Talk:2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Soldier's death

There have been conflicting reports on if the soldier that was shot has died, please hold off editing the soldier's condition, other than the fact that a soldier has been shot. Wikipedia is not news. Avion365 (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed far and wide, including in the Police Press Conf. Also confirmed one suspect dead. Legacypac (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

As said it has now been confirmed. Reservist from Hamilton, may he RIP - A Canadian Toker (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Please then link the correct source, your current one still has it as unconfirmed.Avion365 (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The soldier's death has been confirmed, unfortunately. [1] [2] 2.110.54.193 (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Suspect's name

The Atlantic has published the name: [3]. It's also in a Twitter update on the CBC article. Is it time to add it? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Definitely not. Twitter is the source for The Atlantic, and Twitter in no way a reliable source. We need to wait for some kind of official announcement. Remember WP:BLP applies, and that includes the victims, suspects and others caught up in this. Martin451 20:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Since the atblantic is RS (its notable enough for WP) then it is notable. at the least with due caveat. government does not need to be the entire source. more so since were adding speculation on related activities.Lihaas (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a good source with a lot of info for other to add.Lihaas (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Misread it. CBC announcing on Twitter rather than random twitter, but I still don't like it. However the Twitter feed of https://twitter.com/kamakazi19982 looks like a good source if authentic. Martin451 21:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

NP, I added the first source. go ahead and add this if you pleaseLihaas (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking at the picture on the twitter feed taken shortly before the first shooting. Possibly showing the victim. The owner has given permission to use the picture, but no CC BY-2.0 licence. Martin451 21:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Sotty I cant be of helpLihaas (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Description of Shooter(s)

I have seen conflicting reports describing the shooter(s). One of the more controversial of these is the 'Arabic Scarf.' I thought I would start this section because I would imagine that this will be difficult for wiki to work out (being patient and waiting for RS to figure it out would obv. be best). There are RS, citing unnamed and unprofessional eye witnesses describing one (the) shooter as wearing an Arabic scarf. I've heard reports that the shooter was caucasian too. Obviously wikipedia is not news, so I think its important that we wait until there are conclusive RS before we write on it. The reason I am creating this section is because of a recent change that included "head scarves" in the article.

"that they saw a man wearing an 'Arabic scarf' and carrying a long rifle, while others said the suspect looked South American." (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2803422/Canadian-Parliament-lockdown-gunman-shoots-Canadian-Forces-soldier-standing-guard-National-War-Memorial.html

"The suspect was described as 5-9 to 5-10, overweight and wearing a dark jacket. At least one witness said he wore an “Arabic scarf.”" http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/soldier-shot-at-war-memorial-in-ottawa

"The shooter was young – 30ish – Caucasian and male. He had dark, longish hair, facial hair and a black and white Palestinian type head scarf over his face, which he pulled down after the shooting. Then he held up the gun and shouted something that I didn’t hear.”" http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/10/22/mom-im-ok-im-in-hiding-mps-staffers-describe-terror-in-parliament-after-gunman-sends-them-running-for-cover/

- A Canadian Toker (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

"a man running with a double-barrelled shotgun, wearing a scarf and blue jeans." http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-shooting-soldier-dies-of-injuries-gunman-also-shot-dead-1.2808710 142.165.145.71 (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Would "keffiyeh" be better? It is after all a type of scarf. And in any case saying someone wore an Arabic scarf says nothing at all about the person. I imagine lots of York students like to wear them.

keffiyeh implies arabic in the public eye, regardless of how many students wear them. Until there is further confirmation from the police, it is only adding fuel for speculation. "scarf" is a generic enough term to be any hunk of cloth wrapped around the head to obscure the face. 216.65.182.66 (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

based on the picture released by ISIL on twitter purporting to the be a (the) shooter it would seem safe to safe that keffiyeh would be correct. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Lone wolf

There been no attributed claimant so the attackers, until proves, are naturally lone wolves. Its the fdefinition of the term.Lihaas (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that could be a misattribution as well. We have no idea if they are coordinated or lone, so neither qualifier should be used until we have acknowledgement. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Idf there is no claimant as of now the only RS attribution to a lone nut. That is sourcedLihaas (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. We should we wait for solid confirmation. Lihaas, please be aware of WP:EGG with regards to this edit. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 21:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright then. consensus points that way. Ill leave it hidden for now?Lihaas (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

See also

With such an obscure yet related link, WP:See also "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent"Lihaas (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Added. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Resolved

Lihaas (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Italicsied

Publications are italivised and as such certain ones clearly are published (online or otherwise) [4][5]Lihaas (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Speculation and stuff

Just because it is widely reported in the media is not a readon for us to presume. As said we are NOT media. We are an encyclopaedia. [6] / 4 And "likely picked up " [7] is pure speculation. TWEO users have though it valid now, so kidnly discuss before reading/remiovng [8]Lihaas (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I am concerned about your understanding of how WP works. You reverted several of my edits for no valid reason, and your use of a UK source for a rumored incident at the hotel is pretty weak - way too weak to list it as a 3rd shooting with a big bold heading - when CBC and CTV are silent on this alleged 3rd shooting incident. Legacypac (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Official reports have ruled out shootings east of the memorial, Rideau Centre, Chateau Laurier, or otherwise. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 00:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Ummm, I did not redo the organistion that added it back

Still imj concerned you don't understand how WP oworks,...Where RS sources regardless of who likes them DO countLihaas (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Harper approved. John A. Macdonald would insert his point of view if he wasn't dead.

This nonsense appears in the article and needs to be removed.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Grammar

"A scheduled National Hockey League (NHL) game at Ottawa between the Ottawa Senators and Toronto Maple Leafs was postponed"

With my British mind, the game would be "in Ottawa", with "at" referring to any more detailed description, in this case the rink. Is it normal in Canadian English to say "at Ottawa"? '''tAD''' (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

In the US we say it, but im not sure if this article represents commonwealth englishLihaas (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes Toronto at Ottawa is a perfectly normal way to express this in Canada. Legacypac (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It should be "in Ottawa." It is not "Canadian English" to say "a scheduled NHL game at Ottawa". GLG GLG (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Should a postponed hockey game really even be in the article? Seems kind of irrelevant to me.

"Toronto at Ottawa", but not "a game at Ottawa." InedibleHulk (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Dates?

I notice the dates in the infobox are given as October 22 to "unknown". I guess this is because the perpetrator is still at large? It makes more sense to me to list the dates of the known shootings and modify the dates as necessary in future. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

for hours the police we looking for other gunmen, but now they are saying only one. Its been changed. Legacypac (talk) 06:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Potential

If it rturns out the shooter fought in Syria, then perhaps add a new link to the main page of see alspo Foreign rebel fighters in the Syrian Civil WarLihaas (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

That's unlikely to be necessary, as it turns out his passport was confiscated 5.65.143.164 (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Background concern?Lihaas (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Background expansion

As this story unfolds and the links to ISIS grow, one may also want to know/note that RS sources have shown they were on the lopokout to recruit western/white converts (or even Chechen s like in Boston). mayube interesting to note.Lihaas (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

We would need RS where linking that to this event is directly referred to. As of yet, we don't even know this man's ethnicity, eyewitnesses have contrasting reports because it happened so fast and the man's face was obscured. The photo allegedly from ISIL is not a confirmed likeness, is also obscured and of poor quality, so the waiting continues '''tAD''' (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

He's French-Canadian by name...but anyhpp keep a lookout for this;Lihaas (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The association with ISIL and other terrorist attacks is a bit of a stretch right now. I agree there needs to be background expansion though. I'm going to start a new section on the talk page below shortly - A Canadian Toker (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Speculation

WP is NOT a media outlet. we don't speculate/sensationlise. unless there is a connection asserted with this being isis there is no reason to speculate it follows a day of isis shit (and if it is then there will be more see also's)Lihaas (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the mention of the previous incident involving an ISIL sympathizer. This does not allege the two incidents are connected, but objectively mentioned that it happened previously (as other media outlets sourced in the article mention). --Natural R_X 19:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

While there may be no definitive link as of yet many RS are reporting on the fact that Canada increased its terror alert following the earlier ISIL inspired terror attack. This is notable for this incident. (P.S. does the earlier incident have a wikipage?) - A Canadian Toker (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Likely not nor should it have one; it was a "minor" incident for all purposes and, ignoring today's shooting, would likely fail NEVENT. Now, if it turns out that ends up being related to this, I would fully support a short section on this article to discuss that event in this context, but not before. However, mentioning the event as we have now is just fine since the press is pointing this out in spades. --MASEM (t) 19:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

There was plenty of international coverage of the car crash prior to this shooting incident. WP:NOTNEWS etc., but this seems to have brought the crash to the forefront of the press. I would say this article is the wrong place for the car crash, unless they are directly related, e.g. same terrorist cell. I think the car crash needs a separate article if in cannot be included in a generic Terrorism in Canada article. Martin451 19:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

There have also been frequent mentions of the previous NBC news report which begins "Intelligence officials tell NBC News that Canadian authorities have heard would-be terrorists discussing potential ISIS-inspired “knife and gun” attacks against U.S. and Canadian targets inside Canada." For future reference, should this turn out to be related and need to be added here as part of the context, that reporting is here: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/isis-imitators-discussed-attacks-u-s-targets-canada-n221656 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.133.50 (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's say that the car incident is completely 100% disconnected from this event. That event while now getting coverage due to the nearness in time, may still not be notable (we'd be looking for enduring coverage, separate from the mentions with this event). So it's best not to worry about an article for the car incident until we know exactly how it fits into this narrative. --MASEM (t) 20:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Were also not a media, we don't speculate. please don't restore while discussion is oingoing. as good faith we can WAIT as the apge is not running away. the passage itself sais "it is not oconfirmed it..."Lihaas (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Saying "this events occured a day after..." is not speculation. That's fact. Speculation would be "These events were tied to ..." which is not being said. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Youre speculating a connection at thie early stage.

At any arate, do as you please. I organisaed it to section if that pleases yallLihaas (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

No it's not. Part of the overall panic of this event is that Canada just raised their threat level in response to yesterday's event, which is a rational for some of the actions occurring right now (more extreme measures, etc.) It's setting the stage to understand why some steps were taken, even if it proves out that they were completely unrelated events. --MASEM (t) 20:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Ive undone my bit. if its okey then mark this as resolved/Lihaas (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually hthe csource only mentions "It came hours after Canada raised its terror threat level, after another soldier was killed on Monday in a hit-and-run attack by a Muslim convert. The country earlier this month announced plans to join the US-led campaign of air strikes against Islamic State (IS) militants in Iraq." nothing to do with the commentary.Lihaas (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

other sources claim that the car terrorist followed the ISIL twitter account that tweeted a picture of the parliament hill shooter. There is no speculation. RS are drawing the link.... - A Canadian Toker (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

"other sources claim ..." yes a claim is not a fact. Lihaas (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The claim and association by RS is notable in itself. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Car attack background

There are more and more RS drawing links between the shootings today and the car terrorist attack a few days ago. There is no OR or speculation involved. Currently the following is hidden on the page. I don't want to unilaterally unhide it but I think it should be integrated into this article.

"The attack came a day after an incident in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec involving Martin Couture-Rouleau, an Islamic convert and sympathiser of the ISIL movement with extensive police encounters. Rouleau used his car to hit and run two Canadian Forces soldiers, injuring one fatally, before being himself fatally shot after a car chase. Canada raised its terror threat level from low to medium. It is not confirmed if the shootings are related to this incident and if the terror threat level will be raised even further. Couture-Rouleau followed a Twitter account that sent out a picture purporting to be the shooter, purporting to be Michael Zehaf-Bibeau. "

- A Canadian Toker (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

In a few hours after speculation runs wild.

Nevertheless, I have also acceded if others wish to do tso. Its just that the current link (I did unhide it breiefly myself) did not support the content here. If there are sorucesout there, go ahead. be BOLD. Perhaps maybe attribute to the media for NBPOV?Lihaas (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/martin-couture-rouleau-case-underscores-passport-seizure-dilemma-1.2807239 very helpful article Legacypac (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Harper linked the events. So is the media. Section should stand. Also sources confirming to CTV and G&M he was considered a high risk traveler etc Legacypac (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Part of newsworthiness is timeliness. Of course they'll be tied together in newspapers that close together. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and patterns are often illusions. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Background

I have unhidden the background section on this page making reference to the earlier terrorist attack. Mention serves a useful purpose of describing the security situation in Canada before yesterday's shootings. I'd welcome others' input and changes - A Canadian Toker (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Background The attack came two days after an incident in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec involving Martin Couture-Rouleau, an Islamic convert and sympathiser of the ISIL movement with extensive police encounters. Rouleau used his car to run over two Canadian Armed Forces soldiers, before being fatally shot after a car chase. Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, was killed by Couture-Rouleau in the attack. Prior to the Ottawa shootings the terror threat level in Canada had been raised to medium in light of the murder of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent and due to "an increase in online "general chatter" from radical groups including Islamic State and al-Qaeda." In his address to the nation following the shootings Prime Minister Stephen Harper made specific reference to this earlier incident labelling it an ISIL inspired terrorist attack.

International Reactions

There seems to be a lack of a consensus on whether to include the international reactions or not -- they've been removed and restored a couple times now. Frankly, I think it can't hurt, and to simply not include them based on the excuse that "no one cares" what far-away countries think comes across as arrogant and ignorant.

PrimaPrime (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Generally, reactions should not be lists of "This is what leader of country X said". Obviously anyone in the direct line of the Canadian gov't should have a valid statement, but the responsible from other countries should be more than "This was a tragic thing..." (since which country is not going to say that?) --MASEM (t) 01:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Ya, seen this on many articles. Predictable reactions from other world leaders are not worth including. Legacypac (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

No, we cant cherry pick and there is no "generally". that's just self-manifested. Predicatable to you does nto mean to everyone...poli scientist DO analyse reaction on who said what and moreimportantly who did not react

Of the 193 UN states that dint react there is a vast majority. so how do you mean, then, which country is not going to say that? 180+ did notLihaas (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Well that is not how WP works - others will cut the unimportant stuff including increased security at Arlington National Cemetery. Legacypac (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

For an example of a decent Reactions section, please see Boston Marathon bombings. Note the minimal amount of internation comment save in this case from the home nation of the suspects denouncing their actions. --MASEM (t) 03:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You cant cherry pick important either. Give extended statements to perceived impiortance and cut out others altogether.Lihaas (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes you can. Clearly Canadian officials are important because of an event that happened in their own country. And unless countries are sending aid or other help (like I'm sure the US is doing), it's sympathetic voices but that's it. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I've seen this happen at seven or eight newsy articles. Even that great nor'easter in Boston was retarded for a while. Nothing much to do but weather the storm. We're fortunate that it's a Canadian story, where the press isn't quite so nuts and their press doesn't quite pretend to care as much. Should still expect isolated flurries for the next few days, with fog lasting for weeks, though. Then it's time for cleanup. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Shooters Religion is at this time Irrelevant

There has been no release from any government organization that has indicated or suggested that the shooters religion was in anyway a factor. This is just unverified assumption. Is it a possibility that this will be a factor, yes, buy that should be clearly stated, instead of the attackers religion being stated for seemingly no reason. I vote to remove this piece of information until such time as it actually becomes relevant. 198.2.64.10 (talk) 09:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It is NPOV/synthesis, but im not getting into something fiery with the trigger happy journos out hereLihaas (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Its based on RS

1. Shooter was a recent convert to islam: http://www.cjad.com/cjad-news/2014/10/22/ottawa-shooter-was-a-recent-convert-to-islam-reports

2. RS report possible inspiration by Islamic State: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-shooting-harper-mulcair-trudeau-speak-about-attack-1.2809530

PM Harper drawing link between this attack and murder of "Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, who was killed earlier this week by an ISIL-inspired terrorist."

ustin Trudeau: "fellow citizens in the Muslim community, Canadians know acts such as these committed in the name of Islam are an aberration of your faith"

- It has nothing to do with OR or synth, political figures in Canada are making the association. That in itself is relevant. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2014 Ottawa Citizen last night already saying Ottawa police working on basis suspect was radicalized in Vancouver area mosque. Friend interviewed in Burnaby also muslim, talking about how he was planning to go to Libya "to study" and that friend encouraged him not to go for "other reasons" clearly meaning to fight. Religion is super relevant here. Legacypac (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Realname

His realname (birthname) was loud a court in Vancouver, 'Michael Joseph Paul Zehaf Bibeau'. Source One Source Two Source Three Source Four Source Five so many can not be wrong! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.214.152.112 (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

US Embassy

Wondering whether or not it'd be pertinent to move the US Embassy information to the international response.

I suppose it is technically foreign soil, but at the same time, if they didn't choose to close, local authorities would have effectively forced them, surely. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a slight correction: Embassies are not foreign soil. -- Kndimov (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Description of perpetrator in lead paragraph

Description of perpetrator as "petty criminal" and his mother's opinions of the event don't belong in the lead paragraph. This should be in the Perpetrator section. Hmcnally (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Removed the reference to him being a "petty criminal" entirely as it adds nothing. Just list his convictions and let people label him whatever they wish. Moved the mother's statement to the Perpetrator section. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Map needed:

We should have a map showing the basic locations for those who do not know where all these places are. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Have added rudimentary map. -- Veggies (talk) 03:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Veggies: Greatly appreciated, thank you. Only improvement would be placement of arrow 2. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Definitely, arrow two needs to be higher up and more to the left. -- Kndimov (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Arrow 2 updated per article info. -- Veggies (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

into and out of cars

There is a dashcam video showing the supsect opening a car door, exiting, standing for a moment, and then getting back in. But the second soldier on duty at the monument has stated that after the shooting, when he attempted to tackle the suspect, he ran off in the direction of the Houses of Parliament, which is about one block away. This means that the dashcam video most likely shows the shooter BEFORE the shooting, not after, it shows a moment of hesitation, or (more likely) of preparation. All this stuff about stopping and starting, and then car-jacking and getting out, was in the early reporting (like the report of a second shooter, the report of shots fired near Rideau Hall, etc.) and reflects the confusion of witnesses more than anything else. Today, one day later, the police are backing away from almost all these reports. To avoid the confusion, it would perhaps be better to simply say that after the shooting at the memorial, the suspect was seen approaching the Houses of Parliament on foot, where he confronted a guard, etc etc. On the confusion of witnesses, note too that almost all the witnesses agreed that the shooter was carrying a "big gun," that is, when they see the gun, they tend not to see much else, not the face, the features, anything: just the gun. This is classic witness behaviour, and again, casts doubt on some of the early reports. Theonemacduff (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Good observations. I saw video of the black car he was supposed to have carjacked and a map showing its position. Not sure what to make of it. Legacypac (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Video released by the RCMP cleared this up. He drove his green car from the War Memorial to the curb. Ran from car through recently installed bollards closer to East Block. Carjacked a black Minister's car and drove it to Center Block. the whole journey is about 600 m and took him about 2.5 minutes. Legacypac (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

High Risk Traveler designation

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/parliament-shooting/article21217602/ says: "Federal sources have identified the suspected shooter as Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, a man in his early 30s who was known to Canadian authorities. Sources told The Globe and Mail that he was recently designated a “high-risk traveller” by the Canadian government and that his passport had been seized – the same circumstances surrounding the case of Martin Rouleau-Couture, the Quebecker who was shot Monday after running down two Canadian Forces soldiers with his car."

CTV News also reporting their sources saying same thing. Please don't tag as dubious anymore. Legacypac (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Police said not true. Legacypac (talk) 08:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Father's involvement in Libyan Civil War:

According to the and Mail

His father’s history offers a hint of what Mr. Bathurst was concerned about. In 2011, a Montrealer named “Belgasem Zahef” was quoted in a Washington Times dispatch from the front in Libya, where he had travelled to join the rebel fight. The man described being detained at the Zawiyah oil terminal, where he witnessed torture.

The reports of his father fighting in Libya are based merely on someone having the same name. This is insufficient proof and should not be included until it is confirmed. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

CTV News is calling Bulgasem Zehaf the perpetrator's "stepfather or adoptive father". --82.181.239.19 (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Until confirmed, it violates WP:BLP. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Found the original story from 2011 "“There is a disaster in Zawiyah. All the buildings have been damaged; residents have been killed in their homes,” said Belgasem Zahef, a Zawiyah native who recently returned to his home in Montreal after spending over a month in detention. He was arrested in Zawiyah where he had gone to fight alongside the rebels. Mr. Zahaf said the main prison in the city was overflowing with inmates who were forced to live in sub-human conditions and routinely tortured by their captors." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/20/libyan-rebels-close-gadhafi/ Hard to argue that there is another Libyan named Belgasem Zahef who lives in Montreal (I checked to be sure). Legacypac (talk) 07:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably is him. But we should still wait until it's confirmed by authorities. For now it's just speculations by the media. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Bulgasem Zehaf - biological father or stepfather or adopted father (and mother?)

There are two conflicting informations: Biological father: "He was born October 16, 1982, to father Bulgasem Zehaf and mother Susan Bibeau, according to court documents tied to his parents' 1999 divorce. His father is from Libya, while his mother is Canadian, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Commissioner Bob Paulson said."[9]

Stepfather: "CTV also reported that his stepfather, or adoptive father, is a Libyan businessman, Bulgasem Zehaf" [10]

Dowincolao (talk) 02:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd take "according to court documents" over according to CTV. They're not sure whether he's step or adoptive. No attempt to say who told them this. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Adopted Parents?: Born Oct. 16, 1982 as Michael Joseph Hall, his name was officially changed to Zehaf-Bibeau in 1995 (about age 13), according to La Presse, which suggests he was adopted. http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/10/23/details-of-michael-zehaf-bibeaus-life-paint-a-picture-of-a-man-troubled-by-drugs-and-crime/ Legacypac (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Susan Bibeau could still be his biological mother, if she was unmarried and the child was registered in the father's name. There seem to be references to Zehaf Snr being the "stepfather," but none to Bibeau being a "stepmother." Nick Cooper (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Title of article.

The article shouldn't just mention Parliament Hill in the title. There was a shooting at the memorial as well... Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

See discussion above at #May need a rename where this has come up before. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

May need a rename

W/ three seperate incidents reported, the current title may not be sufficient. But wait to see how this gets covered in sources. Might be simpler as "2014 Ottawa shooting attack" (pending on who's behind this). --MASEM (t) 16:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The article has been moved by User:RGloucester to "2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa". I have issues with this. First, it uses an indefinite article ("an"), which is against WP:NAME. Second, listing multiple shooting locations (forcing the use of a comma) is also unnecessary; we can limit it to one general location. I would suggest a new name that uses one general location (e.g. Ottawa) and places it before "shootings" (e.g. "2014 Ottawa shootings"). Please discuss potential new names here so we can come to consensus. --Natural R_X 17:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I would use "2014 Ottawa shootings attacks" as there where multiple incidents. Avion365 (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Strongly oppose "2014 Ottawa shootings". There have been plenty of other shootings in Ottawa in 2014, I'm sure. "at" is not an article at all. It is a preposition, and is perfectly acceptable in the context of the guidelines. It isn't about "listing multiple locations". It is about clarifying the location. These shootings were at "Parliament Hill" in "Ottawa", as opposed to other Parliament Hills elsewhere. The format "Parliament Hill, Ottawa" is a standard convention for neighbourhoods in cities. RGloucester — ☎ 17:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

"Plenty of other shootings in Ottawa in 2014" - do any have Wikipedia articles? And how about October 2014 Ottawa shootings? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 18:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

If we're going this route, I favour "22 October 2014 Ottawa shootings". They did not cover the whole of October. Let's be WP:PRECISE. RGloucester — ☎ 18:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

See title format of other articles: 2013 Los Angeles International Airport shooting; 2013 Annaberg shooting; 2013 Shanghai shooting; 2011 Tucson shooting; 2011 Mastung bus shooting; 2011 Hazara Town shooting; etc. I think this is plenty of justification for 2014 Ottawa shootings, on top of point from User:Whoop whoop pull up. Any other shootings thus far are relatively trivial to this anyway. --Natural R_X 18:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with the titles of those articles either. Just because they exist as such doesn't mean that they should, as per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Let's try and actual follow the title criteria this time, shall we? RGloucester — ☎ 18:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe these article titles are in keeping with WP:NAME conventions, just because you don't agree with them, it doesn't mean they don't follow the conventions. --Natural R_X 18:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

No need for a rename in this fluid situation - and we need to be specific the shootings were at Parliament Hill Legacypac (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment As it stand now this article is "2014 Shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa" I think this current title is apt and succinct. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I prefer to keep the present title as both apt and succinct. RGloucester — ☎ 18:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge the article with 2014 Ottawa Shooting and then rename the article to include the word downtown. The first shooting was not on parliament hill, it was at the War memorial. -- Kndimov (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The memorial near Parliament. Media is calling these events "Parliament Hill attack" or Parliament Hill shooting". "Downtown" is wrong, as the Rideau Centre thing did not actually happen. This is the longstand article. That fork has already been merged here. RGloucester — ☎ 18:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the update re: Rideau Centre. So, 2014 Parliament Hill shooting(s) would be an appropriate name? --Natural R_X 18:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it would not. There are other "Parliament Hills". "Ottawa" must be specified. RGloucester — ☎ 18:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Note Parliament Hill currently directs to the one in Ottawa, as it is the most common usage. The disambiguation page only points to two others which are less prominent. --Natural R_X 19:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment I agree that having Ottawa in the title is also important. Also, having downtown is unnecessary IMO. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It's probably too soon to even be having this discussion. In a few days we will be able see what the sources are calling this incident, and can rename this page to match. If we move it now it will probably just be moved again in a day or two. Best practice would be to redirect all likely names here for the time being. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Article should be renamed. The War Memorial is not on Parliament Hill. It is next to it, but it is not on Parliament Hill. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Earl Andrew. No matter what the media says, War Memorial is not on parliament hill. -- Kndimov (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It is near it, and close enough that everyone is calling these the "Parliament Hill" shootings. We follow the media's usage. We don't invent our own. RGloucester — ☎ 20:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

War Memorial is immediately across the street from the Parliament Buildings, which are part of the area called Parliament Hill, which covers a larger number of buildings and park on both sides of the street. Legacypac (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac is quite right. In fact, I'll submit this article as evidence. Look at the bottom, where it shows a map of the places that were part of this incident. The memorial is right across the street, still in the area called "Parliament Hill". RGloucester — ☎ 20:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

So, can we agree that
a) it is correct to say the shootings occured in an area described as "Parliment Hill",
b) that "Parliament Hill" is commonly in reference to the one in Ottawa, and does not require other qualifiers (e.g. "Ottawa"),
c) that shooting articles are normally named in the format '{Year} {Location} shooting', and
d) that a, b and c require a re-naming of the article at this time?
--Natural R_X 20:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Ottawa shootings seems to be the commonest term for these incidents, particularly outside Canada. Chief archivist (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Natural RX: Strongly disagree on all points. We need to be WP:PRECISE, in line with our title criteria. Parliament Hill does required the qualifier "Ottawa", because there are other places called "Parliament Hill", and because the fact that it took place in Ottawa is significant. Outside of Canada, "Parliament Hill" may well be unknown. I do not agree that "shooting articles" should be named that way. I believe that we should follow our title criteria. I oppose all renaming for the time being. As far as the above suggestion, we are not a newspaper. "Ottawa shootings" could refer to anything. We write for the future, not for the present. RGloucester — ☎ 21:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 Ottawa shootings is precise enough. The current title is too precise per WP:PRECISE. If another incident of worldwide interest took place this year we could reconsider. Chief archivist (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

These shootings were not just somewhere in the city of Ottawa, they were on Parliament Hill. If someone ran into the US Capital shooting would you call the article Washington Shootings? Please be precise. Also pay attention to Beeblebrox's comment as he is a very senior editor. Legacypac (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with 2014 Ottawa shootings. The Washingtot US Capital example is moot since as far as I know this has been the only notable shooting on Ottawa this year. Also since it's the common name and the name people look it for Loganmac (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not the common name, and anyway, even if it was, we would not use it because it fails our other title criteria, like WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. Such a title does not define the scope of the article. Also, the only significance of this event is that it took place at Parliament. If it did not take place at parliament, it most likely wouldn't be notable. Therefore, it is important to include that fact in the title. RGloucester — ☎ 20:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It is precise enough to identify it, and has been used widely by the world's press. You can always make it geographically more precise, down to the nearest metre with longitude and latitude, and narrow the time span to the hour or millisecond, but, given the lack of such notable shootings in Ottawa, 2014 Ottawa shootings is just precise enough in this case. Chief archivist (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Though I agree there is no need at present to rename the article and waiting for some time to pass before revisiting the topic is a good idea, and perhaps for sake of conciseness referring to the locale as Parliament Hill suffices, statement (a) isn't strictly correct. The War Memorial is not considered to be on Parliament Hill (see the references in the Parliament Hill article for citations, and this Ottawa Citizen article that describes the location as being a "short distance from Parliament Hill"), though it can be described as being near the Hill. Regarding the term downtown, the entire area is downtown Ottawa; the main business district is immediately south of Parliament Hill. isaacl (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'd name it 2014 Parliament Hill shootings (or 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill). There may be other Parliament Hills, but AFAIK, none of them have been attacked. If that's true, there's no need for Ottawa to be included. 2014 is good enough to specify what's being talked about. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

No no no no no. I live in Ottawa. The War memorial is NOT on Parliament Hill. There is an actual hill that Parliament sits on, and the War Memorial is not on that hill. No one refers to the War Memorial being on Parliament Hill. I'm going to be bold and move this article, because its current title is wholly inaccurate.-- Earl Andrew - talk 11:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You cant move it unilaterally when consensus discussion is ongoing and a result is not conclusive [11]. Please undo it yourself and await, theres no rush the page is not going anywhere.Lihaas (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, as someone who LIVES in Ottawa, I cannot in good faith and in good conscience move this article to a factually inaccurate title. The article's current name is the most neutral name, as it serves as a good name to stick with in the time being while we discuss the matter. I don't mind renaming the article to a factually accurate title, but suggesting both shootings were on Parliament Hill is totally wrong. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You living in Ottawa is completely IRRELEVANT. The media, in both Canada and abroad, refer to this incident as the PARLIAMENT HILL SHOOTING. The name we should stick to while discussing the title should be as it was "2014 Shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa" because this reflects what RS refer to it as. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

What's more, "at" does not imply "on". The first shooting was right across the street, and is as much at "Parliament Hill" as anything else. You cannot move articles to crap titles without consensus. RGloucester — ☎ 13:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

What about something like "Michael Zehaf-Bibeau Shooting"? It's unambiguous, and wouldn't need changing if someone did the same thing tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.55.30 (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

NO. Absolutely not. First no media outlet calls it that. Second wikipedia does not need to publicize a terrorist. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

My living in Ottawa has absolutely everything to do with it. I challenge you to find any active Wikipedian who knows more about Ottawa's geography than me. The War memorial is not on, it's not at, it not associated with Parliament Hill. It is a separate location all together. Just because some media outlets are not identifying the location accurately does not mean we should be at Wikipedia. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Earl Andrew: your bold has been reverted several times now. Perhaps we should open up a formal RfC if the title remains an issue. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yeeeah, this current title "2014 shootings at Parliament Hill and National War Memorial, Ottawa" is far too long even if it is more precise. My check of sources now point to "Ottawa" or "Parliament Hill" as the location, even if the lethal shot was at the Memorial; the larger conflict was at Parliament Hill. "2014 Parliament Hill shootings" or "2014 Ottawa shootings" are likely the best targets (even taking into account that "Parliament Hill" is not that unique, it is more well known than the small US city) . --MASEM (t) 15:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I've returned it to the base title, which is the most WP:PRECISE. If you want to move this article, you'll have to start an RM. RGloucester — ☎ 16:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't live in Ottawa but I am Canadian. While I really respect the local knowledge, Canadians generally think of the immediate area including the War Memorial as Parliament Hill, and I see that so does the National Capital Commission. Using such a narrow local definition of the Hill leaves the PMO not on the Hill either since it is also on the other side of Wellington Ave beside the War Memorial. Legacypac (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this reasoning to use "Parliament Hill, Ottawa" as to identify an area rather than a (or a set of) buildings. --MASEM (t) 16:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As do I agree with Legacypac's reasoning. "Parliament Hill, Ottawa" is the most precise we can get without being absurd. It makes it clear that the attacks were in Ottawa, and that they were at Parliament Hill, which are the two essential pieces of information. The idea of a "narrow" definition of Parliament Hill is foolish. These attacks were "at" Parliament Hill, as reliable sources say. The memorial is right across the street. RGloucester — ☎ 16:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There is one other option I'd accept, though I find it secondary to this one. That's "22 October 2014 Ottawa shootings" ("2014 Ottawa shootings" is absurd. We've not had a year of shootings), which is used by the French Wikipedia. This is perfectly precise, as well. I prefer to disambiguate by location rather than by date, though, given that the location is the most important thing here. That's to say, if this wasn't at Parliament, it would not have been as big a story. RGloucester — ☎ 16:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Your argument about disambiguation does not stand up. "2014 Ottawa shootings" no more means there was a year of shootings than "22 October 2014 Ottawa shootings" means there was 24 hours of shootings. The location you suggest only covers one of the shooting incidents anyway, the other was away at the war memorial as pointed out somewhere here. And the shorter title is rapidly becoming the standard form worldwide too. Chief archivist (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Parliament Hill is an area, but as can be seen from Wikipedia's article on Parliament Hill and the National Capital's Commission page on Parliament Hill, as well as the Parliament of Canada web site, the National War Monument is not included as part of Parliament Hill. (Here is the NCC's page on the National War Monument; it is part of Confederation Square, within the set of roads that the NCC calls, for tourism purposes, Confederation Boulevard.) To take an example from Washington, D.C., it's kind of like saying an event in Lafayette Square took place at the White House: not strictly true, though it gives people a fair idea of the general vicinity. Of course in this case there were two fatal incidents, one of which did occur on the Hill. Nonetheless, as I mentioned, I think waiting to see what term becomes commonly used is probably the best course. isaacl (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

For the purpose of COMMONNAME, if you asked the average Ottawa citizen if the Memorial was in Parliament Hill, Ottawa, would they say yes or no? It sounds like from others they would say yes, even if official documentation says its not, and per COMMONNAME, the "Parliament Hill, Ottawa" is good and concise. Also to note, that per standard on WP, a "YYYY (city) shooting" article doesn't mean that there was shootings in the city throughout the year, but to distinguish one specific event from a potential earlier or future one. --MASEM (t) 16:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

No, they would not. Generally they would refer to it as the War Memorial downtown. isaacl (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no "standard" or guideline that dictates "Year city shooting". I strongly oppose this format, and always will. We write for the future, not the present. If someone in ten years finds an article name "2014 Ottawa shootings", they're going to think that 2014 must've been a particularly bad year for gun crime in Ottawa. Nothing about that title implies this particular event. All it says is "Shootings in Ottawa in 2014", which could refer to any number of other things. We need to be WP:PRECISE, and adequately describe the scope of the article we are writing. If someone wants to write an article on "2014 Ottawa shootings", they'd ought get to work on doing research as to what the other notable shootings in 2014 in Ottawa are. RGloucester — ☎ 17:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually it is standard, when one also considers natural disasters. "YYYY (location) (event)" is pretty common ,and in no way implies that the event lasted the entire year (eg 2014 Calgary stabbing). That said, I do see that "shooings" implies multiple events through the year, if one is not aware that the word can be taken singularly or plurarly. Maybe we just reduce it to "shooting" (even though multiple shots were fire, it's still a singular "shooting") --MASEM (t) 19:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It may be used, but that doesn't make it the "standard". Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. It is a crap format, and should be eliminated. It meets none of our title criteria, and doesn't make any sense. It does well in fact imply it lasted the year, as the only scope given is "2014". Without more information, the reader can only assume from the title that these were shootings across the whole year. Titles are supposed to define the scope of the article. Something such as "2014 Ottawa shootings" doesn't define the scope at all. The only scope implied is "shootings in Ottawa in 2014". "2014 Ottawa shooting" is no better, as it implies that there was only one shooting in Ottawa during 2014, which is probably incorrect, and also WP:CRYSTAL, since 2014 isn't over yet. It is quite different with natural disasters. Stuff like 2013–14 North American cold wave or February 2013 nor'easter are fine because there was only one cold wave or nor'easter in the areas specified during the specified time. With a generic event like a "shooting", it makes absolutely no sense. I strongly oppose reducing it to just "shooting", by the way, because these were two separate shootings, not just one shooting. RGloucester — ☎ 20:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It is common sense and standard naming practice that we all read that as "the singular important X that happened during this simplified time range". The same common sense logic says we're only talking about singular event, not non-stop shooting through a year. And if "Shooting" (as opposed to "Shootings") doesn't work, we can make the title singular by saying "2014 (Parliament Hill) shooting attack". I've never see this form before and nearly every type of event of this sort of nature is of the title form "Year Location activity" even if it lasted just a few minutes. I'd be less assured if I could find counter examples but I'm not coming up with any. --MASEM (t) 20:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As a note I am seeing some "Month Year Location event" titles, (eg "October 2014 Parliament Hill shootings") but when that is used, that generally means floating around is frequent similar events in the same location, maybe not in that year, but that a month designation is necessary separate it out from others. This definitely isn't the case here, so we don't need that much resolution. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Other articles may use wrong titles, but that doesn't mean we should here. Wikipedia is not based on precedent. We should follow our title criteria, which dictate preciseness and conciseness. The only alternative title I'd accept is "23 October 2014 Ottawa shootings". These shootings only took place on one day. They did not take place across October, or across the year. Either disambiguate with location or date, but do not sacrifice WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE in favour of titles that make no sense, and which do not define the scope of the article. There is nothing common sense about "2014 Ottawa shootings" or associated titles. Common sense dictates that if something takes place on one day, then we specify that it took place on that day. RGloucester — ☎ 20:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

While OTHERSTUFF is a reason to consider, the fact that I can find no outliers means that this sticks out like a sore thumb. There is a defacto conformity to these titles that we should stick to for consistency across WP. I understand the concern that it might suggest there was a continuing amount of shootings across the year, but we have numerous "Year Location bombings", "Year Location shootings", etc. that only talk about events over a day or so, throughout WP, and no counter example. If it was even 10% used an alternate format, I would certainly not argue a chance, but that doesn't even seem to be true. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Masem's point that there are few, if any, outliers regarding the format of the article title. RGloucester, I think your issue is something you need to take up on the policy side (perhaps propose a new Wikipedia policy or revise an existing one). We are not agreeing or disagreeing with your points on the appropriateness of the format, we are just seeing that it is the current accepted format across ALL of Wikipedia, and that suggests consensus on the matter.

In light of the recent move attempts and the fact that this is now on the front page, I would like to propose assembling a short list of potential names, and taking a vote. We could run circles around what is the proper format, but as I said, it appears there is a dominant format and we shouldn't be debating its merits here. We need to scope this discussion, and focus on coming to consensus on the name for this article. Points about article name format need to be taken into the Wikipedia namespace.
I'd like to start by soliciting name suggestions from everyone. After receiving a slate of suggestions, we can assemble this into a short-list and have a vote.
I'll start with a shortening of the original name of this article when I created it: 2011 Parliament Hill attacks. While more geographically-savvy people may know that the War Memorial is not part of the Parliament Hill, it was near there and ended up there. I also believe "attack" is appropriate as this is what the media is using, and because the shock being expressed from everyone I have talked to regarding this is because this was perceived as an attack on our institutions. --Natural R_X 21:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd stick with 2014 Ottawa shootings as "Ottawa shootings" has become the title of choice amongst the world's media, and Wikipedia seems to like to categorise events by the year. Chief archivist (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's a sample of reports using that title from international media: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Google returns about 1,200,000 hits for "Ottawa shootings", vs about 109,000 for "Parliament Hill shootings". Chief archivist (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

We'd definitely need the year to distinguish between two other similar events that could be broadly taken as shootings/attacks in Ottawa in the past, even if this is limited to "Parliament Hill". I would also see if we can find a singular form of "shootings"; I've seen one article on WP use "shooting spree" but we would need sourcing backing to call this by that name. --MASEM (t) 21:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Definitely can't support 2011 anything. Plain "Parliament Hill shootings" can work, at least for now, but adding 2014 isn't a bad idea. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Our policy does not support the format "Year City Event". It fails all our title criteria. I don't need to revise policy, because it already is written in my favour. There is no "dominant format". This is an invention on your part. We follow the title criteria. Wikipedia is not based on precedent. "Attacks" is inappropriate, and implies a conspiracy. "Shootings" is the most neutral description of what has happened. "Ottawa shootings" is unacceptable journalistic shorthand, and we are not a newspaper. Unacceptable. Unacceptable. Unacceptable. Please actually base your proposals in the title criteria, as opposed to in nonsense journalistic shorthand. "Ottawa" must be included, as there are other "Parliament Hills", and because the fact that it took place in Ottawa is significant. Your suggestion that we "vote" is entirely antithetical to Wikipedia. We do not vote, here. We discuss. Numerical majorities on talk pages do not override our title criteria. I will not tolerate foolishness on the part of editors who defy our policies and guidelines. RGloucester — ☎ 21:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It is currently the most common name for it worldwide though, and covers the incidents precisely enough. We can see that you RG want to preserve the title that you, without consensus, renamed the article to, and have reverted back to it more than once. Rather than playing armchair Wiki-policy-lawyers over it, let's see what others think, eh? Chief archivist (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

WP policy is based on precedent - that's why policy and guidelines are descriptive of practice, not prescriptive. And the fact there's nearly no other article titles of this format suggests its not the proper precedent. --MASEM (t) 22:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Except, "common name" is only one of our article criteria. There are others, including WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. What's more, I dispute that that is even the common name, as "Parliament Hill shootings" is more common in my local press. I have the bulwark of policy and guidelines on my side, whereas you have very little. God will advance me in my quest for clarity and illumination. He favours those who take advantage of common sense, and of the rules put before them. Wikipedia is not based on precedent. In fact, the biggest precedent that we have is WP:IAR, which in of itself implies that no precedent is really a precedent. RGloucester — ☎ 22:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Precisenss and conciseness work against each other so there is a subjective balance between then, and not an exact science. And given that hundreds of other similar events are all given "Year Location Event" names, this is standard practice on how those two are managed together on such events without question, even if it's not documented. (It is certainly not documented the way you are arguing either). Now, whether it's "Ottawa" or "Parliament Hill, Ottawa" or something else, or whether its "shootings" or "attack", that's fine to debate, but the "Year Location Event" form of the name is a clear standard practice. --MASEM (t) 22:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Preciseness and conciseness do not work against each other. They work in tandem. To be concise, the precise scope of the article must be encapsulated in few words. Conciseness never works against preciseness, for if a title does not define precisely define the scope of the article to a reasonable degree, this title cannot be considered concise. Conciseness is about recognisability, about given the reader the information he needs to know what the article is about. That is what this title does. Yes, yes, sir! This present title is a variation on "Year Location Event". As long as either the location or date is precise, then this format works. It does not work if neither the date or the location are precise, because then the title is not concise. That is to say, a title like "2014 Ottawa shootings" does not give the reader the information he needs to know, i.e. what the article is about, until he actually takes time to read it. RGloucester — ☎ 22:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You probably would need to start an RFC then to change about hundreds of articles that have the same claim you are making of impreciseness, because this format is accepted across the board for event-based articles. Global consensus based on those article titles says the "Year Location event" is sufficiently precise. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not proposing to change the titles of those articles, because I don't care about them. I care about enforcing our title criteria at this article. There is no "global consensus", other than our policies and guidelines, which do not support the idea of "2014 Ottawa shootings". My apologies, but any other articles have no relevance here. RGloucester — ☎ 02:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I have yet to find any article about events where, barring a more common name, that differs from the form "Year Location Event". Many of these have been reviewed by numerous editors in light of naming policy and found to be fine. As such they are how policy about titles, preciseness, and conciseness are all met. This is a very extreme outlyier and thus does not represent that consensus by practice, even if it is not documented. --MASEM (t) 02:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hear me, sir, hear me! Merely because something is done does not mean it is correct. Many things are done that are wrong. There is no such thing as "consensus by practice". What is wrong is wrong, and what is wrong must be changed, if only piece by piece. The idea that just because articles exist means that they meet the title criteria is absurd. There is nothing extreme about it, anyway, as it still follows the same general format of "date place event". RGloucester — ☎ 02:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

"Consensus by practice" is how ever policy and guideline is developed - we codify practice, we do not make new rules that are against it (unless the practice is completely bad). I've been in enough of these situations where an editor wants to go against the status quo set by policy and/or by practice by trying to influence one article against that; that never works out right. If you dislike the standard "year location event" naming, the place to make that challenge (since it is universally consistent throughout these types of articles) is at WP:AT, not here. --MASEM (t) 03:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

You're being dense. There is no standard, other than in your mind. I don't care about other articles. I believe that this is the correct title for this article. If you'd like to change the title guidelines, go to WP:AT. They favour this title, at present. If you'd like to make them specify that we can only use the inferior combination of "2014 Ottawa shootings", then be my guest. They don't do that now. I'm not trying to influence anything, other than to make sure this article has a proper title. If you want to name this article to such an inferior title, start an RM. The bulwark of the title guidelines shields me, and will stand up to all. RGloucester — ☎ 04:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying that because the near unanimous use of "year location event" as a title for things like these for hundreds of articles, that it is in compliance with WP:AT, and a defacto standard even if it is not written down; if this format was a problem with WP:AT, we would have had that discussion long ago (like, years). But it hasn't been, and everyone uses it now. You're also the only one arguing for this form here, so you're against local as well as global consensus. --MASEM (t) 06:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I support Masem on this. WP:AT is explicit: "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." Also, the current title is factually incorrect - one of the incidents was at the War Memorial, not Parliament Hill. 2014 Ottawa shootings complies with the WP:AT Precision point, it is "sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." There were NO other similarly notable shootings in Ottawa in 2014. 2014 Ottawa shootings also complies with the Conciseness point, it "is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." - unlike the present title which (even if it was factually correct) is longer than necessary to identify the article's subject. RG you are stuck in a loop. You tendentiously repeat the same arguments over and over - repeating them does not improve their correctness, but it does annoy other editors. Please drop it now and move on. This is wasting time and winding other editors up. Chief archivist (talk) 06:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I've opened a discussion at WT:AT to have someone prove my research wrong in trying to find other event articles that use RG's preferred format over the "Year Location Event". If there's enough of a sizable body of examples, then it's not worth getting upset about, but I simply cannot find any in this current title's form. --MASEM (t) 06:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

And per that there are guidelines (read: IAR at times) WP:NCE and WP:NCNUM do say that "Year Location Event" is the preferred naming for events. However, if we have to location as "Parliament Hill, Ottawa", this would create an awkward title so an alternate form may be acceptable. --MASEM (t) 14:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Those guidelines are referring to non-broad events like natural disasters, as I've already mentioned. "Shootings" are common, whereas "2014 Ottawa train wreck", if it had happened, would likely be the only "train wreck" in Ottawa for the year, not necessitating further disambiguation. RGloucester — ☎ 15:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of if and what we rename it to, why not at least make it "shooting" as opposed to "shootings?" See 2012 Aurora shooting. WikiWinters (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is as applicable here, since there were two distinct shooting events. --Natural R_X 22:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That was one event, one shooting incident. These were two separate shootings. The first one, at the memorial, and the second one, at the Parliament house. If you see the RCMP video that was released, you realise that the two shootings were quite apart from each other. The guy didn't just go around shooting everything in sight. RGloucester — ☎ 23:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Please leave the title alone! This is an encyclopedia that needs a title that tells people what the article is about. The media can call it Ottawa Shootings in headlines because the news parishes quickly but we need an article title that is precise and enduring. Everyone will remember this as an attack at Parliament Hill because of the symbolism. Few will care about the wiki-debate over the exact borders of the Hill. In Sept Ottawa had its 30th shooting of 2014 <http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/shot-fired-in-alta-vista-is-ottawa-s-30th-shooting-in-2014-1.2760839 and some were a little notable like http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/police-confirm-heron-road-shooting-occurred-tuesday There were several shootings so "shootings" is appropriate. Legacypac (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

So far, not a single Google result for "The Zehaffening", let alone a reliable one. I figured there'd be at least a Twitter comment. So at least we know what not to name it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

"Michael Joseph Hall"

I'm not sure if the Daily Mail is a reliable source on the shooter's "birth name". I haven't seen any other reliable news outlets refer to him as anything other than "Zehab Bibeau", which seems to make sense as that is a hyphenated surname combining his mother and father's surnames. Judging by this it seems improbable that he would be born with a surname that is different from both his father and mother's surnames. Colipon+(Talk) 13:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly peculiar and one would imagine that such peculiarity would have been mentioned by reliable sources '''tAD''' (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I've replaced it with a CNN source:

• [19]

Daily Mail should not be considered a WP:RS, as the publish a lot of false information and should generally be both avoided on WP and purged from references to articles. Whenever they post correct information, someone else has as well, so we should rely on the more reliable sources. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I was questioning it last night as strange. CNN may have got it from here. In the fog of a fast moving event stuff gets out that later proves wrong. We should just remove that as nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The CNN source has removed "Michael Joseph Hall" (to only search for "hall" comes up with c"hall"enge). To edit a story is probably evidence that this was not a fact. '''tAD''' (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It is relevent and correct. CBC reporting today that part of the reason the shooter's application for a Libyan passport was denied was because his BC drivers license said Michael Joseph - A Canadian Toker (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Allegded photo via ISIL Twitter

An ISIL Twitter account put out an alleged photo of Zehaf-Bibeau just after his name was released. Martin Couture-Rouleau, the perpetrator of an earlier ISIL inspired terrorist attack in Canada, followed the ISIL Twitter account that sent out a picture purporting to be of the shooter Michael Zehaf-Bibeau.

I know reliable sources have ran with this, but should we be reporting this too? Has there been actual firm confirmation that it is indeed him? I think we should wait until confirmation.

Also this specific source, heavy.com is not reliable. I know that it has been reported by other sources though. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Heavy was one of the first to publish but CBC ran the photo with a caption saying the photo was confirmed by police to be him. It fits the eyewitness accounts too. Legacypac (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Post Scriptum: CBC reported that the photo was actually taken during/immediately after Cpl. Cirillo's murder - A Canadian Toker (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

"Islamist"

I've removed the reference to him being an "Islamist". We can infer he most likely was, but we do not know this. So stick to the facts. We know he was a Muslim so just mention that. We do not know his exact motivations or whether his views could be described as "Islamist" (or any other term, like "Salafist"). --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Also removed references to him having "converted" to Islam. All we know is that he attended mosques and was a Muslim. We do not know more than that. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Except the fact he was a convert was and can be well sourced. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=ottawa%20shooting%20convert%20to%20islam&qscrl=1 Legacypac (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

They're repeating it a lot, but importantly they are not explaining their sources. How do they know this, when did he convert, etc. The media can get a lot of things wrong. Wait until we get more information. It always pays to be careful. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Well read more please. He specified when he became a Muslim to Vancouver Police several years ago. Legacypac (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

His conversion and religion are both relevant, and both have been discussed in RS. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Full birth name

What is his full birth name? "Michael Joseph Hall" or "Michael Abdul Zehaf-Bibeau" or "Michael Zehaf-Bibeau". "Law enforcement and U.S. government sources told CBS News the suspect's birth name was Michael Joseph Hall, born in Quebec in 1982. He recently converted to Islam and called himself Michael Abdul Zehaf-Bibeau. Sources said he had a history of drug addiction prior to his conversion." [20] and second source "He was born Michael Joseph Hall in Quebec in 1982, and, according to Canadian media reports, worked as a miner and a laborer at various points in his life. It isn't clear when or why, but at some point he changed his name to Zehaf-Bibeau" [21]Dowincolao (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems unclear to me as well. He had travelled on a Libyan passport where Abdul was listed as his first name. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-shooting-michael-zehaf-bibeau-wanted-libyan-passport-1.2811768 - A Canadian Toker (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Needs a lead that summarizes sections

The article needs a summary lead to introduce what now appears to be background detail about the incident. Welcome comments. Suggested draft below:

• The October 22, 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Canada were the most significant acts of violence in 48 years (since the 1966 bombing attempt) at the nation’s parliamentary complex. The attack by Michael Zehaf-Bibeau resulted in two deaths and three injuries, a high-profile security lockdown of parts of the nation’s capital for most of the day that attracted international attention, an ongoing interprovincial police investigation into potential links to terrorism, and debates about security measures at federal and provincial legislatures. Canuckle (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Just so I know I understand you, where exactly were you proposing this go? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Lead means very first sentence in the article. So right at the top. Thanks for asking for clarity. Current lead is describing the steps taken by the shooter. Here is description of what is expected:

  "the lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section

Canuckle (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Canuckle: I integrated some of your suggestion into a bold I just did. - A Canadian Toker (talk)

Source of the suspect photo

It was taken at the War Memorial! - and how it got out is complex http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/the-face-of-terror-picture-of-suspect-taken-by-tourist Legacypac (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Very interested at this revelation. This combined with his inability to (legally) purchase firearms, and presumably a car leads me to believe that he had accomplices. The following link also discusses the possibility that he did not act alone when it talks about the firearms issue: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-shooting-where-did-michael-zehaf-bibeau-get-his-gun-1.2811249 - A Canadian Toker (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

If anyone finds out who seized the camera or why, that'd be cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Ottawa Police took the tourist's camera (or blackberry). The tourist must have spoken up or they just started grabbing cameras and checking them. An officer photographed the photograph off the camera (hence the poor quality) and that photo of a photo was sent to all Ottawa Police and seemingly internationally. I remember the police were quick to confirm the accuracy of the photo, but by then they had the shooters body to compare against wearing same clothing. Legacypac (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I meant who in the Ottawa police, but thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

What name should the perpetrator be reffered in the article?`

Currently, Zehaf-Bibeau is used through out. Considering that he changed the last part of his name a number of times, Michael might be a better choice. Many sources use the complete name, which is quite a mouthful. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 15:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources almost unanimously refer to him as being Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, so per normal encyclopedic style, we should retain the existing style that uses that last name. Resolute 16:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

First names are only OK when we're talking about multiple people with the same last name, to avoid confusion. Otherwise, it just sounds too informal. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I think surname is ideal (Zehaf-Bibeau). According to an article about his attempt to gain a Libyan passport he also used Abdul as a first name. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-shooting-michael-zehaf-bibeau-wanted-libyan-passport-1.2811768 - A Canadian Toker (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Surname used (or legal?) at time of subject of article as per WP:NAMES#Changed names: "they should be referred to by the name they were using at the time of the mention rather than a name they may have used before or after the mention." Canuckle (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

La Presse found his name was legally changed when he was about 13 years old. Not uncommon for french canadians to use a combined last name, or for criminals to use alias (often versions of their real name) to make tracking their contacts with the police and courts harder. Since he lived in Libya for a time he may have used Abdul as a nickname. We should use "Zehaf-Bibeau" which has the advantage of being very unique. Legacypac (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Identification of weapons used

In media I have heard varied reports ranging from double-barreled shotgun to rifle to long-gun (long-gun is a class of firearms according to Canadian law, not all long rifles are long guns...) I have added the citation needed tag to the statement re. the double barreled shotgun. We need RS to say whether in fact there was a double barreled shotgun, rifle or combination of the two (RS still unsure as to # of shooters). - A Canadian Toker (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't find anything. The authorities have probably not released that information yet. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Speculation here that it was a lever-action hunting rifle: http://montrealgazette.com/news/national/1024-city-gun Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

This article seems to confirm that: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/23/canada-police-ottawa-gunman-video-passport-motive Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

RCMP statement yesterday confirmed it was a .30-30 lever action rifle - A Canadian Toker (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyone have an ID, source, confirmation, etc on Kevin Vickers' handgun? We've seen it in the well-known video of him walking with it, and the other suit-wearing person has the same model, so it seems to be standard issue. It's a Smith & Wesson third generation semi-auto of the same family as the 5946 the RCMP carry, though this one may be smaller (hard to get a sense of scale), and has it a rail in front of the trigger guard, making it a TSW. However there are so many slightly different models in the third-gen family, we'll need more info to nail down the exact model. Alex T Snow (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a good question, Alex T Snow. It would be valuable to know the details.. I'm also personally interested if it was in fact true that it was stored in a locked container in his office (i.e. he wasn't concealed carrying it). - A Canadian Toker (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)