Talk:2026 Tumbler Ridge shootings: Difference between revisions

By /

 

Line 66: Line 66:

:::Did they really? Called that crap out before i even knew. I put it on RSN to possibly be blacklisted.[[User:Psephguru|Psephguru]] ([[User talk:Psephguru|talk]]) 14:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

:::Did they really? Called that crap out before i even knew. I put it on RSN to possibly be blacklisted.[[User:Psephguru|Psephguru]] ([[User talk:Psephguru|talk]]) 14:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

:Apparently Indian media has also already picked up this identification. [https://www.google.com/search?q=jesse+strang&tbm=nws Google news results…] Anyway, [[WP:NOTNEWS]]. [[User:Slovborg|Slovborg]] ([[User talk:Slovborg|talk]]) 15:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

:Apparently Indian media has also already picked up this identification. [https://www.google.com/search?q=jesse+strang&tbm=nws Google news results…] Anyway, [[WP:NOTNEWS]]. [[User:Slovborg|Slovborg]] ([[User talk:Slovborg|talk]]) 15:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

::Indian news is notoriously unreliable and often creates stories based on random US/UK events to draw in foreign clicks for their advertising revenue. So many organisations do this [[User:Motherwell6|Motherwell6]] ([[User talk:Motherwell6|talk]]) 15:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

== Move ==

== Move ==

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]

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]

Identification of alleged shooter published so far in [1] and [2]. Not sure how reliable. —Túrelio (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this is their parent organisation True North Centre for Public Policy and that they’ve published multiple hoax stories I would say that’s about as reliable as a piece of wet toilet paper. Dark-World25 (talk) 09:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CNN also published multiple left-leaning hoax stories, yet they can be named as a source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies ~2026-93432-0 (talk) 09:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[3].Psephguru (talk) 10:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
is there any confirmation if it’s a transgender or no as of right now NamelessPsychopath (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

“is there any confirmation if it’s a transgender” Absolutely fucking amazing that we do this after every god damn mass shooting now.EnviousDemon (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A lie can go round the world while the truth is getting its boots on. And transphobia is a very prominent type of lie at the moment. As editors, we should be especially vigilant about this (and other, similar and not necessarily directly related lies, to be clear). It’s arguably a form of stochastic terrorism, and we shouldn’t let ourselves be fooled. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
some sources said it’s a person named james strang but those sources aren’t reliable but it’s a possibility they’re correct so currently it’s just waiting until reliable sources give actual information because there’s only small amount of information about the attacks NamelessPsychopath (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If none of those sources is reliable, we should treat their claims about the identity of the shooter as no more ‘a possibility’ than if they had said it was Mickey Mouse. Let’s confine ourselves to the realm of the verifiable. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

of course but no official sources or the canadian police are saying anything either and some residents of the city where the attacks happened also claimed that james strang is the shooter so it could be a possibility and that the police aren’t releasing information to prevent the transphobic surge again similar to what happened with officer rex idolization after the 2023 school shooting NamelessPsychopath (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

guys the police aren’t saying anything but terfsite.uk says the shooter was a trans woman. is this a reliable source?” EnviousDemon (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

not reliable, I didn’t find any proof it’s reliable so it’s not NamelessPsychopath (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they might’ve been sarcastic Sillymabs (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea who ‘officer rex’ is or which 2023 shooting you’re talking about. A glance at your contribution history show’s you’re peculiarly focussed on murders; please bear in mind that other people may lack both your specialised knowledge and your particular cultural approach to such topics. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: And while there are unlikely to be BLPCRIME issues with whatever is eventually officially released about the identity of the perpetrator, there is a problem with you repeatedly dropping a name which may belong to an uninvolved person. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

all of that uninvolved person’s accounts were all banned for unknown reasons after people started suspecting that that person is the perpetrator which is obviously suspicious NamelessPsychopath (talk) 11:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

reddit account of the james strang transgender got banned for unknown reasons after the subreddit r/masskillers and locals from the city started saying he’s the shooter NamelessPsychopath (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This constitutes WP:OR Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Juno news says “the suspect’s uncle, Russell G. Strang, confirmed that Jesse Strang was responsible for the shooting”. That’s obviously a possibility but it’s also possible it’s a hoax. The police say they know the identity so presumably will announce it at some point, so I think we should wait until then. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

they might not if it’s a transgender and instead of saying transgender female they’ll say just female to prevent the rise of transphobia again NamelessPsychopath (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Something a bit ironic in talking about preventing the rise of transphobia and also using the words “it’s a transgender” in the one sentence. Just a heads up, it’s best to say a transgender person rather than a transgender 🙂 Toadheart (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not finding it ironic; I’m finding it dog-whistly. NamelessPsychopath keeps pushing a name and possible gender identity without reliable sources, and going on and on about it. It smacks of concern-trolling. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I’m inclined to agree with what EnviousDemon said below, that English may not be NamelessPsychopath’s first language. Toadheart (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I spoke too soon… Toadheart (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yup… my bad I tried to extend some common courtesy and correct him and it bit me in the ass lmfao. EnviousDemon (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I said it in a disrespectful form on purpose because I’m transphobic but just because I’m transphobic doesn’t mean I want transphobes vandalizing this page, wikipedia is supposed to make articles in a neutral form and I’m allowed to dislike and feel disgust towards transgenders while not vandalizing wikipedia and I think wikipedia should be neutral no matter what so I think the page should be semi protected for now because transphobes might raid this page soon considering most people online already accepted that it’s a transgender NamelessPsychopath (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While Wikipedia cannot demand you not believe transphobic beliefs, it does demand you be WP:CIVIL. Please don’t use an intentionally disrespectful form to address a demographic, especially one that likely includes your fellow editors. radioactOlive(she/it)(talk) 12:23, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also consider Wikipedia:No queerphobia and Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Has to be an essay > policy. At least he is transparent and not vandalizing.Psephguru (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
“a transgender” You know, I may have over reacted and assumed you were transphobic, but I’m beginning to think English may not be your first language. “a transgender” comes off as kind of offensive tbh. The correct syntax is “a transgender person” or “a transgender woman” or “a transgender female”. EnviousDemon (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for this, or no? EnviousDemon (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the kenya times speard misinfamotion by Sunuraju (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I’d prefer an article by say, a source located in Canada such as the CBC, or located in North America like NBC or CNN. Maybe even an international news organization like the BBC, Al Jazeera, France 24, DW or NHK. I highly doubt Kenya times has any reporters on the ground in BC. EnviousDemon (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A source for what Juno news has said? Obviously that would be Juno news, my point being that we should wait for an official confirmation which will invariably come in time. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 12:13, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed below, Juno News is a blog and not a reliable source. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i dont like misinformation Sunuraju (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, my point was the origin of the claim is hearsay and we should wait for official comment. I’m not sure why my comment was misunderstood, I think people may be on edge due to the type of discuss appearing here. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As stated, Juno News is a blog, and their parent organization has published several hoax stories, and all the other sources I can find are giving Juno News as a source. We should treat this as we treat any sort of recent-event speculation, regardless of if people are saying she was transgender or not. Remember that WP:BLP says Contentious material about living (or, in some cases, recently deceased) persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
⚠︎ ArkadenBoden ⚠︎ (talk) 12:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear – Juno News’ parent organisation has recently expressed support for far-right terrorism. Their claims have no place here. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. I knew about the hoax stories, but not that. Thanks for the info.
Much love, rock on!
⚠︎ ArkadenBoden ⚠︎ (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Did they really? Called that crap out before i even knew. I put it on RSN to possibly be blacklisted.Psephguru (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently Indian media has also already picked up this identification. Google news results… Anyway, WP:NOTNEWS. Slovborg (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Indian news is notoriously unreliable and often creates stories based on random US/UK events to draw in foreign clicks for their advertising revenue. So many organisations do this Motherwell6 (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There were two seperate shootingS in the area with casualties in both, so it is not a shooting. Psephguru (talk) 09:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

currently there’s not enough information to even make the basis all victims were killed by gunshots or that the two killings at the residence were committed using guns, the perpetrator might’ve used knives during the attack similar to marc lepine or bombs similarly to the kazan school attack or similar to how elliot rodger killed his roommates with knives before commiting the shootings or how broken arrow murders were carried out and their plans to commit spree shootings so keep the parts related to the attacks neutral until there’s a confirmation from sources on what weapons were used NamelessPsychopath (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Although likely, it is not sourced. I just changed he section headline to match your lead changes.Psephguru (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn’t assume it’s likely because from the wording of official sources it seems like the people killed at the residence we’re only discovered after the shooting which definitely makes it possible that quiter methods of murder we’re used such as a hammer, knife or strangulation and it’s definitely possible the suspect could’ve brought knives with them even if they didn’t use them as that happened a lot of times in school shootings including aracruz school shootings, örebro school shooting, kerch college shooting, sofia shooting, jokela school shooting, rose mar college attack and many others NamelessPsychopath (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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 [4].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]

in the “victims” section the same sentence is essentially repeated twice (6 dead in the school, 1 on their way to the hospital, perpetrator dead inside the school, 2 at a residence). I propose to remove one of the two sentences to avoid unnecessary repetition. Ollie111123 (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it earlier but someone put it back. Removed again. WWGB (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top