Talk:Danzig Street shooting

Edit notice

Please create an edit notice for the article, in the form of Template:Editnotices/Page/2012 Aurora shooting. Thank you. – Reidgreg (talk) 06:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Can't see a good reason not to, so  Done. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Aurora shooting

@Wingwraith: In your recent edit you removed the 2012 Aurora shooting from the lead of the article with the summary "irrelevant as that shooting didn't even happen in the same country". I feel it is relevant. The two countries (the United States and Canada) are very closely related and major gun crime in the United States certainly affects gun crime debate in Canada. Media reports made note of this (including a citation with the material you removed) so reliable secondary sources are saying it is relevant. I can cite a second source if you'd like. (BTW, I'm not fostering any kind of conspiracy theory that the crimes were related, only that they were both high-profile crimes which spurred the gun debate.) I think I originally had a few more words in there about the Aurora shooting bringing the gun debate to a new level, but removed that as ellipsis, to make it more concise. That paragraph of the lead is about the context of the shooting, the immediate aftermath and media coverage (including gun debate). I feel that the Aurora shooting is part of that context. Thoughts? – Reidgreg (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

What I meant to say was that it was irrelevant given the way that it was written which made the connection between the two shootings forced. I wouldn't have a problem if you mentioned the Aurora shooting in the body of the article but would object if you included it in the lead as that shooting hasn't even been mentioned in the body of the article. Wingwraith (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

Additional initial discussion: 3rd Opinion, multiple lead proposals and GAN review

@Wingwraith: It is in the body of the article, at the end of the first paragraph in §Crime and policing. Would it be okay if I reverted your edit? Do you have a suggestion for a better way to phrase the material so seems less forced? – Reidgreg (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd be ok if you put what you said (or something to that effect) in your OP ("spur the gun debate") into that crime and policing section but not the lead paragraph. Wingwraith (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Wingwraith: By OP, do you mean opening or opening paragraph? It was not in the lead paragraph/opening paragraph, it was in the second paragraph of the lead. I'll try to think of a clearer way of writing it, without going into OR territory. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

How about adding the following to that paragraph: In addition to these local crimes there was extensive media coverage when a lone gunman opened fire in a Colorado movie theatre, killing twelve.^[10] A poll taken the following week showed that a majority of Canadians were in fear of "a violent crime wave".^[11] That may give a better picture of the local, national and international context. Thoughts? – Reidgreg (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I meant OP as in your opening post for this "Aurora shooting" paragraph and I object to any plan that mentions the Aurora shooing anywhere in the lead. Wingwraith (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

That sounds a bit final so I'll ask for a third opinion. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion request

First writeup and discussion

A WP:3O request has been created for the above dispute. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

The second par. of the lead is unfinished: the introductory sentence suggests context, while the continuing sentence suggests a timeline. If you wish to suggest context then the sentence should be rephrased, and once it's been clarified it could mention the Aurora incident: "The incident was the pinnacle of... coming in the heels of... and followed by... including a major shooting incident in the neighbouring United States." or "The subject dominated the news... due to the accumulation of shooting events in such a short period of time, including: ...". Why? Because the question here is not whether the US and Canada are so-and-so connected, but whether the Aurora incident affected the Canadian news cycle and public discussion. Did it? The sources suggest it has. Note that the incident should be listed in a manner reflecting its relative effect: if the effect was significant, then by name and perhaps with some detail; if small, then as "just another incident" in that already grim record (see examples above). François Robere (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you clarify your response? The way that you worded it ('could mention', 'reflecting its relative effect') made it ambiguous and I don't see how it resolves the dispute: we are disputing whether or not the effect of the Aurora shooting on this shooting is so significant that it should be mentioned (per WP:LEAD) in the lead section of this article, and not whether or not the incident affected the gun debate in Canada. I'm saying that it doesn't seeing as the effect of the Aurora shooting is barely even mentioned (let alone explained) in the article and that what is important about that shooting (contribute to the gun debate in Canada) can be summarized per WP:LEAD instead of just essentially transcribing the first paragraph of the 'Crime and Policing' section to the lead as Reidgreg did here. Here's my proposal for the lead and your feedback on it would be welcomed:

The Danzig Street shooting or Danzig shooting was a Canadian gang-related shooting that occurred on the evening of 16 July 2012 at a block party on Danzig Street in the West Hill neighbourhood of Toronto. Three gunmen from rival gangs opened fire in a crowd of 200 people, resulting in the deaths of 23-year-old Joshua Yasay and 14-year-old Shyanne Charles, and the injury of twenty-four others. (1st paragraph lays out the facts of the shooting)

Although initially believed to be the resumption of a 2003 gang war between the Galloway Boys and the Malvern Crew, it became clear that the Danzig Street shooting was not part of a territorial dispute or retaliation for another incident but a disagreement between teenagers who decided to have a gunfight in the middle of a party. Justice Ian Nordheimer said of the incident, "Ordinary persons do not understand how anyone, much less teenagers, can come not only to possess such weapons, but to use them in such a brutal and indifferent way." The four young men convicted were aged 15 to 19 at the time of the shooting; two were minors and their names were withheld under the Youth Criminal Justice Act until they were sentenced as adults. (2nd paragraph provides background context)

The shooting was the worst mass shooting in Toronto and made headlines around the world. It kicked off renewed debate on gun crime in urban areas and led the Toronto Police Service to develop new crime-prevention strategies for the Neighbourhood Officers program, established to build community relationships in at-risk areas to gain information on local crime, making possible targeted crackdowns on gang activity and a dramatic reduction in shootings and other crimes. Police 43 Division (southeast Scarborough, including Danzig Street) reported no homicides in 2013. (3rd paragraph lays out the outcome of the shooting)

References

References

Wingwraith (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Wingwraith: I think François Robere explained himself perfectly well. If the Aurora shooting affected [...] the public discussion [... which] the sources suggest it has, then it could be included in the lead. (François Robere also gave very useful advice on framing the material in a more-coherent fashion.) These two shootings both received international media coverage and happened in the same week (on Monday and Friday), overlapping news cycles, and had a definite affect on the local and national discussion. I read the WP:LEAD guideline and didn't see any problems. Please be more specific if you insist; it seems to me that the stated reason for your objection keeps changing, amounting to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

I can't say I feel your proposed text (above) is an improvement: (1) I feel that you buried "the worst mass shooting in Toronto" to the last paragraph of the lead. That's essential to describing the event and demonstrating its notability and should be in the lead paragraph (i.e.: the first paragraph of the lead). (2) I feel that three paragraphs is too short for an article of this size (about 4500 words). (3) The convictions didn't occur until years afterwards; this paragraph was about the later investigation and trials when facts finally came out rather than the immediate aftermath or the media coverage of the time. (4) There's little to indicate the context of that week with a spike in gun crime and the alarming and escalating media coverage.

The article stood with this material in the lead for five months since its creation; you're the one making the change by removing the material, and it's up to you to justify your change. So I'm going to revert your revert and put the material back in. I'll ask that you not edit war by removing it again, as I don't want the article to appear unstable while up for GAN. If you're not happy the 3O didn't agree with you, you are free to escalate the dispute resolution process. Or perhaps the GAN reviewer(s) will have something to say about it. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Wingwraith: The reason I say "could" is because it doesn't seem like an essential detail, so it's up to the editors to decide. The only essential fact for the lead is that there was an agglomeration of shooting incidents which peaked with the Danzig event; whether to name or otherwise elaborate on any of the specific events is a matter of editorial discretion, and could change with time (eg. if the lead became overly long and some material had to be cut).

I've went through all of the sources and have a few notes which I hope you find helpful:

Regarding Wingwraith's suggestion:

• The structure "intro-resolution-aftermath" is clearer than the current revision's, which has two "aftermath" sections.
• Two sources suggest the Aurora incident had an effect on discussion in Canada (); one of the two suggests that the discussions in the US and Canada are one and the same (), however it only appears in the preface to that article, and I would consider including it there only if better sources cannot be found.
• Consider mentioning the poll on gun control in the "aftermath" section ().

Regarding both this suggestion and the current revision:

• The judge's quote is non-essential; if it does appear, it should appear at the end of the paragraph rather than the middle.
• The implication in the 2nd par. that the event wasn't gang-related is misleading; cf. with source: The judge said Owusu knew he, as a Chester “Le Side” gang member, would be perceived as an enemy at the Danzig event held by rival Galloway Boyz gang. Yet Owusu still brought a fully-loaded firearm.
• The claim that the event "made headlines around the world" is only supported by one source's preface ().
• In general the claims about the effect of the shooting on the news cycle and public policy debate are not well-supported. I'd expect either a grouping of editorials or other public statements making a clear connection ("we must review our gun policies in light of recent events!"), or a media review to that effect ("this week's headlines reflect the public's alarm after recent events").

Aside: Do we really have ref names like KitchingCharge and MackraelCharged? Can we have BouillonCharge as well?

François Robere (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

François Robere Yes but that is why we are looking to your input to resolve this dispute (at least for this stage of it) because that is the issue over which the consensus has broken down. So yes or no should the Aurora shooting be mentioned in lead? We will need you to pick one because the dispute stems from that question and we will not be able proceed content-wise unless we get your answer to it. Wingwraith (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The ref names I used took the surname of an author and a relevant word from the title (usually early in the title), so the article by Kim Mackrael (and three others, but she was first alphabetically) titled "Man charged in Scarborough shooting was 'very intelligent, always laughing'" was MackraelCharged. Is that confusing? I thought this was a decent system. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a decent naming system, it just ends up with a bunch of cooking-related ref names (or is it just me?).

Two sources suggest the Aurora incident had an effect on discussion in Canada; one of the two suggests that the discussions in the US and Canada are one and the same. More sources that demonstrate an effect on public discussion, as well as a connection between gun policies in both countries:

So yes - I would mention it, but would do so as part of your suggested revision for the lead, which is better organized. François Robere (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Much thanks for the additional sources, I'll review them later.

I suppose I'd aimed at a four-paragraph lead given the article size, and split information out that way. If the above is intro-resolution-aftermath, then I guess mine was intro-aftermath/context-resolution-aftermath/later effects. All of the aftermath/context happened within 10 days, except for the Eaton Centre shooting which I thought relevant as a high-profile shooting in the city). The aftermath/later effects started in the following year. The number of shootings and high-profile shootings I felt were important, to convey the sense people had of a violent crime wave ("the summer of the gun" was statistically more violent, but there was a similar level of apprehension); I'm open to conveying this in fewer words, but I felt it essential to the context.

About the gang-related part: the important thing here is that for about three years most were convinced this was a resumption of the Galloway Boys–Malvern Crew gang war, which had been very violent, and which spurred fears with the shootings that followed. It wasn't until Mesquito's sentencing years later that this was shown to be a false assumption. Malvern Crew was not directly involved; the shooting had been conducted by people who happened to be members of gangs but it wasn't gang business. Does that make sense? – Reidgreg (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Second writeup and discussion

In light of the discussion above I propose the following wording for the lead; @Reidgreg: and @François Robere: feel free to comment.

The Danzig Street shooting or Danzig shooting was a Canadian gang-related mass shooting that occurred on the evening of 16 July 2012 at a block party on Danzig Street in the West Hill neighbourhood of Toronto. The gunfire by three gunmen from rival gangs (the Galloway Boys and Malvern Crew) into a crowd of 200 people left two dead and twenty-four injured, making it the city's worst mass shooting.

The crime scene was situated in a part of Toronto that at the time of the shooting was the site of a turf war between the Galloway Boys and Malvern Crew which had spanned at least nearly the course of a decade prior to the shooting; post-shooting intelligence which was collated by the Toronto police also revealed further criminal activities in which the Galloway Boys were involved which included another turf war with the neighbouring Orton Park Boys. An anti-gang crackdown in 2004 as a result of the Galloway-Malvern rivalry led to the imprisonment of many of the Galloway gang's leaders but their release back into the community in around 2010 bred, with the help of their mentoring, a new generation of gang members and renewed a cycle of gang violence in which the Galloway Boys were subsequently implicated during the course of the police investigation into the Danzig shooting.

The incident made headlines around the world and, in conjunction with the Eaton Centre shooting six weeks prior and Aurora movie theater shooting four days later, renewed an intense debate on guns and gangs in urban areas Although the public initially believed that the shooting signaled the resumption of a gang war between Galloway Boys and the Malvern Crew, it later became clear that the shooting was merely a disagreement between teenagers who just happened to be members of the rival gangs. Nevertheless, a poll taken the following week showed that a majority of Canadians were in fear of "a violent crime wave" and the shooting led the Toronto Police Service to develop new crime-prevention strategies for the Neighbourhood Officers program, established to build community relationships in at-risk areas to gain information on local crime, making possible targeted crackdowns on gang activity and a dramatic reduction in shootings and other crimes. Police 43 Division (southeast Scarborough, including Danzig Street) reported no homicides in 2013.

References

References

Wingwraith (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I like the first sentence of the third paragraph; framed that way, it provides context to the aftermath section. I think that's better than what I had. There are some factual inaccuracies in the first paragraph. The second paragraph might be misleading; it does give a lot of context but the incident wasn't part of a gang war (Le Side Crew, to which the first shooter belonged, is distinct from either Malvern Crew or Orton Park Boys); maybe that's where the clarification is needed: gang-related but not gang war. (I think I had a comment on that in the infobox.)

This discussion is getting difficult for me to follow with the multiple rewrites. Before I put forward a rewrite proposal, I feel I would benefit from some clarification (taking into account my comments) on why the three-paragraph structure is preferred. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Reidgreg, it's not a question of the number of paragraphs (although a lead shouldn't be more than five, and even that's rare), but of overall structure (or, one might say these days, of "flow"). You do not want to discuss the outcome of the event in multiple, separated paragraphs, as it impairs readability and is thus considered bad style. François Robere (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Third writeup and discussion

Here's a try:

The Danzig Street shooting or Danzig shooting was a Canadian gang-related shooting that occurred on the evening of 16 July 2012 at a block party on Danzig Street in the West Hill neighbourhood of Toronto. Three gunmen opened fire in a crowd of 200 people, resulting in the deaths of 23-year-old Joshua Yasay and 14-year-old Shyanne Charles, and the injury of twenty-four others, making it the worst mass shooting in Toronto.

Although initially believed to be the resumption of a 2003 gang war between the Galloway Boys and the Malvern Crew, it later became clear that the Danzig Street shooting was not part of a territorial dispute or retaliation for another incident but a disagreement between teenagers who decided to have a gunfight in the middle of a party. The four young men convicted were aged 15 to 19 at the time of the shooting; two were minors and their names were withheld under the Youth Criminal Justice Act until they were sentenced as adults. Justice Ian Nordheimer said of the incident, "Ordinary persons do not understand how anyone, much less teenagers, can come not only to possess such weapons, but to use them in such a brutal and indifferent way."

The incident made headlines around the world and, in conjunction with the Eaton Centre shooting six weeks earlier and a shooting in a Colorado movie theatre four days later, renewed debate on gun crime in urban areas. A poll taken the following week showed that a majority of Canadians were in fear of "a violent crime wave". The shooting led the Toronto Police Service to develop new crime-prevention strategies for the Neighbourhood Officers program, established to build community relationships in at-risk areas to gain information on local crime, making possible targeted crackdowns on gang activity and a dramatic reduction in shootings and other crimes. Police 43 Division (southeast Scarborough, including Danzig Street) reported no homicides in 2013.

References

References

Some notes:

• Named the two victims who died; it seems to be a good practice to aid with searches and redirects
• Perhaps not controversies but I thought it important to mention the two main things which might cause confusion (particularly for anyone checking sources): that it wasn't a resumption of the gang war as initially believed and reported, and that two of the convicted were minors and so their names are absent from sources prior to their convictions. (If you read between the lines, some reported a "connection" between the brothers.)
• I like the quote, just so there is one opinion in there calling to the brutality of the event, which we can't do directly in Wikipedia's voice. I feel it also makes it clear this is a big incident for the city.
• There is an Aurora in Ontario, not far from the incident, so I thought it best to avoid that name in reference to the shooting in Colorado.

– Reidgreg (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I occasionally come back to this one passage The four young men convicted were aged 15 to 19 at the time of the shooting; although two were minors (ie: boys) at the time of the incident, they were adults (ie: young men) at the time they were convicted. I think that tracks. @Wingwraith: would you find it acceptable to change the lead as above? – Reidgreg (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg:In response to your notes:

• 1) I would argue that we don't need to name the victims, it's superfluous information that is better if it's included in the body of the article.
• 2) I'm fine with including that information into the lead (and to be clear I was trying to that in my latest write-up).
• 3) I would argue that we don't need the quote itself as it's information that is better if it's included in the body of the article, but I am open to including a summary of the judge's opinion into the lead.
• 4) That's fine
• 5) You've now changed the structure of the lead from "intro-context-resolution" to "intro-resolution-resolution" which makes it confusing because there is now a redundant resolution section.

Wingwraith (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

5a) The lead is a "section". I don't believe I've ever seen a lead with sub-sections.

5b) I don't understand your statement. Content-wise, the second paragraph (above) is unchanged from the original third paragraph of the lead, while the third paragraph (above) combines information from the original second and fourth paragraphs. So, from previous discussion, that would make the above intro-context-aftermath. At least I think it does, I don't feel I ever got a straight answer regarding that and I don't particularly care for those labels or organizational assessment.

I feel the above is an improvement on the original lead and thank you for prompting the discussion which led to this. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Looking at this again, for point 5, I feel the second paragraph (above) talks about the crime while the third paragraph talks about effects of the crime. The "Effects" section is around a quarter/third of the article so I don't see a problem giving it this much weight.

@Wingwraith: it's been almost 2 months since your last reply. I don't particularly like leaving the lead in this state while awaiting GA review. Would you object to my changing the lead as above? I would be happy to ping you if/when the GA begins, to keep you in the loop. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: This somehow fell off my radar so my apologies for the late reply. I also forgot that the article was awaiting GA review so I'll try to expedite this resolution process with you AFAP.

I think that the main problem is the second paragraph, the differences in the third paragraph we can deal with later because they concern just the details of the event but the second one is the issue because it seems like we don't agree on how it functions. I had it as explaining the backstory of what happened which is important because people need to know WHY the shooting happened there while your version had a mix of both the backstory and legal outcome of the shooting which makes it confusing because the outcome (or effects) section is what the third paragraph is for. If we can't agree on this, then we would need @François Robere: to resolve this like how he did for the dispute above. Wingwraith (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It's okay. WP:NODEADLINE and it seems to have fallen off the radar at GA as well. Plus the break may have given me some perspective on this. Some of the earlier worries seemed to focus on taking information out of the lead, but if you want to look at putting stuff in or balancing it that's fine.

Looking at the section-by-section wordcount, Background is the smallest section (at about 8.5% of the total) and Effects is the largest (at 43%) so that probably gives an idea of why I weighed the lead so heavily towards effects. (The other sections are about 20% for Event and 10% each for Aftermath, Investigation and Convictions.)

I'm not really sure about how to work in the "why" of the shooting; it quickly gets into opinion territory. Just stay on-topic, I guess. As an additional paragraph following the first (or tacked to the beginning of the second para), how about this (the parenthetic parts could probably be removed):

The Galloway Boys gang of West Hill had begun reforming around 2010, heavily recruiting youth who obtained guns (and brazenly used them in conflicts for territory and leadership). (To enhance their reputation and support in the community,) some of these youths held an open-invitation free-alcohol block party on the evening of 16 July. Following a series of confrontations with people they did not recognize and people from rival gang territories, threats escalated into the shooting.

I think that gives some rough context without going into unnecessary detail. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I can expand on the first and third paragraphs to reflect that breakdown that's no problem because like I said it's just details that we need to put in there it's the second paragraph that we need to concentrate on for, again, the reason that I stated above. The whole reform bit in your proposal I was already trying to do in my second writeup ("their release back into the community" and the content afterwards), I can add in the reputation promotion part and cut down on the Orton Park Boys content, but would not eliminate it entirely as the Gang Crackdown section in the main article mentions them at some length. I'll wait for your response to this before proceeding with the fourth writeup.Wingwraith (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Wingwraith: I don't want to go too exploitive with gangs and the myth of Scarborough as a dangerous place. My between the lines reading is that this was a bunch of teenagers acting tough and making bad decisions. I don't especially want to bury that, or to mention Orton Park which had nothing to do with the event. The body probably mentions Rob Ford more than Orton Park, and I don't see him being lead-worthy, either. But I'd still like to see what you do with your fourth draft. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Fourth writeup and discussion

In light of the discussion above I propose the following wording for the lead; @Reidgreg: and @François Robere: feel free to comment.

The Danzig Street shooting or Danzig shooting was a Canadian gang-related mass shooting that occurred on the evening of 16 July 2012 at a block party on Danzig Street in the West Hill neighbourhood of Toronto. The gunfire by three gunmen (Folorunso Owusu, Nahom Tsegazab and an unidentified third individual) from rival gangs into a crowd of 200 people left two dead and twenty-four injured, making it the city's worst mass shooting.

The crime scene was situated in a part of Toronto that at the time of the shooting was the site of a turf war between the Galloway Boys, Malvern Crew and Orton Park Boys which had spanned at least nearly the course of a decade prior to the shooting. An anti-gang crackdown in 2004 led to the imprisonment of many of the Galloway gang's leaders but their release back into the community in around 2010 bred, with the help of their mentoring, a new generation of gang members and renewed a cycle of gang violence. Specifically, the gang tried to re-establish their territorial claims by recruiting youths who were able to obtain firearms (we need a source for this), some of whom held the open-invitation free-alcohol block party. (we need a source for this).

Although the public initially believed that the shooting signaled the resumption of a gang war between Galloway Boys and the Malvern Crew, it later became clear that the shooting was merely a disagreement between teenagers who just happened to be members of the rival gangs. (Not in source so we need another source for this claim) Nevertheless the incident made headlines around the world and, in conjunction with the Eaton Centre shooting six weeks prior and Aurora movie theater shooting four days later, renewed an intense debate on guns and gangs in urban areas. The presiding judge over the trial for the shooters remarked that ordinary people could not understand how anyone could not only possess but also use the firearms involved in such a brutal and indifferent way and a poll taken the week following the shooting showed that a majority of Canadians were in fear of "a violent crime wave." The shooting led to the conviction of four individuals in relation to the shooting and the Toronto Police Service to develop new crime-prevention strategies for the Neighbourhood Officers program, which tried to build community relationships in high risk areas as a means of obtaining intelligence on gang activity, and made possible a subsequent gang crackdown and reduction in other crimes. (We need a source for this) The strategies proved effective as Toronto police did not report a homicide in 2013 for the administrative division in which the site of the shooting was situated. (We need a source for this)

References

References

Wingwraith (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I think your proposal has some good points, Wingwraith. I'll try to take a thorough look at it offline and respond by next week (or hopefully sooner). – Reidgreg (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, there are a couple good points but it's in desperate need of a copy edit. I feel that it overemphasizes gangs and gang wars; the body is only one quarter about gangs (if you count the Rob Ford section) but your lead proposal is about half about gangs. I also feel that overuse of the term "gang" gives a negative bias. There were no known shootings linked to the Galloway Boys in the six months preceding Danzig Street, so was it really related to a gang war? IMO, the only relevance of a gang war was to people's fears. At the very least, the gang parts should be more succinct so as not to take undue weight.

Some specific notes:

• As a minor point, I felt that "Canadian gang-related mass shooting" was a lot of modifiers in one place. Mass shooting might not be a familiar term to all readers and could cause confusion there in the first sentence. But the second sentence provides a inherent definition of what a mass shooting is and I feel is a more-natural read. So I'd prefer to strike the first "mass".
• The gunfire by three gunmen (Folorunso Owusu, Nahom Tsegazab and an unidentified third individual) from rival gangs into a crowd of 200 people left two dead and twenty-four injured, making it the city's worst mass shooting. There are a couple problems with lumping the three together. It implies the unidentified third individual was a gang member and makes it seem that Owusu fired into the crowd. The first is likely but unknown and unsourced and the second is inaccurate: Owusu was in the middle of the crowd when he fired two shots at Nahom, it was the other two who fired into the crowd as Owusu fled (through the crowd). It rather makes it sound like the crowd was their target rather than each other. Also, parenthesis or dashes may indicate fragmented or unfinished thought and would be better avoided in the lead.
• The crime scene was situated in a part of Toronto that at the time of the shooting was the site of a turf war between the Galloway Boys, Malvern Crew and Orton Park Boys which had spanned at least nearly the course of a decade prior to the shooting. This is a bit of a mess and suggests that there was a continuous gang war in West Hill for 10 years. Sources say there was a gang/turf war in 2003–04 which was shut down then another gang/turf war in 2011–12, and they were spread across multiple neighbourhoods. It's pretty confused (e.g.: "at least nearly").
• Nevertheless the incident made headlines around the world This implies that the mass shooting of 26 people was less newsworthy because it was not part of a gang war. I find that upsetting.
• Aurora movie theater shooting four days later, renewed an intense debate on guns and gangs in urban areas This implies the Aurora shooting was gang-related.
• The presiding judge over the trial for the shooters It was Owusu's trial, not all the shooters. Only Owusu went to trial, all the others pleaded guilty. Also, the quote should be less-closely paraphrased or else presented as a direct quote.
• I feel that the last paragraph jumps around a lot in terms of timeframe and topic – reactions from 4 days later, then the judge's comment from 4 years later, then the poll the week after the shooting, then back to the convictions, then to the police strategies which led to the convictions. It seems confused and scattered.

I feel like this is an inherent problem with the structure proposed by the non-binding 3O, which doesn't seem to be part of any guideline. By forcing the lead summary to follow that structure, too much disparate information is being awkwardly crammed together. I don't believe this structure serves the requirements of the article. The original structure summarized more by topic which allowed it to be focused and concise, and a talented copy editor who reviewed the article had no issue with it. – Reidgreg (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Fifth writeup and discussion

A GA reviewer has picked up the article so I'm putting forward another attempt, incorporating some of the ideas brought forward in prop.4 and I believe this is an improvement on the original. However, other examples and arguments have not convinced me that the 3O-suggested structure or other suggested changes would be an improvement.

I've noted some relevant material in the citations |quote= to make it a little easier. But most of this is in the body of the article so this lead proposal is definitely overcited.

The Danzig Street shooting or Danzig shooting was a Canadian gang-related shooting that occurred on the evening of 16 July 2012 at a block party on Danzig Street in the West Hill neighbourhood of Toronto. Rival gang members Folorunso Owusu and Nahom Tsegazab, along with an unidentified third gunman, opened fire in a crowd of two hundred people. This resulted in the deaths of Joshua Yasay and Shyanne Charles, and the injury of twenty-four others, making it the worst mass shooting in Toronto.

A 2008 provincial report had warned of increasing trends in youth violence but key recommendations to help keep at-risk youth from joining gangs had not been adopted. Around 2010 the West Hill-based Galloway Boys gang was reforming, recruiting youth who obtained guns used in conflicts for territory and leadership. Some of these youths held an open-invitation free-alcohol block party at a social-housing complex. Following a series of confrontations, threats escalated into the shooting.

Although initially believed to be the resumption of a 2003 gang war between the Galloway Boys and the Malvern Crew, it later became clear that the Danzig Street shooting was not part of a territorial dispute or retaliation for another incident but a disagreement between teenagers who decided to have a gunfight in the middle of a party. The four young men convicted were aged 15 to 19 at the time of the shooting; two were minors and their names were withheld under the Youth Criminal Justice Act until they were sentenced as adults. Justice Ian Nordheimer said of the incident, "Ordinary persons do not understand how anyone, much less teenagers, can come not only to possess such weapons, but to use them in such a brutal and indifferent way."

The incident made headlines around the world and, in conjunction with the Eaton Centre shooting six weeks earlier and a shooting in a Colorado movie theatre four days later, renewed debate on gun crime in urban areas. A poll taken the following week showed that a majority of Canadians were in fear of "a violent crime wave". The shooting led the Toronto Police Service to develop new crime-prevention strategies for the Neighbourhood Officers program, established to build community relationships in at-risk areas to gain information on local crime, making possible targeted crackdowns on gang activity and a dramatic reduction in shootings and other crimes. Police 43 Division (which includes Danzig Street) reported no homicides in 2013.

References

References

At this point I'm going to concentrate on responding to the GA review. – Reidgreg (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

This proposal was used as a basis for the lead in the GA Review. Following that discussion a modified version of this proposal was used for the article's lead, and it passed GA. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Boxing Day shooting which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: The proposal in this move discussion was to move Boxing Day shooting and this article to titles of the form YYYY Toronto shooting. It was closed with no consensus to move. – Reidgreg (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Danzig Street shooting scheduled for TFA

As per discussion above, this is to let you know that the Thalassodromeus article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 16, 2022. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 16, 2022, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Unproduced Danzig screenplay

@Torontofresh: I removed the following from the In media section of the article

Dias/Jansen screenplay

Filmmakers Ron Dias and Joanne Jansen announced that they have adapted this story into a screenplay and are in preproduction as their next feature film. . The film will be telling the lives of Joshua Yasay and Shyanne Charles leading up to the shooting at the Danzig BBQ. .

References

I don't feel that any unreleased works should be included in the article. The section is about works which exist, not those which might exist in the future (WP:CRYSTAL), plus it's difficult to determine how notable the work might be until it's actually released and there are some reliable secondary sources about it (not just interviews with those involved). (I'd also note that The Black List (survey) of unproduced screenplays mentions only that the screenplay "address systemic issues around policing and violence in communities of colour in Toronto"(link) and does not mention the shooting, Charles or Yasay.) At the moment, I feel this material is a bit trivial and possibly promotional. This can be revisited if and when the film is released. – Reidgreg (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I need more clarification, Dias and Jansen have both appeared on national Canadian television 3 times in the last week announcing the next film is to do with the Danzig shooting and mentioning Charles and Yasay Live on tv. If you watch the interviews in the links you will see those two talk about it. On IMDB it also shows the distribution is with Elevation Pictures which is the biggest distributor in all of Canada, so I have to disagree with it might be bit trivial and promotional. I went on Black list this morning and read the screenplay as it is open to the public, in the first few pages it has everything to do with Charles and Yasay. I also read some of the black list reviews on the screenplay that are public and it says a lot of Charles and Yasay in the script. Please clarify what is needed, because from what I've read and seen so far I think they have made efforts. They were also discussing it on the radio yesterday but I can't find articles on this as its a medium that doesn't have articles. If you live in Toronto, they have been in a lot of media within the last two weeks talking about gun violence and how they are making their impact through the danzig film. Torontofresh (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:NFF states that unreleased films should not have their own articles. While it does allow that information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, that's a might and that's why we're discussing this, to find local consensus. Some issues that come to mind:

• Is this film important to the article subject (the Danzig Street shooting)? Frankly, I don't think there's any way to tell until the film is released. As our job is to summarize coverage of the subject in reliable sources, one test is to see if sources which thoroughly report on the subject mention the film. I don't think that's the case, or at least it's too soon to tell.
• The In media section of the article is essentially a more formal version of an in popular culture section, and unreleased works (with very few exceptions) are not yet in the culture. A film generally doesn't 'make an impact' until its release. If you could link to the screenplay (all I found was Dias's bio page) maybe we could do some deep searches and see if the screenplay itself has become important.
• The production deal may fall through for any of a variety of reasons (see WP:NFF). If it is made, it may go through rewrites and have its subject matter change. It's all a bit WP:CRYSTAL and promotional (trying to create 'buzz' about the film and shoe-horning it onto Wikipedia so that Google searches will deliver a result).
• The sources are either primary (those directly involved with the film: interviews with writers, directors, actors, and the distribution company) or unreliable (IMdB). These sort of sources do not demonstrate notability, and WP:reliable secondary sources (RSS) would make a better case for inclusion.

The sort of sources which would help typically won't report on the film until it is about to be released or at least in production. I feel it's generally best to wait for the film's release. Another case like this is the screenplay Inferno by Calum DeHartog (a former ETF officer who developed Cracked (Canadian TV series)) about the shooting (source: Playback online) but that doesn't seem to have been produced and I feel it's too soon for this one as well. This article passed a featured review, btw, and I want any additions to meet this standard. If/when the film is released with coverage by RSS, I would most likely want to add some mention of it to the article. If there are good RSS which confirm the subject matter and production has begun, that might do as well. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@SunjayDash: Thanks for your addition to the article with the recent sources. The sources are good and I cleaned it up a bit. This wouldn't meet the notability guidelines for the unreleased film to have its own article, BTW, but I feel this is a nice addition here. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Other shootings

There have been some other shootings in the area (some at the housing complex) but I feel that they're outside the scope of the article, at least so much as can be determined by sources. Here are a few:

• 2019 Toronto Sun Naod Tsezagab is arrested and charged with murder "in his old neighbourhood". Most of the newspaper article is about the parole board findings prior to his release.
• 2019 CP24 A 17-year-old is fatally shot at Morningside-Coronation.
• 2021 Toronto.com, shooting, no known victims
• 2022 CityNews A man is shot to the elbow after a shooting at Danzig and Morningside, "around the same area as the mass shooting".
• 2023 Toronto Star, CBC News, 16 July, three people shot including two alleged shooters at Morningside-Coronation. Note: it is reported as a triple-shooting, not a mass shooting.

The last one is the "worst" of the bunch and occurred on the anniversary, but nothing to really say it had anything to do with the article subject. Perhaps as further is published on it, as it is pretty recent and the courts move slowly. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)