This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 180 days
![]() |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 13 February 2018. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | A fact from 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 19 June 2018, and was viewed approximately 7,646 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | A news item involving 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 8 February 2019. | ![]() |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A news item involving 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides was featured on Wikipedia's
Current events portal in the Law and crime section on the following dates: |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present. |
He was declared guilty, therefore is a serial killer.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabianbarthe ( talk • contribs) 14:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
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)
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:
Just looking for general thoughts or perspectives I may have overlooked.
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)
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)
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)
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 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:
Section Early life
Section Married life
Section Halloween assault
Section Gay bachelor
Section Project Houston
Section Missing Rainbow Community
Section Apartment and Leaside home
Section Legal proceedings
Section Controversies
Section Alleged 2016 assault
Section Handling of missing persons cases
Section #LoveWins
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)
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)
|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)
(other suggestions)
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)
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.
Thanks again to everyone who took part! – Reidgreg ( talk) 21:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 180 days
![]() |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 13 February 2018. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | A fact from 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 19 June 2018, and was viewed approximately 7,646 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | A news item involving 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 8 February 2019. | ![]() |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A news item involving 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides was featured on Wikipedia's
Current events portal in the Law and crime section on the following dates: |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present. |
He was declared guilty, therefore is a serial killer.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabianbarthe ( talk • contribs) 14:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
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)
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:
Just looking for general thoughts or perspectives I may have overlooked.
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)
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)
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)
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 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:
Section Early life
Section Married life
Section Halloween assault
Section Gay bachelor
Section Project Houston
Section Missing Rainbow Community
Section Apartment and Leaside home
Section Legal proceedings
Section Controversies
Section Alleged 2016 assault
Section Handling of missing persons cases
Section #LoveWins
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)
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)
|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)
(other suggestions)
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)
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.
Thanks again to everyone who took part! – Reidgreg ( talk) 21:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)
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)