Jump to content

Talk:2026 Tumbler Ridge shooting

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

Time in relation to MST and PST

[edit]

There appears to be a discrepancy between the times recorded, most likely due to Tumbler Ridge using Mountain Standard Time while most of the rest of British Columbia uses Pacific Standard Time (a one hour difference). For example, the current text used in the page is "The police emergency alert was cancelled at 5:45 p.m." This matches the time given by the RCMP news release,[1] but does not match the times posted by School District 59 and the District of Tumbler Ridge.[2] The time difference happens to be one hour. Problem solved, right? The RCMP must have been using PST in their news release. Unfortunately, it's not this simple. Assuming that the RCMP news release was in PST, that means the RCMP received a report of an active shooter at the school around 2:20 p.m. However, the article also says "An emergency alert was released by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) at around 2:15 p.m., asking residents to shelter in place due to the active shooter situation." It would be impossible for an emergency alert to be issued 5 minutes before the first reports. Either this time is also using PST, or something went wrong when converting times. Maybe Alertable could help but it appears today's alerts have not been archived yet so it only shows cancelled alerts. However, if you see the time the civil emergency was cancelled, it says 6:08 p.m. (PST) or 7:08 p.m. (MST). While it would make sense if it was delayed 23 minutes, (RCMP and PST time or SD59 and MST time), there's no evidence that the cancellation couldn't have been delayed 1 hour and 23 minutes. While this is more unlikely, there are very much some unexplained discrepancies. If anyone could help explain this or try and figure it out, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, DRWiki1102 (talk) 04:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Tumbler Ridge RCMP (February 10, 2026). "Update: Police Emergency Alert incident in Tumbler Ridge cancelled". Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia.
  2. ^ "Lockdown and Secure and Hold at TRSS & TRE - February 10, 2026". School District 59. February 10, 2026. Retrieved February 11, 2026.

To add to article

[edit]

Basic information to add to this article: the specific types of weapons that were used. ~2026-90336-1 (talk) 05:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A majority of the information related to the shooting is being withheld as it's extremely recent; the perpetrator's name hasn't even been released yet. Yessyesss (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Under Canadian law the identity of Juveniles is often withheld. I am not sure this information will ever be published. Squee22 (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Identity of shooter

[edit]

RS for “Shooter is female”?

[edit]

According to the BBC “Authorities say they know the attacker's identity but have not revealed their name and gender - earlier, a shelter-in-place alert described the suspect as a "female in a dress with brown hair"”.(https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cr5lnzqdr5pt). That’s a RS for shooter is “unknown”, but is there a RS for shooter is female? Springnuts (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the actual report from the authorities quoted by that same BBC article? But I'm not attached to keeping 'female' in the article while the identity of the perpetrator is in fact unknown. All will become clear in time, and in the meantime there is more serious misinformation to counter. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
no way to do that until official sources clarify so the page should be semi protected for now NamelessPsychopath (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Requested it at [5].Psephguru (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
it's either a female or a transgender female, the possibility of a male was ruled out at the very least NamelessPsychopath (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The current sources are not unreliable and at least 1 IS canuck.Psephguru (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just added AP too.Psephguru (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is, of course, worth noting that initial reports from incidents such as this often contain errors, which cannot be corrected until fuller facts are known later. We should obviously follow the latest reliable sources. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources in British Columbia are -

Deadliest?

[edit]

The lead says that it's the deadliest since the École Polytechnique massacre. I think this is a little confusing, as there are 10 confirmed for this and 15 confirmed for École Polytechnique. I think this is meant to imply that it's the deadliest seen after, but I think it needs reworded for understanding. Maybe I'm just a little tired, but it confused me. I thought it meant that École Polytechnique used to be the deadliest but had been surpassed—maybe deadliest after or something similar instead? ⚠︎ ArkadenBoden ⚠︎ (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is it about the ordinary meaning of the word 'since' that is unclear here? GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To my eye, the current phrasing would naturally imply the correct interpretation. This is a pretty standard use of the word 'since.' radioactOlive(she/it)(talk) 13:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to outright oppose this suggestion but "deadliest since" is a stock phrase for disasters/mass killings that I think readers would be most familiar with. Bremps... 13:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fair point, but it could be used in both the context of saying "this is the worst seen since this event" meaning that it's not worse than the event itself, but that something of such severity isn't commonplace after the event occurred (or that it's of similar severity). It can also be interpreted as being worse than the other event, as I interpreted it. I do understand that my own misinterpretation may not be common, or that I may be overthinking it.
⚠︎ ArkadenBoden ⚠︎ (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that you're overthinking it; it's that the logical meaning of 'most X since Y' is that at or before Y there may have been an event that was more X, but not after it. It is absolutely standard wording for events that do not set overall records, but which are the most significant in recent times. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see that I misinterpreted. My apologies for the unneeded discussion.
Much love, rock on!
⚠︎ ArkadenBoden ⚠︎ (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, I'm not sure mentioning École Polytechnique is necessary in the first place. It's only mentioned in this [https://globalnews.ca/news/11662421/canada-school-shootings/ which gives more information on past shootings in Canada rather than what happened at Tumbler Ridge.
⚠︎ ArkadenBoden ⚠︎ (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've just realised that we should remove that claim anyway, as it's not true. The Nova Scotia attack in 2020 had 23 fatalities, as against 10 here and 15 at the Ecole Polytechnique. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that! I removed it.
⚠︎ ArkadenBoden ⚠︎ (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
MSM and blogs probs watch wiki anywasy ;) Psephguru (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back, I see that the reference was originally to the deadliest school shooting since Montreal, and the Nova Scotia attacks were not a school shooting. However, I'm not sure that reintroducing the claim is helpful unless it becomes more prominent in reporting. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this the deadliest shooting at a public school in canada? Like a regular secondary school, or anything of the like? Ecole polytechnique was a college, not a public school. Isn't this the deadliest shooting at a school where students are required to attend? Motherwell6 (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (to my knowledge), it is. I doubt that's relevant to add unless reported on. I've never seen these types of shootings separated by whether or not the school was public.
⚠︎ ArkadenBoden ⚠︎ (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The former École Polytechnique is not a college, @Motherwell6, but a university that's part of the Université de Montréal. But I agree it's not a school in the way we usually think. Surely this is the largest school shooting of kids ever - though we still don't know how many of the 6 deaths were students. Keep in mind that there's never been a multi-person murders of students in a Canadian secondary school. The only elementary school shooting was back in 1902 - though it's not clear if it was one or two students who were killed. At the same time, the ages of those killed haven't been released. Normally such shootings are domestic or workplace violent, and students aren't those that shot - though that seems unikely with 6 dead. Nfitz (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I assume canadian education is different than what I am familiar with (UK and US) since one of the injured was 12 years of age, and this was at a secondary school, which doesn't make sense for a 12-year-old to be attending Motherwell6 (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I must have misremembered ecole polytechnique or confused it with dawson college Motherwell6 (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Motherwell6: the infobox in our article on the school says it comprises Grades 7–12, implying an age range of about 12–19. In urban areas there are usually “senior high” schools dedicated to Grades 10–12 (Grades 7–9 being often called “junior high”), but combined schools are not uncommon in less populous districts.—Odysseus1479 20:23, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Alright thanks for the information Motherwell6 (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This varies entirely from province to province, and even school board to school board. In Toronto I've never heard of Grade 8 being a Secondary School. In Montreal I've never heard of Grade 7 (Secondary I) not being High School. Nfitz (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gun control chronology

[edit]

Can we get this right, please? I had the Order in Council following the 2020 Nova Scotia shooting correctly placed relative to the 1996 BC law, with the appropriate reference attached. People keep rearranging that paragraph, both putting events out of chronological order and splitting the refs about the 2020 attack from the specific change they relate to. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The first act was 95 from Ottawa, 96 was BC and 2020 Ottawa again. Not sure about order in council.Psephguru (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Order in Council is a regulatory instrument used (in this case) to change the classification of arms under the 1995 Act. I adapted the wording from another article originally, but the point is that some firearms were restricted after the 2020 attack under an act from 1995; the Order in Council is the mechanism for changing the classification without replacing the Act itself. I have, however, removed the specific reference to the Order in Council, as it seemed to be confusing rather than helpful. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
PROBS fine then. 95 canada, 96 BC and then 2020 amendments?Psephguru (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and I've expanded that paragraph a little to make that clear. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

relevance of "a very safe community"

[edit]

@Psephguru: what's the relevance of this to the shooting?

Tumbler Ridge councillor Chris Norbury had described the community as safe saying: "It is an incredibly safe community... we don't have to worry about crime here."

ltbdl (skirt) 16:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I added that - it's background that was included in the source. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Salmon Of Ignorance: this is something that was said after the shooting, so i don't believe it can be considered "background". it's also irrelevant to the shooting itself. ltbdl (bite) 16:53, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's the councillor giving background on the town, and it's relevance is subjective just like most things in the background. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
mm, ok. i've made it clear that this statement was made after the shooting and fixed the reference link. ltbdl (call) 17:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks that looks good Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 09:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I had nothing to do with that eithee,Psephguru (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
you reverted my edit that removed this sentence. ltbdl (taste) 16:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Resolving ongoing edit war

[edit]

User:ACasualEditor97 User:Psephguru There's evidently some disagreement here. Please discuss this on the talk page (as the banner suggests) rather than debating in the edit summaries. Bremps... 16:53, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I posted above several hours ago and there has been no reply or attempt to resolve. So I put up the dispute tag to try and resolve it. It was then removed withut even trying to resolve it. NOTE NOT on content, but the tag.Psephguru (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure.
My point would be fundamentally that we don't have a name, a picture, or any official record of who the shooter was published by Canadian law enforcement or any credible news outlet.
Going off "person wearing a dress" is silly. Just use gender neutral language until official information is provided. We undoubtedly will get official confirmation in a few days. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
i cited credible outlets saying female. A RS is more credible and it is also beyond "person wearing a dress". You just ignore the source and changes topics.
where does "they" come from? ZERO sources say that.Psephguru (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's no mention of the shooters identity, name, background etc in any mainstream news outlet. Give it a few days, its ambiguous for now.
Claiming your source said such and such when it clearly did not, makes me wonder if you *read* your sources. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I literally cited them: "RCMP Superintendent Ken Floyd told reporters that investigators had identified a female suspect. Which is more than "person wearing a dress" (which is also to RS and not your personal opinion of 'they'0).Psephguru (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They identified a "female" suspect at the time. Since then they found the shooter with a self inflicted gunshot wound and have not updated us on their actual identity. Give it some time, there's no rush here. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
RCMP RS sourcedd claims have not been corrected by RS.Psephguru (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, their identity is not “ambiguous”, it just needs to be officially confirmed for anyone here to make the change. ~~ ~2026-94593-8 (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As the disagreement is over a single word I reworded the sentence to remove it. There's no contested information now, so no tag is necessary. If there is a consensus reached then someone can add the old sentence structure back (or not). Bremps... 17:15, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The tag was also over CFIS trying to say it was not plural.Psephguru (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just put an accommodation to ACasualEditor97 to wit 1-2 days. Keep the infobox blank for now.Psephguru (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Other points

[edit]

Per above, this is wrong. i'm not reverting it myself but it needs to be removed.Psephguru (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I noted above, it's accurate; the Nova Scotia shootings weren't at a school. I left this mention out because I'm not convinced of the merit of excessively narrow superlatives; but I don't mind it being readded. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your statement. From what I've read, the Nova Scotia shootings were at several locations, and never even touched a school. The École Polytechnique did claim 14 lives, all at the school. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 18:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It was a university though - adult on adult. Surely it's kids killed that is key for any comparison - which could make 6 the only shooting since 1902 where more than one student was murdered inside a school. Though it's not 100% clear to me if it was one or two students killed in the 1902 Altona shooting. Nor have there been any identification of the 6 murders as students - which I expect they likely are. Nfitz (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

[edit]

There's an orange 'disputed' tag on the article, which is currently an obstacle to it being featured at ITN. Aside from people trying to push claims about the shooter's identity which do not appear in any RS, what, if anything, is the substance of dispute about the facts of this article meriting the use of that tag? GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the dispute is related to the identity of the shooter? I may be wrong. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 18:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's no RS for any identity, so I don't think that's meaningfully in question. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to revert, but the sources do say female.Psephguru (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
CTV News is definitely a RS. https://www.ctvnews.ca/vancouver/article/tumbler-ridge-shooter-identified-ctv-news-confirms-live-updates-here/ --The Cosmonaut (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Perpetrator field is blank right now with just a source link and nothing else. Someone with authority should update the name or delete the field if its not being used. ~2026-93898-3 (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hidden.Psephguru (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The shooter is named as Jesse Strang, who is transgender. Languagemaniac234555 (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not in RS.Psephguru (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You all doubted me and removed my edit. Sorry I didn’t provide the source earlier, i followed this closely. It’s all out in the open now. ~2026-93740-7 (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Create a real account and contribute in earnest and in good faith. Dr Fell (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The name has been given on CTV I believe. I'll paste a URL if I can confirm. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC).[reply]
here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:37, 11 February 2026 (UTC).[reply]
The name is the same as provided earlier by another editor citing non-RS Juno News. CTV isn't citing their source for this. And CBC and Global News are still not identifying the shooter. I think it's best to wait for CTV to declare their source (ideally RCMP) and other RS to match their coverage. Dr Fell (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree. Thank you. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Concur, but also tried to fine an accommodation.Psephguru (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic reactions

[edit]

Nearly every BC politician at the provincial and municipal level has released a statement offering condolences at this point, but I think the only relevant ones aside from the premier's and party leaders' are those of Tumbler Ridge's MP, MLA, and city officials.

A paragraph could begin with the topic sentence "Several politicians in Canada offered their condolences, including Canadian prime minister Mark Carney and BC premier David Eby," with details from other prominent politicians and local representatives. I don't think, for example, that the statement made by the MP for Vancouver Granville is particularly notable, given Vancouver is nowhere near Tumbler Ridge and pretty much every politician in Vancouver has done the same thing now and released a statement. Yue🌙 (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Bremps... 18:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is what we have. Mayor (as local head), direct MP (as representative), BC and then Ottawa. Alth9ugh not MLA yet.Psephguru (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Vancouver Granville is not the riding that Tumbler Ridge falls under. Yue🌙 (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how relevant Ken Sim's statement is either, but his shouldn't take precedence over those of the mayor of Tumbler Ridge or the city's other officials. Yue🌙 (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to chnge it and thanks for the explanaion.Psephguru (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Shooter ID update

[edit]

CTV News ran a piece identifying the shooter. CTV is an actual news agency and not a blog. I may have added the info a bit quickly; let's wait for other outlets to confirm CTV is correct. Bremps... 18:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and thanks.Psephguru (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Cyanhurricane was scrambling desperately to remove all evidence (including mine), but the truth is out now. Languagemaniac234555 (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not an unexpected or unreasonable revert if you add a name to a developing story without a source. Yue🌙 (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we had agreement on the the shooter name per CTV but the name field was just removed. Suspect section is still largely blank. ~2026-93898-3 (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We should wait until other major outlets publish the name too. I do not see it on the recent articles from BBC, CNN, CBC, AP, NYTimes, WaPo, etc. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See above.Psephguru (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree CTV is a major canadian news source and is widely considered reliable, it should be added now Motherwell6 (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not to keen on the whole waiting for additional sources as previously it was just said that the name needed a reliable source well now we have one and still keep waiting. Motherwell6 (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to find an accommodation [6].Psephguru (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSBREAKING is a related guideline:

Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaperand it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help spread potentially false rumors. This gives journalists time to collect more information and verify claims, and for investigative authorities to make official announcements ... seek multiple independent sources which independently verify ...

—Bagumba (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC):Police have named the person now EvergreenFir (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's on BBC news now. Time to update the article ~~ ~2026-94012-6 (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It was already updated. Toadheart (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
BBC have given the name of the shooter as Jesse van Rootselaar on television, looks like RCMP Announcement, but you will need a link to confirm. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:02, 11 February 2026 (UTC).[reply]
Also on Sky News on their ticker. It's now well known ~~ ~2026-94012-6 (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 February 2026

[edit]

2026 Tumbler Ridge shooting → 2026 Tumbler Ridge shootings2026 Tumbler Ridge shootings – Two shootings occured, if we want to be factual we would much rather use the "shootings" terminology not just a singular "shooting" that would give the impression that only one shooting occured. shane (talk to me if you want!) 19:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per condition - I'd say to wait to move until it is confirmed that the two shootings are connected or not. Personally, if they are connected then don't move, if they aren't connected, then move. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 19:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They have been confirmed to be connected. Can we change this to an Oppose? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxfyre (talk • contribs) 21:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So far from what I have been reading and seeing, both of them are connected shane (talk to me if you want!) 19:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@EditorShane3456: We don't usually change votes (other than our own), and turning this one into an "Oppose" wouldn't change much. "If they're connected then don't move" is pretty clear. Renerpho (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That was not me?????????? shane (talk to me if you want!) 23:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, very strange. I'm not sure who added that comment ("They have been confirmed to be connected. Can we change this to an Oppose?"), and when. Renerpho (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2026 (UTC) Okay, I found the comment and added a signature. Sorry about the confusion, this looked like the comment was yours. Renerpho (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They are connected. CtrlAltSpace (he/him) 04:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG support absolutely plural by all sources.Psephguru (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support: this article covers two shootings, not one. TheTechie[she/they] | talk? 19:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support: At the press conference the RCMP have (in my opinion) officially linked the two shootings[7].
"The incident at the home occurred first, then the suspect went to the school, he tells the press." Futochu (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support: two attacks, so plural. Neo Purgatorio (pester!) 20:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the precedent set by 2020 Nova Scotia attacks being plural. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. The article isn't about one shooting. - Sebbog13 (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others Red dwarf (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - We have the Uvalde school shooting as just SHOOTING, despite him attacking his parents. JaxsonR (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the Sandy Hook article also formatted like that? (As in being named shooting despite Lanza also attacking his mother) TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 21:09, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" JaxsonR (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others, this was two shootingz ~2026-21637 (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above CtrlAltSpace (he/him) 04:01, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment The shootings described as precedent by @JaxsonR itself got more coverage than the attack on the parents thing, just wanted to say that. shane (talk to me if you want!) 21:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: this is one connected incident even if it involved multiple nearby locations. The naming is consistent with that of other similar incidents. A redirect 2026 Tumbler Ridge shootings already exists. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 21:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support: As others have said there were two shootings at two locations SteffoStefonion (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Arguments of the type "we have X (singular)" do not hold water. There are numerous examples where we use the plural, including: 2005 Red Lake shootings, 2009 Winnenden shootings, 2013 Santa Monica shootings, Aracruz school shootings, La Loche shootings. Rather than arguing that "other stuff exists", we should focus on the core policy to find a name, which is WP:COMMONNAME. Do the reliable sources call it a "shooting", or "shootings"? Renerpho (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fyi, the "in the news" section on the main page is talking about "shootings" (plural).[8] Renerpho (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these shootings took place in very very different locations. For Example the 2009 shooting took place in 3 cities. JaxsonR (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The 2009 shooting took place in 2 cities (Winnenden and Wendlingen) about 15 miles apart. The other examples took place within a single town/city. Renerpho (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these are spree killings too. This is not. JaxsonR (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is a valid point. Renerpho (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We do classify this as a spree killing in the article. Whether that's correct is probably a different discussion. I cannot find any sources that explicitly call it a "spree killing" or a "spree shooting", although a few like CNN are talking about a "spree", while also using "shooting" (singular) exclusively. Renerpho (talk) 02:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sources, I oppose the move, per WP:COMMONNAME. Few reliable sources are using the plural, and there's no strong reason why we shouldn't follow the sources. Renerpho (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are other policies to consider as well. Users trying to see if there was a consistent name were trying to cover WP:CONSISTENT: The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. It seems in this case, we don't have a consistent name. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Super Goku V. I forgot what that policy was called. The lack of a consistent name in this case is why I think that we shouldn't use precedent to argue either way (because there's precedent for both options). Renerpho (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the nominator and others. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per reasons listed above. These were two linked but different incidents Signed, Cooldood5555 🩷 (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support as not all of the fatalities were from the school. Also, the La Loche shootings which also occurred in Canada had plural as well. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Most reliable sources, including in Canada, use the singular. (CTV News, CBC, Global News, The Globe and Mail, Vancouver Sun) YourContrition (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per above argument made. Raync (talk) 07:34, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we want to be factual? use the plural. simple as that shane (talk to me if you want!) 12:15, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the main stage of the attack was very obviously intended to be the school. I think we should actually consider calling it "Tumbler Ridge school shooting". We used the same logic for naming the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting. But the point I'm making is that only 2 of the total 36 people shot were at a different location, and considering the WP:COMMONNAME being singular (according to User:YourContrition), I think that adds to the number of reasons to not make it plural.
With all this said, I absolutely hate that we're having this discussion. For the millionth time, it seems that we're playing tug-of-war with what to name a mass causality attack page before they have even buried the victims. Like this debate really could not have waited until we've had the slightest taste of this shooting's long-term impact? MountainJew6150 (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Most largely reliable sources, especially in Canada are not referring to it in plural.
⚠︎ ArkadenBoden ⚠︎ (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

support 2 Attacks therefore it should be a plural. Jabba550  ✉ Talk to me :D 10:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose both ... this should be a "school shooting" ... Adam Lanza murdered his mother Nancy Lanza and killed children and adults at an elementary school. I mean, do I explain myself? --CoryGlee 12:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Background expansion?

[edit]

what have been the empirical effects on school shootings after the various Canadian gun control laws implemented since 1995? That's what the request for expanding the background section says. However, empirical studies require certain sample sizes (usually 30 minimum). If the sample size is too small no clear empirical statement can be made. So, have there been at least 30 school shootings in Canada since 1995? If not, then fulfilling the section expansion request will not be feasible as there are likely no studies that could be used to expand the section. Nakonana (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This material is not found in either Firearms regulation in Canada or List of mass shootings in Canada. It does look as if the number of mass shootings did decrease during the nineties, but this table is not a sufficient source for drawing conclusions. I'm not sure such material would belong in this article anyway, but I leave that to consensus. I'd certainly like the tag removed when appropriate, if there is sufficient support for extra content editors should be able to sort it out on the talk page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:47, 11 February 2026 (UTC).[reply]
Though note that the request is particularly asking for data on school shootings, not just any mass shootings. Nakonana (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Described by the police"

[edit]

We have The suspect was described by police as "a female in a dress with brown hair." I previously changed this to what is supported in one of the references, The suspect was described in a text alert at the time as "a female in a dress with brown hair. but this was reverted. The distinction is important, because an alert at the time of the shooting cannot be expected to be carefully considered and is likely based on second or even third hand information. For that reason I'm reinstating the change I made.(see below) Please discuss here if you think there's a good reason to change it back. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:08, 11 February 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you whoever has made an equivalent edit in the last couple of minutes. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:10, 11 February 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Bolding

[edit]

Please don't bold the shooter's name in the suspect section, even if there is a redirect to section. This habit is based on a misreading of guidelines. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC).[reply]

@Rich Farmbrough, thanks. Bad habit, and I'm rusty in mainspace. JayCubby 20:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Rich Farmbrough doesn't MOS:BOLDREDIRECT tell us to bold it? EvergreenFir (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought... JayCubby 20:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I dug back into the history some time ago and found out when the wording was "clarified". I didn't have the energy to raise it on the talk page, it's one of many things where I would like to get round to fixing them (but I'm tired from twenty years of Wikipedia, and have urgent Real Life stuff to attend to). The result of applying this is that apparently random terms in articles are bolded. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Update request — destination of airlifted patients

[edit]

Could the article be updated to reflect new reporting regarding the destination of at least one victim airlifted following the Tumbler Ridge incident? BC Children’s Hospital executive vice-president Susan Wannamaker confirmed to CTV News that one patient in critical condition was transported from Tumbler Ridge following the shooting and is in the hospital’s care. She stated: “The protection of patient privacy is paramount to us, and we do not routinely share information about our patients. However, there are exceptional times when we need to acknowledge those who are in our care.” Wannamaker added that no additional updates would be provided due to patient privacy. This appears to confirm the destination of at least one airlifted victim previously not specified by RCMP. Source: https://www.ctvnews.ca/vancouver/article/tumbler-ridge-shooter-identified-ctv-news-confirms-live-updates-here/

Suggested edit (addition only to this section)

[edit]

Current text: "Twenty-seven other people were also treated for injuries, including two with serious injuries.[6][20] A Shock Trauma Air Rescue Service aircraft was dispatched from Grande Prairie, Alberta. In a press conference, the British Columbia RCMP confirmed that two victims were airlifted outside Tumbler Ridge, however they did not state their destination.[21][1][22]" Proposed change: Twenty-seven other people were also treated for injuries, including two with serious injuries.[6][20] A Shock Trauma Air Rescue Service aircraft was dispatched from Grande Prairie, Alberta. In a press conference, the British Columbia RCMP confirmed that two victims were airlifted outside Tumbler Ridge, however they did not state their destination.[21][1][22] BC Children’s Hospital later confirmed that one patient in critical condition was transported there from Tumbler Ridge following the shooting. Source: https://montreal.citynews.ca/2026/02/11/tumbler-ridge-surviving-victims-family-speaks-out/"Tumbler Ridge shooter identified, CTV News confirms — live updates". CTV News. 2026-02-11. Indie cosmos (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"a biological male who identified as a woman"

[edit]

The correct way to say this is "a trans woman".

I'm not making the edit myself because I just came to this article from the main page and I can tell this has been a contentious topic. But on the face of it the current wording would seem in violation of the gender identity guideline. Metaclassical (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Police now refer to Van Rootselaar as female. I myself am disinclined to respect the preferred gender pronouns of mass murderer, but policy is policy. JayCubby 20:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think using the correct pronouns is a sign of "respect" towards the person, it's just factual accuracy. She was a trans woman, so she is referred to as such because it is the truth. It doesn't mean we respect her as an individual. I think the mindset of seeing pronouns as a sign of "respect" is just the wrong way to look at it. Trans people are trans whether or not we like them as people. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the venue to argue about transgender verbiage. Keep discussions focused on the article, not about users' personal beliefs. XeCyranium (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's not ArtemisiaGentileschiFan's personal beliefs that's Wikipedia policy EnbyEditor (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's very obviously their personal belief, given the phrase "I don't think". Either way, the reply had nothing to do with a change to the article, this isn't a battleground to argue about how to treat other people. XeCyranium (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That was my point. The article should focus on facts, not make distinction based on whether or not she's "respected". ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply was to criticize the word choice of another editor while they were discussing policy focused changes to the article, then going on a diatribe about your personal beliefs on the subject. This is not a forum for those kind of comments, only for messages relating to the article directly. Please keep that in mind for the future, these kind of discussions always get filled with people wanting to pontificate on their stances on LGBT issues. XeCyranium (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is no argument to be had here because WP:BLPMISGENDER is policy. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan's reply is fine, they are just reminding folks about policy. This is a good idea, because WP:CT/GENSEX is a WP:CT, and the restrictions apply on talk pages as well. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should read it once again, the person they replied to is the one who mentioned it was policy that had to be followed. Their own reply didn't mention policy at all, only their personal beliefs about the subject. XeCyranium (talk) 02:54, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure if you read it again, too, you will find that @JayCubby also unnecessarily expressed personal beliefs. And your commentary has only prolonged the non-article focused discussion. Please keep that in mind for the future. ~2026-95450-1 (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do we editorialize what the RCMP officer was quoted saying, or do we add it verbatim? I think the latter makes sense for an encyclopedia. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's also worth noting that the BBC is using the term "biological male who identified as a female" based on that quote.
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cr5lnzqdr5pt bree Breeboi 21:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That would be incorrect as that's not what the officer said. The officer said that she was born biologically male but since transitioned and identified as female EnbyEditor (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an exact excerpt from the BBC:
McDonald is asked to expand with more information on the suspect.
He says the 18-year-old suspect was "born as a biological male, who.... approximately six years ago began to transition to female, and identified as female".
There is a history of police attendance at the suspect's family residence, he says, with some calls related to mental health issues. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was clearly what the phrasing included on tve page was based on. Breeboi 21:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As of this edit, the article link you gave does not contain the phrase "biological male who identified as a female". Of course, if the BBC were to use such a phrase, it would matter whether the article is quoting another authority or editorializing. Metaclassical (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If we're not going to editorialise we should write "The shooter was described by law enforcement as being born male but transitioned 6 years before the shooting" or something like that EnbyEditor (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I say follow Wikipedia policy, and just say she was a trans woman TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 21:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, we shouldn't editorialise this to fit ideologies. Add what they said, like what EnbyEditor said. Motherwell6 (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What "ideologies" do you think are being "fit"? ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The belief that one can 'transition' to a gender other than the one which corresponds to the sex they were born as, obviously. Breeboi 21:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So, the facts, then? ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's your personal opinion. Breeboi 21:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
lol ok ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Breeboi:​ like it or not, this is a pretty clear-cut case in which we know a subject's most recent self-identification of gender per MOS:GENDERID in Wikipedia's manual of style. If you have a problem with that, then you should probably take it to that page to discuss. Bridget (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I... don't even know what to type in response. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 21:47, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are 3.5 million transgender people on the planet. It's not merely a belief. These people exist.
9 people are dead. 27 are injured. This was a tragedy. Please don't use this talk page as a place to dispute the existence of a group of people.... Can we all just show a little respect for the victims and the families, and not do this. You know what you are doing. I politely request you to stop this, and give someone you love a hug. Squee22 (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not editorialising to fit ideologies, it's literally our manual of style. Nil🥝 21:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish, what's added abides to the manual of style, just some people think it doesn't because we can't say trans people are born as a different sex here anyway I suppose. Motherwell6 (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's redundant to say such and there's no real reason to do so unless one is specifically trying to skirt the rules. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's very unnecessary, and redundant, though. And the term "biologically male" is transphobic as well as intersexist. Sex is a spectrum.
"Gender assigned at birth" also doesn't encompass specific body parts, inherently, as it is an event, not a description of anatomy (and if an article wanted to talk specifically about a certain body part, they could just say the part). 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 22:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's how the RCMP phrased it, though. Obviously they aren't in agreement with your opinion on these things, but that's not entirely relevant. Breeboi 22:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We can't misattribute what the RCMP said and what they were quoted as verbatim saying. Putting words in their mouths is a problem similar to not using the proper pronouns through the article. Both are counterfactual. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It would be redundant to identify the perpetrator as both "born a biological male" and "a trans woman", no? A trans woman, according to Merriam-Webster, is "a woman who was identified as male at birth". ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We are using the words the mounties said. Motherwell6 (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant or not, are we not quoting the RCMP's statement here? If we are then it should be as close to the original as possible, we shouldn't editorialize or put words in their mouth. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is not editorialization to remove redundancy. We don't need to use a direct quote. There are no guidelines that say we must use a direct quote. In fact, rewording sources into more concise language is what we do all the time on Wikipedia. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrasing sources is what defines an encyclopedia - if we had to copy every source verbatim, there would be no point in even trying to build an encyclopedia; it would be better off as a directory of links. Additionally, the phrase "biological male identifying as a woman" suggests that trans women are men; regardless of whether you agree with that or not, it would violate MOS:GENDERID, which says to use the most recent gender identity expressed by a person, as others have pointed out. The RCMP official's statement is clearly intended to convey that the perpetrator is transgender, so I believe it'd make sense for Wikipedia to refer to them as such. Tali64^2 (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between paraphrasing and editorialising. Motherwell6 (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is it editorializing to replace "born biological male" (an illogical statement because one cannot be an inorganic male) with "transgender woman" (the actual intended meaning of the phrase)? ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It has been changed now to a more correct form and keeps getting removed. Motherwell6 (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It gets removed because it is incorrect. There is no reason to use a direct quote to try to obfuscate the fact that she's a trans woman. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How is paraphrasing a quote as it's written incorrect? Motherwell6 (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're calling the RCMP's statement illogical and changing their wording, how is it not editorialization?
Anyway, it is perfectly in line with the gender ID guidelines, stop trying to weaponize the guidelines. The perpatrator is being respected with the correct pronouns, this is simply covering their life history as a background, and is supported by the RCMP's statement. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Christ, you said it better than I could've. Also, I'm afraid that the constant changes between the "biological male identifying as a woman" and "trans woman" might start an edit war. Ain't no rest for the editor... TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 21:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Dwayne McDonald statements, initially regarding how the killer's body was found, should be respected; the fact that the person has transitioned to a trans woman deserves to be respected. Historycaliz (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that she wasn't a trans woman. I've been saying that we should just say trans woman. (Apologies if my reply seems bitey, I promise I'm not trying to bite) TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 21:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I get where you are coming from, but it also seems to me we might need to be careful. If none of the reliable sources are referring to the shooter as a “trans woman” (or at least, aren’t yet), should Wikipedia go out on a limb and ascribe that label? it might be safer to just quote *exactly* what the police and RS like BBC are saying as opposed to saying the shooter identified as a trans woman in encyclopedic voice. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 22:17, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reports say that they were 18 and started transitioning 6 years earlier. So that would mean starting at 12, right? A transition is a process of change and presumably didn't happen all at once. And perhaps puberty was postponed using hormone blockers. In that jurisdiction, at what point did they become adult and at what point were they considered a girl/woman rather than a boy/man? If we are reporting previous incidents, these issues of status at those earlier times may be relevant. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:13, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The current verbiage already aligns to this well. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't really matter how far into her physical transition she was, right? As long as she identified as a trans woman, she should be referred to as a trans woman.
    (I can see this has been a very heated thread, so let it be known that I'm not trying to start a fight and I might be missing context here). 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (need something? Ping me!) 23:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What we have for self-identification reported in RS is "The only remaining post on the channel, which features the transgender flag and lists “she/her” pronouns, was made six months ago and reads “I’ve been pretty, um, aimless”." Mikewem (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The new wording

[edit]

The new wording is good. Just says "law enforcement described the suspect as being assigned male at birth but transitioned" And then we can use female pronouns for the rest by guidelines I suppose. Motherwell6 (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think this can stay and is an acceptable middle ground that follows the mos guidelines. Motherwell6 (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It cannot stay because it misquotes law enforcement, and we have the quote available. As far as I can tell, we have no expressed self-identification of the shooter’s gender in RS, so all the back and forth is not based in policy, as far as I can tell. Mikewem (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Adding what law enforcement said gets deleted anyway. Motherwell6 (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then it seems we need to open an ANI (or I guess AE) case against the sole edit warrior Mikewem (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No there were several people edit warring including me (which I should t have done and accept the potential consequences for) but otherwise yes this is a mess. Motherwell6 (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
CNN (which is considered reliable) states that the shooter was transgender. Tali64^2 (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree; per MOS:GENDERID: generally do not discuss in detail the changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent – there's absolutely no reason for us to discuss that they were assigned male at birth; calling them a trans woman is factual and does not get hung up on their previous gender. The fact they were assigned male at birth is not pertinent to the shooting. Nil🥝 22:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask; how is calling them a trans woman any more pertinent to the shooting than saying they were assigned male at birth? Simogne (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that’s not the words law enforcement said. I’m just joining this. Is there one editor who keeps reverting to their preferred version? Mikewem (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Law enforcement said the suspect was a biological male - paraphrased to assigned male at birth. People keep trying to remove the word "male" from the article because it's "redundant" although this new version isn't redundant. Motherwell6 (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Biological male" and "assigned male at birth" are not the same concepts, not synonymous, regardless of either of their incorrect nature. One is a current state, the other is an event that happened at birth. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 22:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The only way for those concepts not to match up would be an intersex and or DSD condition - ie a person's sex was assigned male at birth but they later developed as female due to a difference of sex development. Is there a RS claiming that for this case, or is that your original research? Simogne (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Small note, but the terms "intersex" and "DSD" are the same (although DSD is now partially offensive).
Anyways, what do "male" and "female" bodies mean, though? It's kind of a Ship of Theseus issue. If someone was born "male" (and assigned male at birth), but are now identical biologically to any "female", are they really "biologically male"? Where do you even draw the line? Just the main two surgeries? HRT for however long? All of it?
Anyways, the statement "assigned male at birth" says nothing about the current individual. Maybe they are a woman. Maybe they are gender non-conforming and have pursued surgery. You would not know. Are they inherently "biologically male"?
And, even: Could a trans man be "biologically male"? Is it only limited to people born "male"? If one could, unless in a rare case, they would be not assigned male at birth.
For your other comment, this is literally a discussion. I do not need sources because I am not adding this to the article. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 03:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Law enforcement specified that the shooter identified as female too. We should include that as well. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But the problem is editors keep removing the word "male" from the article. Motherwell6 (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's that big a deal to just say "trans woman". It implies AMAB. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
+1. It's totally unnecessary to say "assigned male at birth", and is a phrasing that we almost never use in any articles on trans BLPs. The shooter was described by law enforcement as being a trans woman who transitioned 6 years before the shooting is far bettter wording, without taking away what's being described. Nil🥝 22:13, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But that isn’t how law enforcement described the shooter. They never said the shooter was not described by law enforcement as a trans woman, they were described as being born male but transitioned to identifying as female. It’s fine if for WP:MOS reasons we want to use “trans woman”, but we cannot falsely attribute that descriptor to the BC police. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 22:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Flipandflopped Absolutely agree. It is not the cops' language and we cannot make it appear that way. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might’ve solved it. “The shooter was a trans woman who law enforcement said…” Mikewem (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. I think what's been landed on in Special:Diff/1337870367 is best at following MOS while still correctly attributing facts to law enforcement. Nil🥝 22:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I should say, I don’t know that I agree with the appeals to MOS. Do we have any instances of Van Rootselaar expressing their self-identification in reliable sources? This could look like a RS talking about something VR wrote on social media. Do we have anything like that? Mikewem (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THETIMES covers her self-identification in this article [9] Nil🥝 22:54, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's paywalled, what exactly did they say? ACasualEditor97 (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Archive link here, but key paragraph for self-id is: "The only remaining post on the channel, which features the transgender flag and lists “she/her” pronouns, was made six months ago and reads “I’ve been pretty, um, aimless”." Nil🥝 23:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nil! For me, this alone actually does satisfy our sourcing need for “VR was a trans woman”. Though I can see how for others, this alone would not fully satisfy sourcing for that wikivoice statement. Mikewem (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a logical statement. "Assigned male at birth but transitioned". To what? A dinosaur? Just say she's a trans woman. It's quite disheartening that so many people are trying so hard to use obfuscating language just to force the page to call her "male". ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite disheartening you're so hyper fixated on removing this from the article even though it was quite clearly said. Motherwell6 (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They're trying to properly represent what the officer said. The fact that the officer didn't make a statement which reflects your specific ideology is not really relevant here. Breeboi 22:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I support this line of reasoning. She left behind the identity as a male. Why not just call her a woman? TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 22:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying she is a he/him, however the officer provided a clear background and sex assignment at birth. We should keep the full background here, as it's notable enough the RCMP officer commented on it. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Trans woman already implies that she transitioned, therefore, AMAB without explicitly saying it TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 22:08, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If the officer thought it was worth clarifying fully, then we should respect their words and not write our own interpretation of what they wrote.
Requiring the reader to infer vs clearly explaining the timeline doesn't seem to benefit readers as well. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We must follow RS, not the officer. If RS widely use "trans woman" then so do we. If they use "assigned male at birth" then so do we. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The RCMP officer who did the briefing is clearly the most credible source on this case. The BBC also did quote them verbatim. We are also using the officer's words to support the identification here. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@ACasualEditor97 That's fine, and if sources keep using that language we will too. But if they change it, we must as well. Remember, we look for WP:SECONDARY sources. The officer is a primary source EvergreenFir (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure when we cross that bridge, we can adjust. These are living articles after all. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Evergreen summed it up well. We should use what the reliable sources use, rather than just a lone RCMP officer. I'm not saying the RCMP isn't reliable, but one officer doesn't define an entire department's view TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 22:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't a random officer, it was the officer chosen for the public press briefing. They represent the general opinion of the RCMP. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That was unknown to me actually (Thank you for informing me!). So I'll take back the RCMP point. (I have zero idea of how to strike statements on the Wikipedia app, apologies) TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 22:20, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Off-topic) You would need to use <s> to strike-through text. Example: <s>Text to strike</s>
(Also, I am only skimming this, but if there is an issue with getting an agreement on what to use, it might be time for an RfC.) --Super Goku V (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’m trying to figure out if you intend to continue edit warring after the template I just left. Do you intend to keep edit warring? Mikewem (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The PC wording of "assigned male at birth" is found nowhere in sources. We should stick to the sources. It's not like CBC is some bigoted hate group or something. Also beware of citing MOS. The vast, vast, vast, majority of people are not partaking in these kind of debates, and it's possible a very small niche of people who are strongly opinionated can hold undue sway. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Harizotoh9 It's directly from the RCMP: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/livestory/active-shooter-alert-tumbler-ridge-secondary-school-bc-live-updates-9.7083740?ts=1770839941590 EvergreenFir (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
MOSGENDERID is very well accepted to the point editors are blocked and topic or site banned for ignoring it. Nil Einne (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Naming?

[edit]

I’m not seeing active resistance to naming, (Rootselaar is deceased, after all, and will not face a trial). But I’m confused about why the name isn’t fully implemented yet. Lots of “the attacker” “the perpetrator” “the shooter”. Do we want to go with naming or do we want to go with not naming? Mikewem (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not opposed to naming them through the article. It's a recent event, so likely nobody swapped it yet. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a good practice to name mass shooters as it is known to be a motivator for copycat crimes. Words are powerful things. Use them carefully. Squee22 (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored
We're going to name them, it's encyclopedic.
This is not a social justice platform. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You can choose to name them without promoting them. You can choose how to name them. How often to name them. How to word things. You have a responsibility even when writing for a socially generated encyclopedia. I am sure Wikipedia has extensive documentation about it's social responsibility, which you can familiarize yourself with. How about you read some of it? Words have power. Use your power responsibly. Wikipedia has power. Wikipedia has standards that recognize how to use that power responsibly. Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion Squee22 (talk) 07:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. what does "social justice" have to do with this at all??? You can read the Wikipedia page on social justice and learn what those words mean and then maybe not drop them inaccurately in a discussion about a school shooting. Social justice has no relevance to this discussion. Please stay on topic. The question was why the shooter should be referred to as "the shooter" - and other descriptors - instead of repeatedly by name throughout the article. I answered the question giving a very good reason to limit the use of their name to the minimum needed to meet encyclopedic standards. This is an encyclopedia after all... It's not a branding exercise. We don't need to promote the name of the killer at every opportunity, and it would be irresponsible to do so. Squee22 (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not bigger than the Canadian police or the various news organisations across North America, who are already naming her. There is no reasonable reason we would use euphemisms when her name is currently known all across Canada. — Czello (music) 07:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I gave a "reasonable reason" not to promote a mass murderer. Because it has been known to encourage copycat crime, due to the phenomena of Mass shooting contagion. Perhaps you didn't read my comments in their entirety. I don't feel the need to repeat what was already said. I can only point to my comments here and suggest you read it fully and completely. Then if you want to discuss it we can do so without dismissing my concerns as "unreasonable". Thanks. Squee22 (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep the snark down, you've done that several times now. I did read your comment, and addressed your argument in my comment. — Czello (music) 07:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one making "snark" by unilaterally declaring other people's concerns as being without reason, and this is not the place for a discussion of personal conflict. If you don't like me we can talk about it somewhere else. Wikipedia is not a chatroom. Squee22 (talk) 07:45, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with you individually, but both of your replies to myself and ACasualEditor97 have been snarky. It is reasonable for me to say it right here, and that's not a "chatroom" comment. WP:CIVILity is expected. — Czello (music) 07:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am being civil.
I am sorry you don't like what I have to say -or how I said it - but I am not going to agree with you and your assertion that there is no "reasonable reason" to limit the naming of a mass murderer to the minimum necessary in order to meet encyclopedic standards, despite the well documented phenomena of Mass shooting contagion. I gave a very "reasonable reason"
I am direct and clear with my communication. I never insulted you. I never attacked you.... I am being civil, even if I am not being agreeable. We don't need to be in agreement. That's the point of the talk page. To discuss these things.
My concern is objectively not without reason! Squee22 (talk) 07:55, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And I addressed your reason in my first comment. You haven't come back on that; you seemed to just repeat your initial argument. — Czello (music) 07:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How can naming the perpetrator potentially cause copycat shootings? Besides, all the news outlets have her name. GarethBaloney (talk) 12:05, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Strang?

[edit]

The news reporters were saying that the shooter's last name was Strang. Why was it changed? What is the shooter's father's last name? What is the shooter's mother's last name? ~2026-95607-3 (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We are going by what the RCMP and what the BBC are using as the full name. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
> What is the shooter's mother's last name?
If CTV has gotten it right, the shooter's mother was indeed named Jennifer Strang.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/vancouver/article/tumbler-ridge-shooter-identified-ctv-news-confirms-live-updates-here/#:~:text=Jennifer%20Strang%2C%20the%20shooter%E2%80%99s%20mother%2C%20and%20sibling%2C%20Emmett%2C%20are%20among%20the%20victims%2C%20CTV%20News%20has%20confirmed.
CTV earlier gave this last name for the shooter, but RCMP gave a different one.
It seems inadvisable to rely on CTV at this point unless/until others confirm. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 23:08, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

van or Van?

[edit]

van Rootselaar or Van Rootselaar?

I haven’t yet seen lower case v in RS, but I haven’t looked especially hard. I have seen capital V. I see a lot of capital V in other WP articles for people with (I don’t even know what the academic word is for surnames that start with van) last names that start with Van. Mikewem (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per RCMP in this video at timestamp 5:17 (https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.7085082) it is spelled Van Rootselaar. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t even know what the academic word is for surnames that start with van

The Dutch van is called a tussenvoegsel. These constructs exist in many different languages and are called family name affixes, because they are affixed (attached) to family names. In some languages they are nobiliary particles, for example von in German and af in Dannish. French has a small handful of these affixes called particles, for example de. Arabic names are more complicated and use a handful of different systems, for example the definite articles al- and el- (though I am nowhere close to being very knowledgeable about Arabic names). --Gurkubondinn (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tussenvoegsel is exactly the kind of word I come to Wikipedia for. Thanks, I really appreciate it. (Though if I were the one to write the affixes list article, you better believe I’d be distinguishing between those last name additions which are physically affixed to the main surname and those which are separated by a space). Mikewem (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Those are called prefixes and suffixes, and are both forms of affixes. :)
That article could definitely use some improvements though, you can WP:JUSTFIXIT if you are feeling like getting your hands dirty with affixing wikilayout! --Gurkubondinn (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions > International

[edit]

PM of Croatia Andrej Plenković also offered his condolences on the behalf of the Government of Croatia: https://vlada.gov.hr/sucut-predsjednika-vlade-u-povodu-smrtonosne-pucnjave-u-skoli-u-kanadi/46128 (official Government's site). ~2026-94156-5 (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "her gender transition"

[edit]

@ACasualEditor97: After I changed the text "began to transition" to "began her gender transition" you gave the following response in your 1st revert's edit summary: "Do not editorialize Dwayne McDonald's words. See talk page, consensus was reached on this being the most reasonable paraphrasing and least offensive wording that could be achieved without butchering accuracy." The version your restored even links to the gender transition, and it's clear the source is talking about a transition of genders. More importantly, I don't see any talk page consensus on how we should refer to the perpetrator. Bridget (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please see discussion with EvergreenFir and MikeWem on the talk page. The paragraph that was finalized was one people compromised with. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@ACasualEditor97: Again, I don't see a consensus that "people compromised with". I see this comment from Mikewem made after your comment to EvergreenFir here, for example, that conflicts with the approach you've been advocating. Bridget (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We compromised with removing AMAB or male from the paragraph, but keeping the words as faithful to Dwayne's statement to the BBC as possible. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with others here; the discussion was focussing on whether to use AMAB vs trans woman. There was consensus to paraphrase Dwayne's statement – not quote it verbatim – and Bridget's edits are still doing that, just with better wording. Nil🥝 01:50, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They are materially changing the wording by adding "her" and "gender" when the officer never used "her" or the word "gender". ACasualEditor97 (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can we just delete the part about the minor’s gender identity and leave it at “Van Rootselaar was a trans woman”? Mikewem (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea to me, do you want to make the edit? ACasualEditor97 (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’m always happy to be BOLD. (and happy to be reverted if it turns out I’m wrong) Mikewem (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I ageee with Bridget that I fail to see there being any consensus for ACasualEditor97's preferred wording here. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I reverted an edit that added links to white supremacy while citing the ADL article below:

https://web.archive.org/web/20260212004347/https://www.adl.org/resources/article/tumbler-ridge-shooter-had-interest-gore-guns-and-white-supremacy

My reason is that this article provides no evidence in terms of linking social media, providing social media handles, or even basic screenshots. All the sourcing is self referential to other ADL articles. I believe we should wait until a genuinely credible outlet mentions these links before we incorporate them. But I am leaving this here for discussion.

ACasualEditor97 (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Based off a cursory glance of what may be the perpetrators social media accounts, I believe this would very well be the case. Regardless, I agree we should wait until a credible article can either confirm or deny this. CheesyHDP (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:RSPADL, the article is credible Mikewem (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend reading the article itself.
The complete lack of evidence is an issue. If this link is real, I am sure other sources will pick it up this week. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue it's reliable, as they are providing evidence in the form of direct quotes from her social media. Given the graphic nature of the forums described, it's perfectly reasonable for ADL not to include URLs or embeds to the content (especially as some of it is illegal in many jurisdictions). Nil🥝 03:45, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We can definitely wait for essentially any notable news outlet to run this first. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
not sure if relevant: https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/nation/2026/02/11/jesse-van-rootselaar-tumbler-ridge-canada-shooter/88631889007/
~2026-68502-0 (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This article is just citing the ADL article which cited itself and provided no evidence. Not a note worthy source either.
Lets wait for at least CNN tier news. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly, the ADL has come under fire for bias in the past, though I believe that's mostly due to its Pro-Israeli, Right-Wing bias the organization has. is the list that is actually linked on their Wikipedia page. EnviousDemon (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:EXTRAORDINARY is the apropos policy here. Claiming someone is a white supremacist should require multiple good sources EvergreenFir (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The incorporation of much data should create an article similar to Jesse Van Rootselaar article on Sandy Hook Promise in 2012. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Lanza Historycaliz (talk) 05:40, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Deceased victim names

[edit]

@Gurkubondinn

Based on other articles I have seen, deceased victims are usually named within articles, I do not believe the privacy rule applies to publicly named deceased victims.

Examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Stockton_shooting#Victims

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings#Victims_killed

ACasualEditor97 (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP also applies to recently deceased individuals (and BLP applies in all namespaces). Also note that the standards that we apply for children are much higher than for adults, and you should always err on the side of caution. There is no value to having their names in the page, please do not reinstate them. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The standards are not higher, I do not see any evidence of this. Especially when the articles I linked included minor victims.
Additionally see this article:
List of murdered American children
As for WP:BLP
None of the standards are being violated here. The article in question is not maligning them, it's not humiliating them, and it's certainly written as verified fact from a neutral POV. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and those children did also not die today. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday.
The immediate recent deaths window is already passed. The shooting is over, the perp dead, we're in the timeline for victim tributes and gofundmes. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, readers can definitely find value in knowing who the victims were, over simply making the shooter infamous. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah good, there was a talk page discussion started on this. I got surprised when my edit somehow reduced the size of the paragraph and thought I had mistakenly deleted the last sentence.
That aside, we are clearly past BLPNAME both when we are using the name of the shooter and when it isn't being intentionally concealed. Additionally, WP:VICTIMIZE is so that people who are alive are not re-victimized by the contents of the article. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. (EM) Sadly though, those who were named have passed away in the attack. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do keep in mind that it is not only the deceased children themselves that can be victimized here, but their parents and families as well. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The parents are the one's being interviewed in these articles and providing the names of their kids for release. The extended family members are publicly posting their grief on social media. They are holding gofundmes. I do not see how the names here cause harm to anyone.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/tumbler-ridge-mass-shooting-kylie-may-smith
https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2026/02/11/tumbler-ridge-surviving-victims-family-speaks-out/ ACasualEditor97 (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I advise to use caution, and at least wait (WP:THEREISNORUSH). Please consider that, although family members may have spoken publicly about the deceased, they may not have considered that this makes that information viable for inclusion on a site like Wikipedia. Arguments like "they made it public, so it's fair game" are easy to apply to statements that weren't made in a state of shock. Renerpho (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I will concede here that this is a fair assessment of the situation. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To add to what I just said: Families aren't monoliths, and they often consist of more than one individual. While a parent, aunt or sibling may decide that they want to speak publicly, other members of the same family may see the situation very differently. Renerpho (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's already included in dozens of news articles, archived onto the wayback machine, and probably fed to LLMs as training data. Whether or not Wikipedia decides to name the victims (which is information readers would want) wouldn't move the needle at this point. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's not our business. We can only make sure that Wikipedia doesn't participate in the victimization. Renerpho (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is no victimization in this process.
These specific victims are dead. Them being named does not hurt the their privacy.
The names of the children who died being written down does not some how hurt the family members. We're not hosting video clips of the shooting here, these are simply names. Articles for mass shootings with child victims, always use the names of the deceased if its reported on credible news outlets. There's no need to make an exception for this article, no one involved has even requested it. ACasualEditor97 (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The names of the children who died being written down does not some how hurt the family members. I strongly disagree with that statement. At the very least, I don't think we are in any position to make such a judgement. Renerpho (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We just need to wait a bit, and see where those names appear in RS that come out when this has stopped being "breaking news". If the families/authorities erect a memorial with the names, we can (and likely should) mention them as well. But nobody benefits from doing so on the first day after the incident, and the potential harm -- even if you personally don't seem to acknowledge it -- should make us stop. We don't know all the facts, and that's what "err on the side of caution" means for BLP, especially when it's about minors. Renerpho (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@ACasualEditor97: please see specifically WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE in the BLP policy, as this aligns closely with what Renerpho is explaining, and addresses the situation where we can source the relationship to victim, name, etc, for these relatively unknown family members. Bridget (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The naming rubicon has been crossed on this one. If any of the families didn’t want the names of their children to be public, then the names would not be appearing in reliable sources. We faced this situation for one of the Bondi victims. RS made it very obvious that they were going out of their way to not provide a minor’s last name. So we didn’t use the last name. Easy. Mikewem (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Renerpho does have a point though. I believe that waiting is better for us for the moment. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain to me the value of having the victims in the two above articles? Trade (talk) 09:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2026

[edit]
~2026-96156-2 (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Guns Used were a SKS and A Glock modified

@~2026-96156-2:  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. ltbdl (hypnotise) 08:17, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

“Trans Mass Shooter”category tag?

[edit]

Can we get a page with a comprehensive list of all transsexual school shooters? ~2026-94611-9 (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

well there is Category:Mass shootings by transgender individuals but it's currently up for deletion Laura240406 (talk) 10:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you think creating one is helpful, but I am personally unsure on the notability or necessity of that. Scooglers (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"assault style"

[edit]

The use of the term "assault-style" in the lede, as applied to a discussion of Canadian gun control, is problematic. It's an invented term that has not been defined by the government (perhaps in order to cast as wide a net as possible in its zeal to confiscate firearms from law abiding citizens). The 2020 order in council included all kinds of firearms, including specific weapons like large calibre anti-tank rifles produced during the Second World War, 81-mm mortars, etc. Bill C-21 expanded on the order in council but still provided no definition, so the term applies to long lists of specific firearms. "Assault style firearm" simply means whatever gun the government added to the prohibited list. There is no mechanical litmus lest and there was no assessment of risk to the public in crafting the list.

A true "assault rifle" is generally known as a shoulder-fired rifle capable of selective fire (you can do semi-automatic, or full automatic). These have been prohibited for civilian ownership in Canada for decades. The list of "assault-style" firearms doesn't include any since they've already been prohibited.

I would recommend leaving the term in the article, but adding a footnote perhaps explaining that the term is not defined and the legislation is based on lists of specific models of firearm rather than a universal definition.~2026-87016-6 (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the substance, but sharing a general reminder for editors to be are aware that gun control is also designated a Contentious Topic. Nil🥝 12:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Is your reminder in reaction to something specific? ~2026-87016-6 (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It probably isn't anything you did, just in general. It's just a reminder to anyone who may respond to you, because discussions of contentious topics on this talk page has already started a few arguments. It's a preventative measure.
Much love, rock on!
⚠︎ ArkadenBoden ⚠︎ (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where it is (or was) in the lede. It's used in the background section, where it's put in quotation marks as part of a summary of the legislation itself. There's a link to the article about gun control in Canada, which would give a reader more information. The quotes themselves already imply that it's not a defined category of firearm—otherwise it would be linked to an article about firearms in the "assault-style" category. I don't think a footnote is necessary, given more info on that is in the Canadian gun control article and isn't necessary for the understanding of the events of this event itself.
⚠︎ ArkadenBoden ⚠︎ (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.~2026-87016-6 (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2026_Tumbler_Ridge_shooting&oldid=1337974407"