Talk:2020 Nova Scotia attacks

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Victim naming conventions

[edit]

Why do the police officer victims get named in the article, but none of the other victims do? It makes it seem like the officer killed and the officer injured are more important than the other victims of this massacre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:99C0:4C00:F962:594C:3C85:F391 (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point. There's teachers who died, and are named in the sources, but we don't name them in the article. The officers that died does not seem to be notable beyond this shooting, so I see no reason for either officer who was involved to be named... none of the victims, actually, should be named as they are also not notable beyond this shooting. Le Marteau (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no guideline or consensus that prevents naming victims as long as they are named in a reliable source. There is not requirement for anyone involved to be notable as this is not an article on them as individuals, it is an article on an event that they are a significant part of due to their deaths within it. They can be included by anyone who wishes to add them. Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a long-standing convention that the naming of victims requires consensus, usually after discussion on the talk page. WWGB (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Run-in with Police

[edit]

Gabriel Wortman had a run-in with the police just before the shootings. The police were illegally parking on his property and he chained them in one morning. I think it was the morning before the shootings. The police later peacefully moved their vehicles. The sources I had seem to have been scrubbed from the internet. Does anybody have links to these old articles? MainePatriot (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, this was not just before the shootings. It happened a year or two prior, and it was not at his home but at his business. I remember reading about it on Frank (in an article published before the shootings. De Insomniis (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include a list of victims?

[edit]

There doesn't seem to be a consensus yet (at least not yet expressed on the talk page) to include victim names in the article, either in prose, or in a list. In the month after the attack, there was considerable opposition to including names in this discussion. It was anticipated that a new proposal to include names would follow, but that doesn't seem to have happened. At some point the names were just added. Also in the discussion above, there seemed to be a lack of consensus to include the names. For this reason, I boldly removed them yesterday. As was mentioned, in the earliest discussion (and in my edit comment) inclusion seems to violate the WP:BLPNAME insofar as it applies to living victims, and the spirit of WP:BLPNAME and WP:NOTMEMORIAL for those killed in the attacks. This was reverted with reference to a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at Talk:2022 Buffalo shooting/Archive 4, where it was decided to include victim names related to that tragedy (preferably in prose), which I do not believe is binding on the editors of this page, nor overly convincing. In any event, I have removed the names again pending a consensus to include them. Should we include the victims names? If so, should this be done in prose of something similar to the previous list of names?-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were bold (fine), you were reverted (fine) but then you chose not to follow the next in sequence-discussion (not fine). WP:BRD You should have come here for discussion before restoring your preferred version. I have reverted your edit. I do not agree with the deletion of the victims names. If you can get a consensus that they should be deleted, I will of course accept that, but in my view your BLP arguments do not hold, WP:NOTMEMORIAL does not apply to this situation, and in general the world (and WP in consequence) has turned towards minimizing recognition to perpetrators and instead recognizing victims, even in article titles. You no doubt don't agree, but it is your job to get consensus here now that you have been reverted by two editors.Slp1 (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be undoing your revert without further discussion here, but you are reversing the WP:ONUS. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. I am not sure what you mean that I chose not to follow the next in sequence-discussion. I am not seeing a consensus for inclusion, if I am missing something, please do point it out.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made it clear what I meant: please read WP:BRD to help you discover a way of determining consensus. You changed the very long status quo consensus and two editors have now said they don't agree with your attempt to change it. Thank you very much for deciding not to edit war and to wait to see what other editors will say.Slp1 (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought you were referring to a "discussion" where some consensus had been reached for inclusion. There doesn't seem to be one. It seems this was added contrary to opposition expressed numerous times on the current talk page and in archives. Yes, I understand that typically a second revert is not preferable per WP:BRD. It is also customary for the editor who did the first revert to take the discussion to the talk page, which did not occur here. I brought it to the talk page. That said, arguing about the good faith of editors is not really productive here. Furthermore, BLP and privacy concerns are reasons not to maintain the status quo, particularly where there never seems to have been a consensus for inclusion, and onus would dictate there should be. If you want to continue to discuss editor conduct, I suggest you bring it to the appropriate forum. Otherwise, I suggest we discuss the content. You have dismissed the WP:BLPNAME and WP:NOTMEMORIAL concerns raised by me, and by others in this discussion and above. Can you explain your reasoning? I would also like to hear from others on this. Perhaps, there is a consensus to include. I would like to hear from others on that as well though, and not prematurely end the discussion.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with excluding these per the reasoning above. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have requested comment at WP:CANADA in the posting here. If you believe this discussion is relevant to another project, please feel free to post a notice on their board, and a note here. Thanks.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAMEMORIAL does apply. This is not a memorial to the victims. Also WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS applies to some of the comments here. Llammakey (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies to "subjects of encyclopedia articles". As this article is not a bio, the deceased are not "subjects". WWGB (talk) 08:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed: Notmemorial does not apply at all. Neither does BLP given that this event happened years ago, and the victims listed are all deceased.Slp1 (talk) 09:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies to articles, not to their content. But the rules are more about the principles they stand for than strict application of them. Both I, and other editors in the previous decisions linked, were referring to WP:5P5 and the spirit of that rule and the spirit of WP:BLPNAME (as applied to deceased victims), when saying it may mean that the names should be excluded, perhaps because they are not really being included for/serving an encyclopedic purpose. Concerning the three victims that survived, WP:BLPNAME does apply.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The real question per WP:NPOV and in particular WP:DUE, is how are victims are dealt with in reliable secondary sources? The answer is they are named extensively in local, national and international newspapers and media (including NYT, BBC, Fox, Skynews) and over time up to 2025, on a list and in longer descriptions of their lives: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] [12][13][14][15][16]. In addition they were all named in two recent academic journal articles[17][18] as well as listed specifically in the Mass Casualty Report [19]. And there are more sources. If high quality sources think it important to acknowledge the victims by name in this fashion, then so should we. Slp1 (talk) 09:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Slp1 here. The names of the victims have been widely publicized. The article should include their names, because the sources do. MediaKyle (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do think this is a good argument for inclusion, and much stronger than the argument concerning "minimizing recognition to perpetrators" and "recognizing victims." I don't think we are required to include the names just because sources do. We can chose to exclude verifiable information for other reasons per WP:ONUS. That said, it is a significant consideration that sources are naming the victims, particularly secondary sources and a government report. WP:BLPNAME states: "When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories." For this reason, the publication of names in academic journals, and more significantly in the Mass Casualty Report, likely overcomes privacy concerns expressed in BLPNAME. Unless other editors raise new cogent reasons to exclude the names, which we haven't already considered, I don't think it is necessary to exclude the names. We should of course ensure that they are included for an encyclopedic purpose, not simply for memorialization, but I am not sure any changes are needed to accomplish this.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]