![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Under the timeline for April 19, the article reads Witnesses reported that Wortman then ran towards Stevenson, shooting and killing her, and wounding another officer but the referenced source does not say this is the case at all. The source says witnesses saw another officer dragging her from her car, but the witnesses are presumably unable to distinguish between an RCMP officer and a killer dressed as an RCMP officer, The eyewitnesses are not quoted in the article as saying the other officer was injured. The article says another officer was indeed injured, but does not state where in the timeline his injuries occurred. The wikipedia article seems to make an assumption that he was also shot during the killing of Heidi Stevenson, but this is an assumption not evidenced in the quoted source material. It is known that there were other officer-involved firearms discharges that occurred over the entire course of events, and it is possible he was wounded in another of these incidents unless reliable information suggests otherwise. In short, one cannot conclusively say the person seen dragging Officer Stevenson from the car was Officer Morrison or this was the event in which his injuries occurred without citing further sources. Adwoodworth ( talk) 19:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Andrew Woodworth
References
If something is cited to "a source familiar with the investigation", don't pin it on "police", "authorities", "investigators" or "officials". Those people identify themselves as such. If "law enforcement source" says "investigators believe..." in CNN, then ABC attributes the same thing to "investigators", that's just the same claim recycled. InedibleHulk ( talk) 09:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
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. An earlier edit of this map and caption included the named owners of the properties. I tend to think this is very personal information which I am not sure we need to or should include. What do folks think? Is it appropriate for Wortman? For his victims? Should we avoid this all together? Or is it really encyclopedic and necessary to understanding the sequence of events?-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 23:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Note - I posted a notice on the BLP noticeboard and on the talk page of the editor who appears to have created the image.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 00:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
This should be added to the reactions section, if we think it is sufficiently notable and encyclopedic. [1] It appears that Constable Stevenson was one of the officers who informed and liaised with the family following Rehtaeh Parsons' suicide attempt and death several days later. I will try to come back to this later. If someone wants to take a stab at it now, have at it.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 15:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
"relevant to this case", Headbomb. Constable Heidi Stevenson multiple times visited the home of Leah Parsons following the death of Rehtaeh Parsons. Is there some reason information relating to this should be omitted from the article? Bus stop ( talk) 16:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
"until reliable sources states that Rehtaeh or Leah Parsons as being relevant to this shooting". Reliable sources never state that anything is relevant to anything else. Reliable sources are not mindful of Wikipedia when they publish material. We derive "relevancy" by comparing reliably sourced material with the titles of our articles. Bus stop ( talk) 17:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Reaching out to any Canadians or Nova Scotians. Is there really such a name as "Shubenacadie/Milford"? When I first read the BBC article that named it, I was wondering if it was an error or if it was a broader name for some micropolitan area. Love of Corey ( talk) 21:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Milford is a separate village adjacent to shubenacadie or shubbie as the locals will call it. Nova Scotia has hundreds of villages in each county and the residents are proud to be part of each one they are in. Also the trunk 2 highway is only is more generally known as Highway 2. It was the old North - south highway before the larger, 102, was built. There is a crime scene in both Milford and Shubbie. Probably best to separate them. Shubbie is where he killed his last victim and got his Mazda 3 before stopping at the big stop for fuel and running into an ERT officer and Dog officer in an unmarked SUV also gassing up. Air Java ( talk) 00:55, 24 April 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.
Way too ambiguous. Are we really saying this is the only instance of killings in Nova Scotia history? I realize the police won't confirm this was a shooting only. But at least make it 2020 Nova Scotia killings. Ribbet32 ( talk) 02:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Needs to have a year in the title. And I do not like the word killings Zfamdam ( talk) 17:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
2020 Nova Scotia killings would be better. Devdevo1919 ( talk) 22:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Throwing my support behind a more descriptive title, this is far too vague. -- Selxxa ( talk) 14:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Gabriel Wortman, according to the RCMP, did not possess a firearm acquisition certificate.
Any firearms he had were obtained illegally. Canadian law stood in his way to procure his weapon(s). He didn't pay any attention to the law. Duh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.228.162 ( talk) 00:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Have the State Police evidence of the killers firearms acquisitions.At the time of his attacks, was he under Canadian Law, a legal firearm owner, and if so was the weapon he used part of that legal collection of firearms? or was the killer in possession of and using a firearm that was illegally obtained. It is key to the current CDN governments attack on the over 2 million law abiding legal and responsible firearm owners and how stronger regulations imposed on them will will increase public safety, versus stronger law enforcement measures applied to the criminal element who use firearms for violent acts. Canuk Citizen 2001:569:F863:FA00:4D14:8A7A:594A:B132 ( talk) 01:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The current lede is appalling. There is no foundation laid as to what the article is about it simply goes off talking about details of what happened. This clearly goes against MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH This is incredibly confusing for the layperson and makes the whole section very difficult to read. The lede should be a summary of the whole article and an introduction to the whole article. The current lede is also in no way in line with MOS:LEDE. I have attempted to make constructive edits but this trash version keeps being reverted to under the auspices of selective MOS:BOLDAVOID while ignoring MOS:BOLD. I do not want to edit war, but the lede as it stands is about as good as toilet paper for being a useful lede. Sparkle1 ( talk) 12:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The manual of style is pretty clear that:
If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence
The title of this article is what Wikipeida has [currently] decided the formal name of this topic is. There is nothing to do "iconic "household name" for the event". That is just not the case. The article title is as it currently stands the formal name for the article and the manual of style is clear on how to incorporate that. MOS:AVOIDBOLD can be easily dealt with as the incorporation can easily be done in a natural and redundancy free way. see Dunblane massacre, Oklahoma City Bombing, September 11 attacks, etc. Sparkle1 ( talk) 17:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The name of the individuals is verified and substantiated by numerous reliable sources. This is also notable information regarding the incident. There is a need to remember not to get sentimental or treat this as a memorial to the victims. The name is reliably and verifiably sourced in line with the rules of Wikipedia. It should be retained, not retaining the name would be an omission of information just for what?. Sparkle1 ( talk) 17:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The opening is very small and needs to be greatly expanded. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 18:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I've reverted poor writting several times now. Stop starting the article with awkward phrasings like "During a thirteen-hour period spanning April 18–19, 2020, 51-year-old Gabriel Wortman..." Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 15:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
The article currently reads -- or, at least, gives the impression -- that this is what happened: He did a shooting and set some fires at 10:30 pm. Then, he did nothing all night long. Then, he started up again the following morning at 8:00 am. Is that what happened? Or was he actively engaging in this spree throughout the night-time hours? I am confused after reading the current timeline. And I suspect that my "interpretation" of what I am reading cannot be correct. I "doubt" that he took a break during the overnight hours and then waited until the next morning to resume his spree. Does anyone know? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 04:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I reviewed many reliable public sources, social media and a few other sources. There is a gap in the night we're the perpetrator actions are not public. The closest I got was that he may have been preparing for the morning, however I cannot give you a reliable source for updating this. A line saying details are unknown or not released to cover the gap may help readers understand. As the matter is under investigation, it can be updated later. Air Java ( talk) 12:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Just state the facts. He did a shooting and set some fires at 10:30 pm. His actions are next known the following morning at 8:00 am. --
Khajidha (
talk)
23:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
RCMP investigators in Nova Scotia haven't finished tracing the path of the man they say killed 22 people last weekend, but newly obtained video and audio recordings capture the chaos and confusion surrounding their 13-hour manhunt. [2]
It's unclear and the police themselves are piecing it together. As time goes on more gaps will be filled. The new security camera footage fills in some holes for example. More will follow. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 13:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The wiki reads "who had been at a house party" but none of the referenced sources say the party was a house party and many people interpret "house party" to mean an overnight party at someone's house. In any case, it appears that the party involved a fire on the beach behind the home so I suggest editing the article to reflect the info in the cited sources and simply say "a party at a nearby home". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adwoodworth ( talk • contribs) 17:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't we break this into different subsections? Perhaps, the criminal investigation (into Wortman, and those who may have assisted him in obtaining police equipment), the investigation of the failure to use the Alert Ready system, and the police-related shootings. Does the investigation of the police shooting of Wortman and the one at firehall belong in the same subsection as that of the investigation of Wortman himself?-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 19:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
In the Criminal section it says "Police later said all but one of the firearms had originated in the United States.[15]" When I looked at the linked article it says "The gunman used a handgun and long guns during his attack, and police say they were able to trace one weapon back to Canada. They believe the gunman obtained the other firearms from the United States." I believe that the wiki quote reverses the meaning of the actual linked article. The line in Wiki does not properly identify one known country of origin (Canada) and presents the current police speculation/belief (They believe the gunman obtained the other firearms from the United States) as fact (Police later said all but one of the firearms had originated in the United States). I think it would be better to quote the source directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdsorrentino ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Crumpled Fire (one time user) added Justin Trudeau's immediate exploitation of the 22 deaths to advance his long held desire to ban firearms in Canada. It is a political injection into a massacre by a man who disregarded the law in an infinity of dimensions. No gun law on earth would have stopped this jerk. So, The killings are not a political in any respect. Let's keep it that way, unless it can be establish that his motive were tied to firearms legislation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.228.162 ( talk) 17:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
If anyone thinks there is a better way to word this, please have at it. It seems clear that a civilian drove to the scene to help, and was fired upon by either Wortman, police (presumably by accident) or a civilian defending themselves (presumably by accident). The reporting is murky, so I struggle with how we can accurately say someone else was injured, without suggesting it was Wortman who shot at him (when we don't seem to be clear it was). Hard to word uncertain things in this situation.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 00:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
More info is out so the police have fleshed out more of the timeline of events. Here and here as examples. 00:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
The complexities of the case meant that it took several days to identify all the victims, and several more before the police could release a timeline, and there are still large gaps where Wortman's whereabouts are unknown." Nil Einne ( talk) 03:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor added Wortman's dates of birth and death, referring to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as precedent. My edit summary on my BRD revert fairly sums up my objection and was: "This is not a biography of the perp, so age is sufficient. In response to the cherry-picking, this is per other articles with perps lacking their own article (e.g., Thousand Oaks shooting, Christchurch mosque shootings). Please, don't cherry-pick to support an argument."
Cherry-picking from other articles is unconstructive and misleading, and in some cases even disingenuous. There are always multiple existing articles that do what we want to do. So let's set aside "what other articles do" and just discuss the merits of these dates in this article. How do editors feel about this issue?
(The editor re-reverted without consensus, contrary to guidance at WP:BRD. They did not respond to my UTP request to self-revert, so I am restoring status quo ante pending a consensus to include this content. Discussions are not held by re-reverts and edit summaries – for multiple good reasons.) ― Mandruss ☎ 03:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Under the timeline for April 19, the article reads Witnesses reported that Wortman then ran towards Stevenson, shooting and killing her, and wounding another officer but the referenced source does not say this is the case at all. The source says witnesses saw another officer dragging her from her car, but the witnesses are presumably unable to distinguish between an RCMP officer and a killer dressed as an RCMP officer, The eyewitnesses are not quoted in the article as saying the other officer was injured. The article says another officer was indeed injured, but does not state where in the timeline his injuries occurred. The wikipedia article seems to make an assumption that he was also shot during the killing of Heidi Stevenson, but this is an assumption not evidenced in the quoted source material. It is known that there were other officer-involved firearms discharges that occurred over the entire course of events, and it is possible he was wounded in another of these incidents unless reliable information suggests otherwise. In short, one cannot conclusively say the person seen dragging Officer Stevenson from the car was Officer Morrison or this was the event in which his injuries occurred without citing further sources. Adwoodworth ( talk) 19:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Andrew Woodworth
References
If something is cited to "a source familiar with the investigation", don't pin it on "police", "authorities", "investigators" or "officials". Those people identify themselves as such. If "law enforcement source" says "investigators believe..." in CNN, then ABC attributes the same thing to "investigators", that's just the same claim recycled. InedibleHulk ( talk) 09:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
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. An earlier edit of this map and caption included the named owners of the properties. I tend to think this is very personal information which I am not sure we need to or should include. What do folks think? Is it appropriate for Wortman? For his victims? Should we avoid this all together? Or is it really encyclopedic and necessary to understanding the sequence of events?-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 23:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Note - I posted a notice on the BLP noticeboard and on the talk page of the editor who appears to have created the image.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 00:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
This should be added to the reactions section, if we think it is sufficiently notable and encyclopedic. [1] It appears that Constable Stevenson was one of the officers who informed and liaised with the family following Rehtaeh Parsons' suicide attempt and death several days later. I will try to come back to this later. If someone wants to take a stab at it now, have at it.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 15:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
"relevant to this case", Headbomb. Constable Heidi Stevenson multiple times visited the home of Leah Parsons following the death of Rehtaeh Parsons. Is there some reason information relating to this should be omitted from the article? Bus stop ( talk) 16:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
"until reliable sources states that Rehtaeh or Leah Parsons as being relevant to this shooting". Reliable sources never state that anything is relevant to anything else. Reliable sources are not mindful of Wikipedia when they publish material. We derive "relevancy" by comparing reliably sourced material with the titles of our articles. Bus stop ( talk) 17:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Reaching out to any Canadians or Nova Scotians. Is there really such a name as "Shubenacadie/Milford"? When I first read the BBC article that named it, I was wondering if it was an error or if it was a broader name for some micropolitan area. Love of Corey ( talk) 21:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Milford is a separate village adjacent to shubenacadie or shubbie as the locals will call it. Nova Scotia has hundreds of villages in each county and the residents are proud to be part of each one they are in. Also the trunk 2 highway is only is more generally known as Highway 2. It was the old North - south highway before the larger, 102, was built. There is a crime scene in both Milford and Shubbie. Probably best to separate them. Shubbie is where he killed his last victim and got his Mazda 3 before stopping at the big stop for fuel and running into an ERT officer and Dog officer in an unmarked SUV also gassing up. Air Java ( talk) 00:55, 24 April 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.
Way too ambiguous. Are we really saying this is the only instance of killings in Nova Scotia history? I realize the police won't confirm this was a shooting only. But at least make it 2020 Nova Scotia killings. Ribbet32 ( talk) 02:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Needs to have a year in the title. And I do not like the word killings Zfamdam ( talk) 17:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
2020 Nova Scotia killings would be better. Devdevo1919 ( talk) 22:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Throwing my support behind a more descriptive title, this is far too vague. -- Selxxa ( talk) 14:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Gabriel Wortman, according to the RCMP, did not possess a firearm acquisition certificate.
Any firearms he had were obtained illegally. Canadian law stood in his way to procure his weapon(s). He didn't pay any attention to the law. Duh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.228.162 ( talk) 00:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Have the State Police evidence of the killers firearms acquisitions.At the time of his attacks, was he under Canadian Law, a legal firearm owner, and if so was the weapon he used part of that legal collection of firearms? or was the killer in possession of and using a firearm that was illegally obtained. It is key to the current CDN governments attack on the over 2 million law abiding legal and responsible firearm owners and how stronger regulations imposed on them will will increase public safety, versus stronger law enforcement measures applied to the criminal element who use firearms for violent acts. Canuk Citizen 2001:569:F863:FA00:4D14:8A7A:594A:B132 ( talk) 01:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The current lede is appalling. There is no foundation laid as to what the article is about it simply goes off talking about details of what happened. This clearly goes against MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH This is incredibly confusing for the layperson and makes the whole section very difficult to read. The lede should be a summary of the whole article and an introduction to the whole article. The current lede is also in no way in line with MOS:LEDE. I have attempted to make constructive edits but this trash version keeps being reverted to under the auspices of selective MOS:BOLDAVOID while ignoring MOS:BOLD. I do not want to edit war, but the lede as it stands is about as good as toilet paper for being a useful lede. Sparkle1 ( talk) 12:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The manual of style is pretty clear that:
If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence
The title of this article is what Wikipeida has [currently] decided the formal name of this topic is. There is nothing to do "iconic "household name" for the event". That is just not the case. The article title is as it currently stands the formal name for the article and the manual of style is clear on how to incorporate that. MOS:AVOIDBOLD can be easily dealt with as the incorporation can easily be done in a natural and redundancy free way. see Dunblane massacre, Oklahoma City Bombing, September 11 attacks, etc. Sparkle1 ( talk) 17:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The name of the individuals is verified and substantiated by numerous reliable sources. This is also notable information regarding the incident. There is a need to remember not to get sentimental or treat this as a memorial to the victims. The name is reliably and verifiably sourced in line with the rules of Wikipedia. It should be retained, not retaining the name would be an omission of information just for what?. Sparkle1 ( talk) 17:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The opening is very small and needs to be greatly expanded. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 18:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I've reverted poor writting several times now. Stop starting the article with awkward phrasings like "During a thirteen-hour period spanning April 18–19, 2020, 51-year-old Gabriel Wortman..." Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 15:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
The article currently reads -- or, at least, gives the impression -- that this is what happened: He did a shooting and set some fires at 10:30 pm. Then, he did nothing all night long. Then, he started up again the following morning at 8:00 am. Is that what happened? Or was he actively engaging in this spree throughout the night-time hours? I am confused after reading the current timeline. And I suspect that my "interpretation" of what I am reading cannot be correct. I "doubt" that he took a break during the overnight hours and then waited until the next morning to resume his spree. Does anyone know? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 04:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I reviewed many reliable public sources, social media and a few other sources. There is a gap in the night we're the perpetrator actions are not public. The closest I got was that he may have been preparing for the morning, however I cannot give you a reliable source for updating this. A line saying details are unknown or not released to cover the gap may help readers understand. As the matter is under investigation, it can be updated later. Air Java ( talk) 12:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Just state the facts. He did a shooting and set some fires at 10:30 pm. His actions are next known the following morning at 8:00 am. --
Khajidha (
talk)
23:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
RCMP investigators in Nova Scotia haven't finished tracing the path of the man they say killed 22 people last weekend, but newly obtained video and audio recordings capture the chaos and confusion surrounding their 13-hour manhunt. [2]
It's unclear and the police themselves are piecing it together. As time goes on more gaps will be filled. The new security camera footage fills in some holes for example. More will follow. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 13:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The wiki reads "who had been at a house party" but none of the referenced sources say the party was a house party and many people interpret "house party" to mean an overnight party at someone's house. In any case, it appears that the party involved a fire on the beach behind the home so I suggest editing the article to reflect the info in the cited sources and simply say "a party at a nearby home". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adwoodworth ( talk • contribs) 17:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't we break this into different subsections? Perhaps, the criminal investigation (into Wortman, and those who may have assisted him in obtaining police equipment), the investigation of the failure to use the Alert Ready system, and the police-related shootings. Does the investigation of the police shooting of Wortman and the one at firehall belong in the same subsection as that of the investigation of Wortman himself?-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 19:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
In the Criminal section it says "Police later said all but one of the firearms had originated in the United States.[15]" When I looked at the linked article it says "The gunman used a handgun and long guns during his attack, and police say they were able to trace one weapon back to Canada. They believe the gunman obtained the other firearms from the United States." I believe that the wiki quote reverses the meaning of the actual linked article. The line in Wiki does not properly identify one known country of origin (Canada) and presents the current police speculation/belief (They believe the gunman obtained the other firearms from the United States) as fact (Police later said all but one of the firearms had originated in the United States). I think it would be better to quote the source directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdsorrentino ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Crumpled Fire (one time user) added Justin Trudeau's immediate exploitation of the 22 deaths to advance his long held desire to ban firearms in Canada. It is a political injection into a massacre by a man who disregarded the law in an infinity of dimensions. No gun law on earth would have stopped this jerk. So, The killings are not a political in any respect. Let's keep it that way, unless it can be establish that his motive were tied to firearms legislation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.228.162 ( talk) 17:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
If anyone thinks there is a better way to word this, please have at it. It seems clear that a civilian drove to the scene to help, and was fired upon by either Wortman, police (presumably by accident) or a civilian defending themselves (presumably by accident). The reporting is murky, so I struggle with how we can accurately say someone else was injured, without suggesting it was Wortman who shot at him (when we don't seem to be clear it was). Hard to word uncertain things in this situation.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 00:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
More info is out so the police have fleshed out more of the timeline of events. Here and here as examples. 00:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
The complexities of the case meant that it took several days to identify all the victims, and several more before the police could release a timeline, and there are still large gaps where Wortman's whereabouts are unknown." Nil Einne ( talk) 03:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor added Wortman's dates of birth and death, referring to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as precedent. My edit summary on my BRD revert fairly sums up my objection and was: "This is not a biography of the perp, so age is sufficient. In response to the cherry-picking, this is per other articles with perps lacking their own article (e.g., Thousand Oaks shooting, Christchurch mosque shootings). Please, don't cherry-pick to support an argument."
Cherry-picking from other articles is unconstructive and misleading, and in some cases even disingenuous. There are always multiple existing articles that do what we want to do. So let's set aside "what other articles do" and just discuss the merits of these dates in this article. How do editors feel about this issue?
(The editor re-reverted without consensus, contrary to guidance at WP:BRD. They did not respond to my UTP request to self-revert, so I am restoring status quo ante pending a consensus to include this content. Discussions are not held by re-reverts and edit summaries – for multiple good reasons.) ― Mandruss ☎ 03:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)