Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:30, 27 November 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Canada Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ottawa High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ottawa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ottawa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OttawaWikipedia:WikiProject OttawaTemplate:WikiProject OttawaOttawa High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force.

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

A news item involving 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 23 October 2014.

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title, and no consensus to move the page to any particular other title, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 22:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa → 2014 Ottawa attacks – There are previous discussions that came to somewhat of a conclusion that the typical format for these types of articles is " ". This move request is in line with that, and the media's labelling of the incident is also consistent. I have chosen "attack" over "shooting" because a) there were two shooting incidents (one at the war memorial, and one in Centre Block), and we might get into semantics about whether it should be "shooting(s)", and b) because my general observation in media coverage is that this was perceived as not only a vicious attack on the victims, but a subjective 'attack' on Canadian soldiers and institutions. There has been disagreement on whether the war memorial was part of Parliament Hill, so "Ottawa" is chosen because a) we can all agree to the fact it was in Ottawa, and b) the worldwide community will recognize Ottawa as the Canadian capital. --Natural R_X 17:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose – Firstly, I do not understand the use of "attacks". Only one person was shot. In fact, if one looks at the videos that the RCMP released, one will see that this fellow could've killed many more people, but for some reason did not shoot those loitering outside the parliament complex. Instead, he just ran past them. This is just WP:OR, but it illustrates the WP:POV nature of calling these "attacks". By the same virtue, why is Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting called "shooting" and not "attack"? Many more people died in that "attack", which is much more easily construed as an "attack". This incident, however, is called an "attack" as a matter of POV, rather than as a matter of fact. It is quite clear that the only reason this would be called "attack" is for POV purposes. Given that we are creating a WP:NDESC title, we cannot use "attacks" and advance a POV. "Shootings" is the most netural word, given the fact that the only certainty is that this was a "shooting". Whether it was some kind of "attack" is up-in-air, and value-laden. Secondly, I strongly object to the idea of "Ottawa attacks". This proposed title makes it seem like Ottawa was attacked multiple times over the course of 2014. It is not at all WP:PRECISE, and it certainly isn't WP:CONCISE either, given that this title could refer to anything and isn't recognisable. I'd say it is misleading, in fact. Ottawa was not really "attacked" in any broad sense, merely one person shot one other person. In other words, this proposed title fails all of our title criteria. It is neither natural, concise, precise, nor anything else. Condemn it to the dust bin. RGloucester — ☎ 17:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

v, but would propose move to "2014 Ottawa shooting". It was a singular event and while it involved multiple shots being fired, it would otherwise follow suit from the RG's example of the Sandy Hook "shooting". --MASEM (t) 18:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Strongly oppose – I'll get into the details of this if it is formally proposed, but the first thing I'd say is that "shooting" is unacceptable. There were two separate instances of shooting, in two different places. At Sandy Hook, it all took place in the same place, warranting the singular. RGloucester — ☎ 18:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

For all purposes, the media is treating this as a single event, since it involved the same person, within minutes and in the same geographically close area, with the same likely motivation. (Also, keep in mind, for Sandy Hook, he also shoot his mother before he left for the school - so two different locations there, but it's still a "shooting" (singular). --MASEM (t) 18:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It was one event, but it was hardly one "shooting". It was two shootings as part of one event. As far as Sandy Hook, if that's the case, that article should be renamed at once. RGloucester — ☎ 18:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Except that the media calls it a "shooting", and per Common Name that's what we go with. I have not surveyed what the way it is being called here (I'm not fully convinced of the above "attacks" line but I have not reviewed on my own) though I'm certain "shooting" (or a derivative) is a better word. We have other aticles as "shooting spree" but this appeared to be very methodical. "shooting incident" or that variety could also work. --MASEM (t) 18:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Except that we are not using a common name because there is no one unambiguous common name for this event. We are using a WP:NDESC title. Common name doesn't apply. RGloucester — ☎ 18:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There's actually two applications of common name here - what to call the location, and what to call the incident. The location as "Ottawa" clearly has a pluraity in non-local sources, so this seems right. On the other hand, "shooting" or "attack" or whatever else is not 100% clear. Obvious, it's not the full "Year Location Event" title that we're looking for as a common name, but the elemtns thereof. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong. As "Ottawa" is misleading and ambiguous, it would not be used even if it was the common name. Please read the guidelines "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources". However, I dispute that "Ottawa" is used more commonly regardless. Furthermore, none of this applies, because we are not using a common name. We are crafting one through WP:NDESC. RGloucester — ☎ 18:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Which I have identified before is actually an accepted format for the name of these types of events before, so we have an allowance where NDESC doesn't need to apply. That claim is a non-argument here. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether it is an "accepted format" in this particular case is clear: it isn't. Please read the title criteria. RGloucester — ☎ 19:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose When looking at other similar articles, this doesn't really fit the pattern of articles that have been named 'date location Attacks'. For example 2008 Mumbai Attacks, September 11 Attacks, Pearl Harbor attack etc. seem to fit a kind of pattern. These were large scale, coordinated events which had major repercussions. Even the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, 7 July 2005 London bombings and 2004 Madrid train bombings are not referred to as attacks. Thanks to the original nominator though, for following WP:BOLD and contributing. Myopia123 (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose One attack, one attacker, and the specific attack is shooting. Not sure why that's pluralized already. Like the requester says, there's already a vague perception perpetuated in the news that this was some sort of "attack on Canada". This move would fuel that agenda. Misplaced Pages reflects the facts of news sources, not the styling. Unlike news, we don't have to worry about traffic. We're always at the top of Google, with or without the sensationalism. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. The current page name is factually incorrect as is stands. That is, the shooting took place at the National War Memorial which is not "at Parliament Hill". The shooter was later shot at Parliament Hill, but the initial shooting was not. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Except "reliable sources" frequently refer to this as the "Parliament Hill shootings/shooting/attacks/attack/&c". The memorial is right across the street from parliament, and there are definitions of Parliament Hill that consider this vicinity as part of the "Parliament Hill" area. RGloucester — ☎ 19:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Across the street does not mean on Parliament Hill. I'm sure your reading of the "reliable sources" are just confusing the matter, much like this article title is. P.S. thanks for showing me that map, as if I wasn't aware of my own city's geography. Geez... -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You don't "own" Ottawa on Misplaced Pages, sadly, nor does your own definition of Parliament Hill counteract reliable sources, such as this one. RGloucester — ☎ 19:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

From our Parliament Hill article: "The Parliament of Canada Act renders it illegal for anyone to name any other area or establishment within the National Capital Region as Parliament Hill, as ≈well as forbidding the production of merchandise with that name on it. Any violation of this law is subject to prosecution and punishment."

That's not to say I'm against the name, just something to consider. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not "any other area". It is the area. RGloucester — ☎ 20:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No, the official area ends at Wellington. Anything south of Wellington is the "other area". Don't worry, I'm not a cop. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Does that mean they're going to close down the Toronto Star for calling the guy the "Parliament Hill shooter" and the shooting as the "Parliament Hill shooting", then? RGloucester — ☎ 20:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it's just a summary offence. Two years less a day stuff, if you're riffraff. The Star is a star, too big for jail. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

In common usage, the War Memorial is part of the same geographic area. While the government has designated a certain section as Parliament Hill, across the street from the precinct, i.e, south of Wellington is Langevin Block, also considered a "Parliament" building. And that building is across the street to the west of the Memorial. The whole area is really only a few metres apart. When I first read that Zehaf-Bibeau used a car to go from one to the other, I was surprised, as the distance is so short. Considering the traffic, it would be quicker to simply run. Of course, that was not the way he was thinking, or he may have intended to drive the car right onto the hill precinct. So, I would disagree about disqualifying the Parliament Hill usage on the designation. We can use it based on the geographic area. Alaney2k (talk) 07:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The present title is quite precise and reflects the significance of the location pf the shooting at the seat of Canadian government. I see no value in changing it. "Ottawa" is too generic as there have been at least 30 shootings (and far more "attacks") in 2014 in Ottawa including a truly strange case of a guy who was shot in the head and survived. No reason to use a generic word like attacks (which could include rape, beatings, even verbal or political attacks) when shootings is more precise. This is not like 9/11 where "attacks" is a concise way to cover a complex matter without a simple name. Also, contrary to a statement made earlier, many Americans think Toronto is the capital of Canada, so seeing Ottawa in the name will not necessarily convey that this was targeted at Canada's capital to many readers.
• Oppose change to "shootings", reserved re use of "Parliament Hill" as I agree, along with others, that that name applies only to the Parliament Buildings grounds/complex and nowhere else: the National Arts Centre, Chateau Laurier and the buildings on the south side of Wellington, which include the building housing the PMO, are not in regular usage "Parliament Hill" or "the Hill". I see no reason at all for any name change, awkward though the current title may be; and yes, it's "shootings" because while only Cpl Cirillo died, his partner was also shot, and of course Sgt Vickers did the fatal shots that killed, so it's not just one "shooting". But about the proposed "attacks", that's OR and not slightly POV; attacked by whom? IS? No, even if they were inspired by IS' propaganda outreach, they were not members of IS and neither of these were organized attacks by any group. Changing to "attack" feeds the "terrorist" storyline being put forth by war-on-terror hype-ists, and I note the nom's "my general observation in media coverage is that this was perceived as not only a vicious attack on the victims, but a subjective 'attack' on Canadian soldiers and institutions." use of "perceived" when in correct terms it's "purported" or "portrayed". 2014 shootings in Ottawa leaves such a title open to other shootings in Ottawa in 2014, of course, so some modifier is needed; "Parliament Hill" isn't correct, nor would "Parliament" be...for now I don't have an answer to that, other than maybe to specify the month October 2014 shootings in Ottawa, unless there were other shootings in the capital this last month, of the usual criminal (or domestic) kind, if any. But I will note that while the article carries the government's/media's "terrorism script" rather faithfully, there is little in the article about criticism of the government and media exactly for that, but that is an NPOV matter best discussed separately, or redressed with suitable more balanced content. This article, nor its title, should be allowed to be used for propaganda purposes to portray it as an attack by IS, or to shore up the resurrected Tory campaign to increase surveillance and police powers that previously went down with the withdrawal of Toews' omnibus crime bill and similar attempts; that, yes, is a POV comment, but changing the title as proposed would be highly POV and very very questionable. October 2014 shootings in Ottawa or perhaps "in downtown Ottawa" seems to be the most neutral and most accurate; the Nat'l War Memorial isn't part of Parliament Hill, only near it.Skookum1 (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Noting the comment that there were other shootings in Ottawa this year, then the solution may lie in the form 2014 Zehaf-Bibeau shootings in Ottawa or similar.Skookum1 (talk) 06:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Those are not notable enough to be here in Misplaced Pages. Alaney2k (talk) 07:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. There are other notable shootings. Regardless, the concern is that an article with the scope "2014 Ottawa shootings" or "2014 shootings in Ottawa" does not define the scope of the article per WP:CONCISE or WP:PRECISE. It could refer to any of the shootings across the year, or potentially, all shootings in Ottawa over the year. It could also imply that this particular incident was part of a series of shootings over the course of the year, as opposed to one event on one day. It is strongly misleading. RGloucester — ☎ 13:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, as new article proposed name does not reflect the terrorist nature of the event.HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment That position/claim is hotly controversial and POV; if this name were changed, and the nom's proposal includes that implication, and is why I oppose it and would even more strongly oppose it were that to have been said directly by the nom. Any such change would not be neutral in the slightest.Skookum1 (talk) 11:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. It was terrorism, pure and simple.98.67.183.63 (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Your POV on this matter has no basis in the Canadian reality, where there is a debate about this; I note you're in South Carolina and so of course aren't reading Canadian media or op-eds about this. Not that you ever would, of course; we hear "terrorism pure and simple" about environmental protests, also, it's not a useful concept in this case, these were two crazy men/converts, not organized attacks by Iran or IS.Skookum1 (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I think 2014 Ottawa shootings or 2014 Parliament Hill shootings is fine. I prefer shootings to attack, mostly because attack seems to imply a larger-scale event, but this is a personal opinion. I think, unscientifically, that shootings is more likely to be the search term. I think the Harper government considers it an attack, but this might be a political issue much more than a simple terminology exercise. I would not use the zehaf-bibeau names. As for Parliament Hill district or designation, that sort of thing is only the official government terminology. Most Ottawans, and I am a past one, would consider the National War Memorial to be close enough to not feel the need to distinguish. The actual geographical hill includes the war memorial, and an area a few streets to the south, and a few streets to the west. The precinct is further up the hill. It's the Parliament Hill area, downtown, Centretown, or in past usage Upper Town (due to the hill). I don't have any serious objections to the current name. Articles on wikipedia seem to be successfully linked here. Alaney2k (talk) 07:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I get you, but then are the National Cultural Centre/old railway station and the Laurier also, then, "Parliament Hill"? I'm fine with it is, and find this whole attempt to polemicize the title totally un-wikipedian, not that this isn't the first name-change request lately that wasn't politically-biased or complaining of bias, or not enough bias.Skookum1 (talk) 11:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Like I said, the Parliament Hill area. Chateau Laurier is on Major's Hill (see Major's Hill Park out back) Both the Chat and the old train station are to the east of the Rideau Canal, so I would not include it as part of Parliament Hill, but in the area. I basically think if you looked at Ottawa on a larger-scale then you'd think of it as the Parliament Hill area, mostly because of the government precinct. The precinct would kind of be a mini- or micro- district. Alaney2k (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Where I live now, in Toronto is close to High Park. Often, people and real estate agents say the area is High Park, but you can't say I live in the actual High Park. I live in the High Park area or neighbourhood, but people understand what you mean when you say I live in High Park. I think this is similar. Alaney2k (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Queens Park in New West is similar, usage-wise.Skookum1 (talk) 05:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I strongly oppose "2014 Ottawa shootings" and "2014 Parliament Hill shootings". Neither define the scope of the article per WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE. They are not at all recognisable as referring to this incident, and have false implications about the duration of the event. RGloucester — ☎ 13:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you made a proposal? I simply opposed this one and suggested some compromises. I don't think people think of Ottawa as some crime-ridden place where we would have an article on all of the shootings that have taken place there. That would probably be a 'List of' article anyway, in that case. And Parliament Hill shootings is also probably good enough. Are you searching for the 'perfect' title? I don't know if there is one. Alaney2k (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we should follow our title guidelines, which make clear that both of those are no good. You cannot presume what people would think. What you must do is look at the proposed titles in isolation. In isolation, "2014 Ottawa shootings" could refer to anything, and nothing about it connects it to this particular event. As far as "2014 Parliament Hill shootings", there are other "Parliament Hill"s, meaning that that title does not make clear to that it refers to the Ottawa Parliament Hill, as opposed to others. The fact that this happened in Ottawa is also significant. The present title does us a favour by making clear that this event was both in Ottawa, and at Parliament Hill. This encapsulates common references to the event, and also disambiguates from other shootings in Ottawa, and other "Parliament Hill"s. I prefer to retain this title, though I do have one other suggestion, as I've said, and that's 22 October 2014 Ottawa shooting. This disambiguates by date, instead of location. The question is whether we think date or location is more important in this instance. I personally think that location is more important, given that if this event did not take place at Parliament Hill, it would not have been very notable. RGloucester — ☎

I would drop the '22'. That is maybe too precise. Alaney2k (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

We cannot drop the "22". These shootings only took place on one day. They were not drawn out at all, and were in fact over in a matter of minutes. We are not writing an article about shootings in Ottawa in October, but about one particular event on 22 October. RGloucester — ☎ 16:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I doubt any other shooting in October in Ottawa is notable at all by Misplaced Pages standards, so I think that is not a big concern. I could support 2014 Ottawa Parliament Hill shooting attack as an encyclopedic title, although it seems long, to conform more or less to Wiki standards. It does not appear at this time that the date will become a national day of memorial or something like that, so I don't think we need to be precise about the date. Alaney2k (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Even if we were precise, the Canadian English thing to say would be "October 22", not "22 October". InedibleHulk (talk) 19:48, October 28, 2014 (UTC)

According to MOS:DATE TIES, Canadian articles can use either DMY or MDY. RGloucester — ☎ 19:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

If it's consistent. This article is already full of MD (including eleven October 22s alone). Either way, too specific for my tastes. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:13, October 28, 2014 (UTC)

Strong oppose as clunky and redundant. What exactly is a "shooting attack"? It doesn't matter whether there are other notable shootings in October. What matters is that the title conveys the scope of the article. These shootings did not take place over all of October, and to say so would be blowing this event out of proportion. It was one-day affair. RGloucester — ☎ 17:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, I would say the exact date is unnecessary. There aren't other Wiki-notable shootings at Parliament Hill in Ottawa during 2014. So why would you force the use of the exact date in discussion and titling? It's a weak objection. So, we could leave it at 2014 Ottawa Parliament Hill attacks or 2014 Ottawa Parliament Hill shootings and I would support either. Alaney2k (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

My objection is strong. These shootings only happened on one day. It is not a matter of "exact dating", such much as avoiding confusion. Are you telling me that these shootings happened over the course of a year? That strikes me as odd. I don't remember hearing about that. I oppose "Ottawa Parliament Hill shootings" because that's the wrong format. For places, the standard usage is "smaller place, large place", like Gifu, Gifu or Fairfield, Connecticut. In other words, it would have to be "Parliament Hill, Ottawa shootings". However, this is actually an incorrect usage, because one can't use "Parliament Hill, Ottawa" adjectivally, rendering the "at" required. As I said, I think either location-based or date-based disambiguation is okay. I prefer location based, given that the location made this event notable. Certainly, we don't need both location-based and date-based disambiguation. Therefore, , which disambiguates by location rather than date, strikes me as the best title. RGloucester — ☎ 20:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

A search of "Ottawa shootings" with a restricted date range from Jan 1-Oct 21, 2014 shows that Ottawa had over 30 shootings in 2014 before the Parliament Hill shootings. In fact it seems that there is a serious gang shooting problem in the city. Attacks in Ottawa results before Oct 22 shows a goose and a pitbull attack. An article from before the Oct 22 shooting talks about an intelligence report that predicted the Oct 22 shooting. That report would be good to mention in the background section. Legacypac (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Canada geese are notorious for instilling fear in their victims, rather than killing them. We must remain vigilant (and hateful). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:48, October 28, 2014 (UTC)

More seriously, that report "predicting" the attack was suspicious of Iran. The reports after this shooting seem suspicious of ISIL. Iran is ISIL's enemy. Wouldn't make much sense in the background section. Less seriously, these other geese are allegedly Iranian terrorists. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:03, October 28, 2014 (UTC)

I'll excuse InedibleHulk failure to read past the headline and for the benefit of other editors quote "Despite the extraordinary mention of Iran, intelligence officials believe Canada’s top terrorist threat comes from Sunni Islamist extremists — essentially followers of al-Qaeda’s ideology of violent intolerance. In Ottawa, such an attack would most likely be carried out by a “lone actor” or small group, the report said. The three scenarios outlined in the documents involve an “active shooter,” “bladed weapon attacks” and improvised bombs. “Simple, straight forward, small-scale attacks, using available weapons and minimal preparation against undefended targets are a realistic match with the actual capabilities of most extremists,” it says." Prophetic of Oct 22. Legacypac (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

when are you going to stop with the SYNTH speculation and extrapolations? I mean, seriously; you're dragging in things here demanding they be interpreted according to your desired wording; which as demonstrated elsewhere here you deceitfully added, contrary to the sources you did provide's own wording, in the St-Jean-sur-Richelieu article. You are arguing a case here, based on your interpretations of sources - in this case a forecast no less - which is the very definition of SYNTH, arguing for a particular view/wording that has serious political overtones and is not acceptable in wikipedia NPOV terms.Skookum1 (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I daresay a blog called "Moon of Alabama" should not be considered a reliable source for opinions of Canadian intelligence officials ("MOA exclusive" etc), but you (and they) are quite wrong: Canada more at risk from environmentalists than religiously inspired terrorists: RCMP, Sept 16 2014, Vancouver Observer. Worth noting that reliable sources also state that environmental protests "can be defined as terrorist attacks". And though it's an op-ed, this piece by Sandy Garossino makes it clear that "we are a wounded nation, not a terrorized one". Calling these terrorist attacks is part of the talking-point-rhetoric of those seeking to push stronger surveillance and police-powers laws, it is not valid, is highly controversial, and the title should not ape the authorities or the media monopolies playing their game; and false claims about Iran or IS connections need to be put in their proper light; as claims, not facts. US war-mongerer blogs' usages are irrelevant.Skookum1 (talk) 05:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If you throw out enough guesses, one will stick. Knives, bombs or guns covers a lot of possibilities, as does small group or lone actor. And I've never heard of an attack carried out with unavailable weapons. The target here was clearly defended, or the shooter wouldn't be dead. See cold reading. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:25, October 28, 2014 (UTC)

• Support renaming -- though I would prefer the term shooting over attack, but in my mind that is fairly minor issue. My rationale is that, IMHO, in the future, be it 6 months or 6 years, someone (an average, non-Canadian, encyclopedia user) is looking for information in Misplaced Pages about the events that unfolded last week, will go though the following process in their mind for search terms: (1) there was a shooting (2) in Ottawa (3) last year (2014) or Fall/October 2014. And yes, those three terms are in the current title, but 2014 Ottawa shooting is more concise and fits with the de facto standard for article naming in the Year-Location-Type format (I know that the archived naming discussion listed at lot of Y-L-T examples). That is my reasoning as a Canadian Misplaced Pages User. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Your "proposed" title is not WP:CONCISE at all, as it doesn't clearly tell the reader what the article is about. I would not know what this article is about if I read "2014 Ottawa shootings". It is entirely unrecognisable, and does not clearly link to this particular incident. The present title is much more WP:CONCISE. RGloucester — ☎ 20:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The current one could be shorter without the "at", and without, it wouldn't explicity (and falsely) convey that both shootings happened at Parliament Hill. 2014 Parliament Hill shootings is my pick, I suppose. Fairly good chance another Parliament Hill won't be shot up before January. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:59, October 28, 2014 (UTC)

"Shorter" is not equivalent to "concise". Your proposed title doesn't clearly refer to the Parliament Hill in Ottawa. The title must be recognisable. It must instantly define the scope of the article. "Parliament Hill" alone does not do that. RGloucester — ☎ 21:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't have to, no other 2014 Parliament Hill shootings to distinguish from. Titles should only be as detailed as necessary to let readers know they're in the right place. The lead's for finer detail, and the body's for even finer. 2014 Parliament Hill, Ottawa shootings is comma clunky. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:19, October 28, 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Alaney2k (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed as well.Myopia123 (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Unacceptable. I strongly oppose "2014 Parliament Hill shootings". As I said below, I will support "Parliament Hill shootings" with no year appended, as it avoids issues of time-scale. If the year is appended, that implies that this article is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, meaning that we'd be required disambiguate this "Parliament Hill" from other "Parliament Hill"s. Without the year, this article takes primary topic, meaning that no location-based disambiguation is required. RGloucester — ☎ 21:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Whatever dude. You've already stated your opinion over 20 times already. I think everyone in this discussion is very well acquainted with your exact position on this discussion.Myopia123 (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

As they should be, given that I strictly follow our title criteria. RGloucester — ☎ 22:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I would say that a yearless title would be reasonable (as we do for the Boston Marathon bombings or many named-school shootings) as long as this is really the only shooting incident at Parliament Hill of international notoriety. --MASEM (t) 22:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The geography probably cannot be concisely described better. 'Attack' is misleading and non-NPOV as it implies something on a greater scale or of a different nature than a mere isolated hate crime. Peter Grey (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support renaming -- The shooting of the soldier did not happen at parliament hill, therefor the tittle is incorrect. 173.35.95.112 (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

According to reliable sources, the guy is the Parliament Hill shooter and the shooting is called the "Parliament Hill shooting". RGloucester — ☎ 23:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comments Both the current article tile and the proposed title are descriptive names. What name is being used in reliable sources? Have reliable sources started to gravitate towards one name? Does the frequently used name vary between Canada sources and global sources? The date is almost certainly not needed, as readers looking for this attack will not search on that and if there has been more than one such shootings this is clearly the primary meaning at the moment--if in a year it is no longer the primary meaning, then the date can be included as a (parenthetical or comma) dab extension. As I commented elsewhere about this issue, who now remembers the year let alone the day of the Brighton hotel bombing. The details of date and name of the hotel are given in the lead as one would expect. In a similar way this article title, ought to be based on the name used in reliable sources, if no such name exists, then try to base it on the name most people will search on (which will almost certainly use the words used in reliable sources). By that I mean many of the sources at the time described the "gunman/terrorist/perpetrator/suspect" as "the shooter(s)" consequently it is likely that shooting is going to be a more common search word than "attack" unless that word has become used more frequently in reliable sources since the shootings. For people outside Canada, will they search on or or (for example) or or ? -- PBS (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If we're going that route, I wouldn't be opposed to Parliament Hill shootings, with no year appended. As long as no year is appended, this is an acceptable title. I'm sure others shan't like it, though. RGloucester — ☎ 12:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm willing to support "Parliament Hill shootings" for a few reasons. Firstly, without the appended year, there is no misleading nonsense about the timeframe of the event. As far as I know, there were no other "Parliament Hill shootings", and this title is instantly recognisable as referring to this particular attack, similar to the Brighton bombings example. Secondly, I'm willing to drop "Ottawa", as without the date it is not necessary. Third, this is a commonly used phrase for this event. Fourth, it emphasises why the event was notable, i.e. the location. RGloucester — ☎ 16:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I would like to take a moment to make some points based on the discussion so far:

1. There seems to be opposition to renaming it "2014 Ottawa attacks", and some appetite for renaming the article as 2014 Ottawa shootings instead. Is there a way to 're-propose' this in the WP:RM process? I'd like to make it reflect what the community consensus seems to be reflecting and refine our discussion.
2. Alot of opposition comments are coming from RGloucester on the basis of WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE. There seems to be disagreement on whether " " is an acceptable format. However, I do not believe whether or not it is acceptable is up for debate, because the fact that there are plenty of other articles suggests it is, in line with being consistent in the same article policy. We can debate the merits of if the accepted format needs to be changed, but this is not the appropriate place for it. This needs to be discussed in the Misplaced Pages namespace IMO, and if change is necessary, a Misplaced Pages policy can be modified or created to address it. I'm not trying to attack you RGloucester, but I believe this is derailing the debate a bit.
3. I like the point made by PBS about taking what reliable sources are gravitating to. I tried to include a screenshot showing both terms being used. If one searches "Ottawa attack shooting", there doesn't seem to be a gravitation to either term, although "Ottawa something" seems consistent. I do disagree about the need for the year based on the point above.

Regards. --Natural R_X 01:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no accepted format. The only thing that is community accepted is our title criteria, which support my position. If you do not adhere to these policies and guidelines, that isn't my fault. If you don't like them, perhaps you should try and remove WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE from the title guidelines. Sadly, they're part of the guidelines at this point. We are not using the common name, here. We are using a WP:NDESC title. That's because no one common proper name is found in the news reporting on this issue. As such, we are forced to craft a WP:NDESC title. It is up to us to craft a WP:NDESC title in line with our title guidelines, through editorial discretion. "2014 Ottawa shootings" fails those guidelines utterly, and I'm not the only one here that thinks so. RGloucester — ☎ 03:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Alongside WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE, there are three other article criteria listed at the top of the title criteria, two of which are relevant. Let's go through all four relevant criteria:

• "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles." How is the current title is natural compared to what other reliable sources are calling it?
• "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." 2014 Ottawa shooting is a consistent pattern seen across Misplaced Pages, and my argument is that the current title does not conform to those criteria. Can you point me to a similarly titled article that lists two geographic areas separated by a comma?
• "Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." 2014 Ottawa shooting is sufficiently precise if there is no other shooting that occurs in Ottawa on this significant of a scale (knock on wood), and there are no other articles in Misplaced Pages that this article needs to be distinguished from.
• "Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." 2014 Ottawa shooting is shorter than the current title, and does not require additional distinguishment as per above.

--Natural R_X 04:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

"2014 Ottawa shootings" is only natural in a recentism-based context. We write for the long term, where such a title would be nothing but ambiguous. It is not consistent with anything, as each different article is a different case. In this case, for example, we have Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, with no year, and specifying the specific name of the school, as opposed to the once common name "Newtown shooting", or even "Connecticut shootings", which was also common for a brief period following the event. Why's that? It is because we need to be WP:PRECISE, for one, and can't have the year causing a ton of misleading. Secondly, "Newtown shooting" and "Ottawa shooting" are not concise, because they do not instantly encapsulate the scope of the article. They are not recognisable as referring specifically to these events. Whereas, the present title of this article provides an instantly clear picture as to what the article is about. "2014 Ottawa shootings" does not do that. There is nothing precise about "2014 Ottawa shootings", and it cannot identify the subject matter. We are referring to a specific event, a specific shooting. Specifically, this shooting was only notable because it took place at Parliament Hill. "Shorter" does not mean more concise. If a shorter title doesn't clear identify the subject matter of the article, it is not "concise". "2014 Ottawa shootings" could refer to other shootings, all the shootings in Ottawa during 2014, various other things. It has nothing going for it. As I've said above, I can support Parliament Hill shootings, as this title does not have the year appended, and is clearly primary topic, similar to ], or Boston marathon bombings. It has none of the ambiguity caused by "Ottawa", or by "2014". As long as both Ottawa and 2014 are removed, I can support that. I cannot support "2014 Parliament Hill shootings", "2014 Ottawa shootings", or any such variant. Others seem to think this is a decent idea as well. Can you agree to "Parliament Hill shootings"? If not, I cannot support any of your alternatives, and suggest that the present title should remain. RGloucester — ☎ 04:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I have made sufficient counterpoints to your arguments above, which don't require repeating. I don't think others in this discussion would support Parliament Hill shootings, based on the comments above, but I would certainly invite everyone else to submit additional comment. I'm not opposed to anything, I am simply looking for consensus. --Natural R_X 13:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• • I have made my "vote" above, but to build on what RX is saying immediately and further above, I want to support what he has been (a) trying to do, and (b) agree with him on the process. It should be Ottawa something, with my stated preference being shooting rather then terrorist attack. I do think tho that a year is needed given the geographic size of "Ottawa" and the likelihood there has been or will be another notable shooting/attack in Ottawa (even if it has not yet been written about) and the same argument with the "Parliament Hill" name; I have not researched it, but I think there likely has been a notable shooting on the Hill at some point in Canada's nearly 150 year past, tho again it may not have been written about on Misplaced Pages yet. I think the distinction between Ottawa/Parliament Hill and Boston Marathon or Sandy Hook Elementary is that we can only hope that that particular marathon or school will not be targeted again. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You cannot just append the year. Either you append the date, or you append the location. You've got to be WP:PRECISE somehow. "Ottawa" anything, without a date or without a more precise location simply fails our criteria. The reason I oppose using a year alone with "Parliament Hill shootings" is because the year implies greater significance, longer duration, and is also un-necessary. I oppose "Ottawa shootings" sans year for the same reason I oppose it with a year: it simply isn't precise enough. Those titles do not describe the article's content. Either use a full date, or use a location. One way or the other there must WP:PRECISEness. I current title best deals with the balance of our title criteria. The propose titles do not balance them at all, and fall into the horrid trend of WP:RECENTISM. RGloucester — ☎ 21:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I change my vote to I Don't Care Anymore. This is all much ado about nothing. If a reader is going be this confused by a change in title and/or confuse it with all the other <sarcasm> multitude of shootings that happen in Ottawa </sarcasm>, then maybe an encyclopedia is just not the right place for them. Myopia123 (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Glossing pertinence of 2006 attacks

I have put information about the 2006 attack in the See Also section, noting that the plot included a plan to attack Parliament and kill the Prime Minister. This information was removed with the comment that the pertinence of the 2006 Ontario plot is clear from the title. Yes, it is clear that it is a plot in Ontario, but the reader does not learn that the Parliament was among the planned targets.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly - can't understand why some editors want to remove helpful information. Then someone took the see also out completely, likely thinking it was not related. Legacypac (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

lede

"The attack was the most significant act of violence at Parliament Hill since the 1966 Parliament bombing." That sentence in the lede has been contested. Can the person who doubts its veracity name the event in between 1966 and 2014 that even remotely compares? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be both taking a point of view, and being a bit of original research. It's not a question of believing or disbelieving in the words. It's a question of following Misplaced Pages style. A wikipedia article should not make the conclusion like this, it should report that it is the conclusion of others, experts, the media, whatever. I ask you, what does 'significant' mean in this context? It is imprecise. Alaney2k (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Use of the words "terrorist attack" in title

Please explain why this entry describes the shootings as "terrorist attacks." Terrorist attacks are methodically planned, calculated and determined. The shooter had no known accomplices, hijacked a random car, haphazardly stumbled into Centre Block. Not what I'd consider a terrorist. Ntomkin (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The editor has cited the RCMP classification of the event. Alaney2k (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hardly an NPOV source, given they stand to benefit from the increased police powers that word is being used to sell and their politicized nature from day one of their existence. Criticism of this appellation is across Canadian op-ed pages and blogs, it's controversial and politically loaded and naming a section what the RCMP wants to call it is.....taking sides.Skookum1 (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

That's just a bit cynical, don't you think? :-) Is there somewhere else we should be looking for a classification of the event? Alaney2k (talk) 05:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it is better, as modified. However, I do believe that a lot of people, possibly the majority will still consider it to be a terrorist attack, regardless. There is the term of 'lone-wolf' terrorism to consider. It is a politically-motivated attack on symbols of the Canadian government. It could also be argued that it was intended to provoke terror, due to the calls of ISIL to attack Canada. Alaney2k (talk) 05:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Cynical? I'm reporting the fact that the term is controversial among Canadians, and your belief that a lot of people, possibly the majority is entirely subjective OR/SYNTH. It's certainly a belief that the authorities and the ruling party would like to be the majority view, and they're working hard at using it and getting the media to use it, but that campaign also is controversial and considered political rather than factual. Perhaps that's cynical, but then there's this other word - "naive". The controversy is citable...your belief is not.Skookum1 (talk) 05:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I feel like you missed that I said what was changed was better, and the smiley :-) and just dumped on me. What was that about? This is the talk page, after all. If the majority, or common, label for the event is 'terrorist attack', then it has to be clear in this article why it is not. It can be argued that the shootings had certain commonality with terror attacks: attack on symbols, government agencies and government members. The FLQ blew up mailboxes and it's considered terrorism. I'm no expert in the field, I only think that, as editors, we don't make that call, and we use generally-recognized, verifiable descriptions. The value of Misplaced Pages is in providing information, not in tainting it, or massaging it. Alaney2k (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It's bullshit, sure. But Misplaced Pages is about verifiability, not truth. Clearly, the RCMP has a vested interest, but in the matter of describing crimes, we simply have no higher authority. So long as there are zealots (or innocent ignoramuses) looking to perpetuate the myth through Misplaced Pages, they have the better card and can use it if they wish.

That said, the echo chamber ramifications are serious. Misplaced Pages's the one-stop source for lazy Googlers and reporters. We're fueling the fire if we make the term prominent (like in the opening sentence), helping turn Canada into a place as Orwellian as it is Kafkaesque. Also, the sort of place that openly does that to people in other countries, for those who don't give a fuck about Canada and merely want to demonize Islam or feel like an amateur reporter.

More important to consider the effects of calling it terrorism than whether or not it is. There is no absolute answer, because there are many definitions, and the back-and-forth will go forever, depending on preference. What weight does this term deserve in an encyclopedia? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:43, October 29, 2014 (UTC)

" in the matter of describing crimes, we simply have no higher authority" is very subjective, as are inevitably any RCMP account to start with. Misplaced Pages's tendency to echo (or reinforce) p.r. campaigns by anyone, the Mounties, the mining or oil companies, the Tories, the Grits, anyone by relying on "mainstream media" (in Canada = "news monopolies") and on the RCMP as a " higher authorities" has a disturbing amoral aspect to it; Misplaced Pages does not exist to right great wrongs; it should not be so easily led into endorsing them, either. Criticisms of "the authorities" and the "Tory braintrust" (so-called) and those in the mainstream (often foreign) media pushing the "terror attacks" line are all over Canadian webspace and also in some of our mainstream papers and notable sites such as ipolitics.ca - the "higher authority" that's out there is the court of public awareness and debate; the RCMP should not be entrusted with the writing and rewriting of Canadian history or the retooling of our society into a police state. If we went by RCMP as "the higher authority" our articles on the Riel Rebellions, the Winnipeg General Strike, Regina Riots, Vancouver dock strike, the October Crisis, Oka, Gustafson Lake and more would all look and sound very different. There is a higher authority, known as COMMONSENSE. I don't buy the line that "in the matter of describing crimes we simply have no higher authority". Who is that higher authority in "reliable sources" terms? Other than noting that the RCMP are NOT a reliable source and that they are not-slightly politically tainted, the courts are a higher authority, for one, though this is not yet in court. Using their terminology as if it were indisputable and "reliable" is surrendering the truth to those who manipulate it regularly in the course of their "operations" (Peter Montague re Gustafson Lake - "we specialize in smear campaigns").Skookum1 (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the OPs opinion of what makes a terrorist attack, the government, opposition, RCMP, media and public all think this is a terrorist attack. Further the OP should get his facts straight before making a judgement. "Terrorist attacks are methodically planned , calculated and determined (evidence shows this attack was planned in advance, he got a car, gun, and left a video). The shooter had no known accomplices (not required for lone wolf terrorism), hijacked a random car (a govt car, because he could not drive his own past the bollards), haphazardly stumbled (looked deliberate on the video) into Centre Block (the seat of Canadian government, not McD's).

"the government, opposition, RCMP, media and public all think this is a terrorist attack" - indeed? Tom Mulcair has stated flatly that it was not, and Elizabeth May I don't recall her ever having endorsed that terminology; rather both op-ed columns and blogsites and independent media have seen lots of columns condemning the usage and how it is being used for political purpose; and so your claim not only of "the opposition" and "media...all" is very wrong; the rest of your comment is entirely original research and personal interpretation/SYNTH and disputable by many here - and contested by the opposition and the independent media (and op-ed columns and some editorials in the mainstream media. And jury's out on whether the public "all" think this is a terrorist attack; show me the site for that; are there polls yet? Perhaps on the "was this is a terrorist attack or a lone madman?" All this indicates a completely lack of neutrality in the push for " attack" theme proposed for the title; and misrepresentation of the endorsement by all and sundry which is utterly a-factual and easily disproven. How many links would you like on that? ipolitics.ca and the HuffPo will get you started, and the mainstream media are covering Mulcair's denunciation of the "terrorist attack" language. Misplaced Pages must remain as neutral as possible; this RM is for a clearly controversial name-change, and the more neutral "shooting(s)" is the only available neutral term; it is not biased, though some seem to be claiming it so. About misrepresentative claims, i.e. dishonesty, note the section below about a POV change masked by an a-factual edit comment.Skookum1 (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

For InedibleHulk to call all the editors that disagree with him "zealots (or innocent ignoramuses)" is disrespectful and goes against the civility rules of Misplaced Pages. Legacypac (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I said those types exist, and can play the card if they want. I didn't say they were all the editors who disagreed with me. That's the same kind of thinking that led people to write that "the terrorist" referred to the other guy in Harper's speech. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, October 30, 2014 (UTC)

The statement appears aimed at the editors wanting to call the shooting a terrorist attack. Ãre you willing to specify which editors you are referring to if you don't mean all? Your inability to listen or read the Prime Minister's words correctly is another problem. Legacypac (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't help the way things appear to you. If I could, we'd agree more. I didn't refer to anyone. I made a general statement. One term or the other applies to anyone who has wanted or will want to perpetuate the myth through Misplaced Pages. If that's you, great. If it's not you, great. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:34, October 30, 2014 (UTC)

I think your comment is uncivil and should be retracted. Legacypac (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree and politely decline. Unless you retract your views on terrorism, from here and your mind, for all eternity. Deal? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:06, October 31, 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac, your "Your inability to listen or read the Prime Minister's words correctly is another problem" nearly made me guffaw. You do know what you sound like, right? Rather than be uncivil by mocking you or asking you to show your party card or suggesting you sound like a cabinet minister or party apparatchik, suffice to say reading the Prime Minister's words and believing them are two rather different things. There can be no question that there is no neutrality of language in the words of politicians, they are all inherently POV by definition, we can only report what they say, we should not have to ape it, or buy into it. There are disputes as to the validity of the prime minister's words and they're anything but "fringe", and so his choice of words, being POV as they clearly are given the context of the emergent public debate about that, and about its implications for the direction of public policy, cannot be expected to be what Misplaced Pages uses; the Misplaced Pages-echoing effect here is also of major issue and that may have been observed already here. The heat of this RM debate alone is enough to demonstrate that it is a POV change being called for, and in the presence of public debate about that very wording, in the interests of NPOV no way can it be used; Misplaced Pages's role should not be used to entrench politicized language through blind adherence to a majority of available RS but to represent all RS fairly and equally. BTW I found that remark - "Your inability to listen or read the Prime Minister's words correctly is another problem." - to be completely NPA and AGF, so you are hardly the one to be b****ing about CIVIL.Skookum1 (talk) 09:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Skookum1 my point was that the editors comments indicated a failer to understand what the PM said (fact), which is quite different from a difference of opinion.A common tactic when disagreeing with someone is to misquote them.Legacypac (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

See below about you mis-using sources and editorializing edit comments in the course of POVizing content. That's a common tactic too, and I don't use it; you clearly have; I stand by my observation that you sound like a party loyalist, wanting the PM's word to be taken at face value and questioning hte intellingence/loyalty of those who dispute him.Skookum1 (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I have zero opinion either way, but according to the National last night (CBC), they were debating this being a terrorist attack in the House of Commons. Thomas Mulclair in particular doesn't feel it was: someone may wish to look into this, possibly as at very least to document debate of its classification. (currently at The National for October 29, 2014 at approximately 12min 45s) AnyyVen (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this article could use a (non-immediate) Aftermath section. I might do it later, but anyone feel free to beat me to it. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:48, October 30, 2014 (UTC)

If they were not terrified what that heck were Mulcair and his MPs doing cowering in terror behind a door they barricaded with tables and chairs just steps from the terrorist? If it was a common criminal act why did it make the news worldwide? Stange political games people play. Legacypac (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Your POV is showing and your penchant for SYNTH. How much editorializing are you going to keep indulging in, by way of making your SYNTH position seem NPOV, which it's decidedly not. Your attempt to insert "was a terrorist attack" on the St-Jean-sur-Richelieu speaks to this habit of SYNTH on your part, and also the use of misleading/editorialized edit comments while adding/mis-stating sources that's been observed here before; this edit was my correction of your insertion, which said in its edit comment "it was a terrorist attack by a terrorist trying to leave to join the terrorists in Syria.)" - but the sources did not use that phrasing or even close to it; same as the original "terrorist" words there were not in the source used by the original author, i.e. who imposed it without sourcing; just as you have distorted the sources; the National Post article was the only one of the three sources you provided that said anything similar, its wording is what I used in the corrected NPOV version. To quote you back "strange political games people play"....and you can take yours elsewhere instead of pretending cites say something other than what they do.Skookum1 (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

And per your little description of what you say was going on in the NDP caucus room (source, please?), I happened to find this just now.Skookum1 (talk) 08:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

One source - quoting NDP MP. http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ottawa-shooting-mps-tell-of-chaos-on-parliament-hill-as-gunfire-rang-out-1.2067835 Skookum1 Please take your strange POV elsewhere - you grossly misrepresent what I have said and what the sources say. Please stop your disrespectful behavior. Legacypac (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

"disrespectful" to everyone is you making changes that aren't in the cites you provide and fabricating/synthing conclusions based on YOUR POV, which is clear enough. I don't grossly misrepresent sources...that's what you've been doing. Please stop making misleading and false edit comments. BTW I looked up "legacypac" in Google, the results were "rather interesting"; I know your userpage says you're a real estate developer in Vancouver and will be editing based on "what you know about" but since you can't even represent what's in sources correctly I have to wonder about your activities on other titles as per a scan of your usercontributions and what it is you think you know about. And your tactic about whining about "disrespect" when you have disrespected wikipedia through unsourced edits and false edit comments I have already documented.Skookum1 (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It was a terrorist attack. Reaper7 (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

(@Ntomkin) I realized that that "haphazard" statement could be relevant to other non-Canadian attacks (New York, Jerusalem) so I was wondering what would make it an attack. I then remembered that the reason I considered them such was ISIL-referential. It had to do with the fact that an ISIL spokesperson suggested in September that people do violence in their countries in support of their organization. It was basically by association: "If ISIL is terrorist, then these people attacking on behalf of ISIL deserve the same

appellation"

However, I guess we don't have to use the specific term "terrorist". Can we think of any better terms? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Given the motivations of the perpetrator and the selection of the victim, "hate crime" would be the correct term. Peter Grey (talk) 06:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you mean by this term (he hated the Canadian government because of politics), but it will confuse others ("hate crime" usually implies some sort of racist or similar violence). Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

deliberately misleading/false edit by IP user

I note that the Kanata-based IP that made the change from "hidden" to "moved" that I have reverted made an overtly false and untrue edit comment: "Return to original language. "Hidden" is original research/pov)". Such false claims in edit comments are rife of late in Misplaced Pages, particularly on corporate and political articles, though not them alone. "Hidden" was the language used by the first source listed for that line, this article by Stephen Chase in the Globe and Mail. and "moved" not used there nor was there any mention in the other three sources for that sentence. It was not original research, but the POV motivations of the IP user are clear as day. I note he/she has also "voted" in the RM and their vote should be discounted/ignored, not that it amounted to much. Some measure of discipline for false and misleading edit comments might be out there that could be applied; if not, there is sore need for one.Skookum1 (talk) 05:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

"Hidden" works. I get that it makes him look like a wimp, but it also makes him look highly valuable. Furniture is moved. Priceless art and nuclear secrets are hidden, from Nazi scum as well as terrorist scum. The positive and negative implications balance. Plus, it's a reliable source. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:10, October 31, 2014 (UTC)

Harper apologized to the caucus for hiding in the closet. So he did 'come out'. :-) Seriously though, 'moved' could be appropriate in the instance of going to another location, not staying in the same room. And, as mentioned the source used those words. Alaney2k (talk) 12:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Use of new "terrorist incidents in Canada" category

This category Category:Terrorist incidents in Canada was created by User:ShulMaven on October 27. It contains only this and 2014 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu ramming attack, and I question its advisability given the controversy over this title. I'm observant that a parallel CfD is too much "load" on this issue right now, but wonder if that category should not be suspended; the definition of "terrorist incident" as some have observed can be cited as having been described as a terrorist incident, though the RCMP and government have not used that term for the Moncton shootings and ensuing lockdown of the city. Re the St-Jean-sur-Richelieu article, I have removed "a 25 year old terrorist" as not being in the source cited, and I see from the history other attempts to insert "terrorist/terrorism" have been removed also; "terrorist/terrorism" are not in the SJsR article, not for now anyway. I haven't reviewed the history there yet to see who added/removed what but I suspect there will be other cases of wordings that do not match citations used.

I also note that some in government and think tanks have styled environmental and native protests as "terrorism" and "radicalization" et al, and so posit that were this category to remain, that broader definition (favoured by government and increasingly in use by police) to include "everything else" that the term has been applied to as being valid for the category, also. But I think it should be deleted, period. Clearly not CFDS but given the discussions here so far, it should be CfD'd fairly quickly as invalid and POV.Skookum1 (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I could see a category 'Terrorist incidents in Canada', but not one for 2014 alone. Or we could start 'Category: Shooting sprees in Canada'? While I don't think of either attack as 'terroristic' to coin a term, I do think it is the common term, and as such it does not bother me as much. Especially as I'm not sure if there is a 'good' label. I don't think categorization in Misplaced Pages has much of an external social effect, either way. Alaney2k (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, a 2014 one is pointless. Just makes people click once more than they should. Categories aren't as influential as leads, since they're at the bottom. Even newspapers agree about burying stuff there. But a smaller problem is still a fixable problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:50, October 31, 2014 (UTC)

Point is that titles are important, and categories are supposed to reflect titles, not "lead them" as this one was clearly created to do. That "classifying" this is a terrorist incident or a mental health incident is of debate, including here, classifying=categorizing being hte same thing, categories DO matter, especially when created to "frame" these events as "terrorist incidents", and one of the articles so-branded had that term inserted into it by its author without that being in the source, and the interests of the creator in mideast political articles and likewise CanadianToker in terrorism articles does not suggest neutrality, rather the opposite. By doing so, Misplaced Pages has been used as a platform for the dissemination of this position/agenda. Even without "2014" we have this little problem of "what is terrorism?", and Canada has a long history of things both considered/regarded as terrorism (Sons of Freedom, Squamish Five, Wiebo Ludwig, Air India) and things which authorities might style as terrorism (the protest camp re the Mount Polley mine disaster for one, anti-fracking protests in NB for another...then there's Oka et al.) and things which sure look like terrorism but the government and media side-step the term, as with the Moncton shootings. For now, the category's origins and its targeting at only these two events, whose status is by no means clear and obviously in dispute, means it should be blanked and CfDd. Re a general category, "who gets to decided what is and isn't terrorism?" Many op-ed pieces have used the term "terrorism" in relation to the government's foreign policy and also police conduct on home soil, for example.Skookum1 (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a crazy world.

Fun Facts: A heel Shawn Michaels leads a faction of anonymous masked "knights" against Canada's honest, hardworking Hart wrestling family in '94. Later wins World Championship. The Undertaker and his heel Ministry of Darkness (including a black zombie slave they kidnapped) ties blue-collar American Stone Cold Steve Austin to a cross after a gang attack in '99. Later wins World Championship. Real person Mark Copani, after converting to heelism and changing his name to Muhammad, attempts to make America a safer place by leading a faction of anonymous masked men against the still incredibly dangerous (but now cheered instead of booed) Undertaker in '05. Very soon later, lost to The Undertaker at The Great American Bash and nothing again, because fuck that guy for playing the vaguely suspicious character he was booked as, for real. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, November 3, 2014 (UTC)

I haven't followed WWE in years..... but re the original of the "ISIL-linked" doodad, this article on how the origin of the photo of Z-B was distorted, and continues to be, is well worth the read.Skookum1 (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That's about the lamest attempt at a convoluted plot to get a crappy gimmick over I've seen since The Black Scorpion. See inside for details. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:59, November 3, 2014 (UTC)

"terrorist" usages in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu article

I have discovered that the word "terrorist", including in since-removed wording from the lede, was in the original version of the article created by ShulMaven, also on the 27th. Again, the word was not in the sources used, and given the parallel creation of the category by the same user, and the POV issues with it here, and in Canada at large, such actions as creating articles with other-than-sources wording that is of POV nature is observed; and the call to delete the category underscored. Much of the SJsR article was worked on by a new SPA whose only edits, virtually, have been on that page, or this one, plus adding this to List of terrorist incidents, 2014 and two in the 2014 New York City hatchet attack article. The article was greatly expanded, also, by another user whose history includes edits on the Michael Brown matter and on such as 2014 Isla Vista killings and a rather interesting set of other articles/diffs. Worth looking at ShulMaven's contributions, also. Not pointing fingers, just observing that POV-inclined editors have propagated the use of the term "terrorism" and their edit histories/agendas are worth referring to. I'll remove these incidents from the list of terrorist attacks articles, for what by now are obvious reasons in wikipedia terms.Skookum1 (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for watching out for this. We don't want to be lumped in with Sun Media for sloppiness, and pushing a POV. Alaney2k (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Or allowing a POV to be pushed, or to be used to propagate a term or classification or something right off the bat. In many cases in political-type articles I've seen cites used that don't say what is cited, and also false edit comments. The "terrorist" cat was created the same day as the SJsR one, and which included language ("terrorist") that wasn't in the source(s), "seeding" it into the cyberverse as if it were a given, because Misplaced Pages is among the first pages that will be seen in a post-event google, if an article is there. Using a category name using it on top of that does matter as far as considering the nature of the unsourcing of the term in the text. It's good that someone undertook to start the SJsR article; which was needed; but took the time to prejudice it right off the start and so insert bits of "the terrorism script". I really don't think most people do think of it that way, but I don't have polls and neither, I think do you; though recall seeing some, with "terrorism" not above "mental health issues" in terms of responses. If you have polls showing that most people think of it as terrorism, please link them; t he one I saw was on ipolitics.ca I'll see if I can find it again.Skookum1 (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I am the person who added the original prose to the 2014 terrorist incidents article. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 03:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Done in all innocence, I'm sure....but how did you first become aware of the articles? Via the category?Skookum1 (talk) 03:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I became aware of this article through Portal:Current events, and ditto for what is now the SJsR article, if that's what you meant, Skookum1. However, the articles did not exist when I added them to the 2014 Terrorist incidents article, and I added them because I was concerned that these incidents might not be included and therefore forgotten. (Several eligible-appearing attacks seemed to be missed in the previous months.) Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 14:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, these will hardly be forgotten.... but as you note, that a POVized/fabricated version of the article showed up in the Current Events portal (... and, er, was it on the main page the same way?) without anyone being aware of the suspect origins of the content; which yes, I will call "suspect" because User:Shulmaven just tried to move that SJsR article to with yet another fabrication/conflation: ShulMaven moved page 2014 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu ramming attack to 2014 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu vehicle terror attack: in line with rapidly emerging terminology) but I was able to revert it without an admin. Whose "rapidly emerging terminology"?? What's rapidly emerging in Canada is avoidance of the terrorist description "favoured by some" in preference to e.g. "gunman" instead of "terrorist" and more of a focus on the mental health issues than on the terrorism agenda. Yesterday, Shulmaven similarly tried to re-insert the terms he had fabricated when he wrote the article and made the accompanying category, saying "improve, I hope", but I reverted that, also. I made comments on the talkpage about the dispute and POV context/controversy re the use of "those words", and don't mean any of it as SOAP or stumping, only pointing out the problems with the campaign to pepper "terrorist" all over these events for whatever political reason; Shulmaven appears unconnected (directly anyway) to Canada or Canadian politics, but his interest/hobby in terrorism-related articles bespeaks a certain eagerness not just t o "develop terminology" but also to propagate it - by pure fabrication, as laid out about his unsourced SYNTH and POV in the first draft of the article. I'm not in the mood for an ANI, and the POV discussion board is backlogged, but IMO this editor needs a block for dishonest activities. I will copy the details of the original fabrication over to that talkpage, and ask that others here watchlist that article also, as it's clear that POV activity will continue until stopped/blocked.Skookum1 (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I just removed the unrelated NYC and Jerusalem items from the See also of the SJsR article, and in noting the new addition there looked into it, it was made entirely by Shulmaven, saying in his initial edit "new page, provoked by rise in this tactic bringing tactic, motivation under scrutiny". Continued POV/SYNTH of this kind should not be tolerated; I will file an AfD on that article also, because of its obvious POV motivation and genesis. Propaganda is not welcome in Misplaced Pages, but easy to get away with if not enough people are paying attention to what the sources actually say.Skookum1 (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

should this go in "Reactions" or "Statements"? I'm thinking the latter...

Girlfriend of soldier killed in Ottawa shooting calls for a conversation on mental-health care, Travis Lupick, Georgia Straight, Nov 5 2014. I feel like quoting bits of it, but it speaks for itself. Suffice to say the word "terrorist" isn't mentioned even once. It's also not mentioned in this Global News item, and not even implied. It appears that Canadian media, if not the int'l media (and the various int'l editors who have tried to paper that term in this and the St Jean sur Richelieu one), are on the ball about not playing along with the government's campaign to invoke "terrorism hype". That last item also strikes me as having content that belongs in the "Background" section, and likewise the mental health issues instead of that section's current focus on PMO/RCMP acccounts/cites/descriptions.Skookum1 (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction

In the wake of the incident, the Canadian government introduced a bill to expand the powers and courtroom anonymity of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), Canada's spy agency. The bill was slated to be introduced the day of the shootings, which postponed it.

OK if the word "introduced" means into parliament, this may be technically consistent. But the text should be written in a clearer way, if, indeed, this has any place in the article.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

Example:

The Canadian government had already prepared a bill to expand the powers and courtroom anonymity of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), Canada's spy agency, which was due to be introduced the day of the shootings, and was postponed by the event.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

"don't say 'many' without a cite"

Oh, so I have to find an article that says "many" rather than just state it?... you do realize how many criticisms of the "terror hype" there are out there, don't you? How many links/quotes do I have t o add to where "many" does not need a direct cite? It's not a weasel word, such as "some" would be (i.e. downplaying such criticisms); right now there's five or so on the page.....more than few, less than several....but there's dozens out there.Skookum1 (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Why all this POV pushing to not call a terrorist attack a terrorist attack? Legacypac (talk) 02:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Why all your pushing of the Tory/foreign/police "line" that it was a terrorist attack and your attempts to delete cited content disputing that "line" and pointing out how applying that term has been used to push/validate a very controversial set of legislation? There are lots of Canadians who say it was only criminal act by a crazy man, who point out there is no direct connection to ISIS, or to any terror organization, that it was not "typical terrorism" and more; your own history of POV edits and false edit comments pushing your POV (which is the same as that of the government/police agenda) has been clear enough. And you smear the foreign media as being in a "fog" when you've also used their reportage to push the "terrorist" content of this article and have ardently resisted and criticized inclusion of materials that dispute that.Skookum1 (talk) 03:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Harper plug removed; non-participant and no other politician has a picture here; and no pics of the ZB, Cirillo or Vickers, whose pictures DO belong on here (Harper's doesn't)

I removed the Harper picture, which does not belong on this article, especially when no other politician or other commentor on these event has a picture; to me this was an obvious political plug, especially given the attempt to sanitize the caption see User_talk:Skookum1#Harper_in_a_closet. We need PD pics of ZB (the one on Twitter probably qualifies), Cirillo and Vickers, and if possible some of Cirillo's family, maybe from the funeral if available....not politicians.Skookum1 (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Who insists on including rants about Harper and the RCMP classifying it as a 'terror attack'? Don't pretend you are objective. Sheesh. Alaney2k (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The families are also non-participants (directly, anyway). Harper's participation in the political aftermath counts for more (notability-wise) than their personal participation at a funeral. Picturing anybody at a funeral seems like tabloidish heartstring-tugging, even if it isn't intentional. The central three people are Zehaf-Bibeau, Cirillo and Vickers. They're the only ones we should illustrate.

The structural pics are good, too, for context. But they're not the subject of this article. A picture of the rifle or another of the model would make sense. Can't have a shooting without a gun. File:Winchester Model 1894.jpg InedibleHulk (talk) 10:30, November 12, 2014 (UTC)

As far as a gun pic goes, the Twitter photo is "out there" and it "doubles" as a pic of ZB (or is that the other way around?). And yes, my bad, the family's privacy is of course an issue; and in retrospect everything in the church was copyright to Global (or was it CTV) and no stills taken in there would be ever non-copyright, not for a long time anyways. Pics of the procession or outdoor shots at the church might be suitable if there was a separate on Cpl Cirillo, but there probably won't be huh?Skookum1 (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the Twitter pic would definitely make sense here. Copyrighted stuff isn't exactly unusable, just has to meet fair use criteria. Funeral pics likely wouldn't be considered contextually significant (#8). If you read that someone had a funeral, imagining a funeral you've seen will paint a fairly accurate mental picture. Faces are way harder to spell out.

If you mean a separate article for Cirillo, no, that's not likely. He's an important part of this story, but not for anything he willfully did. If someone else had been on duty, someone else could have just as easily been killed. It's very hard to consider dying an accomplishment, no matter how famous the crime. I mean, unless it's Trayvon Martin or Nicole Brown Simpson famous. Apparently. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:19, November 13, 2014 (UTC)

Well, here is a picture of Cirillo on sentry duty at the memorial uploaded on Flickr. It's released under creative commons but with commercial use not allowed. I would upload it myself under fair use, but usually, some sort of editor always has a huge problem with that and it ends being a massive hassle for me. If anyone else wants to give it a go, all the power to you. Myopia123 (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

He seems to have 'borrowed it from the Internet'. So the license there doesn't mean anything. I think it could be used under fair use, however. Alaney2k (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I distinctly recall the person who took that picture stating on Twitter (where it was first posted) that it could be used for any reason. Likely in response to DMs from media. Could go back, find that person and ask if they would be willing to release it CC-BY-SA. Resolute 20:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad someone else remembers that,

I just made this comment on the image's talkpage. It was NOT created/authored by the Ottawa Police, nor do they own copyright. AFAIK the author himself has acknowledged it's public domain now, though I can't find the article/blog again where he described how the fake "ISIS-linked twitter account" hype/falsity came about.Skookum1 (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean this one? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:34, November 14, 2014 (UTC)

Vicker's weapon

Regarding the identification of Vicker's firearm. The one source, a blog, starts by saying, "I would give long odds that it was a Smith and Wesson 5946 in 9mm." It's also reprinted in an online magazine of somewhat greater reliability. In other words, he's just guessing. I'd imagine that an official report may be issued someday which will say for sure. But for now, I don't think we can say unequivocally in an infobox that a particular weapon was used. We could, perhaps, say in the text that that it has been speculated that Vickers used a S&W 5946. Rezin (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Didn't it say somewhere that it was his old RCMP-issue handgun? Not sure about that but I think I remember reading that. That would point in the right direction; "ammoland.com" doesn't seem like a reliable source, nor straight from the horse's mouth, either.Skookum1 (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ammoland describes its editorial review process and discloses its conflicts of interests, which is more than many RS sites do. Still a guess, and Dean Weingarten is not the horse, but seems qualified to make a good guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:31, November 14, 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of being original research, this is him right after the shooting and you can see the gun in his hand. Myopia123 (talk) 04:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police#Equipment article has information related to their equipment. On the list is the Smith & Wesson Model 5906, as mentioned in the article provided by editor above. Myopia123 (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Fun Fact: The War Memorial is in eyesight of D'arcy McGee's, a pub named for a man shot with a Smith and Wesson that the also nearby Canadian Museum of History later bought for $105,000, much of which was probably taxpayer money. Owing for inflation, the guns used in these shootings may yet cost our great-grandkids millions of dollars. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:07, November 17, 2014 (UTC)

I'll assume the "5906" was an error from linking the article, but as listed on the RCMP equipment page standard issue is the 5946, the same gun with a double action only hammer. Notably both pistols seen in that video have the rail mount up front, making them part of the TSW family. Also, I had always thought that pistol was far too small to be a 5946, and the RCMP page officially listing the 3953 (compact version, feel free to compare pictures) has me very certain it's a Smith & Wesson 3953 TSW. While I'd like official confirmation of the model, given these are the only two listed and the gun's size, that's pretty damn good evidence. At minimum, it's a Smith & Wesson third-gen semi-auto. Alex T Snow (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

5906 is just what the most relevant article is called, and "5900 series" the relevant section. Contrary to popular belief, Misplaced Pages doesn't quite have everything. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:32, November 18, 2014 (UTC)

quotes on "terrorist attack" issue

Re this, the cite is indeed without quotes but the RCMP are primary source, media coverage of this statement has been rather consistent about using quotes, likewise on "self-radicalized" and "radicalized". I submit that without the quotes it's POV and part of the effort to paint this event as "terrorism" despite huge disputes about that, and of the RCMP/govt usages being political-agenda in nature. That paragraph needs the alternate, widespread view, re mental health and should not repeat police statements in such a "pat" fashion.Skookum1 (talk) 06:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

NBC put the quotes around "terrorist" in this headline, but not "terrorist attack", because nobody had said it yet. It'd have been unprofessional, I guess. They repeat it without quotes, with a link to the same story (which still quotes "Canada will not be intimated"), in this quote headline, "The Day "Canada Lost Its Innocence".

The Toronto Star, and I quote, has bluntly declared that "terrorism rocks".

If we're saying the RCMP considers something as something, quotation marks aren't proper. We're talking about a thing the words describe, not the words. It would need to say the RCMP called it a "terrorist attack".

I think the paragraph above it does enough to suggest it wasn't terrorism, though it's missing a bit. Combining the two ideas in one paragraph would be jumbling. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:29, November 14, 2014 (UTC)

Well, somewhere out there are a few rundowns of the sequence of tweets from that day, and who used the word first and how it got repeated; parrotings that it was terrorism in foreign media, following the lead of (most of) the Canadian mainstream media, with only a few articles I've seen including anything about the mental health and "this was by no means textbook terrorism" commentaries....or Ms Polko's statement for that matter; the seeding of "terror hype" into interpretations of the events, in many press/blogs I've seen the other aspects get ignored; and here in Misplaced Pages I've seen attempts to delete anything about them.....re the Greenwald article being taken out with the claim of "fringe" when Greenwald's anything but, from the same person who used a sensationalist US blog quoting a military-funded (RANDCo) paper as a citation; the target blogpage is invective of the most "terror oriented" kind and, hm, kinda trashy despite its national profile (trashy sells, I know). Anyways, as with the creator's commentary out there about the ZB photo that got tweeted, there's a few pages chronicling the genesis and spread of the terrorist meme that day, and of course there's that scripted question in the Commons in the wake of the SJsR event, before the police had even said anything; once a politician says something's something, the police will follow suit and build a case to suit.....so at what point do we filter out a mass of word-uses generated by a deliberate propaganda/information claims/repetitions. One of the articles on the HuffPo this week was "What is terrorism?" and it bears merit in this discussion, and in the current "Category:Vehicle ramming as a terrorist tactic as to wikipedia being used to propagate the term and who fits it; once again coming around on environmentalists who have been called terrorists, and the natives at teh fracking dispute in NB...and "terrorism by police" as is often adjudged..... articles that use that term based on govt/military/police RS without having balance for the non-govt/military/police views; sheer number of cites should not outweigh the quality sites here....because big-money p.r./political campaigns can spread info inot the internet and through news media/blogs and virtually create words; likewise the common equation, visible in many articles and govt/police reports/analysis, that "terrorist = radicalized Islam"...but not about Justin Bourque. I seem t o recall them calling Wiebo Ludwig that, too.....I think a court judgement blocks them from that now, maybeSkookum1 (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Even with the term "classified" rather than "called by", the quotes are still needed and valid as being used in secondary/tertiary sources.....the RCMP are not just a primary source, but a POV source.Skookum1 (talk) 04:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

At least this time the person insistent on "classified" did leave the quotes on "terrorist attack".Skookum1 (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you are being very unrealistic and acting as a borderline conspiracy theorist. The RCMP as a 'pov source'? They label incidents and crimes all the time. That is routine. Now if it was CSIS or the CIA, or even Harper, then I would think it more likely that there are some ulterior motives going on, and subterfuge, etc. Since when did Cirillo's girlfriend become a psychology expert? It seems pretty clear that Z-B was rational enough to choose what he did, with clear motives. As the MP said, Z-B created a climate of fear, aka terror. As much as Z-B had problems, it doesn't really change the nature of what he did. He was not known to have schizophrenia. I think we may have gone too far with the possible mental health/social safety net issues. I added much of that to the article, but it must not overwhelm what is known. Alaney2k (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

"borderline conspiracy theorist" is stock-in-trade and part of the manual used by propagandists/p.r. people faced with things they want to discredit; along with questioning the morality or sanity of people in their way; you couldn't have chosen a more recognizably POV shoot-back. "Since when did Cirillo's girlfriend become a psychology expert?" is noxious...her statement is very relevant; the rest of what you are saying is SYNTH as being your own analysis. "I think we may have gone too far with the possible mental health/social safety net issues" is blatantly POV as it's obvious, and not just from Polko's own personal comment, that mental health issues and lack of programs are widely seen as having been the genesis of ZB's and CR's xenophilia. The position that this was terrorism is widely disputed and not a "conspiracy theory", except to "denialists"..... I haven't said anything about the False flag conspiracy theories about this for example; those are conspiracy theories; mainstream media and major blog articles that highlight the mental health issue are way too common for you to dismiss them all as "conspiracy theories"..... you remind me of the editor who removed the Glenn Greenwald citations, claiming that Greenwald is "fringe", another refrain heard from the DM (dissembling machine) so that only his own insertion of a virulently hype-written article on the sensationalist right-wing Daily Beast would remain. Your suggestion that we downplay the mental health thing is just pure POV and part of a recognizable branding campaign to reinforce the government's using these events to "sell" is new surveillance/police powers bill, and that is also widely-citable and not a "conspiracy theory".Skookum1 (talk) 05:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Everyone can see their own faults in others. You see your POV issues in others, clearly. I think you are too quick to give too much credit to the conspiracy theories. Z-B did what he did. The article is not about the government and your opinions and opposition to their policies. Alaney2k (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Further, I don't think we should be using Misplaced Pages to 'score points'. My point about Cirillo's girlfriend's comments is that there is a full paragraph of her comments. Other individuals and opinions are summarized or quoted in less words. Her comments should be summarized or trimmed. That's the type of discussion I am trying to have - about editing. Your comments seem to be more about politics. Alaney2k (talk) 12:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

That's quite the comment for you to make, given the very political nature of your own edits and comments here. Really quite disingenuous but then that is par for the course in Misplaced Pages on POV matters. This article was being built around the terrorist theme, the PM and RCMP statements, which are inherently political, were being presented as over-and-done with fact, and no effort was being made to provide the other side of the political equation, and the media equation, which is not my own but is out there to be cited; these events have become a national issue, and so debate on it is relevant; especially direct comment by the victim's girlfriend...which I included in whole because I couldn't see how to respectfully truncate it and think if it is trimmed, it shouldn't be downplayed into a oneliner. That there is opposition to the government's security agenda and vocal concern over the way these events were "pitched" to bolster the bill coming on-table; to omit them or downplay them, when not actually removing them as was done with the first addition of the Jason Bourque comparison (now there and cited multiply) - that's political. Pretending that sticking to the government version/interpretation and choice of terms - not even widely adopted by the normally-friendly mainstream media, who in recent coverage and opeds have avoided the use of "terror" wording altogether.

Your accusation that I am a "conspiracy theorist" needs retracting, it's a refrain of the most POV kind; and this isn't about 'scoring points' in Misplaced Pages, it's to keep its content balanced so that articles like this are about truth, not used as part of a propaganda onslaught to seed "terrorism has come to Canada" around the world (when we've already had plenty) and that there are issues nationally, in the public debate (including in the MSM as well as in the House), about "what does terrorism, mean, exactly?" "Was this really terrorism or is the government just hyping it for political reasons?" are right there next to the one oped from Greenwald I didn't quote, "after 13 years of war, what did you expect?". Commentary about a nation-changing event has to be included, what happened was more than just the shootings; and I will repeat, given your own penchant for the government line, that anything a politician says is inherently political; which is why disputing political views must be presented. Interestingly, they're coming from the establishment media as much as blogspace.....go ahead,edit Polko's statement, but I'll be watching for what you take out, of course.Skookum1 (talk) 11:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I said you were acting as one. It means I think you were over-reacting, especially try to give motives to my editing. I dislike being pegged, as you've been trying to do to my edits. I'm interested in editing this article, not trying to push a POV. Alaney2k (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

"Sounded like one" is a dodge, and makes you "sound like" someone working for the tory p.r. machine. As does the history of your edits and comments here, seeking to reduce non-government/police views and criticisms thereof WP:DUCK applies... to you more than me - "conspiracy theorist" is an insult and a typical blogworld dismissal by pro-government trolls.Skookum1 (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

To sum up more briefly, NPOV does not mean neutering information, it means balance should be in what's given, not a one-sided focus on an official line as if that's all there was. It also doesn't mean "balance" through downplaying or suppressing information, it means comprehensive coverage of all aspects of something; not finding ways to exclude things that those who want to "manage" information don't want out there....or helping push words/views that they do want out there....correct or not.Skookum1 (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely. But (rhetorical) you have to accept the matters of fact, and introduce them in the article, to be able discuss the criticism of such. That's what's so odd about the comments about the quotes. It should be accepted as fact that the RCMP has classified the incident as a terrorist attack. That they have done so. It has to be noted so as to be able to introduce comments criticizing that position. Otherwise, we have not shown that it has been classified as such and the criticism then becomes somewhat empty. I do think there should be a sentence in the lead noting that criticism. But let's not overwhelm the article with the criticism. And that's purely an editorial interest.Alaney2k (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes it must be in the lead, and whether "classified by" or not, "terrorist attack" should appear in quotes, not as a statement of fact. And as for summations of that criticsm, this op-ed by Mark Taliano spells it out very clearly:

The Conservative government has exploited the collective shock of the murder of Corporal Cirillo at Ottawa's National War Monument, and the subsequent shoot-out at the House of Commons, by falsely conflating the tragedy with "Islamic terrorism" and by using it as a pretext to wage illegal warfare against ISIS. Many Canadians, including Cpl. Nathan Cirillo's girlfriend, argue that we should be addressing the tragedy by improving Canada's capacity to provide mental health care for all of its citizens, yet that is not part of the Harper government's longstanding agenda.

Perhaps you will dismiss all that as a "conspiracy theory" or "fringe"....it's not. It's mainstream.Skookum1 (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The term "conspiracy theory" has gotten a bad name, especially since Alex Jones popped up, but it's not the opposite of mainstream. Police and prosecutors come up with conspiracy theories all the time when investigating possible ties or whether interaction with numerous people could have helped, in any way. In this case, the ISIL and SJSR conspiracy theories were about as mainstream in news as possible.

The term "kook" or "kookiness" should be used to negatively describe conspiracy theorists and theories not endorsed by police or mass media. At face value, it seems less civil, but, in my experience, it causes fewer offended and tangential reactions online. On Talk Pages, that's a good thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:39, November 17, 2014 (UTC)

and there's conspiracies that are in-your-face and scandals that never get called that....and thatis a media conspiracy and a media with too-close ties to the government, as with the Murdoch thing but widely denied or shrugged at by their Canadian counterparts....yes, information war is information war is information war and any ol'accusation will do; rather than spouting "conspiracy theories" I'm making sure this article is complete and not part of a sell job for a newspeakish rendering of events in Canada; given the amount of debate out there it would be negligent not to give it the DUE respect it deserves.

NPOV does not mean neutering information, it means balance should be in what's given, not a one-sided focus on an official line as if that's all there was. It also doesn't mean "balance" through downplaying or suppressing information, it means comprehensive coverage of all aspects of something; not finding ways to exclude things that those who want to "manage" information don't want out there....or helping push words/views that they do want out there....and within all the linked citations of this, or many of them, the point has been shown that "terrorist" is being used for "radicalized Muslims", which is why Jason Bourque's rampage is not "terrorism"...if it were the onus would be for the government to put all "Radicalized Christians" under surveillance. That "terrorist=Muslim" equation is part of my problem with using it, in cat titles here, as it's so subjective and propagandistic; and re AlaneyK's comment about the quotes, calling for not using them when the media regularly do indicates that you want that classification to be taken as dictionary fact, rather than official position which is what it really is; note that with criminal cases for the living, the wording "alleged" functions in the same way as those quotes.....Baldly stating "Martin Couture-Rouleau was a 25-year old terrorist" as was done by the POV creator of the SJsR had no relation to the wordings of any of the sources provided; add A to B and a dash of C and come up with XYZ. Sadly, that's all too easy to do and propagate in Misplaced Pages as it ins the journalistic community (or the corporate sector whereof where that's the nature of your job). But if the mass or RS have as their root once press release or some military defence dept paper that spawned and spread terms ("lone-wolf terrorism" among them per that RAND item).

Misplaced Pages will never be immune from newspeak and word-mongering; but it doesn't have to and shouldn't stifle the complete truth about something, instead of just obediently reciting the party line. And re calling my additions "politics"....truth is not politics, it is the truth. And don't go throwing WP:TRUTH at me.

"Kook" yes, I'd take that as unCIVIL, on a notch up from conspiracy theorist....but only marginally since the intent of the dismissal is the same.Skookum1 (talk) 09:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

That's funny. Earlier, I'd added "truth" and "truthiness" to how you should positively describe a non-official conspiracy theory, but figured it'd be taken wrong. Thanks for that.

As to the point, it is a fact that the RCMP calls/classifies this a "terrorist attack"/terrorist attack. That's all we're claiming, with or without quotes. It's a matter of style, nothing to do with Couture-Roleau or Borque or anything like that. The wider problems with the media are important, but wider problems, so not important in this scope.

Not sure how much more balanced you'd like it. Can you be specific? We've six lines in the lead suggesting crazy, angry druggie, and six suggesting terrorist. That seems balanced to me, though one paragraph will always have to be first. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:15, November 17, 2014 (UTC)

arbitary/questionable deletion of birthname and cites

Re this reversion, there are three RS which state that very clearly; Legacypac's opinion about this being an "error in reporting" is without substance or citation of any correction by La Presse, The Guardian or Irish daily The Independent. He was given his birth-father's name at birth, not his mother's as told here in the La Presse article:

16 octobre 1982 - Naissance de Michael Joseph Hall

15 juillet 1989 - Mariage de Susan Bibeau et de Bulgasem Zehaf, à Laval

14 décembre 1995 - Michael Joseph Hall adopte le nom de Michael Zehaf Bibeau avec le consentement de ses parents.

And in the Guardian:

Born in Quebec on 16 October 1982 as Michael Joseph Hall

And in The Independent:

Born as Michael Joseph Hall and raised just north of Montreal

Now, unless Legacypac has an inside line on there not being any such birth records and that the fact-checkers for those three RS were wrong, his claims of "remove Hall as birth name - does not match with mothers statements, name change records found or logic" but his logic is yet to be borne out by actual evidence.... he makes this claim with his immediate reversion of his deletion: "Not my opinion - see sourced info clearly based on research in the article on his name charge. These early reports did not cite sources)". La Presse would know what it's talking about; where is your proof that he was born anything but "Michael Joseph Hall"? It's not like that came out of thin air (as a lot of your edits have). What "research" do you have access to, or is that just another part of your fabrication/conflation of sources like so often before?Skookum1 (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

As shown by the post above, clearly this other editor has not weighed the credibility of the cited Toronto Star article which is obviously well researched and very detailed against the brief reports of an Irish and UK paper (not Canadian) in the fog of the immediate aftermath of the shooting. There is no evidence that he had a father named Hall and reports are that his actual father and mother married after his birth and changed his name from only his mothers name to include his father's name. The Hall name sure seems to be a bit of misinformation that got going which makes no sense in light of all the subsequent revelations about his background. When faced with conflicting information we have to consider the reliability and strength of each source. Now kindly stop edit warring and resorting to a broad personal attack on me. Skookum1 Legacypac (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Mis-quoting and conflating what sources actually say is demonstrable quite easily and I have already done so more than once; that's not a personal attack, it's direct observation and this is another case-in-point; there's nothing in the Star article saying what name he was registered as at birth, it says only:

"Joseph Paul Michael Bibeau came into the world in October 1982 but the couple, who had met less than a year before, split up before the birth. Bibeau, a bureaucrat, had withheld Zehaf’s name from their son’s birth certificate, according to a legal application to change his name."

That his birthname is not mentioned there puts the lie to your claimed utility of this source to give any weight at your all to remove his birth-certificate name from the article; and La Presse is a Canadian paper, not Irish or UK, and it would have checked that. You bitched in your edit summary that those articles were not "cited"...well where's the Star's cite for their own coverage....which doesn't say what you're claiming it said. Why you want to remove an RS-valid birthname is quite beyond me, but this isn't the first time your "logic" hasn't made any sense.Skookum1 (talk) 08:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Can I suggest seriously calming down. In response to "That his birthname is not mentioned there puts the lie" - if you look again The Star clearly gives his actual birthname in the first four words of the 2ndd paragraph. The other sources do not discuss the circumstances of birth or name change in near the detail as The Star does. Also note that the Star sourced name as been in the article since very early on, but not in the infobox, only the Hall name that came out first. Legacypac (talk) 08:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The Star also says that his birthname was misheld by his mother, so the "first four words of the second paragraph are only his post-namechange name, not his birthname on his birth certificate. he did not "come into this world" by that name, so that's a distortion by the Star, as that's not the name he received at birth or "the name he came into this world with". Once again, as always, you are misusing sources and distorting what they say or what they mean. Your ANI is just a bit of nuisance bureaucracy IMO, your record of distorting sources and making misleading edit comments I've already noted above more than once. Here you're just doing more of the same, and now invoking the wiki-bureaucracy to "deal with me". Skookum1 (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

An actual birthname is what's on the birth certificate, not what a newspaper says his birthname was, get it?? And the source you're invoking doesn't say that'st his birthname, rather it indicates that it wasn't. Pretty plainly too.Skookum1 (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I've explained my edit and pointed to the exact words in the source but you continue to misrepresent the article. I don't read french so I'll not comment on the exact value of the Le Presse source but The Star is in plain English which I quote with supplied bolding to show birth (1st) vs new (2nd) name):

As in the Star starting with the second paragraph: "Joseph Paul Michael Bibeau came into the world in October 1982 but the couple, who had met less than a year before, split up before the birth. Bibeau, a bureaucrat, had withheld Zehaf’s name from their son’s birth certificate, according to a legal application to change his name. A short while later, they resolved their differences, then married. On that day in 1995, the couple decided to give back to their young boy one half of his heritage. The boy’s decidedly Christian name was legally changed to Joseph Paul Michael Abdallah Bulgasem Zehaf-Bibeau with the following statement:..." and they go on to quote the change of name document which is a pretty strong indicator the reporter saw a copy of the actual name change document.

Now with additional explanations in (): "Joseph Paul Michael Bibeau (birth name with no "Zehaf") came into the world (born) in October 1982 (we know it was the 16th) but the couple (his parents), who had met less than a year before, split up before the birth (father out of picture). Bibeau (the mother), a bureaucrat (federal gov), had withheld Zehaf’s name (boy's father name) from their son’s (Micheal's) birth certificate (implying the Star saw the document, which would have been attached to the change of name application), according to a legal application to change his name (which the writer goes on to quote). A short while later, they resolved their differences, then married( an aside about his parents). On that day in 1995 (the day they changed the boys name legally), the couple decided to give back to their young boy (13 years old now) one half of his heritage. (ie his father's Libyan family name omitted from the birth certificate originally) The boy’s decidedly Christian name (see before-Joseph Paul Michael Bibeau) was legally changed to Joseph Paul Michael Abdallah Bulgasem Zehaf-Bibeau (new longer name and hyphenated last name using both father and mother's last names) with the following statement:..." and they go on to quote the change of name document which is a pretty strong indicator the reporter saw a copy of the actual name change document.

This Star article is called a quality source for his actual birth name and current full long legal name. The statements made about the Star, me and my edit above are all clearly misstatements and misreadings of this source. Legacypac (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The Star article did not give his actual birth name, it gave his legal name as current at the time of his death and said "came into this world on...". It does NOT say that was his "actual birth name", it only uses his legal name and then his birthday, it does not say that was his official name at birth. Whatever you might want to claim or assert otherwise, if that's on his birth certificate, that is his birth name.Skookum1 (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I've requested a 3rd opinion. So Note to reviewer: The reported "Hall" birthname is featured prominently in the infobox and the article but the "Bibeau" birthname is only in the article. I propose to remove the "Hall" birthname because the sources are weaker and came out when there was generally very little info to go on (and other inaccurate info was all over the reporting including additional shooters etc) On balance, the Hall name just makes no sense based on everything we know about him and his family - evidently a mistaken identification. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Futher support for only Joseph Paul Michael Bibeau (none mention "Hall" and many are not just copies of wire reports reuters Huff Post Macleans who says explicetly they obtained the court records Ottawa Citizen the Star Phynox and there are many more. There are news reports using "Michael Joseph Hall" but they are all dated Oct 22 and 23 (the day of and the day after the shooting) and they usually say an unspecified "US sources" and some talk about a name change after he converted to Islam which proved false. Clearly later well researched reports by major Canadian media based on court documents showing a name change at 12 and interviews with his mother trump some misinformation from unspecified US sources that came out before his dead body was even cold. Legacypac (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Note to reviewer, that " makes no sense based on everything we know about him and his family - evidently a mistaken" is an interpretive statement ("based on everything we know"...."evidently mistaken") and is yet more evidence of the OR/SYNTH way that the editor soliciting your opinion has conducted himself around this article. Interpreting sources so as to reach a not-sourceable conclusion (unless Legacypac has access to birth records for Quebec) is the very essence of SYNTH and OR and its' blatantly stated here by him "makes no sense..on what we know...evidently mistaken" is clear enough that he is interpreting/extrapolating from sources. yet more sources and his interpretations have been posted during an edit conflict before this post, they are yet more attempts to argue a proof using interpretations, probably wrong ones, of what sources actually say or mean.Skookum1 (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Sadly the editor is dead wrong and contradicting ALL the reliable sources I cited above his post. I am going to ask once, nicely, for this editor to retract his inappropriate comments and restore my edit. Anything else is vandalism. and hard;y civil. BTW the source of the Hall name was ...Zehaf-Bibeau was born as Michael Joseph Hall but later changed his name, U.S. government sources told Reuters. Note the next day reuters reported the Bibeau birthname without a the incorrect Hall name.

Legacypac (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you claiming that the La Presse cite used the HuffPo's repeat of a Reuters bulletin as to where that FACT came from. "changed a day later" you said in the edit comment, as if his name had been changed the day after he was born...and in your next-day-revised Reuters bulletin ("lost in the fog" like your comment about The Guardian and the Irish Independent being foreign sources), did it say the name you're claiming as the birthname i.e. the name on his birth certificate? Or are you "stitching" that together by your usual "because it says this, then it makes sense that..."? What's "hardly civil" is launching an edit war to revert your unwarranted deletion of RS and cited facts, and pretend as if you are the aggrieved party.Skookum1 (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

3O Response: As you have raised an RFC on this issue below, I am declining your request for a third opinion. It is not possible to have both. Stfg (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The article has been revised with extensive sourcing including "The original name on his birth certificate was Joseph Paul Michael Bibeau, but his parents applied to the courts to have his name changed in 1995 to Joseph Paul Michael Abdallah Bulgasem Zehaf-Bibeau. " and no I'm not going to do OR as suggested by the other editor to go check his birth certificate. I note that this article falls under BLPSOURCES and the reversion of inaccurate information is not exempt from 3RR. The onus is the editor reinserting the information to prove it is correct. Legacypac (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

References

1. http://lavalnews.ca/article/Profile-of-a-Canadian-errorist-222101

ref: Remove erroneous birth name "Michael Joseph Hall" from article

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Remove the misreported birth name "Michael Joseph Hall" completely from the article as it conflicts with all RS after October 22 and 23.

Original Source for "Michael Joseph Hall" reuters article published Oct 22 (the day of the shooting) "Some U.S. government sources said the shooter was born Michael Joseph Hall but changed his name to Zehaf-Bibeau." There are other reports using the Hall name, quoting reuters or US officials, but all I could find were published on Oct 22 or 23 within 48 hours of the shootings.

The next day the original source reuters reported "Court records in Montreal showed Zehaf-Bibeau was born to Susan Bibeau in 1982 after she had a brief relationship with Bulgasem Zehaf. The two had a rocky relationship but were married in 1989, Bulgasem said in an affidavit. After (his) birth, his mother, Susan Bibeau and I renewed our relationship and I also established links with my son," Zehaf said in the affidavit. "I was entitled to ... look after his education, his security, and to give him all my love." The parents petitioned in 1995 to change their son's name from Joseph Paul Michael Bibeau to Joseph Paul Michael Abdallah Bulgasem Zehaf Bibeau. Zehaf was also registered as the child's father at the time."

The following additional indepth articles published after the intial flury of inacurate info passed support this proposal: Huff Post Macleans who says explicetly they obtained the court records Ottawa Citizen the Star Phynox and there are many more.

I am seeking comments and consensus because my efforts to correct this inaccuracy - that was inserted in good faith the day of the shooting - were twice reverted . See previous section for the details. In the mean time I believe that the Hall name can be deleted immediately based on WP:BDP, and WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:NOT3RR Legacypac (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment I agree that we should not use Hall as the birthname. I think there is one interesting aspect of the Michael Hall report, is that the name was reported by US sources before any Canadian media source, and only about an hour after the incident. While I am not a conspiracy theorist, I think something should be left in about the erroneous name and how it came to be reported. Alaney2k (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: First point: the article should mainly refer to this man as Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, his legal name at the time of the shooting. Whether or not he ever had the name Michael Joseph Hall is at most a minor biographical detail that should not receive much weight in this article. That said, a google search for "Michael Joseph Hall" gets very many hits from news sources saying that this was Zehaf-Bibeau's name before he converted to Islam. While this isn't 100% conclusive, it's enough that if we were to categorically negate it, we'd need good RSs showing that this was never his name. The sources provided by Legacypac are reliable enough, but don't unambiguously refute the name, and they don't appear any more reliable than the ones that assert it. Macleans do indeed say they consulted the court records, but they don't say that the court records resolve the question. IMO, any firm assertion that Hall was or wasn't ever his name would be to cherry-pick our preferred sources, and that's OR. We can report what the sources on both sides say, but we can't say which side is right. IMO the question of birth name can be covered in the text, but should be removed entirely from the infobox at the head of the Perpetrator section. Finally, in the discussion section preceding this, there is far too much commenting on the editor rather than on the issue. --Stfg (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't even think there was a question in the media - just a "day of" inaccurate report based on US sources that everyone quickly forgot as better info came out. Legacypac (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with the previous comment per Stfg. Metamagician3000 (talk) 12:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment La Presse is not an American newspaper, nor is it "foreign" in any way. And as per US papers propagating the legal birthname before (allegedly) in Canada, they were also pushing the "terrorist" line about these events even before the PM did. There's tweet-analysis and other commentary out there about the "planting" of the "terrorist theme" on that first day which raise questions about "who" started it (other than the leading question asked of the PM by one of his trained-monkey backbenchers), and likewise the picture of ZB that is widely cited by American media as being posted by ISIS was not an ISIS photo. Yet you still see that, just as you still see foreign media sources who do not cover the debate in Canada on mental health and the huge risks of the use of "terrorism hype" to pitch draconian laws. And notably, ongoing coverage in Canada does not refer to ZB as a "terrorist" but as a "gunman" and no not wantonly toss around the "terrorism theme" as you have, and which you have cheerled on e.g. Talk:List of terrorist incidents, 20114 to bolster proposing to "shoehorn in" material based on START materials, who claims to be a newbie but clearly has Misplaced Pages experience. In your little whine above, you presume to invoke NOT3RR for something that was only 2RR because you had started yourself to edit-war over removal of RS-cited information, based on your OR "logic" about what your cribbing/misquoted of RS and not on what they actually said. You are in the wrong, just as your edit comments on various highly POV "edits" were false.Skookum1 (talk) 03:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

It appears there is another agenda beyond correctly sourcing facts. Legacypac (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Pfffft. My only agenda is the completeness of truth and NOT using sources to reach agenda-driven claims and politically-driven language as you have consistently been doing; I see in your deleted/reverted version of this same post you said "Why an editor wants to go against the birth certificate" which is the opposite of what I have been pointing out, that ALL your cites that it was NOT his birthname/birth certificate name you have used OR to maintain otherwise, even though the sources are clear that his name was changed only later. As for being agenda-driven, your history of misleading and outright false edit comments in the course of trying to keep balanced coverage of this event and instead trying to keep this article as a "reign of terror" political screed are a matter of record; your own agenda is much at fault and is a typical example of someone wrapping themselves in the wiki-flag while abusing sources and pushing a particular political POV (the government's in this case). A clue of the genesis of your campaign here and your usercontributions elsewhere might be found in this google of your username.....

REPEAT: my only agenda is truth and balance, and preventing propagandist shills from overtaking articles with doubletalk and newspeak as they too often try to do in Misplaced Pages; I don't misrepresent or OR-fabricate conclusions from sources like you so consistently have done. It's your agenda that's at question here; your behaviour re sources and edit comments has been execrable.Skookum1 (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove the wrong name. That court records source is clear and detailed. Makes it trustable. "Some people say" is far sketchier. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:27, November 25, 2014 (UTC)

RAND

Stop reverting this edit. The fact that the RAND is affiliated with the US government is irrelevant to the section in which is belongs. Inthefastlane (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It is highly relevant when it's from an organization created and backed by the US military and the military-industrial complex commenting/branding an event in Canada according to their agenda;judgement; it's not like those terms came out of anywhere; any "think tank" shoudl have its alignment/foundation mentioned when their views are fielded in Misplaced Pages. To claim otherwise is disingenous. And I did NOT "revert", I reinserted a condensed version of the information as it is relevant to a highly-politicized topic as to who that opinion/terminolgy is coming from.Skookum1 (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Jenkins is an award winning author on counter-terrorism, should we include that part? The US government has banned US military members from reading the Intercept, should we include that part? After-all, you could argue that they are relevant to a "highly-politicized topic." Also, if you cared to read the article, you'd know that Jenkins isn't commenting about the events in Ottawa, but rather that Siegel is using Jenkins's findings to comment on the events in ottawa. Inthefastlane (talk) 11:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

You should do some introduction. RAND Corporation's name doesn't imply a research institute, much less a military research institute. I included terrorism expert along with Jenkins in my edit, because, again, some introduction is good. Thirdly, the study was 2010. I hope this copy edit gets closer to a version compatible with the two of you. Alaney2k (talk) 14:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

"Someone" had deleted "Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist" from before Glenn Greenwald's name so if something about Jenkins being a so-called "terror expert" is in there, Greenwald's cred should also be there. And who defines what a "terror expert" is? Greenwald is one too, just not working on the side of the military/government "official line", and another twenty reporters and journalists could be said to be the same; "right-wing" before the name of the blog Daily Beast was also censored; it's not a "legitimate newspaper" but rankly sensationalist and full of hype and invective; is "reporter" really a suitable term for a blogger? Thanks for restoring the censored information back Alaney2k. It'll probably get "neutralized" again (i.e. neutered, not "neutral") though, given by what was said to me on my talkpage.Skookum1 (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You're right, that goes to Greenwald's credibility. I put that back in. That's important. The problem with saying right-wing is that it needs a cite. I've run into that myself. I feel like everyone knows that The Toronto Sun, Sun chain, itself is right-wing, but I could not find a reliable source for that description. You need another's quote on that. Something like, 'considered a mouthpiece for conservatives' might be appropriate and might be found somewhere, maybe? Maybe terrorism expert might not be justified for Jenkins, but he was described as that. Terrorism researcher? Terrorism analyst? Hard to say. Just because Rand is military doesn't mean everything they do is tainted. I can't speak for their current work, but they were respected in technology research at one time. So he might very well be an expert in the field. Besides, doesn't it support the point that Z-B is not a terrorist, but a stray dog? Also, I do think some commentary from Fox or their like on Z-B should be noted. Not that they are experts, but I do think the issue of Z-B being used shows a split politically. Of course, fear-mongering supports the military-industrial complex. And that's why so many people believe a conspiracy behind 9/11. I find it far-fetched, but it was so convenient. And you can make a case that Z-B is also a handy dupe. So I think it's important to follow that up. Minister Blaney was just in the last few days using Z-B's attack to justify the increase in powers for CSIS. I do see a split politically developing over whatever measures the Harper government government thinks up. It doesn't seem likely that they will agree with the Canadian majority to work on prevention, rather it seems they go with the group for harsher measures. The issue may still be active in people's minds for the next election. Alaney2k (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

If RAND doesn't imply a research institute, then why mention that it is a military research institute? Also, while I understand the good intentions behind your edits, it, frankly, creates more problems than it solves; just read Skookum's tit-for-tat editing strategy. That is why my proposed edits still make the most sense: leave out the weasel words, but acknowledge, in the least ideologically charged way, that Jenkins is probably influence by a political agenda.Inthefastlane (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I only note that because it's name is RAND Corporation. Besides, it's not pejorative. I can't speak for Skookum's diplomatic skills. He was mad at me recently, but I just think just using names is poor writing and less informative. Why make people go to other links to get an introduction? Not sure how you carried that point about Jenkins is influenced by a political agenda. Alaney2k (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not a highly-politicized topic, it is a national tragedy and attack on all Canadians. There is nothing wrong with saying who people or organizations are briefly and fairly to establish context. Legacypac (talk) 07:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• C-Class Canada-related articles
• Mid-importance Canada-related articles
• All WikiProject Canada pages
• C-Class Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• C-Class Ottawa articles
• High-importance Ottawa articles
• WikiProject Ottawa articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• Unknown-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use Canadian English
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment