Talk:2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa/Archive 2

Moncton Shootings
I have removed 2014 Moncton shootings from the see also section on three or four seperate occasions. I was wondering if we could discuss why someone/some people see a need to have it included? I see no relevance to the ottawa terrorist attacks. Moncton shootings should be removed. For the people who seek its inclusion: Should we include Mayerthorpe? Ecole Polytechnique? What is the reason that Moncton needs to be included?
 * IP 24.246.2.145 I'm hoping you will read this. - A Canadian Toker (talk)
 * Post Scriptum I also readded a link to the2006 Ontario terrorism plot as it was a terrorist conspiracy and linked to this incident vis a vis intended target 03:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No mention of Islam in the opening two paragraphs, why?
Because Canada does not see it as an Islamic terrorist incident? Reaper7 (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The RCMP Commissioner seems to think (or have thought) the guy was pissed about a delayed passport application, and that was a central driving motivation. He really wanted to leave. A problem with the government that leads to violence doesn't inherently make it terrorism, and being a Muslim doesn't make one an Islamist.


 * There are various definitions of terrorism, but the most common thing is that it's intended to shape policy through intimidation. This guy left no manifesto and no established groups have released a message explaining the wider point of this (that are public knowledge, anyway).


 * Other common criteria include mass destruction and targeting non-combatants. Here, only one person was destroyed, and he was an on-duty soldier. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Reaper, some editors are showing some - well, quite frankly irrational - resistance to the fact that this was a terrorist Islamist incident. But 'the night is still young' and in a day or two as more and more and more Reliable Sources state what they have already been saying, the tidal wave of facts will sweep this away.  Since this is an encyclopedia project and not a newspaper, don't fret that anyone comes to Wiki to get their information - they do so at their peril, as it is unreliable. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Terrorism" doesn't exist. It is a spin word that means nothing. What happened here was a shooting, pure and simple. No reason to use value-laden language, and our MoS agrees. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Canadian media has refrained from the kind of sensationalist coverage you would find in US news . They are reporting the facts, as they develop like professionals. If it is concluded by the appropriate authority that this was a terrorist incident, I am sure there would be no undue delay in that news being reported. Myopia123 (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Canadian media are the ones I am referring to calling it a TERRORIST ATTACK, just as the Canadian PM said it was, as have various Canadian LEO's on radio interviews that I listened to only this morning.. This ship has sailed and it is only a matter of time before the article will reflect it.HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Even the metaphors are conflicting. Ships don't sail when there's a tidal wave coming. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Well I think it is sweet that certain editors are fighting even the idea that terrorism exists at all. Hopefully time will sort this article out. At the moment is seems a little ultra liberal to the point facts are being denied due to personal discomfort over extremism in Canada. Reaper7 (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Terrorism' may have seemed appropriate in early reports but so far evidence is not suggesting that. It seems to be mainly a matter of a crime by a perpetrator with drug problems; there is some element of radicalism but the word 'terrorism' is inflammatory and misleading, and 'Islam', although not irrelevant, would be misleading, unless new evidence indicates that it reasonably describes the situation. Peter Grey (talk) 02:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I think some editors are a little too personally invested in this whole labeling it as terrorism thing. As a Canadian, I find it ridiculous that US School Shooters are not treated as domestic terrorists. BUT, that is a decision that some appropriate authority in the US must have made. However, I am very sure that such personal feelings have never come forward in my time as an editor on Wikipedia. Therefore, let us stick to WP:NPOV and relay what RS's are saying when they say them. As this is still an ongoing investigation, there are probably a lot of things the LEO can't/won't tell the public until the investigation is complete. In my opinion, debating such points is futile until then. Myopia123 (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that you are taking the RCMP commish statement out of context considering the fact that he was in Ottawa to apply for a Libyan passport...... This article should reflect the fact that the PM, leo and media all are calling this a terrorist attack. full stop. If anon wiki editors want to dispute that this is not the place for it. RS stay its a terrorist attack, and so should the article. As for a lack of mention in Islam in the lead that is a serious issue considering the emphasis placed on the shooters conversion to Islam as a root/result of his radicalization.- A Canadian Toker (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, he wanted a Canadian one to travel to Libya Saudi Arabia. You don't get a passport from your destination. Even if that were true, I don't get what considering it is supposed to do, or how it changes the context. Whether it had been a passport, a health card or a tax refund, the thing is he was pissed off.


 * Harper said in the House he considers it terrorism, and we reflect that. The media sources I've seen all base their claim on a (possibly accidental) misunderstanding of what he said in the TV speech, so we disregard that. Haven't read or heard these police (or "LEO") statements. Share? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * No, you are incorrect. "Michael Zehaf-Bibeau wanted Libyan passport" as for a link to LEO statement, see below - A Canadian Toker (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That was earlier, and denied the same day. The holdup on the Canadian one was the thing Paulson was talking about. Still ongoing at the time he was shot. I don't think he'll get it now. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It is terrorism, and anyone arguing otherwise does not understand the term. And there is a video "In a statement released Sunday evening, RCMP said they have identified “persuasive evidence” that show Michael Zehaf-Bibeau’s attack was “driven by ideological and political motives.” “Zehaf-Bibeau had prepared a video recording of himself just prior to conducting this attack,” the statement said. “The RCMP is conducting a detailed analysis of the video for evidence and intelligence.” http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/gunman-prepared-video-prior-to-ottawa-attack-rcmp-1.2071640#ixzz3HIoXy2D7 Legacypac (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that what terrorism means to you? Driven by ideological and political motives? Every soldier is driven by political motives and almost every serial killer holds strong social views. Doesn't make them terrorists, by my understanding.


 * Terrorists are those who have demands and terrorize civilians till their demands are met (or they lose). They intend to motivate politics and shape ideals. Not merely motivated by politics and shapen by ideals. That's everyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That source you gave has much clearer answers buried at the bottom. You'd think the government knows its citizen better than a mother knows her son? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Terrorism "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims" which means that a person who creates terror through violence and is “driven by ideological and political motives.” is a terrorist - exactly what the PM, media and academics are saying. Your definition of terrorism sounds more like kidnapping. I put little weight in the mother's version, especially since they had almost no contact for 5 years and she naturally wants to protect his reputation. The police and the media investigations have already brought to light more then the mother knows. Legacypac (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Bombs are scarier, I think. Shootings are common, they only become terrifying when someone amplifies it. That's why I put little weight in the terrorist version. Harper's had no contact with the guy in 32 years, and naturally wants to push "anti-terrorism" legislation. Regardless of the truth, this incident has great symbolic value. But yeah, since the RCMP calls it terrorism, Wikipedia can call it terrorism now. Doesn't have to, but can. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Aside from politicians and the media calling it a terrorist attack the RCMP has definitively refferred to the shootings as a terrorist attack. The RCMP’s investigation of the October 22, 2014, terrorist attack in Ottawa is advancing and has revealed a great deal about Zehaf-Bibeau’s movements and actions prior to the attack." That being said I still see no mention of Islamist beliefs or ideology being the motive - that could change in the future. I have since updated the lead to include the fact that this incident was indeed a terrorist attack but I left mention of his conversion to Islam out (it remains in the perpretaror section). - A Canadian Toker (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Rifle and armed status of victim
There are continuing edits to this article referring to the guards of the National Sentry Program as carrying "ceremonial rifles." This is false. Air Cadet units, for example, use dummy rifles made of wood. These are "ceremonial rifles." The National Sentry Program employs standard C7A1 assault rifles. They are actual weapons, the same ones that Canadian infantry soldiers use in combat. They are not "ceremonial rifles" and should not be referred to as such. They are, however, unloaded when soldiers are on ceremonial duties.

Secondly, Cpl Cirillo was not "unarmed." The C7A1 is fitted, as his was, with a standard bayonet. A soldier with a fixed bayonet is considered to be "armed." No doubt both soldiers at the cenotaph were at a disadvantage when facing an assailant armed with a loaded firearm but in the interests of accuracy, the article cannot refer to Cpl Cirillo as "unarmed" as he, in fact, was armed.96.51.198.182 (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * They carry the updated C7A2s, not C7A1s, which are indeed unloaded, though I'm not seeing bayonets. Not that it makes any difference since they're not loaded, but their C79 scopes are covered for protection from the elements as well. Alex T Snow (talk) 00:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Photo of Cirillo on guard is this one which is small but appears to show the bayonets. A similar photo of the guard taken in August (with a different regiment doing the duties) shows bayonets fixed. Also here: at this link96.51.198.182 (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You must have great vision to see a bayonet on that picture^. Whether there was a bayonet is irrelevant. For all intents and purposes Cirillo was unarmed as he had no ammunition. He had a ceremonial weapon for this reason. By your logic the deactivated firearms used in ceremonies would also make their bearer armed because they could be used as a club. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:civil and remember to watch your tone. Photos of Cirillo on duty the day of his death show him with a fixed bayonet. The bayonet is a weapon. He was "armed." I doubt many people like what happened that day, but everyone's goal is that the article reads as accurately as possible. From dictionary.com, "armed" means "bearing firearms; having weapons" while a bayonet is "a daggerlike steel weapon that is attached to or at the muzzle of a gun and used for stabbing or slashing in hand-to-hand combat." Either way, Cirillo was bearing weapons, no matter how disadvantageous they were to him in this particular encounter.96.51.198.182 (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * IP, I would like to apologize to you if my tone was unwelcoming. It was certainly not my intent. I was just trying to convey that I did not see a bayonet in any of the pictures you linked to - A Canadian Toker (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There are a few photos circulating that were taken of Cpl Cirillo the morning of his murder, here is one . This is a better close-up . As you can see, he has the current issued Eickhorn 2000 bayonet on his rifle and he is standing at ease, so he is not really in a position to employ either weapon. These bayonets are real (like the rifle) and they are normally sharp. By the time this picture was taken  the bayonets have been removed from the rifles. Think what you will, but I find this whole discussion irrelevant because he was shot before he even saw his attacker  and, again since the weapon was being carried for ceremonial purposes, he had no way of defending himself short of turning around and running at his attacker with bullet holes through his torso to close the distance and engage in a melee with the shooter. You could say this is much like the Kirpan debate, and last I was aware someone wearing the the Kirpan is not considered armed seeing as how they are allowed to be worn in the House of Commons . Jonesjj77 (talk) 04:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

PM Statement
First sentence linked Quebec car attack and Ottawa attack together. Called them both terrorists. We will learn more about them and others who may have helped them (accomplices in french). Attacks on security personal and governing institutions are attacks on our country itself and our values. In french said "cruelly assassinated", and that earlier attack was "terrorist inspired". Legacypac (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your personal views of attacks representing values are NOT held by everyone and that itself if POV. unless youre a part of te h neocon establishment "youre with us or against us". certain things are wrong (like violence) but it doesn't mean it accords with your worldview)Lihaas (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My post was just a quick summary of the key points from the PM address. Can't understand your point. Legacypac (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Attacks on security personal and governing institutions are attacks on our country itself and our values" is irrelevantLihaas (talk) 01:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * PM Harper said that (paraphrased) and everything else I posted. Legacypac (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is completely relevant. The PM is addressing the country after a significant terrorist attack against the seat of Canada's government. A summary of his address to the nation is needed. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Harper calls the first guy a terrorist, but not the second or his attack. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Read his address again and fill in the blank: "Fellow Canadians, in the days to come, we will learn more about the ________". Hint: It starts with "t" and ends with "errorist". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesjj77 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it doesn't rhyme with ferrorists. He talked earlier about the terrorist. From Montreal. And he hadn't forgotten, because the next sentence is about "this week's events". InedibleHulk (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your political bias is showing, and it is ugly and repugnant in light of what happened. Despite your obliviousness, if you read on you will find that you are wrong.  .  Let me highlight it for you: "In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we're all aware and deeply troubled that both of this week's terrorist attacks were carried out by Canadian citizens, by young men born and raised in this peaceful country." - Stephen Harper (Prime Minister of Canada) Jonesjj77 (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a different statement. You were wrong about the one you were originally arguing. Had nothing to do with my repugnance. Just facts. This one's a bit better, though he's hardly an objective source, trying to push his security plan. I'd have no problem with noting that he called it terrorism, but to put it in the infobox based on his political motivations is a bit much. Should wait for an independent classification. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am obviously aware this is a different statement. Again, in your bias you are blind to the fact that the PM is calling both of these attacks terrorist attacks and it should be apparent to a reasonable person that in his first address he is specifically talking about the day's events, and the terrorist that carried out the attacks in Ottawa.Jonesjj77 (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you were aware, you shouldn't be calling me blind for not seeing it in the first statement. It isn't there. Second one, sure. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, you are incorrect in your interpretation regarding about whom the PM was speaking. As stated above, he was addressing the nation after the shooting, therefore in that overarching subject he was referring to the shooter as a terrorist and he continues to do so in other situations.  I am not the only one who views his statement this way. Jonesjj77 (talk) 05:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * He was addressing the nation after both incidents, and continully referred to both. He described only the first guy as a terrorist. So it makes more sense to assume "the terrorist" later refers to that guy rather than the one he didn't call a terrorist. I can't explain it much simpler, so if you still think I'm wrong, that's what you'll think. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe my grasp of the english language isn't as strong as I thought. But he does say: "But this week's events are a grim reminder that Canada is not immune to the types of terrorist attacks we have seen elsewhere around the world." - A Canadian Toker (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A reminder. A note on your fridge isn't eggs, it reminds you to get eggs. When Harper's reminding us about terrorism in conjuction with an event, it will indeed remind us that terrorism like the elsewhere type is theoretically possible here. Unless we fast track his plan, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:50, October 27, 2014 (UTC
 * Again, showing your ugly political bias. The nail is in the coffin on that issue.  I think the article should be renamed "terrorist attack" as it is clear to any reasonable person at this point that more happened in this city than just a shooting that day. I suppose you would have Wikipedia delete the terrorism wiki since that really doesn't mean anything? Or are you going to argue as you have brought up already that he only targeted/destroyed an on-duty soldier (which is false, he only killed the soldier but he had several other non-military targets), which would be fair game, therefore it can't be terrorism? I think you should give it a rest; you don't own this article, you don't own the way this event is commonly referenced and you never will. Jonesjj77 (talk) 04:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * See the part below where I said I was fine with the RCMP source. If you want to go the extra mile with your sole-purpose account and rename the article, good luck, but even the September 11 attacks don't get that sort of treatment. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Post Scriptum, just so I'm clear that quote is from his 'address to the nation' not a statement in the house of commons. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 04:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Images in the article
''I don't know all the policies and rules for adding images in Wikipedia. So, if there is an article in the guidelines that answers my question, please append it.''

My concern is about the images used and not used in the article.


 * 1) Since there is a section on the casualty (Cpl. Nathan Cirillo) and that he is the only casualty in the attack besides the perpetrator and since that photos of him in duty are available, would not that be appropriate to add one ?
 * 2) In the section "Reactions - Political", what is the reason to add the photo of Elizabeth May who is the leader of the fourth and last opposition party in the House of Commons ? I understand that she made a comment but all leaders did. Why display a picture of her from 2009 while there are photos of Stephen Harper, Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau on the day of the attacks or the day after that would be more representative and politically coherent. I'm thinking of maybe the when the leaders hugged themselves the next morning in the House. That would be appropriate to display in the section "Reaction - Political" of this article.

Procule (talk) 06:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the only issue with pictures of Cpl Cirillo is that, as far as I know, there are none which have been released under Creative Commons. Myopia123 (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * But then again, I believe that since the Corporal is deceased, fair use would be allright. I am not sure either. Myopia123 (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Popsiq (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC) "Born a Roman Catholic"  in ref to the Parliament Hill shooter.

No one is born a Roman Catholic although they may have Roman Catholic parents, they become Roman Catholic at baptism. So the sentence more accurately wold have read "Baptized a Roman Catholic.' If that were truly the case. Was this fact checked-out?


 * The sources said he was born a RC. He attended an identified RC school. I think it fair to say he was raised a RC. Legacypac (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/news-nouvelles/2014/10-24-eng.htm police released a photo of the perparator. Can it be added? Legacypac (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the picture of the shooter at the memorial (wearing the scarf and holding the gun) would be better because this article has made mention to it already. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Bad name still
What happened to the name discussion? We are still stuck with the name RGloucester, unilaterally and without discussion, edit-warred into the article (there was a sequence of changes that he reverted back to his change), and then protected so no-one else could change. We were discussing what the name should be, but that discussion has now vanished over the weekend. Chief archivist (talk) 07:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't "edit war" over anything, and I don't have powers of page protection. I merely restored the standing title per WP:BRD, as there was no consensus to move the article at the talk page discussion. This is standard procedure. The discussion was archived. RGloucester  — ☎ 12:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There was consensus to have it remain as it was while the article was developed. We can still find that discussion in the archives on the talk page.
 * I agree there needs to be a new discussion about the title. I think it needs to reflect terrorist nature of the incident, and the fact that it was an attack. Maybe we should do an RFC? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * PS Talk:2014_shootings_at_Parliament_Hill,_Ottawa/Archive_1 this was the main discussion about the title immediately after the article's creation 13:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACanadianToker (talk • contribs)
 * I was soliciting name suggestions, and advocating the idea that it be put to a vote. So far, the suggestions were:
 * 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa (current)
 * 2014 Parliament Hill attacks
 * 2014 Ottawa shootings
 * Does anyone want to throw more suggestions into the hat? -- Natural  R X 13:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally I like the second one the most (but I think it should be 2014 Parliament Hill attack s ) Considering the significance of the incident I think a RfC would be best though - A Canadian Toker (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not an "RfC", but an RM. If someone wants to move the article, he should start an RM discussion. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * RM=Requested move? Thanks for the correction. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:Requested moves. If you have a proposal to make, follow that procedure, and we will see where the discussion goes. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with RGloucester that a WP:RM procedure is the best way forward, but it seems to be designed for only one alternative. Can we agree on what said alternative should be before initiating the RM procedure? -- Natural  R X 16:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Someone needs to choose the one they think is best in line with article titles criteria, and then propose it. Others can be proposed over the course of the discussion. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * RG At 16:22, 22 October 2014, after the original "May need a rename" discussion had started on the talkpage, you went ahead without any consensus to rename the article from 2014 Canadian Parliament Hill attack to 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa. At 11:46, 23 October 2014‎ Earl Andrew renamed it to 2014 Ottawa shootings. At 13:30, 23 October 2014 you renamed it back to your name again. At 14:25, 23 October 2014‎, Earl Andrew renamed it to 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill and National War Memorial, Ottawa. At 16:11, 23 October 2014 you renamed it back to your name again. Then a few minutes later, at 16:16, 23 October 2014, you went running to the administrators to get it "rename protected" and at 16:19, 23 October 2014 it was rename protected. That all looks like rename warring to me, with you being the main warrior, and it was you who went to the administrators - not to get it protected under its original, pre-rename-discussion name - but after you had renamed it again to your choice of name! Ideally now, it should be renamed back to its original name until a consensus for new name is established. As it stands, if no new name is agreed upon, your choice of name will stand by default. How can that be just? It looks like gaming the rules to your own advantage to me. Chief archivist (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is nothing "gaming" on my part, though you are clearly willing to twist the facts. My original renaming took place prior to the opening of that discussion on the talk page, because the original title was clearly wrong (no one is suggesting a return to that horrid title 2014 Canadian Parliament Hill attack). Discussion ensued on the talk page, which I participated in. Earl Andrew unilaterally moved the article to 2014 Ottawa shootings despite there being no consensus to move the article to that title. The ongoing discussion on the talk page is what distinguishes his move from mine. I was not the only one to object to "2014 Ottawa shootings", and discussion simply hadn't had time to establish consensus. Therefore, I was right in reverting that move. He made a second unilateral move later, to a title not even mentioned on the talk page. This was, once again, highly inappropriate. Hence, I reverted that move and requested move protection to prevent further move warring until consensus could be reached through a requested move discussion, as is standard on Wikipedia. The protecting administrator agreed with me, and hence followed through. Now, of course, we have a requested move discussion, so that consensus can develop one way or the other. This is the proper procedure for us to decide a title here. I'm glad to have to been a guardian of this process of consensus. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * RG Masem started the rename discussion at 16:09, 22 October 2014, some 13 minutes before your rename - how is that "twisting the facts"? It was you who first renamed the article unilaterally despite a discussion having been started and despite no consensus having emerged. It was you who initiated the rename warring. Chief archivist (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you read the link I gave you? I renamed the article at 12:22, just as the discussion opened, as a way to remedy Masem's concerns (per WP:BOLD). The fact remains that we have all agreed that 2014 Canadian Parliament attack was wrong, however there is support for the present title. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * RG Yes, I read the link, it tallied exactly with what I had written. You renamed the article at 16:22 (UTC), 13 minutes after the rename discussion started at 16:09 (UTC), exactly as I said. The fact remains, yes - you started a rename war after the rename discussion had started, and set the name back, not to the pre-war state, but to your preferred naming, before asking administrators for it to be protected. You can try to deny it, but as the facts are in the histories and clear for all to see, that (in the absence of new excuses information) is my last word on this. Chief archivist (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are wrong, and God will judge me as is his right. You have no such prerogative. Please find something better to do than badger me in uncouth ways. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Business Insider's "terrorist attack".
I know it's in the headline and the lead of that article, but if you watch the attached speech video, Harper doesn't say it was a terrorist attack. Just brutal, violent and despicable. Ignore the lie, please. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * NBC kicks it up a notch by saying he "bluntly declared" it and "had no doubt". That's just sad. But "we will not be intimated" cheers me up. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess I should be clearer, since someone's edit warring with me. Here is the transcript. There has been a brutal and violent attack. "Likewise, our thoughts and prayers remain also with the family and friends of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, who was killed earlier this week by an ISIL-inspired terrorist." "Fellow Canadians, in the days to come, we will learn more about the terrorist and any accomplices he may have had." Not "terrorists" and "they".


 * "...and fight against the terrorist organizations who brutalize those in other countries with the hope of bringing their savagery to our shores. They will have no safe haven." Those are the same vague terrorists they've been fighting for a while.


 * Nothing calling this terrorism or this guy a terrorist. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. How do you know the PM is not talking about the incident of that current day, as it was his whole reason for appearing in front of the nation?  You are grasping, and in your rush to show your leanings you have completely ignored the facts.  See above in the PM's official address to the House, or here  in case you are unable to navigate your browser that far from here.  This will clear up any doubt as to whether the PM considers both cases terrorism.  This conversation, as far as I am concerned, should be more focused on your bias and how it should disappear from this article. Jonesjj77 (talk) 04:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to talk about bias, you seem like a one-trick pony to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I find this statement ironic, yet you fail to address what I have put before you above. You're a flamer, obviously trying to pull me into your edit war based on political ideals and ignoring facts.  Furthermore, you should admit why it is you are so dead set against admitting a. your bias and b. that this was a terrorist attack. Jonesjj77 (talk) 04:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I addressed it in the other section. Said it was a bit better than the first statement you used. I'm dead set against that other shit you're constantly adding, because you haven't shown a bit of effort to back up your idea. I'm less set against the terrorism label now that you've found something. And I don't vote for anyone, so quiet down with your weird accusations. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all you should check your language here, and in case you were unaware the "shit" I added (constantly?) was related to the political discussions taking place right now, of which you are apparently unaware. While I refuse to omit and/or ignore these historical events, I also refuse to cite sources that are junk (like the Huffington Post, Salon, etc.) therefore it will take me more time, but I will link direct references showing that these debates over the "terrorism" label took place among the politicians here in Canada following the shooting, regardless of your apparent denials that they happened.  Secondly, I don't care who you do or do not vote for, but your bias against the label "terrorism" and repulsion toward the discussions surrounding this label warrant my use of the term "bias" to describe the motivation for your activity in deleting any material that I have tried to contribute on the matter.  Your defensive stance and inability to come up with anything intelligent regarding this matter further leads me to believe that you have a political agenda, so if you find this "weird" then you should perhaps attempt to educate yourself on EQ and take a look at how you come across to other people via your behaviour.  One last thing; while you may take some kind of pride in not voting, you would be marginally less useless as a member of a "democratic" society if you decline the vote; it serves more purpose than spoiling your vote or not voting whatsoever, and you may benefit by getting some exercise and fresh air by leaving your desk and going outdoors to vote.Jonesjj77 (talk) 05:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you don't cite something to any source, and are only aware of these discussions through sources which you consider junk, it's fair for me to call the claims shit. I don't have a repulsion to these junk discussions, I just don't read them. The onus is on you to present them, especially if you're trying to add things that rely on them. No source, no go. It'd be the same about any topic, it just happens to be about terrorism and politics this time. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * IH is 100% correct that no one has specifically called this attack terrorism. They've tied issues of terrorism to it, but they have not stated with any confidence that this was a terrorist attack. That might come as they figure out if the shooter truly had ties beyond his recent conversion. So it should definitely be removed as an assured claim to this attack. --M ASEM (t) 04:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, read the statement by the Prime Minster of Canada as referenced. "In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we're all aware and deeply troubled that both of this week's terrorist attacks were carried out by Canadian citizens, by young men born and raised in this peaceful country." - Harper (again, he is the PM of Canada)

Jonesjj77 (talk) 04:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course he's going to call them terrorist attacks; it's a standard political tactic. The fact that there's no one in an official capacity re-iterating this is a sign that he's speculating as a politician. We need to wait for people actually involved in the investigation to say this. --M ASEM (t) 04:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * He's the Prime Minster of Canada, his "officials" will call it what he tells them to call it. I think what "we" need to do is have you explain why you don't think this constitutes terrorism.  Consult the terrorism wiki, or you guys can go ahead and edit that wiki to your own liking as well.  But the facts remain here, and by all normal definitions including the United Nations', this is terrorism.Jonesjj77 (talk) 04:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If this was just some guy frustrated and broke down, grabbed a gun, and started shooting military people (not civilians), that's not terrorism. We, unfortunately, have lots of these types of shootings in the states and not all of them are called "terrorism"; unless there is proven evidence this was a plan to evoke terror in the public at large, it's not terrorism. (And yes, world leaders will say things that may not be yet proven to get the public on their side: See Mission Accomplished). --M ASEM (t) 04:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's debatable whether that type of rhetorical situation could be labeled as terrorism, but what you describe is not at all what happened (even observed in the speculative stages). Therefore I wonder if you are ignorant of the events that took place; did you even read the wiki or any news articles on these attacks?  He ran into the Center Block of the Canadian Parliament and shot people in there as well. Regardless of what the Canadian Prime Minister's stance is on the vernacular, if you flat out deny that this is possibly part of "a plan to evoke terror in the public at large" then you will likely not be a constructive member in a discussion regarding whether or not the attacks were terrorist in nature (ie. you are biased like InedibleHulk, and should just admit that).  The plan, while it may have been quickly formed, was obviously formulated and executed to evoke terror.Jonesjj77 (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is not enough information for us that has been publically made to assess the situation - nor should we be trying to guess the situation. I'm not denying that it could be a terrorist attack but we cannot say at this time that it is. To say any more is violating WP:NOR, which is why it will continue to be removed until there is clear evidence that affirms it is. --M ASEM  (t) 06:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * RS ---> http://abcnews.go.com/International/canada-pm-calls-parliament-shooting-terrorist-act/story?id=26372013
 * That's the same comprehension failure, just a different outlet. They take the single word "terrorist" from the speech and put it in their own context, which doesn't match the PM's. Reliable sources aren't infallible sources, and when there's a clear mistake, Wikipedia editors should use editorial judgment, rather than running with the headlines. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ludicrous. If a few anon wiki editors don't want to call it a terrorist attack fine. But when the Leader of the country where it happens clearly calls it a terrorist attack it is important to report that fact in the article. Not doing so is CLEAR evidence of bias and pov pushing. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We say that Harper said it, addressing the House, with a full quote, in the political reaction section, where it belongs. He's entitled to his opinion, just like the other Leaders. To say it in the lead or infobox with Wikipedia's voice should require an authoritative and ostensibly neutral source, like the police, whose job it is to investigate crimes. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * K, Here is the RCMP calling it a terrorist attack. I hope it is an authoritative and ostensibly neutral of a source. The RCMP’s investigation of the October 22, 2014, terrorist attack in Ottawa is advancing and has revealed a great deal about Zehaf-Bibeau’s movements and actions prior to the attack. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 03:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's better. The RCMP has a good track record of being ostensibly neutral. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "The RCMP has a good track record of being ostensibly neutral." Pardon me, while I guffaw.  Ralph Goodale comes to mind, RCMP refusals to prosecute for fraud and collusion re BC Rail and other looking-away-from government corruption, the release of their version of Dave Basi's "interviews" with them, after courts had ordered Basi remain silent after the illegal plea bargain or face contempt charges (nothing has been done about that plea bargain either), their habitual role as taking the corporate side at native and environmental blockades.....and "smear campaigns are our specialty" re Gustafson Lake, obfuscation on the Ian Bush and Peter Dziekanski cases and others.  It doesn't have a good track record   at all; what it has is a good but very doctored presskit and lots of experience with spin and defamation of opponents.Skookum1 (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was a great track record. But in the whole picture, especially compared to Stephen Harper or CTV, they're non-partisan and qualified for criminal investigation. Whether this would have been called terrorism without the political backdrop (physical and legislative) is debatable, but as far as sourcing a controversial label goes, the RCMP's the best we have. But yeah, personally, I agree it's bullshit. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

And re the "was this a terrorist incident?", three Mounties were killed in a terrorist-style attack in New Brunswick a few months ago, the shooter being ideologically aligned with Anders Breivik and yet none of that was talked about a terrorist attack, and radical Christianity not brought up as an issue; in fact statements were made it was not a terrorist attack, even though it was carried out like one and was done by someone with stated white-terrorist allegiances. Like everyone else, I have yet to hear what's in the videos left by Zehaf-Bibeau and so can't comment on any direct connection to IS; though I doubt it; the Burnaby imam explained something very interesting that would mark him as a heretic to IS- condemning the Sayings of Mohammmed as the work of the Devil. But will we actually see those videos, or just rely on an RCMP account of what's in them? As with the Dziekanski case, what they say and what the facts (or the videos) say very often don't match.Skookum1 (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * we are not solely relying on what the RCMP say in the shooters video. In fact I don't think this article mentions the video at all. We are only relying on the fact that they, along with the executive of the country, the media, several observers et al have described this incident as a terrorist attack. If you, or anyone else wants to continue to dispute whether or not this incident was a terrorist attack than we should definitely open up a RfC. Saying that it was not, or not mentioning the fact that by ALL accounts it was, is evidence of bias and POV pushing. I realize some people may have philosphical arguments against labelling incidents terrorist but this is not the place to push them.

As for your claimed assocation between the ideology/motives of Breivik and Moncton shooter: Where are the RS that support your claims? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * RS say this was a terrorist attack, and the dictionary agrees. Further BS from editors with an ax to grind should not be tolerated here. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/10/26/ottawa_terrorist_attack_driven_by_ideology_rcmp.html  Legacypac (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * "Paulson did not outline any specifics — of what Zehaf-Bibeau may have said, what threats he may have uttered, or any details of his apparent manifesto — that would uphold these allegations. However, he did paint a more ominous picture of Zehaf-Bibeau, whom Prime Minister Stephen Harper has called a terrorist, some have called a criminal, and his mother says was a very troubled and disturbed man who had turned to Islam and often talked of demons."


 * Remember kids, demons and omens are bad! We have nothing to back up their existence, but come on! And "some" have called him a criminal. Clear as day, who needs specifics? It's an "apparent manifesto", because why else would anyone record a video instead of writing a letter in 2014? I'm not saying take it out of the article, just don't believe it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Map to lead?
The map on this article comes in the aftermath section, after the description of the attacks. Would it be better in the lead or somewhere else earlier in the article? It seems a bit delayed to have it so far down &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thats a very good point. I think having the map be in the lead is better than a stock photo of parliament. What do others think? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 03:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Myopia123 (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

lede
"The attack was the most significant act of violence at Parliament Hill since the 1966 Parliament bombing." That sentence in the lede has been contested. Can the person who doubts its veracity name the event in between 1966 and 2014 that even remotely compares? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to be both taking a point of view, and being a bit of original research. It's not a question of believing or disbelieving in the words. It's a question of following Wikipedia style. A wikipedia article should not make the conclusion like this, it should report that it is the conclusion of others, experts, the media, whatever. I ask you, what does 'significant' mean in this context? It is imprecise. Alaney2k (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Glossing pertinence of 2006 attacks
I have put information about the 2006 attack in the See Also section, noting that the plot included a plan to attack Parliament and kill the Prime Minister. This information was removed with the comment that the pertinence of the 2006 Ontario plot is clear from the title. Yes, it is clear that it is a plot in Ontario, but the reader does not learn that the Parliament was among the planned targets.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly - can't understand why some editors want to remove helpful information. Then someone took the see also out completely, likely thinking it was not related. Legacypac (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

deliberately misleading/false edit by IP user
I note that the Kanata-based IP that made the change from "hidden" to "moved" that I have reverted made an overtly false and untrue edit comment: "Return to original language. "Hidden" is original research/pov)". Such false claims in edit comments are rife of late in Wikipedia, particularly on corporate and political articles, though not them alone.  "Hidden" was the language used by the first source listed for that line, this article by Stephen Chase in the Globe and Mail. and "moved" not used there nor was there any mention in the other three sources for that sentence.  It was not original research, but the POV motivations of the IP user are clear as day. I note he/she has also "voted" in the RM and their vote should be discounted/ignored, not that it amounted to much. Some measure of discipline for false and misleading edit comments might be out there that could be applied; if not, there is sore need for one.Skookum1 (talk) 05:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Hidden" works. I get that it makes him look like a wimp, but it also makes him look highly valuable. Furniture is moved. Priceless art and nuclear secrets are hidden, from Nazi scum as well as terrorist scum. The positive and negative implications balance. Plus, it's a reliable source. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Harper apologized to the caucus for hiding in the closet. So he did 'come out'. :-) Seriously though, 'moved' could be appropriate in the instance of going to another location, not staying in the same room. And, as mentioned the source used those words. Alaney2k (talk) 12:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)