Talk:2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

quotes on "terrorist attack" issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vicker's weapon

Regarding the identification of Vicker's firearm. The one source, a blog, starts by saying, "I would give long odds that it was a Smith and Wesson 5946 in 9mm."[1] It's also reprinted in an online magazine of somewhat greater reliability.[2] In other words, he's just guessing. I'd imagine that an official report may be issued someday which will say for sure. But for now, I don't think we can say unequivocally in an infobox that a particular weapon was used. We could, perhaps, say in the text that that it has been speculated that Vickers used a S&W 5946. Rezin (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

arbitary/questionable deletion of birthname and cites

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

16 octobre 1982 - Naissance de Michael Joseph Hall

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

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

And in the Guardian:

Born in Quebec on 16 October 1982 as Michael Joseph Hall

And in The Independent:

Born as Michael Joseph Hall and raised just north of Montreal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

RAND

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for putting that back in; as for "feel like everyone knows that The Toronto Sun, Sun chain, itself is right-wing, but I could not find a reliable source for that description" given that Shulmaven's use of a blog (the Daily Beast) opened up op-ed commentary, there's tons of Canadian political blogs and comments/op-ed columns that say just that, likewise for SunMedia and the Fraser Institute and other right-wing mouthpieces/pundits.Skookum1 (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

So should we describe RAND as a research/military research institute or not? Also, I never said Jenkins was influenced by a political agenda, I said he was probably influenced by a political agenda which is a reasonable assertion to make given his institutional affiliations with an organization that has close ties with the US government. I don't know what you mean by 'poor writing' when only names are used and disagree with it being less informative, if anything leaving out the descriptor is more informative because it avoids ideological bickering as to whether or not that descriptor satisfies NPOV. But in any case, it needn't apply to what we are discussing because by noting how Jenkins works for RAND, I haven't simply put down his name but given it some contextual detail.Inthefastlane (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess what I mean is that is 'better writing' to use a word or two to introduce someone or an organization. It makes this article better. Sure, you can click a link, but then you leave the page. That's all I mean. Wikipedia is international, so it's good practice to not assume everyone is familiar with rand, and noting someone is a reporter, etc. is a similar case. Alaney2k (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

But it doesn't make the article better; how you describe people and organizations is going to be affected by your political beliefs about how to think about those people and organizations...which is why it is always best to either not use them or if we have to use them, use generic descriptors. Also, I have changed the descriptor for RAND, it isn't a military research institute, it describes itself as a, "nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decision-making through research and analysis" so I am going to change the descriptor to think tank.Inthefastlane (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

And I just added "military-backed" and will continue to reinsert it every time you take it out, in one form or another; WP:Wikipedia is not censored is a guideline you don't seem to have any clue or concern about, do you?Skookum1 (talk) 07:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

What are you babbling about? This whole "military research institute" part that you are trying to put in is shit you are making up on spot, it isn't in the Daily Beast article, you can't find an article on Google or any other search engine that describes RAND as a "military research institute" and it isn't how RAND describes itself. Inthefastlane (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

"What on earth are YOU babbling about?" Right on the Wikipedia article on RANDco, it says "...formed to offer research and analysis to the United States armed forces by Douglas Aircraft Company. It is financed by the U.S. government and private endowment, corporations including the health care industry, universities and private individuals." You are behaving as though I made it up and as if its military nature is "irrelevant" when in fact the propagation of the "terror theme" is very much a part of the issues about how this event has been propagandized in the US and globally. I'm putting back in the military reference you just censored again; you have no valid reason to continue deleting it and I'm not the only one here who thinks it should remain in one form or another. Go find another article to 'information manage', you have nothing to contribute here but censorship.Skookum1 (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

RAND also describes itself, first and foremost, as a non-profit, should we include that too? 32 nobel prize recipients have been associated with RAND, should we include that too? RAND has 1700 employees with locations around the world, should we include that too? Why are you cherry-picking what to include about RAND? Also, before you make any edits about the military associations of RAND, you have to prove (and not claim) how this shooting has been propagandaized in the US and how RAND is part of that propagandization process. Put up or shut up, it really is that simple. Inthefastlane (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

the relevance of the 'stray dogs' and 'lone-wolf terrorism' terminology being coined by a US military-inclined/supported "think tank" is very clear to those of us not wearing censor-blinkers like you are. Your bullying and threats on my talpage are tiresome. It's YOU who have been edit warring over this, and it's all you've been doing here. Be careful where you hurl block warnings at; they have a way of backfiring....Skookum1 (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Look at the usercontributions and ongoing interest/edit pattern of ITFL and you'll see why, same as with User:ShulMaven re the SFsR article, and last but not least the individual below.Skookum1 (talk) 09:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

What are you rambling on about? Inthefastlane (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

More than you'll ever admit to, but WP:DUCK applies given your ongoing unilateral censorship; it's not like RAND is just any old "think tank", and it's not like "think tanks" are innocent organizations operating altruistically rather than on a particular agenda and with particular funding.Skookum1 (talk) 07:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

What are you babbling about? This whole "military research institute" part that you are trying to put in is shit you are making up on spot, it isn't in the Daily Beast article, you can't find an article on Google or any other search engine that describes RAND as a "military research institute" and it isn't how RAND describes itself. Inthefastlane (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess my thing with you started with this little matter; your edits have been mostly straightforward and 'non-agenda' unlike "certain others here".Skookum1 (talk) 09:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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

One benefit of writing for Wikipedia is we do a full examination of the topic. There are political ramifications. There seems to be a split developing among Canadians as to the meaning of Z-B's attack and Couture-Rouleau's attack. Myself I would not characterize it as a "national" tragedy. More people die every year of the flu, traffic accidents, murders and on and on. It's certainly tragic for the families involved. I mean how far do you go? Parliament Hill has re-opened, Ottawa is no longer in lock-down. The armed forces are busy. There have been incidents on Parliament Hill before and there will be more in the future. These incidents will be more important for how the country is affected than for the actual deaths and injuries. Canada is very peaceful in general, Skookum1, excepted. :-) Alaney2k (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm vocal, not meek, as Canadians are generally "supposed to be", but re the country being "peaceful" I submit you might think a little different if you were living in a bad area of Regina or Winnipeg or .... well any one of dozens of other places afflicted by crime and poverty. Or you were one of the demonstrators roughed up by the RCMP on Burnaby Mountain in the last few days, or those subjected to military-type repression at the Elsipogtog fracking protests. And that "split developing" was there before the Angus-Reid was released and is very evident in op-ed and forum comment sections and blogs throughout and across the country; and very pointedly so in Cirillo's girlfriend's statement about her boyfriend not being a national hero and her call for mental health awareness and the "wake up Canada" which was addressed to people being suckered in by the "terror" line pushed by the government, and by a certain group of editors here on Wikipedia. Foreign media have bought that line, the US "terror establishment" has built on it, but not so within Canada where discourse about this has been split from the start, and where both incidents (and Justin Bourque's) are widely seen as the result of the abysmal state of mental health access in Canada and the "radicalization" of two converted neo-Muslim Canadians the result of the very unpeaceable foreign policy of the Tories in combination with teh overall alienation of disaffected youth in the country. There was also some bits saying "Canada in panic" in various headlines, which was just not the case. People were aghast and saddened and wondering WTF but nobody, other than those on Parliament Hill, were "panicked". One blog comment in response to the terror hype from the first days said "we are a wounded nation, but we are not a terrorized one". There are those who want us to be terrorized and I don't mean ISIL. We aren't. But a lot of us are sure pissed off (ok let's say "critical" but when "normally docile" Canadians voice criticisms, that's "being pissed off") about the way the so-called "right" (that term needs retooling to "wrong") have tried to use these events to further make Canada into "something you won't recognize once [Harper] is done with it", to paraphrase the PM in his boasts to a GOP gathering about what he would do...once they helped him take power.Skookum1 (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes by "National" I mean the public reactions were extensive across the country and around the world and the targets were the National War Memorial/the countries armed forces, the National Parliament and likely the nations leadership. From what was released about his tape, we know it was a political act. This Ministry of Justice article is a good read for anyone wanting to understand terrorism in a Canadian context. Legacypac (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I haven't thought much about categorization. I'm just not sure it ranks that highly. I kind of slot it into cranks gone postal. I think the level of child poverty is tragic. I think of that as being more serious than Z-Bs acts. I guess it is just a subjective thing. Alaney2k (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

"not a highly-politicized topic" hardeharharhar, slapping knee, guffawing. You've got to be kidding; of course you're not, but your "tit-for-tat editing" as ITFL describes my activities has sought to downplay the very intense politics surrounding these events; and it was not "an attack on all Canadians", that's just more propaganda-machine hype as typical.Skookum1 (talk) 09:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to attack other editors here. Please stick to discussing improvements to the article and not making broad statements about other editors. Legacypac (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not making 'broad statements about other editors' but observations about their track record/agenda. And ITFL made towards me what you would say was an NPA if it was about you. Are you going to presume to delete this section too now? Your comment about this not being a highly politicized article was laughable and I stand by that characterization. One look at this talkpage, or at any of the mass of op-eds and blogs in Canada out there about this, makes your comment ridiculous. I stand by that characterization too.Skookum1 (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Can I gently remind all editors to read the top of this page where it says "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." which suggests it is not a forum to discuss an editors broader political and social theories. The header also says to avoid personal attacks. Legacypac (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Guidelines also say not to abuse sources by conflating/fabricating comments/interpretations that aren't in the sources given, much less include things that aren't in them at all. Your pretense of complaining about others violating policy/guidelines while you do so regularly is really quite comical. I see you removed your violation of a post of mine you made just now in the preceding section; thought better of it huh? And conflating what I said about into "an editors broader political and social theories" is just more conflation and distortion; those "theories" are points of view widely expressed by Canadian politicians, commentors and others en masse; as for pointing to your various censorship deletions and habit of edit-warring out material you don't want to see mentioned, it's you who keep on doing it so "if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen" and stop complaining about someone objecting to your abuse of policy-invocations and guideline-twisting.Skookum1 (talk) 07:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I put 'mostly funded by the US military' after think tank. I admit that 'military research institute' was incorrect. They do more than research for the military. What we have there should suffice. More than half of RAND's revenue comes from the DoD, the US Army and the US Air Force. As listed in their at a glance page. I'm really not sure why it is an issue that RAND is funded by the US military. They focus on issues that the military wants researched professionally and independently. It's simply, again, an introduction to the organization that did the study. People can take that to mean stuff, but by itself, it's merely as statement of fact. Alaney2k (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You'll have to explain why picking out that bit about RAND is relevant to the article and paragraph at hand, so I've put in a relevance tag. Also, your claim that RAND is mostly funded by the US military doesn't specifically appear in the sources to which you cite that claim, so I have put both an original research and not in citation tag. On the other hand, RAND describes itself as, a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous and is multinational with over 1700 staff and 8 locations around the world so I'll put those self-described facts in. Inthefastlane (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It's relevant to this article and the SJsR one because these events have been politicized to advance military and policing policies in Canada, and the terms propagated into Canadian media and int'l coverage virtually within minutes of that report being aired.....with those terms coined specifically to describe/"brand" the "new form of terrorism" for military-political ends.Skookum1 (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

How about coming up with evidence for your theories.Inthefastlane (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

A simple search of media for dates relative to the date of publication/circulation of Jenkins' report would suffice, but I'm not about to spend all day pulling up the obvious resources for that reality (those terms didn't come out of nowhere and they do have a "date of provenance" pandering to an insulting propagandist/POV pusher/censor whose comments about me from the get-go on User talk:Skooku1#RAND were gross NPA (of the kind that LP doesn't apparently seem to ever comment upon, rather to endorse them in his silence about them) re Greenwald and the mental health debate in Canada arising from this. You put BRD on your 4RR/5RR removal of the military aspect of RAND's nature but it's clear you don't want to discuss anything, and hold Alaney2k's efforts in support of that with as much disrespect as you have treated me. Quite farcical for you to be so imperious as to post a nasty-looking block warning on me for edit-warring when it's you who are conducting the edit war. The WP:BOOMERANG is coming. You've only been on Wikipedia since June, and are behaving as though you're an old-salt admin who knows all the ropes...you don't, and you're well on your way to finding out just what those ropes can do.....Skookum1 (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about 4RR/5RR as I've already self-reverted. You're the one coming up with these theories so the burden is on you to corroborate them; saying "a simple search of media" isn't going to cut it. Inthefastlane (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Per my edit comment on that post "I betcha 'they' will edit-war on it", sure enough, right away huh? @Resolute: I believe that puts ITFL somewhere in the 4RR range in the last 24 hours, 3RR at least, 5RR including LP's "tag team" reversion, as you describe it. How much more soaping of this article should be tolerated; discipline, not mediation, is what's needed IMO.Skookum1 (talk) 06:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

As per this edit, I have self-reverted my last edit and instead will instead dispute the edits here on talk.Inthefastlane (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

What a bizarre sentence it is now. I added up $63M from DoD, $33.1M US Army, $36.5M US Air Force. That adds up to more than half of their $263.1M revenues. 50.4% I don't see how that is original research? I don't even understand what the big deal is? The operate three research institutes in the US, each funded by a branch of the military. Alaney2k (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, a bit nuts. It's like the first bit about how balanced and non-partisan they are exists solely to discredit something only subtly hinted at in the second, slightly-but-not-quite-exactly relevant bit. The tags only drive home the point that somebody on the talk page is arguing about info, rather than effectively imparting it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The most sensible opinion on this debate so far. Inthefastlane (talk) 06:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The Fraser Institute also claims to be non-partisan, like other "think-tanks", but they're very pointedly partisan and biased as you will find from commentaries about them easily findable in google, or reading columns or watching video by their former staff/interns e.g. Ezra Levant, Michael Campbell and whatsername from Ethical Oil.Skookum1 (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Politics of Canada cat

It can be argued, and no doubt will, that that's a parent or grandparent cat of Category:Parliament of Canada, Category:Terrorism in Canada and others, but those don't address the political controversies around this event and are narrow-field in nature. Category:Political controversies in Canada may be a further refinement, but as yet doesn't exist yet.Skookum1 (talk) 07:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's a bluelink; I didn't see it in the Category:Politics of Canada subcats, I'll ref that cat now.Skookum1 (talk) 07:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Re ZB's "nationality" = citizenship

In the infobox it says: Nationality Canadian[48] and Libyan (possible dual citizenship through father) but the cite doesn't say he had a Libyan passport, only that he'd wanted one. Unless there is proof he was a citizen of Libya that should be removed; "nationality" is for citizenship, not ethnicity, which is a separate field. Having the right to claim Libyan citizenship via his father's is a separate matter, that does not mean he had it.Skookum1 (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't quite say he wanted one, either, but to renew it. Can't renew a passport you don't have, and can't have a passport without being a citizen. You don't lose your citizenship along with a denied passport, just the travel perks. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Also sources say very clearly that the Libyans refused to issue him a new passport over concerns. A non-citizen would not even apply, but he was upset at the refusal. Given the sources that say he is Libyan and given father is a Libyan immigrent to Canada (a fact put beside his name almost every time he is mentioned) and that Libyan citizenship is given to a "Person was born abroad of a mother or father born in Libya." As long as his father is a Libyan citizen (as the sources sugggest) he is one too - nothing to "claim" it is simply by birth. Also he lived in Libya for a time, there is no reason to question his status as a dual citizen. Legacypac (talk) 08:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

So, remove "possible"? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Main Infobox

I have deleted 'shootout' from the infobox under attack types. Completely frivolous given that it starts out with 'shooting spree' also I deleted mention of the carjacking as it reflected only a minor and insignificant part of the incident. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

A shooting spree is not a shootout, it can be totally one-sided, ending when that side escapes or kills himself. Here, security shot back, not in a frivolous grazing way, but as the climax. I see "security" was also gone. Looked a lot more like an infobox for a 2014 shooting than 2014 shootings. Also restored Vickers' pistol bit. We know it was a pistol, and have a source for the "possible" type. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The crime infobox is for the crime, not the police response. It should list the location of the crime, type of crime, weapons uses to commit the crime, and perpetrator of the crime. It is not right to list the police or their weapons there. See Boston Marathon bombing as an example where police engaged twice in shooting hundreds of rounds but are not in the infobox. In the article, yes, detail Vickers used a handgun, but naming Vickers in the infobox makes him look like a perpetrator. Also a shootout is an event (a gunfight that must end in defeat for one side or the other, as between gunfighters in the Old West, criminal groups, or law-enforcement officers and criminals) not a crime per se. Shooting spree is a better word for the crime encompassing the criminals shooting of the soldier, the security guard and walls and doors, as well as participation in the shootout event. Legacypac (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Readded it, before checking here. Wasn't ignoring you. Good point about being for crimes only. But if that's the case, we shouldn't rightly mention Zehaf-Bibeau's death, since it wasn't caused by a crime. I figured not listing Vickers in the "Perpetrator" field did enough to not make him look like one. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Having security to describe the attack type is inappropriate. It doesn't make any sense at all. ^^ You are right about shootout though. I've deleted security and shooting spree Shooting spree describes killings at two locations. Attacker only killed one. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Zehaf-Bibeau was killed for security reasons. It made sense when I thought the infobox was about both shootings, not just the illegal one. It would be weird to have a separate box for Vickers' counterttack, but also weird to imply Zehaf-Bibeau perpetrated his own fatality. There's definitely a risk you take when shooting in public, but there's also risk in guarding the public. It'd be as weird to say Cirillo killed himself by not having a gun. Not sure there is a perfectly fine answer. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Again using Boston Marathon bombings because we both edited it, InedibleHulk there we listed the attackers death but very clearly set it apart from the victims. I'm happy to include if set apart, or exclude the shooter's death.Legacypac (talk) 08:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

"We" as in Wikipedia, of course. I hadn't noticed that part of that article, or given it much thought. It's definitely the same sort of story, though, so we should be consistent in whatever we do. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Shootings or shooting spree is right - he shot two people after all. Neither of there terms require all vics to die Legacypac (talk) 10:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess you could look at it that way. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Motive video

Since the RCMP is not planning to release the video, I believe it is appropriate to refer to its contents as "alleged". I worked on the article about Rob Ford's crack video scandal. We used "alleged" and "according to" up until the time that Ford admitted that the video existed. Since Zehaf-Bibeau cannot do the same, and the contents are only known to some, I believe we have to follow the same rule. I don't mean to imply any conspiracy. I don't know what will be appropriate if the RCMP release a partial transcript. That would imply an edited document, and not necessarily Zehaf-Bibeau's words. We don't know if Z-B comes across as a raging loony or an actual committed warrior or what, but I think we have to be careful. Alaney2k (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The last I read the RCMP were hoping to release the video after analysis - did you see anything different? Legacypac (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I saw them releasing parts of the newsworthy video, like a video news release. But that was in a crystal ball, so doesn't count. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I put into the article what Paulson said. Maybe a partial transcript. There must be something they don't want made public. Privacy? Criminal investigation? Who knows? Alaney2k (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Publishing stuff that will inspire another terrorist? Who knows. Legacypac (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Leaving out the bits that don't seem like something a terrorist would say? Who knows? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The news items out there about his time in Squamish had lots of "regular guy", "nice guy" kinds of descriptions/stories in them, they weren't only about showing radical videos to his co-workers; but that's all that's in some reporting on his time in BC, including here. Same with the story from the other convert at the Burnaby mosque, which addressed his mental problems and also his heterodoxy as far as "radical Islam" goes (touting the the Sayings of the Prophet are the work of the devil isn't exactly something ISIS or any major Islamic creed/sect would agree with). Easy to find the Squamish stories by searching "Squamish Zehaf-Bibeau" and have a read for yourself, then compare to what's on here.Skookum1 (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

People are people. They can be nice in the morning and mean in the afternoon, or have a shitty childhood and turn out great. If a doctor saves a thousand lives, then takes his family with him, the TV won't wonder what continually went right in his head all those years. The other thing about people is their true motivations don't matter after they die. Only what the living suppose (or propose) went wrong, yet somehow doesn't in all the other disorderlies, Satanists, Muslims, steroid users, doctors, soldiers, video gamers, Finns, saxaphonists or men. What motivates us to wonder "What if?" drives everything anyone ever tries to change. These people are the real question marks. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Ted Bundy and Paul Bernardo were charmers and well-presented, true 'nuff. But my point here is the "winnowing" of coverage to hype the "terrorism" angle rather than fair/balanced rendition of the full context of the article/source being used that way.Skookum1 (talk) 05:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

As per some news items lately about badly-written notebooks and the like, the RCMP's integrity/reliability on such matters is on the low end of the scale. Other than media games re the Gustafson Lake Standoff and the Oka Crisis and things like the Peter Dzeikanski tazer indicident and the killing of Ian Bush and others, it's not like they're an always-to-be-believed source. Far from it. In the aftermath of the BC Rail trial's premature closure via a scandalous plea bargain deal, Dave Basi was enjoined from discussing anything to do with the case, on pain of contempt charges had he done so, while the RCMP had a field day releasing their notebooks so as to media-incriminate him; evidence they could not present in court and which Basi's lawyers couldn't cross-examine was presented as if fact; trial by media etc. I totally agree that "alleged" is needed here, and I'm not talking any conspiracy; what they've done is break their own promise that the video would be released after they finished "studying" it. Not the first evidence in Canada to be under wraps or under publication ban, as with the GG trial in Calgary and the Erwin Singh Braich matter in BC, and more....and not the first deceased to be tried by media after they were dead, either.Skookum1 (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The RCMP is a big organization. Its operations are going to vary across the scale. I think that's true of most large organizations. There's going to be coverups, evidence games, whatever, along with respectable, straightforward behaviour. When it comes to wording in Wikipedia, we have to use wording that does not put Wikipedia itself at risk. That's my main point. Alaney2k (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Not lone wolves?

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/attackers-in-quebec-ottawa-might-not-have-been-acting-alone-harper-suggests/ar-BBgVYAj worth watching? Legacypac (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Worth watching, but I wouldn't treat such speculation, even from the PM, very seriously at this point. As Harper says, investigators continue to probe. IF something concrete materializes, we'll find out eventually. Resolute 14:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

If anything, I think it's what I call a "political suggestion". There "might be a bogeyman out there". Not too different from the claim that un-reported crimes were increasing. It's to circulate an idea without having to produce facts. It's impossible to tell if Harper slipped up, if that's the alternative scenario for his comments. Alaney2k (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Keep and Expand Use so that "Michael Joseph Hall" is the name exclusively used to reference the shooter in this article DocumentError (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove the wrong name, or compress to a single line documenting that early news reports erroneously stated the shooter's birth (or perhaps current) name was Michael Joseph Hall. "Several U.S. officials say they were told by Canadian counterparts that Zehaf-Bibeau was an alias and that the shooter had been born Michael Joseph Hall. The officials say this information turned out to be incorrect." Source:Reuters, Oct. 25 2014 -Non-involved editor Rolf H Nelson (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Funeral Reactions

Not sure the right way to phrase this, but the Canadian funeral services industry also responded to Cpl. Cirillo's death. He was buried in a Victoriaville "Dominion Maple" casket (donated by Victoriaville Caskets), which is the same casket chosen by the Canadian government for the unknown Soldier in Ottawa. [3] [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.187.121.73 (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Mother's opinion

I do not care what his mother thought and I think the sentence "In his mother's opinion, the attack was the "last desperate act" of someone with a mental disorder who felt trapped.[14]" is hearsay and does not add anything to this page. I vote for its removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.255.123 (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

We don't decide these things on subjective opinions. We have policies at Wikipedia for inclusion or not. We also don't vote, we work towards consensus. Alaney2k (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Stopping member

What does "A member praised Zehaf-Bibeau as a martyr after prayers, leading to the police stopping him for national security reasons the next day" mean? How do police "stop" someone for national security reasons? Arrest, detain, stop in the street?Royalcourtier (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)