Talk:La Loche shootings

Beware redundant references!

We're already at six seven nine, and each of them pretty much says everything this article does. At this rate, we'll be bloated in hours. Before adding new references for a claim, kindly check to see if it's already covered. Or don't! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

You may be the only Wikipedian ever who thinks multiple references are bad. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I blame the ones who wrote this. Besides, more than half of the headlines accumulated say five people were killed. Sends mixed messages. Other than that, it's refreshingly concise for a recent school shooting article. Good job, everyone! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The essay you linked refers to excessive citations, not excessive/redundant sources. Two different issues. The former is about the number of those little numbers imbedded in the prose (more precisely, the number of consecutive ones, as I understand the essay), the latter about the number of entries in the References section. I hate source overlap/redundancy too, but this job is hard enough for most of us already without having to worry about that. No real harm done. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

As for CITEKILL, my rule of thumb is no more than three consecutive, although there are situations where more are needed. The article currently has two occurrences of four consecutive, so I'd trim one off of each. But that kind of cleanup could be deferred until the article stabilizes. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Amount killed at school

Only one person was killed at the school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.114.148.187 (talk • contribs)

Source for that? That's a huge miscount if so. Regards, CoconutPaste (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Deadliest since...

Two people died at the Dawson shooting http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Dawson_College_shooting so the 2006 Dawson shooting is still the deadliest SCHOOL shooting since a 1989 shooting at École Polytechnique de Montréal. Typing: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.114.148.187 (talk • contribs)

Are there any sources that will cover that? Parsley Man (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Similar comment to the IP, if the first sentence in the lead is accurate about the locations of the four shootings, then "It is the deadliest school shooting in Canada since a 1989 shooting at École Polytechnique de Montréal" is no longer accurate. If there is a reference confirming two at home, one between home and school, and one at school, then we may have to discount the early news coverage reports as references for the claims of deadliest shooting since Ecole Polytechnique. Hwy43 (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

"RCMP told him the gunman is believed to have first shot two of his own siblings before killing Janvier's daughter. He didn't know if the shooter personally knew his daughter. "He shot two of his brothers at his home and made his way to the school, said Janvier [Kevin Janvier, acting mayor of La Loche], adding that Marie was his only child. "I'm just so sad.".. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/01/23/saskatchewan-school-shoot_n_9054212.html?utm_hp_ref=canada.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.114.148.187 (talk • contribs)

That doesn't necessarily prove he killed two people at the home, one on his way to the school, and one at the school. It just further solidifies the fact that two people did die before the school shooting. Parsley Man (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It does confirm that with (at most) two of dead not at the shooters home this event is Not the deadliest since the 1989 shooting at École Polytechnique de Montréal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.114.148.187 (talk • contribs)

It does not confirm that. Sources have been saying this fact, and unless there is a source that verifies this shooting is tied with Dawson College, then we can implement that. Also, on an unrelated note, please be sure to to write a signature when you're leaving messages. Parsley Man (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

"Sources have been saying this fact", the referenced source "Five dead, two critically hurt in Canada school shooting: prime minister". claims five dead and implies five dead at the school. According to the RCMP (see above) there are four dead in total including two at the shooters home, so at most two dead at the school. The referenced source is invalid. This is not the deadliest since École Polytechnique de Montréal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.114.148.187 (talk • contribs)

Aye. Current events are often initially misreported. Can't give an early report the same weight as newer, clearer ones. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Admittedly so, but there are still other, more newer sources verifying this (which are being used in this article as well) and I will fix them. Parsley Man (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've removed both that claim and the one about "since 2007". 2013 was after 2007. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

True, true. You've got me there. Parsley Man (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I want it to be very clear here that the latest information, and therefore most accurate, is that two were killed at a house, one was killed in the school, and one was killed on the way from the former to the latter. We don't know exactly where the shooting enroute occurred. What I have seen written, and seen in comments above, is that two died at the school. The killing enroute to the school has therefore been assumed to have occurred at the school. The only way this assumption could be correct is if this person was killed by the suspect outside the school on school property. As new and more accurate info continues to be published, it could be learned this person was killed a block away while the suspect was traveling from the house to the school. Thus, it could be a string of three sequential shootings, not the two as currently being presented by assumption in the lead. Please be careful. Hwy43 (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there a source that would verify a victim "was killed on the way from the former to the latter"? Because all of the sources I've been seeing are two dead at the home and two at the school itself, with no specific details. Parsley Man (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

A previous iteration of the lead stated "Two people were killed at the shooters home and one was killed on the way to the school and one at the school." I presume this was eventually supported by a reference. If not, but if it is in fact the case, then a reference will eventually emerge. I am not following the news reports on this or reviewing each reference here as it is added. Just following activity on the talk page here and the actual edits to the article to a lesser extent until I have sustained periods of available free time. There are enough watchful eyes on the article contributions at present. Hwy43 (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It was not supported by a reference. It was the work of the same unsigned user who was insisting to me that the Dawson College shooting was the deadliest since 1989, and he failed to provide a reference or some other substantial evidence to that. Parsley Man (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Title

Title should be "La Loche Community Shooting" (or similar) since most of the shooting occurred outside of the school and it reflects the scope of the shooters actions in the small community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.114.148.187 (talk • contribs)

We still don't know for sure. You have even failed to prove the locations of the fatalities. If the number of injured is released and at least a majority of them were shot at the school, then the title stays. Parsley Man (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Just plain La Loche. The "Community" bit is part of the school's name. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

A majority at the school is impossible. We know two of the four were killed at a house, which is half. If both of the two others are confirmed at the school, that is the location of the other half. We have a tie with no majorities. If it ends up two at the house, one at the school, and one at some random point between the two, we will not be considering renaming the article to "La Loche house shooting". I agree we will need to drop "community" if "school" is dropped as it would become redundant. e.g., 2014 Moncton shootings not "2014 Moncton community shootings". Also, "shooting" should not be capitalized in any renaming of the article. It is not part of any official name. e.g., Mayerthorpe tragedy not "Mayerthorpe Tragedy". Finally, it will probably be "shootings" rather that "shooting" as it is a sequential string of two or three shootings, per the precedent set at 2014 Moncton shootings. Hwy43 (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

A majority of dead people at the school is impossible, but a majority of shot people there isn't. Death gets the headlines, but there's more to a shooting than that. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that would be an entirely valid piece of information to consider when weighing all other relevant pieces of info at the renaming stage after all the facts emerge. Hwy43 (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I was talking about injured/overall casualties. Parsley Man (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I look back above and see that now. Thanks. Hwy43 (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Well I fucked up and moved to La Loche shootings without thinking to look at the talk page first. Inexcusable newbie mistake by a supposedly "Veteran II" editor. But I still think it was the obvious move. We can't reasonably call it La Loche Community School shooting when there were two crime scenes, only one of them was the school, and half of the fatalities occurred at the other. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking ownership for the perceived mistake. While I previously agreed (and continue to agree) with Parsley Man that it is a worthwhile consideration for retaining the previous name of the article as the majority of shooting occurred at the school and there being a greater amount of victims from there (deaths + injuries), I agree that the bold move to the current title is the obvious choice. It is sufficiently general enough to be inclusive of the entire event from start to finish. Hwy43 (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

As a Veteran IV, I think I'm permitted to excuse you. In any case, I'll agree that it wasn't really a mistake. Both for establishing consensus and moving one step closer to Senior. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed I have enough points to level up. An uncrowned Senior III can definitely forgive you. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Cool. Papal Hulkal dispensation. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

And as an editor transitioning from Illustrious Looshpah to Auspicious Looshpah status, I'm self-entitled to subsequently qualify that it was a "perceived" mistake whilst making a bold move that is evidently less contentious than anticipated. Hwy43 (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Social media postings

Some of the articles say the killer posted “Just killed 2 ppl ... Bout to shoot ip the school.” before the attack. Can anyone break through the news barricades to figure out where this was posted, and what the rest of the interchange was? Wnt (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

That post was posted at Facebook. Parsley Man (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Lockdown or lock-down

Re: [1]

A spell checker is our authoritative source now, more so than an English dictionary? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It passes the Wikipedia checker. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

What do Canadian English dictionaries say? What ENGVAR was the spellchecker set to? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Canadian Oxford defines lockdown but not lock-down. You have to pay to see the definition. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

CanadaSpace dictionary defines lockdown (prison lockdown), not lock-down. Tell me when to stop. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Only one was necessarily to show it was legit. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, coulda sworn you used the plural. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 00:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done ―Mandruss ☎ 00:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It was, wasn't it? I meant the plural in the general sense. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Critical injuries

Back when there were five dead, there were also two critically injured. Is this still the case? Google is swamping me with the old stories for my keywords. If so, we should note those after noting the seven in all. In every shooting, the injury count is inflated by minor things like scrapes and panic attacks. Counting the big ones apart gives a clearer picture, I find. But only if they actually happened. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but nobody ever tells you the specifics of all the injuries. In one case, the article is stabilized at "7 to 9". ―Mandruss ☎ 00:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It often comes out in court, especially if any of them lead to assault or recklessness charges. But in the meantime, not worried about details, just how many (if any) were the critical sort. Keep an eye out! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

CBC reported two hours ago that "All seven who were injured are in critical condition in hospital in Saskatoon". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

That's the sort of thing. Good work, Turkey. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Commentary on "worst since" content

The incident was the worst shooting at a Canadian elementary or secondary school, by a single gunman, under the age of 18, wearing long pants on a Friday, since the Little Lake shootings of 1782. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• The RCMP is reporting this is the worst shooting ever at an elementary or secondary school in Canada. Does your comment suggest you believe this is not notable? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't take me too seriously at this point. Mostly I'm punch drunk from being up too long. But, since you ask, I'd keep that part and can the "worst since" as trivia, not that I'll be arguing very forcefully for that. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I wish we'd speak of something measurable like deadliness instead. Better and worse is relative. If RCMP Superintendents and Japanese newspapers use "worst" instead, that opinion should be attributed. And yeah, always having to have a "since" or "in" qualifier is a bit weird. But so many similar articles do it, it'd be weirder to not here. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It's context that people would expect—just how common is this sort of event? Is it the kind of thing that happens all the time? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

If this event's a familicide, pretty common and often "worse". If it's a school shooting, pretty common and often "worse". In the context of Canada as its own world, rare enough (but Concordia was still "worse"). Everything's always number one in everything, if you narrow it down enough. The Shell Lake murders were the worst in Saskatchewan, John Etter Clark was the worst in Alberta and Phu Lam was the worst in Alberta to die in Fort Saskatchewan (though still better than Clark, because politicians are the worst.) InedibleHulk (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

How was Concordia worse? Same number of deaths (so far), and half the number of shooting victims (11 in La Loche versus 5 at Concordia). "Worst elementary or secondary school shooting in Canada" is hardly comparable to the reductio ad absurdum you close with. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Worse as far as school goes. We can and should lump them together in this article, but that doesn't make the Fontaines school shooting victims. No problem with the worst elementary or secondary bit, but the "since 1989" bit is wrong, if "worst" means deadliest. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Dene Crescent - where?

If I knew where Dene Crescent was, I'd add a second set of coordinates for 300 block Dene Crescent. But it's not marked on any online mapping that I've found. I'm guessing it's the little loop off of Dene Rd, just north of town. Since we appear to have a WOTS (Wikipedian On The Scene), would it violate WP:NOR if we asked them to go check it out? I only ask because NOR seems to relax a little when it comes to coordinates. This wouldn't affect body prose. And by "check it out", I only mean tell us roughly where that 300 block is, not where the house is or take any photos of that area. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I took pictures of this house today and I know the coordinates but I don't feel like publishing them at this time out of respect for the family. Is that okay?-- Kayoty (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

We definitely don't want the house. Just the 300 block, which is already all over the news. And that only if it wouldn't violate NOR to use that info in coordinates. We're waiting on a consensus on that. But if you're not comfortable with it, that's certainly ok. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

And I could have been more clear, we (I) wouldn't want a photo of the 300 block, only its location/coordinates. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#NOR and coordinates, by the way. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kayoty: After some progress, the NORN thread (linked above) (permalink) seems to have stalled, consistent with my experience that noticeboards often fail their mission of providing expert advice in their subject area. One thing is clear, no one sees this as a clear enough (or serious enough) NOR violation to spend a minute saying so, either here or there. So I'm inclined to go ahead, and the only question remaining is whether you are comfortable giving us the coordinates of the 300 block Dene Crescent. If not, feel free to say so. Note that, if we added these coordinates, they would be clearly identified as 300 block, so as to not give the impression that they point to a specific house. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

There are only a couple of homes on this little crescent off Dene Road. Coordinates of Dene Crescent are 56°29′58.4″N 109°27′10.6″W -- Kayoty (talk) 06:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go with just the street. Thanks very much.  Done ―Mandruss ☎ 07:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

BLPCRIME and allegedly

The shootings began at a residence in the 300 block of Dene Crescent, where the suspect allegedly shot two of his cousins some time before 1:00 p.m. He then went to La Loche Community School and began firing at around 1:05 p.m., shortly before lunch ended.

I understand we need to avoid convicting the suspect in this article, per WP:BLPCRIME. We correctly say the suspect allegedly shot his cousins. Then we say, in wiki voice and without qualification, that the suspect (the boy currently in custody) went to the school and shot people. I don't think the existing "allegedly" automatically carries forward to the second sentence. That's wrong, but we should avoid being repetitive with the allegedlys. We could do this:

The shootings began at a residence in the 300 block of Dene Crescent, where someone shot two of the suspect's cousins some time before 1:00 p.m. He then went to La Loche Community School and began firing at around 1:05 p.m., shortly before lunch ended.

Is that overly clunky or strained? Even that assumes that one person, whoever it was, did all the shooting (and that that person was a male), but that does not pose a BLPCRIME issue and I don't think it's unreasonable at this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Referring to "someone" as "he" like that is a bit jarring. Makes the subject unknown and known at the same time. I'd rather preface the paragraph with "According to police...". They're the ones alleging, till a prosecutor steps up, and that attribution would cover the whole alleged scenario. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Facebook as a source?

Facebook, I assume, is not a WP:RS? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not a source at all, just the medium. The source is someone working for the school. Who's better qualified to publicly speak on school matters? Primary sources can be a problem when dealing with controversial claims, and can sometimes ruin things with a conflict of interest. This isn't one of those claims. If there's a secondary source that says the same, that'd be better. But if there isn't, it's not bad as is. Per WP:NOYT, the big question is whether we believe this page is run by a fraudster. I don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

If nobody is reporting this other than a primary source, then why are we even including this? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Because it's a significant reaction by an organization directly involved in the shooting. At least significant next to politicians who weren't there offering thoughts and prayers, or the Leafs and Habs standing quietly for a minute in Toronto. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Then one would assume third-party sources would pick up on it—how else can we judge it "significant"? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't contribute to this thread, but I'm an interested observer and I would hate to see it die early for lack of other interest. It goes right to the tension between editorial judgment and RS, something that I've yet to fully comprehend. I also can't put my finger on the policy about the RS side of this; WP:DUE is about viewpoints and neutrality, not uncontroversial facts. Keep it going, please. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying it should go—otherwise I would've just deleted it—but like you're saying I thought it was borderline enough to bring it up. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, but do you know where the policy is that says something should have some significant amount of coverage to be included? Or is that something that has been invented in our collective consciousness but never written down? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

We're not talking "significant amounts of coverage"—in this case there's literally none (or, at least, none cited). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I just added a bit of secondary sourced stuff about the whole thing grinding to a halt. Maybe now the first claim's weight is counterbalanced, somehow? In any case, the significance is in something that routinely happens no longer happening, as a result of something that normally doesn't happen. That's how I measure a "big deal". InedibleHulk (talk) 03:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

About the school board, the number isn't the source, but we can't have people confusing it with Northern Lights School Division No. 69. Whether it should be redlinked for a future article prompting is up to you, but it does have more secondary coverage now than Alberta's. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The issue is WP:V. Per Hulk's comments, the fact is sufficiently verifiable in my opinion. You can't call it "coverage", but it's a reliable source for this fact. I'm with Hulk, even though he made a lame argument about signatures elsewhere. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of which, do you see something other than a red box with letters in it beside Curly Turkey? I feel like I'm missing something. Possibly a turkey emoji. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a Unicode maple leaf—your fontset doesn't appear to include it (I have the same problem with my phone). If there's a Unicode turkey I should have been on the priority list of those informed about it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I see the leaf, but apparently the Universal Coded Character Set ain't as universal as its name implies. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

When I look so closely my eyes hurt, I see VIF 341. Googling it found me this book. Down the rabbit hole I go! Thanks for clearing that up. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

There's another issue with it now—at least, with the wording: The Star reports that many of the students had already finished writing their finals that morning. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

And now many won't. Because of the significant ramification. We could mention that, too, for contrast. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about significance, I was talking about wording—the current wording implies that all exams were cancelled, when it appears that perhaps less than half of them were. There's another interesting detail, by the way—that the shooting took place on an exam day, and that half the students had left already when the shooter arrived. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I see now. Can't have it implying that. And yeah, we overlooked exams, in all this talk of exams. Could've been much worse on a normal day. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Tiny issue with the wording: are we certain there was only one day of exams and that the students who took them were through with all their exams? Perhaps "taken exams that morning" would be better than "taken their exams that morning". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The source says they had "finished writing their final exams". In my school days, finals were in the summer, but that definitely sounds like "done". For them, anyway. We know at least one other day was scheduled (and cancelled). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No, the source doesn't use "their". Here it is copy & pasted: "there were about 150 kids inside because many had finished writing final exams in the morning". There are schools that hold exams over more than one day (and an aside: in my high school we had "final exams" at the end of each semester, which appears to be how La Loche does it). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

True enough, my bad. But the final exams the many finished writing were theirs (at least in an authorship sense). The ones who hadn't finished were to finish on the later, cancelled date. So by my reading, everyone's done for this round. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

In what context does "had taken their final exams that morning" mean "had taken some of their final exams that morning"? In no context, and that's the issue. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Who's saying anything about "some of"? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The wording "their exams" implies "all of their exams". We don't know if they took all of their scheduled exams. This is why the wording without "their" is better—it doesn't give any more information than what we have. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd only thought it implied they didn't take yours, mine or Tommy Douglas'. A possesive word, in my book, not about quantity. But if you'd rather cut it, I don't see how it could hurt. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Tommy Douglas is dead. They couldn't have taken his. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Somebody must have. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Give it a think—can you imagine someone saying: "I took my exams this morning. I'll take the rest tomorrow."? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Sound fine to me. If she said she'd finished them this morning, and will take the rest tomorrow, I'd look at her funny. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, if someone said that to me, it'd send me crosseyed. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Haven't you ever just taken part of something and left the rest? Pills? Pennies? Porridge? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I would never say "I ate my hamburger" if I l'd left part of it for later. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Flip a coin. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Three remarkable recoveries

All were in critical condition two days after the shootings [24th], according to an official in the Saskatchewan government. On January 27, an official said three had been released.

Critical to release in three days seems pretty unusual, especially when multiplied by three. Keep your eyes open for confirmation (or correction) of either fact. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It'd be a bit supernatural if those were major organ injuries. Not so weird if the problem was blood loss. That's a huge issue, but relatively easy to treat, if caught quickly. Possible, too, that a journalist hears of people being taken to a hospital in critical condition and remaining there, and assumes they remain in critical condition. It would be nice to hear this official's exact words (and name). Must've been on TV, I figure, and much TV ends up on YouTube. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The National Post now says only the four "most serious" went to Saskatoon. Mr. Official didn't say the released were released from Saskatoon, just from hospital. So no miracles, just lesser injuries healing sooner and early reports getting it wrong. Seemingly. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

So we leave what appears to be incorrect info because it's verifiable. Works 4 me. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I just fixed it. I feel like fixing your 4, too. It's despicable. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Them's fightin' words (4 me). (or 2 me) ―Mandruss ☎ 08:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Bah, kumbaya. I couldn't smash the guy who fixes my lazy citations. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

There are still three remarkable recoveries. I don't see how your edit addresses the problem, unless you're saying there is no problem because those three recoveries are not so remarkable. Is that what you're saying? ―Mandruss ☎ 09:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Per that Post story, one victim was shot once in the arm and talking to a reporter about it soon after. She was likely one of the three who were fine enough to stay up North, and likely one of the three who have gone home. If we hear that the ones in Saskatoon are released, that'd be more remarkable (presuming they're actually hurt near as bad as they currently seem to be). InedibleHulk (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Shotgun

Re: my recent revert

Now that I have more time, I wanted to expand on my edit summary and, if we still have a quorum, possibly establish an explicit consensus on this question. I find basically two sources for shotgun:

• Numerous repetitions of the following quotes, or similar: 1. A 16-year-old student told the Canadian Press that his friends ran past him yelling "There’s a shotgun!" as he returned to school from lunch break. 2. "There's a shotgun! There's a shotgun! They were just yelling to me. And then I was hearing those shots, too, so of course I started running."
• APTN National News, January 24: Piche said he went to ask his friend what was bothering him, and that’s when he noticed the suspect grab a shotgun from the backseat of a vehicle parked outside the school.

While the second seems a little stronger than the first, as the witness was not panicked at the time of observation, I don't think there's enough to use wiki voice for shotgun. We could say something with qualification or attribution (not in the infobox), but I'm not seeing enough relevance to do even that at this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)