Talk:2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

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 "[yyyy] [location] [shooting/attack]". 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 RX 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. Wikipedia 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)
The two shooting locations. Notice that they are right across the street from each-other.
  • 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 Wikipedia, 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)
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 Wikipedia 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, 28 October 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, 28 October 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, [[2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa], which disambiguates by location rather than date, strikes me as the best title. RGloucester — ☎ 20:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Alaney2k, what's with "we could leave it 2014 Ottawa Parliament Hill attacks when that's not where it is; the word "attacks" is the problem, and a non-starter as having POV implications; I'd go with RGloucester's latest immediately above, and bury the POVism inherent in this RM once and for all.Skookum1 (talk) 04:31, 2 November 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, 28 October 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, 28 October 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, 28 October 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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, 28 October 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, 28 October 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 [2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa] or [2014 Ottawa attacks] or (for example) [Shootings at Parliament in Canada] or [attack on Parliament in Ottawa] or [attack on Parliament in Canada]?square brackets to indicate Google searches -- 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 "[yyyy] [location] [shooting/attack]" 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 Wikipedia namespace IMO, and if change is necessary, a Wikipedia 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 RX 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 RX 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 [Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting]], 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 RX 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 Wikipedia 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.

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 Wikipedia is in providing information, not in tainting it, or massaging it. Alaney2k (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
It's bullshit, sure. But Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, they have the better card and can use it if they wish.
That said, the echo chamber ramifications are serious. Wikipedia'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, 29 October 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. Wikipedia'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 "[no] higher authorities" has a disturbing amoral aspect to it; Wikipedia 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).
[whose post was this paragraph? Indent/sig order broken]
"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 "[terrorist] 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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, 30 October 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 Wikipedia. If that's you, great. If it's not you, great. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:34, 30 October 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, 31 October 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 Wikipedia uses; the Wikipedia-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; Wikipedia'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, 30 October 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)

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)

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 Wikipedia 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, 31 October 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, Wikipedia 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, 3 November 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, 3 November 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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)

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, 12 November 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, 13 November 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, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_shootings_at_Parliament_Hill,_Ottawa/Archive_3&oldid=1142750579"