar thumbnail somewhere in the body that placed the photo next to a paragraph of commentary on the photo controversy.
  That's my two cents, anyway. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • There's a fair use rational for the short section Media use of photos (which also discusses Lisowick's mug shot and the post-mortem photo of Kanagaratnam). GA reviewers are going to want more pictures, so I'll have to read up on the rules about photos released by the police, pictures (particularly selfies) taken by people now deceased, and missing persons posters which are designed to be disseminated. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Given that details of his life appear first, this article does more to humanize McArthur than his victims. It would be better for details on the victims to appear first in the article as they do in the article on the Pulse shootings (Orlando nightclub shooting). Also, while the intent of the table may be to demonstrate common factors which made the victims vulnerable, its visual prominence places too much focus on those vulnerabilities. The introductory paragraph for the Victims section presents these facts with greater sensitivity, as do the paragraphs on each of the victims. The word choice "leading a double life," while technically true, places focus on the individual as deceptive rather than on the social norms which made such a life necessary. Finally, what is the purpose of the level of detail given about McArthur's early life and married life? Ajcburrows (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ajcburrows: Thanks for your input. There was some discussion about splitting this into a biography article and an article on the police investigation, which I think would address some of your concerns. Others are more difficult. Because this wasn't a single crime incident but was spread over several years and locations, it isn't as simple to make generalizations about the victims or to set context before the crimes occurred. I tried with the introductory paragraph before the table, and I feel it's better with the table than without. If you have a more neutral way of stating 'leading a double life' that will fit in the space constraints of the table, I'd appreciate hearing it. Even the name of the article is problematic; the only other commonality is McArthur, but would putting his name in the title give too much prominence to the perpetrator? – Reidgreg (talk) 04:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Thanks for getting back to me. I agree that splitting the article would help address those concerns, though I don't think many of the details are relevant. I do think it would be appropriate to move the description of the victims to the top of the article. Regarding the table, I think it would be best to remove the notes section. The similarities are well-detailed in the introductory paragraph and in a way that puts the focus on the lack of supports the men faced rather than blaming the victims. It would be possible in the table. You might write something like "Afghan immigrant closeted by social homophobia," but I think what's written in the paragraph is easier to understand. You'll see I made a small edit there to avoid blaming the victimes. I understand the challenges and appreciate that the effort was made not to use his name in the title. Ajcburrows (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

You make a good point, that there should be something about the victims in the lead. And further down it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a paragraph about queer refugees and closeted men from certain cultures, to give context. I think in some cases there may be a problem with "closeted" which implies that they're gay, and I don't think we're supposed to say someone is gay unless they identified as such. For your edit (diff) I think there might be an issue in attributing a cause for the 'closeted' behaviour (eg: homophobia) which isn't in the source. When I checked the source, I found that this needed to be paraphrased and rephrased it. I think that does need work, but I'm not in a position to review all the sources right now. I hope to find time in the next six months to rewrite and split this article, and replace some of the breaking-news sources with higher quality sources that have emerged in the last couple years. This article was written as the story unfolded in the news, and it has needed an overhaul since the subject stabilized. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: I think it's a good idea to have something about the victims in the lead, but my point is that the entire section should appear before any details about McArthur. This is the case in the Wikipedia article for the Orlando nightclub shooting, and the emphasis on the victims over the killer is important. I appreciate your concerns around the word "closeted," but there is no perfect, unbiased way of describing the situation. The current wording of "keeping aspects of their lives secret" places the focus on the individuals as people who lie at the very least by omission. It implies that they are in some way responsible for their victimization. Something like "being forced to keep aspects of their life secret" at the very least would not blame them. The following article would be a good source for a rewrite of that section https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/serial-killer-bruce-mcarthur-plucked-his-victims-from-margins-of-society-1.4283846 Ajcburrows (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

"Amyl nitrate"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I note that this article mis-spells the name amyl nitrite as above. I acknowledge that this error is common, and I believe that the sources spell it wrongly too. Nevertheless, it is a mistake. I would rather spell it correctly in running text, with a footnote that sources spell it wrongly, than use the sic template, especially as amyl nitrate is a real, and different, compound with different properties. It's perhaps a bit like carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, which also differ by one oxygen atom and have very different properties. What do others think? --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

We don't alter direct quotes. Right or wrong, a direct quote has to be quoted absolutely verbatim with a sic plopped down on the errors, rather than "corrected". Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

It isn't a direct quote. Apart from that, you make a good point. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think given that the sources aren't competent with the chemistry and folks here aren't that bothered about it either, maybe our readers don't need it and just poppers is fine. Those interested enough can click on the link and discover the joys of alkyl nitrites. Does that work? --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It is beyond me to make an in-depth review of the sources to determine whether they are reliable for chemistry. As per my edit summary, that spelling was used by 10 sources (I didn't cite them all per WP:OVERCITATION but if wished I could link them here). Presumably, they were all following the spelling from a 2003 court document. One of them quoted a sentence from the court report, and I made sure to cite that source and put it in quotes with the [sic]. If this was a spelling error, the fact that it was reproduced so broadly suggests to me that we should also reproduce it, per sources. "Poppers" alone might be a bit ambiguous. I would prefer to hear more opinions before taking any action. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    • If this was a spelling error? I take it you aren't familiar with this area! Nobody would take amyl nitrate recreationally as it has no drug effect. In what sense would you say that poppers is "a bit ambiguous"? The article explains very well that poppers are alkyl nitrites (not nitrates) that are inhaled for their muscular relaxant and psychoactive effects. I feel quite strongly that this Wikipedia article should not repeat a mistake that sources were too lazy and incompetent to check. We should aim higher than that. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
      • @MarchOrDie: Making this judgement call on what you believe the court and sources meant in this particular case seems to me to be original research. Also, I feel that it is disruptive editing to continue to make edits on something which has been contested and is under discussion (see WP:BRRR) and invite you to self-revert until consensus has formed. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Your meta-opinion is noted. I think the discussion is over though; I note you aren't discussing any longer but merely nitpicking now. Indeed there is nothing to discuss. Knowing one's arse from one's elbow on a topic is a long, long way from original research. --MarchOrDie (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
      • I reverted back to the [sic] version as part of a time-consuming manual revert that I had to do following the improper application of a script (outside the bounds of MOS:DATEFORMAT which specifically does not apply to citations). The threshold of original research is being able to determine something "without specialized knowledge". If knowledge of chemistry is needed to tell the difference, that would seem to make it OR. Feel free to return to this after familiarizing yourself with the policies and guidelines. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Gosh. You're revealing that it isn't only Chemistry you are ignorant of. On what grounds did you revert? I really don't want to get into an edit-war, but you're approaching vandalism here by adding something we know to be untrue. --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
          • Your specialized knowledge says it's untrue. 10 reliable sources back it up. Using the [sic] gives a compromise fully in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you have something to say based on policy and guidelines, I'll hear you out. But repeating your opinion (and making ad hominem attacks) adds nothing to the discussion. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
            • Are the sources reliable chemistry nomenclature sources? Since they are not reliable for that purpose, they should not be used for that purpose, unless we really are going to use a direct quote, which I don't see as useful here. Instead, we should do as MarchOrDie has done, and use the correct spelling, so that we link to the correct compound. I agree we should stick to source material, but where the source material is acknowledged to be wrong, we aren't bound to repeat their mistakes. --Jayron32 17:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
              • • Also, per WP:RS, "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable;" This is clearly one of those cases. It is right there in policy: if a reliable source gets something wrong that is outside of their own area of reliability, we aren't bound to follow them. We know that this compound is supposed to be spelled amyl nitrite, and as such, we should use that spelling. Because that's what actual, reliable, chemistry sources call it. --Jayron32 17:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
              • @Jayron32: Is it possible that you are missing the context? This is not an article about chemistry and drugs. This is an article about law and crime, and the sources are reliable for that (at least two of the authors specialize in such reporting). The article is not discussing what the drug is. The article is discussing what was entered into evidence in a court of law and what the ruling of that court was. Those are the "facts" being summarized. I believe there are legal issues and BLP issues to altering what was stated in court. Is it not important that the article faithfully reflect the court record, particularly as many records associated with the incident are no longer in existence? I'm not convinced that it is the proper course of action to second-guess a legal ruling (and especially to do so without inline comment). On the other hand, is there anything particularly wrong with the style "amyl nitrate [sic]"? It is factual in the context of the records of this legal case. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
                • To the degree that this article discusses chemistry and drugs, it is an article about chemistry and drugs, and it ought therefore to deal with these aspects of the story accurately rather than inaccurately. If it's important to you to reflect the sources' errors in the article, there is the option of using a footnote to point this out, as previously suggested. --MarchOrDie (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
                  • But if someone admits in court to using "amyl nitrate" and the court ruling prohibits them from using "amyl nitrate" should we not report it thus? Changing it to "amyl nitrite[s]" is not factual to the court ruling. Should we not err on the side of caution here? If one is a recreational drug (I'm not certain of its legal status in the jurisdiction) and the other "has no drug effect" (from comments above), it would be less harmful to use the latter. Stating something potentially harmful about a living person which is unsourced/unverified would seem to be a BLP violation, and makes no sense to me when there is a viable alternative. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
                    • So you've had time to make eight posts here and one unhelpful revert, but haven't had the few seconds it would take to apprise yourself of the substance's legal status? Allow me. Alkyl nitrites are not banned per se in Canada, but their sale as intoxicants is. If this is a real concern for BLP, perhaps a visit to WP:BLPN is in order? --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Jayron32 for your cluefulness. I've restored the factual version as it didn't seem right to leave a counter-factual version up while we discuss. If there is anything else to discuss then I am open to it, but really there was no need for all this. User:Jayron32 has hit the nail on the head. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@MarchOrDie: on Wikipedia, when an edit is contested, we discuss the matter until a consensus is formed. Consensus is reached when the involved editors consent to a solution. It is not reached (and discussion summarily closed) the moment that a single editor agrees with you. Making a contentious edit on a matter under discussion is disruptive editing ("continues editing [...] despite opposition from other editors", "Does not engage in consensus building"). Please refrain from such behaviour. Furthermore, your double-revert changed a lot more than the central matter under discussion here. I have twice warned you about WP:BRR (above and here). I invite you to self-revert to the earlier stable version of the article. I would rather resolve this through consensus than by escalating dispute resolution. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Your further meta-opinion is noted, and so is your failure to engage on the actual matter under discussion. --MarchOrDie (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

* Edit request: Could I ask one of the other editors to revert this edit. This edit is MarchOrDie's second reversion to the matter under discussion while it was under discussion, and also undid a time-consuming manual revert of an ill-advised script edit (the script, User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates has a known bug in that it strips non-breaking spaces from dates which are advised throughout MOS:NUM and should be kept according to MOS:RETAIN, and the script is not advised to be used on articles as developed as this). I'm afraid that if it remains much longer it may require another time-consuming manual revert. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't advise that. Restoring information you know to be incorrect would cross the line into vandalism. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I should expect that level of WP:IRONY after you said I was "nitpicking" in this discussion you started over one letter in a word beginning with "nit". – Reidgreg (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

It's certainly true that "nitrate" isn't the correct chemical name of poppers, but it's not just a one-off error either — in common usage, poppers are virtually always called "amyl nitrate" and never "amyl nitrite", and chemical nomenclature sources are literally the only ones that ever actually get their chemical name correct. So if we "corrected" the sources, a lot of people would perceive that as an error as well, and there'd be a constant reversion war to "fix" it back to "nitrate". So the most appropriate compromise between common terminology and what's actually correct is to keep the spelling the sources actually use, embedded in quotation marks with a [sic] — and doing that doesn't prevent us from linking to the correct article, either, because we can easily still pipe a link to the correct article behind the sicced direct quote. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The sources use "poppers" which is correct and we should stick with that as we know it to be true. I think Jayron32 has already explained why WP:RS would not support the use of something we know to be wrong, even if otherwise-reliable sources use the wrong spelling. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree with Bearcat. This is why Wikipedia has rules for verifiability and faithful reproduction of quotes, to avoid pointless edit wars over what editors feel is "right" or "true". I personally feel that the sources are being cautious by following the court ruling verbatim, as to do otherwise could be libellous. I don't believe the RS argument applies here, as they are reliable for reporting on this court event (I would not, however, use them for the poppers article). – Reidgreg (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• What if we avoid the problem by using "[[amyl nitrite|poppers]]" and not listing the chemical name at all. Let people click the link if they are interested. --Jayron32 12:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • We currently link to poppers, which is true to the sources (both sources use the word) and correct. No problem with changing the target of the link. Interested users can, as you say, click on the link. I think this is definitely the best possible solution. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    • So instead of having the unsourced, harmful and misleading text "amyl nitrite" you propose to have a piped link making an unsourced, harmful and misleading connection to amyl nitrite. I feel as though the (unpiped) link to poppers is more than sufficient. The poppers article discusses the recreational drug, which is more context-appropriate than amyl nitrite which discusses it as a chemical compound. MOS:SPECIFICLINK states Always link to the article on the most specific topic appropriate to the context from which you link. The lead of poppers links to amyl nitrite (and also alkyl nitrites, isobutyl nitrites, isopropyl nitrites), while amyl nitrite only links to poppers in its body, so it is easier to find your way from poppers to amyl nitrite than the reverse. MOS:LINKCLARITY states that The article linked to should correspond to the term showing as the link as closely as possible. Furthermore, if "poppers" is within quotes, as it was in the stable version of the article (which makes it clear that this slang term is taken from the court documents and not added in Wikipedia's voice), then the link should only target the meaning intended by the quote's author (MOS:LINKQUOTE). Piping to amyl nitrite has the same issues as stating "amyl nitrite" in the text, plus the above. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
      • I'm having trouble understanding why you characterize linking to or using the correct spelling is harmful or misleading. Can you clarify? --Jayron32 18:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
        • The harmful part would be in regard to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, as above. I'll be happy to discuss any of the cited policies and guidelines if you have specific questions, but I believe that it's been made clear that there are several policy-level issues which make this more than a trivial spelling concern. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
          • I think you're being a bit silly. If the sources say "poppers" and incorrectly gloss it as "amyl nitrate", we silently correct the sources (which are not authorities on chemical nomenclature), either by keeping just the true bit (our current modus vivendi), or (as Jayron32 suggests) by adding the correct spelling. This really isn't difficult. It's our mission to create a free encyclopedia which is accurate. For the second time, if you really have BLP concerns here, WP:BLPN would be the best place to raise this. I'd be genuinely interested to see what the folks there would think. WP:CRYBLP is an interesting essay to read if you haven't seen it. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Sounds like the solution is to leave it as it is then. Glad we were able to come to an agreement. MarchOrDie (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  I'm fine with leaving the amyl nitrite out then, if it is such a point of contention. If using the correct spelling causes people undue stress, and we have a link to poppers anyways (which they can read to find out more), then leaving it out should be fine. I still don't know why being correct is so problematic for people, but it is, and if leaving the terminology out entirely causes them to not get upset and become rude towards others, everyone wins. --Jayron32 18:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion closed without consensus; polling opened at Talk:2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides § RfC on drug name. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2019 (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.

Overlinking

I think that there are many terms that need not be linked, or are multiply linked throughout this article. Here is a list that I have come up with:

landscaper

life imprisonment

Section Early life

Toronto (2nd link)

one-room schoolhouse

Section Married life

Toronto (3rd link)

gay village (2nd link)

Church and Wellesley (2nd link)

bankruptcy

Section Halloween assault

sic

barred (restraining order) [maybe this provides some additional information??]

DNA

TPS (2nd link)

Section Gay bachelor

dating app (2nd link)

sic (2nd link, and I personally think it's unnecessary to begin with)

landscaper (2nd link, ditto on the unnecessary)

Santa Claus

Section Project Houston

TPS (3rd link)

cannibal

Dodge Caravan

Section Missing Rainbow Community

gay pride

Section Apartment and Leaside home

Leaside (2nd link)

planter boxes (2nd link)

OPP (2nd link)

Section Legal proceedings

life imprisonment (2nd link)

Section Controversies

Cleveland

Chicago

US $

Section Alleged 2016 assault

TPSB (2nd link)

Section Handling of missing persons cases

Facebook

Globe and Mail (2nd link)

Section #LoveWins

Kristyn Wong-Tam (2nd link)

I also wonder whether all of the geographic/location references need to be linked: St. Michael's Hospital, Yonge Street, Thorncliffe Park, Agincourt Mall, Rosedale, Leaside, and many, many others. Jkgree (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jkgree: The article has been in the news quite a bit in the past two weeks and saw frequent updating as material was released. For example, there was note of the Dodge Caravan as the crucial early evidence in the investigation, so I put that in a couple paragraphs earlier and then somebody linked it. You're quite right that it shouldn't be linked twice in one section (WP:OVERLINKING). However, there are still changes being made (I plan to rewrite the article once things calm down) and the order things are mentioned will change, and consequently the first-mention links will have to be changed. I personally don't feel it's worthwhile to worry about it now, but feel free to fix some of these if you want.

I will note that the article is quite long, and in some cases I feel it's okay for things to be linked in multiple sections (rather than requiring the reader to scroll up and up in search of the link). For example, Kristyn Wong-Tam features prominently in the #LoveWins section and I thought it was worth linking her there. The link of the Globe and Mail in Media use of photos was discussing their editorial decision and I thought that was a useful place to link it, especially if the reader wished to compare with the Toronto Star which was linked in the same paragraph. I'd also note that the article gets some international readership and we might want to link terms which aren't common outside North America. I feel the neighbourhoods should be linked; the streets if they're notable. He worked at Agincourt Mall so that's worth linking, but could probably do without linking the hospital. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Controversies

I can see this article has some major issues; let me highlight the "controversies" section. When the article is in better shape, the contents of this section will have been integrated into other sections. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Noted, though as I've been reviewing they seem more connected than in my first rewrite/expansion. There's the initial reactions, then the victim blaming comment leading into the leaked reports of the alleged 2016 assault and the release of a post-mortem photograph, and then the external review (and perhaps soon a provincial inquiry). I will try to summarize it a little better, but I feel a certain amount of separation by subject works better than a purely chronological article. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC on drug name

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was that while the chemicals amyl nitrate and amyl nitrite are distinctly different, that a trivial spelling error was made which should not be perpetuated. Also, that there is no need to directly quote the material, though it is advised to be quoted in the citation template with the |quote= parameter to give the unaltered text with a sic. A footnote explaining the difference in sources is also advised. Poppers is the most-appropriate link to give in-text and should be presented in double quotes on first use as a slang term. Other terms could possibly be linked in the footnote for comparison. Reidgreg (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

---

In the section 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides § Halloween assault, which summarizes court records about an assault by a living person, how should the first mention of the recreational drug be phrased? – Reidgreg (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposals

0. amyl nitrate or "poppers" (status quo)
1. amyl nitrite or "poppers"
2. amyl nitrite or "poppers" with a footnote that sources spell it differently
3. "amyl nitrate [sic]" or "poppers"
4. "poppers"
5. poppers
6. poppers (a link to amyl nitrite piped as poppers)

(other suggestions)

Discussion

Fairly intensive discussion was held on this talk page (§ "Amyl nitrate"). It has been attempted to summarize all points of that discussion here:

Several sources for this specific case each use both amyl nitrate and poppers: CTV News, Toronto Star, Toronto Star, Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, CBC News, New York Post, Toronto Sun, and Metro News (no longer available online). The first of these specifically quotes the court documents: “McArthur said he didn’t know why he committed the offences but admitted to consuming amyl nitrate (known colloquially as “poppers”) on that evening,” according to the documents. The other sources appear to be following that same spelling from the 2003 court documents.

During discussion, it was stated that the correct chemical nomenclature is "amyl nitrite" and that this is chemically distinct from "amyl nitrate". It was acknowledged that (rightly or wrongly) poppers are commonly referred to as "amyl nitrate". MOS:CHEM recommends to be mindful of IUPAC's advice [for chemical nomenclature] but do not follow this advice rigidly, especially when the advice deviates from mainstream usage. It was also noted that there are several other chemical names which may equally be considered poppers, including alkyl nitrites, isobutyl nitrites, and isopropyl nitrites. To avoid edit-warring between these, it was suggested to quote the court documents as "amyl nitrate [sic]" or "poppers". Per MOS:PMC, trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment but If there is a significant error in the original statement, use [sic].

Note that poppers is a slang term which may be informal for encyclopedic tone. It was suggested that the proposed [sic] version with quotation marks would help avoid possible ambiguity from poppers alone while showing that it was quoted and not in Wikipedia's voice. It was countered that reader confusion was a non-issue as readers could follow the linked term to an article which explained it, and that a direct quote was not useful.

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS (a subsection of Wikipedia:Reliable sources) was cited: Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable. It was then stated that all of the above sources must be unreliable for the drug's name because they were "wrong" and that reliable chemistry sources should be used instead. It was countered that the context was law and crime, not chemistry and drugs, that at least two of the authors specialize in crime reporting, and that the sources were faithfully reporting on the records of court evidence/testimony/ruling. MOS:LEGAL states Where primary and secondary sources conflict factually, the primary source should be given priority. Combining the court sources (to say he used a drug) with unspecified chemistry sources (to say what the drug was) could be synthesis of reliable sources.

Biographies of living persons (BLP) policy may also apply. It notes the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment and Contentious material about living persons [...] that is unsourced or poorly sourced [...] should be removed immediately. There may be issues in making unsourced deviations from the court record regarding a living person. It was stated that such concerns were "silly", noting WP:CRYBLP.

It was suggested to pipe the link as [[amyl nitrite|poppers]]. It was countered that, because there is a more relevant article at poppers, this would go against MOS:SPECIFICLINK, MOS:LINKCLARITY and, if poppers is part of a quote, MOS:LINKQUOTE.

Strong feelings were expressed that the article not repeat a mistake by "lazy and incompetent" sources, and that it was the job of editors to provide accurate and correct information. It was noted that second-guessing the court records and using the spelling "amyl nitrite" by applying specialized knowledge of chemistry/drugs without a source for verification may be original research (OR). It was countered that putting incorrect information in the article was vandalism.

No consensus was reached amongst the four editors involved. More opinions are sought, and further discussion that might illuminate the best course of action may be added below. Thank you. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Support

You may support more than one proposal; please include reasons for support or opposition. Thank you for taking your time to help resolve this matter.

• Support 3: Verifiable with multiple sources, compliant with BLP and MOS; "poppers" alone would be too informal and somewhat ambiguous. Oppose 1, 2 as unsourced BLP, 6 per MOS. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support option 3, possibly with a link to a note explaining the situation, something like "The recreational drugs commonly called poppers are often referred to in sources, including in court documents referenced in this article, as 'amyl nitrate'. Poppers are actually amyl nitrites." Or whatever is accurate. Let's not perpetuate an easy-to-fix error, but if we don't somehow explain that many of the sources made an error, well-meaning editors will come along and try to "correct" the text that is accurate on this page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I am also in support of some version of Option 2. Option 3 would be useful if there is a need to quote directly from a source that uses the wrong term. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support 2: Googling turns up a number of sources which do use nitrite with an i in reference to McArthur: [1]—so using the correct name wouldn't be OR. gnu57 16:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • FYI, a Google News search shows only four of those: BBC News, The Washington Post which is quoting the BBC story using the BBC story as a source, the third is in Vietnamese and appears to be derivative of The Washington Post, and the fourth is Daily Mail which has apparently been blacklisted as a tabloid. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support 2: As per gnu. Lfstevens (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support 2: No need to dwell unnecessarily on the clearly erroneous use of "nitrate" in some sources (even primary ones). Use of "[sic]" should be limited to situations where a direct quote is for some reason necessary in spite of an error it, or the error is itself a subject of interest. Just stating the correct name, and noting the error in a footnote is preferable here. Option 4 or 5 would also be fine, as the target article provides more information about the drug.--Trystan (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support 2, but I'm not against 3 with more explanation in a note like Jonesey95 suggests. The other options just don't give enough context, though. Sancho 03:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support 3, as more precise and accurate as to the material; option 2 would also work. Normally, I would say "link the real name, not the slang", because "poppers" is primarily North American slang (and may even be old slang – it seems to date to the 1970s; I'm not sure it's current), and more importantly the term poppers even in N.Am. vernacular is more frequently a reference to fried, batter jalapeño peppers stuffed with cheddar cheese or cream cheese. If some street drug had gained a slang name of "Buffalo wings", WP wouldn't call it that. However, with "nitrate" not being the usually-acceptable spelling, linking either of them is kind of a "lesser of two evils" choice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support 2 Like the other editors stated above, poppers by itself is too informal and the use of [sic] should be limited to certain cases. The footnote can explain the misspelling. Someone963852 (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support variant of 2: Link amyl nitrite in addition to "poppers," per MOS:UNDERLINK, since it's more accurate than the latter. In the footnote, in addition to noting the different spelling, use the quote parameter in the "Cite web" template to quote specifically the court papers with the misspelling, e.g., "amyl nitrate [sic] (known colloquially as “poppers”)" Would also support similar variant of 3 with such a footnote (cf. Jonesey95's suggestion above). --Shadow (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose 0 for propagating an error. Oppose 1: Per MOS:PMC only "trivial" spelling errors should be corrected without comment, and the extent of this dispute suggests that the misspelling is anything but trivial. Strongly oppose 4, 5, and 6 as contrary to WP:SLANG --Shadow (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2, but the footnote should explain that many sources get it wrong, i.e. the spelling error suggests the wrong chemical, not just a simple misspelling. Let's not hold back on explaining what's true, based on better sources, and avoid propagating errors. Dicklyon (talk) 06:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1, 2. Version 1 is fine but I see but !voting is clearly leaning towards version 2, which is also reasonable. Unless text is an explicit quote (which we have no need to do here), our job is to accurately summarize information. We don't mindlessly copy typos, inaccurate slang, or clear cases of sloppy science terminology. Even if we had zero sources saying amyl nitrite, there is no credible dispute here that every source is discussing amyl nitrite. We should accurately summarize that information. Alsee (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support 4, and I'm a bit surprised there isn't more enthusiasm for this version. Everyone seems to agree that poppers are not necessarily amyl nitrite, so any version that treats "amyl X" and "poppers" as being synonymous is necessarily inaccurate. Even the footnoted version heads off in an irrelevant direction. Likewise, linking to "amyl nitrite" is inaccurate as well. The quotes around "poppers" in option 4 clearly indicate that this is a street name, and the poppers page is the appropriate target. NillaGoon (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2019 (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.

Thanks again to everyone who took part! – Reidgreg (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Way too much detail, BLP issues

I came across this article via the RfC and here's my primary reaction: the article has WAY too much detail, to the extent that it might even be in violation of our BLP policy. The lurid details of exactly who did what and who said what is just unencyclopedic and over-invasive. Do we need to know that the photos of erect penises on McArthur's bathroom wall were of men who appeared to be East Indian, and that McArthur laughed over it at breakfast? Do we need to know that victim "John" was Middle Eastern and married and had not told his family that he was gay? And so on and so on. I understand that this material may be verifiable, but that doesn't mean it should be included. The readers of Ontario newspapers might be tickled pink about all of this meticulous info, but that's not our audience. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and as such our readers are entitled to a summary of these homicides without the lurid and personally invasive details. At a minimum, information about victims and other non-public figures must be limited. I'm not going to watch this page, as I'm just passing through, but I am going to post something about it at WP:BLPN. R2 (bleep) 18:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ahrtoodeetoo: thanks for dropping by. You don't have to reply if you don't have time. I agree that this article has too much detail and is too long. The article was largely put together from "breaking news" sources and caution was exercised to not combine sources but to state the published facts of the case so that readers could draw their own conclusions. Ideally, these sources should be replaced over time as deeper analysis of the crimes is published. The guilty plea and sentencing came up somewhat unexpectedly (a year before his scheduled trial) and I have been wanting to use the various agreed statements of facts to better summarize and replace some of the cautious language from when these were allegations, and to generally rewrite the article. I've made a small start in this effort, but edit warring and discussions have delayed me from productive work on the article.

To your specific points, it is a fairly central feature of the crimes that McArthur primarily preyed upon closeted gay men from the Middle East and South Asia, who were willing to engage in secret BDSM sex. This made them easy victims and made the crimes less likely to be detected. In respect to "John", this shows that he fit the victim profile and readers can draw their own conclusions about whether it was an attempted murder, as no charges were laid regarding the incident. It also helps to demonstrate that McArthur was a danger right up until the moment of his arrest. Photographs were part of his pre- and post-kill rituals. This should be better summarized.

For BLP, I was more concerned about naming some of the people that don't have to be named, as mentioned above (§Sensitivity and privacy concerns). But an edit war broke out and I felt that I had to stop editing to let things calm down. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. The details in this article might be relevant--but that doesn't mean it's appropriate for an encyclopedia. For instance, there's a world of difference between saying that McArthur had pornographic materials in his apartment suggesting a preoccupation with East Indian men, and saying that there were photos of erect penises on McArthur's bathroom wall of men who appeared to be East Indian and that McArthur laughed over it at breakfast. Moreover, users do not need to know the victim profile, the make and model of McArthur's car, etc. The objective in writing this article should to provide an overview of the subject matter to disinterested encyclopedia readers, not to present a case to a jury or to present an expose that will allow readers to "draw conclusions" about the charges. R2 (bleep) 17:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bueller 007: I agree with the {{too much detail}} maintenance tag you placed on the article. I'd intended to rewrite and split the article into two (one biography and one about the crimes/investigation) but I left it to cool down after an edit war broke out and haven't yet gotten back to it. I do hope to fix it up and take it to GAN, but it's going to be a while still before I have time for a thorough overhaul. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Page move to abbreviated years

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Seventyfiveyears: A few days ago, you performed the page move 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides → 2010–17 Toronto serial homicides without discussion. MOS:AT notes that, subject to Wikipedia:Article titles, the MOS applies to the title. MOS:YEARRANGE notes that non-abbreviated years in ranges are generally preferred and gives examples consistent with this article's title before your page move. While there is an exception for cases where space is limited, there are many other long article titles which use the full four-digit years in ranges, such as List of Peabody Award winners (2010–2019), List of animated series with LGBTQ characters: 2010–2014, 2010–2012 Algerian protests, 2010–2014 Portuguese financial crisis, List of MPs for constituencies in Scotland (2010–2015), List of Desert Island Discs episodes (2001–2010), Orlando City SC (2010–2014), History of Saturday Night Live (2010–2015), 20-Year Strategy for the Irish Language 2010–2030, List of Proton launches (2010–2019). The only exceptions I found were for things like sports seasons (periods of less than a year which overlap calendar years) and a minority of cases for full decades (e.g.: 2010–19). So in following the convention of other article titles, unabbreviated years in ranges seem to be preferred. For consistency and clarity, I feel the title before your move is better. What do you think? (BTW, there are previous move discussions in the archives at Talk:2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides/Archive 1, in which some editors thought the year range was 'clunky'.) – Reidgreg (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Seventyfiveyears: I have patiently tried to discuss this with you and left multiple talkback messages on your talk page alerting you to this. Since you are not interested in discussing your page move, I assume that you have no problem with it being moved back and have filed a Technical Move Request to do so at WP:RM. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:13, 5 September 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.