Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 01:28, 25 December 2014 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Talk:2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is an archive of past discussions about 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

quotes on "terrorist attack" issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vicker's weapon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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

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