Talk:Quebec City mosque shooting/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Quebec City mosque shooting. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sources on the table

Requesting immediate archiving...

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.

Please come with sources when adding information to the table. Thanks.--Élisée P. Bruneau (talk)^(contribs) 03:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Like, where are the 11+ injuries coming from? Source, please. I can't find it in any of the major newspapers.--Élisée P. Bruneau (talk)^(contribs) 03:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

What's the best way to cite a radio broadcast? 11 injuries and the fact that the suspects were "two men with Quebec accents dressed in black" are being reported by Radio-Canada. Jokullmusic 03:25, 30 January 2017 (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.

Merge (January 2017)

Requesting immediate archiving...

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.

2017 Sainte-Foy mosque shooting was merged to 2017 Quebec City mosque shooting

This and 2017 Sainte-Foy mosque shooting were created within minutes of each other. We only need one, and I think the naming on this one is more consistent. --MASEM (t) 03:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I have already merged the information from that one into this one; it's up for speedy deletion anyway. Jokullmusic 03:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokullmusic (talk • contribs)

I agree that "Quebec City" is more consistent with what sources are using. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:32, 30 January 2017 (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.

2017 Quebec City mosque shooting

Requesting immediate archiving...

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.

I moved the article back to 2017 Quebec City mosque shooting. All terrorist attacks have been addressed with a year at the very beginning. Both Pulse and Berlin have been addressed this way.--Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 05:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

As a matter of policy, we don't preemptively append the year. We do so (along with the month and/or day, if needed) for disambiguation purposes (if/when different events otherwise fit the description). —David Levy 12:32, 30 January 2017 (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.

Table Information: Victims / Motive

Requesting immediate archiving...

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.

Motive is Islamophobia, right? And victims must be 53, right? The newspapers stated: 6 deaths, 8 injuries and 39 unharmed.--Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 06:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

We should not speculate on motive ourselves - if reliable sources are discussing motive, we can quote them. Fences&Windows 08:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Solely by way of illustration, it is conceivable that the shooters were affiliated with ISIS and decided to attack some people who had fled from them in Syria. A motive really is not known until it is known. Wnt (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2017 (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.

Fake news mention

Should we include in the page a mention of the Daily Beast incorrect reports of the names of the suspects where their source was revealed to be a parody Reuters twitter account? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Too tangential to this; would make near-perfect sense at The Daily Beast#Controversies. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it's definitely worth keeping until the suspects are named, to help dispel misinformation. Afterward... not sure if it is relevant enough to matter, but it's at least technically relevant. Might get shoved into a big section about media coverage ... hard to say how the article will go. Wnt (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect information published in one news source and quickly corrected is a distraction to the is article. Note the source Daily Caller does not meet reliable sources and they were the only media that found the error worth mentioning. And the Daily Beast did not incorrectly report the names, but incorrectly said that Reuters had reported them. We of course will only know the correct names once police report them. TFD (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The Hill also reports: "Daily Beast falsely IDs Quebec shooters as white supremacists". 2A03:8600:1001:1051:0:0:0:1003 (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Caller seems to sorta hate The Daily Beast, for what that's worth. There's something weird between them, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Denomination?

Our articles on Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City and List of mosques in Canada do not list an affiliation for this mosque such as Sunni or Shia. I *think* this page [1] gives a hint it might be non-denominational but... it's all in French. Can someone find a source and cite it? Wnt (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I don’t see anything obviously sectarian on the site, although I don’t know enough Muslim theology to pick up any subtler indications that may be there. On their “What is Islam” page, though, they say “The Quran and the Sunnah offer guidance that presents the range of possibilities in human activity and defines a certain number of boundaries,“ which could be indicative of s Sunni orientation. It appears much of the community there, as elsewhere in Quebec, is of Maghrebi (North African) descent, a region where I believe Sunnis vastly outnumber the other denominations. But it’s probably best not to try and categorize them without something more definite.—Odysseus 1479 19:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Unrelated and unsupported fake news dig

It's nice that he said it, but reputable news and media sources, and the police investigating, all state that the cause of the fire is unclear. It may well be electrical, or lit by a Muslim congregant, as with Gary Nathaniel Moore and the Savoy Masjid Mosque in Houston in 2015.

Including this comment here is merely someones dishonest ploy to color the story as being a new anti-Muslim targeted wave of terror, and there is as of yet zero indication of this. It should be removed as irrelevant and not directly related to the story, merely some politician's politically correct opinion, not factual or objective information about events.

"He added: "The awful attack in Quebec is not an outlier", he said. "Today, a mosque in Texas was burned to the ground. We must stop those who seek to divide us.""

73.114.27.138 (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Same for Hollande's. Quebec City isn't part of France or New York. The people involved here (probably) aren't from there, either. Let's keep it to politicians who actually represent each shooting article's particular places and people. Let Google News and Twitter worry about the rest. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The cause might not be known, but De Blassion never called it an attack by a non-Muslim. Even the attackers of this incident weren't known. Regardless, whether a Muslim burnt the mosque or not, the reason may bery well be religious hate or religious extremism or simply creating trouble. The comment might have been more simply as talking about that. Regardless, adding comment of every notable leader will turn it into a large article. So therefore it shouldn't be there. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Alexandre Bissonnette

Could someone please help me writing more about him? I have started to write a little. There is a major article about him here: http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/alexandre-bissonnette-quebec-city-canada-mosque-shooting-attack-suspect-gunman-shooter-photos-pictures-video-motive/

--Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Élisée P. Bruneau: Heavy doesn't seem to be a RS. There's a LaPresse article [2], CBC [3], and TVA [4]. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Status uncertain

but who shouted in Arabic? We expect accurate and detailed information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.9.120.215 (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the news. Try google news for more up-to-date info. As for the shouting, if the suspect is anti-Muslim (and I don't know that he is), shouting "Allahu akbar" would certainly strike fear in the victims, not to mention create chaos and wild speculations, such as speculating that the suspect "shouted in Arabic" (as opposed to one phrase). But who knows. We update when the media updates. freshacconci talk to me 19:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

We mention the shouting of Allah Akbar, but information regarding political ideology - reported in reliable sources - is removed. That smacks as really biased to me.VR _talk 19:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The alleged political ideology is an allegation fo now. I removed it because it was an allegation by someone not present at the scene and not involved in investigation. Not because of any bias. If it turns out that the witness was incorrect and no one had shouted Allahu Akbar, then I'll remove that witness' statement too and anything contrary to the facts ascertained by investigations and law officials. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

You're setting two different thresholds "If it turns out that the witness was incorrect and no one had shouted Allahu Akbar" would be equivalent of saying "if it turns out the suspect wasn't anti-feminist". If you're gonna report all reports until proven false, you gotta include the ideology stuff. If you're only gonna include something confirmed by authorities, you gotta remove the Allahu Akbar stuff.

"I removed it because it was an allegation by someone not present at the scene"... obviously. Because it doesn't have to do with the scene! Its his previosuly expressed views.

Since you don't have any valid reasons, I'm reinstating the material.VR _talk 21:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't really seem alarming to me that people getting shot at in a Mosque might shout "God is Great" in Arabic. I see no reason whatsoever to assume it had to come from the shooter. 70.53.192.113 (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Two dead from other African countries

Two of the victims are stated to have been born in other African countries. They may very well be Canadian citizens. However, it isn't stated that they are the citizens of those countries anymore. Are we to consider the country of birth for nationality or the countries where they might be citizen of? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

It's unclear from the source. Maybe just say something more ambiguous like background instead. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

According to the leader of the mosque, all the victims were dual nationals, though it's not confirmed by police. [5]. Given the ambiguity, I've made the above change. This level of detail maybe undue, and the table should just be integrated into the text. Thoughts?---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

By Canadian law, landed immigrants and naturalised citizens automatically continue to be citizens of their home country unless that country's citizenship is (voluntarily) explicitly given up, or unless that country does not allow its citizens to give up their citizenship and does not recognise dual citizenship. (The latter cases are very problematic, but fortunately it usually does not come up unless an emigrant returns to the home country.) In this particular case, if the only reliable source is the mosque leader saying that all of the victims were dual nationals (he would know), it might be best to leave it at "Canadian". After all, more than 20% of Canada's citizens were born in a different country. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

"Background" of victims

Why are the victims classified by "background" in a table? This would be ok if there was clear evidence that we have citizens of multiple countries here. But the source merely says, for example, Abou Bakr Thadti studied in Tunisia. There's no mention of him not being Canadian, or of him actually being a Tunisian citizen. I think the table should be removed and we should briefly describe each victim, including their background in the description if its notable.VR _talk 22:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I had earlier raised concerns about the table including nationalities when in at least some cases they haven't even been stated. For example 2 victims were stated to have been born in "other African countries". However, nowhere their current citizenship status was stated. I didn't edit it but I think someone has changed it to background instead of nationality because actual citizenship might not be mentioned in source or might be unclear. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

We did the same in 2016 Berlin attack. That is why.Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

In the case of Berlin, we had information about the nationalities of the victims, which we do not have here. It is further complicated by dual nationality, which was not an issue in the Berlin article. In many cases, people born in Canada assume the nationalities of their place of birth and their parents' nationality while naturalized Canadians may retain their original nationalities. The information here however is based on connections people have to foreign countries, for example one of them once studied in Tunisia. But lots of people study or work in countries with which they otherwise have no connection. And note that all the victims had some connection with Quebec and Canada, they happened to be there. TFD (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

German citizenship law is extremely different than Canadian law. By Canadian law, landed immigrants and naturalised citizens automatically continue to be citizens of their home country unless that country's citizenship is (voluntarily) explicitly given up, or unless that country does not allow its citizens to give up their citizenship and does not recognise dual citizenship. (The latter cases are very problematic, but fortunately it usually does not come up unless an emigrant returns to the home country.) In this particular case, if the only reliable source is the mosque leader saying that all of the victims were dual nationals (he would know), it might be best to leave it at "Canadian". After all, more than 20% of Canada's citizens were born in a different country. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Sean Spicer

Should Sean Spicer's weird reaction be documented? (Spicer said the mosque attack was justification for banning Muslims from entering the U.S.) The statement was reported in many news outlets. -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't his statement made when there were two suspects, both reported to be Muslims by the Canadian media? --Pudeo (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

No. At the time of Spicer's comments, Canadian media was only reporting a French-Canadian and a Moroccan suspect. But including his reaction I think is not needed. 103.232.148.4 (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure. I think it is important, but perhaps not to *this* article.Elinruby (talk) 12:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Removal of suspect's name per WP:BLPCRIME

WP:BLPCRIME applies to this article and this suspects name. {MordeKyle} ☢ 21:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The name of the suspect is mentioned in almost every source about this event, and is extremely relevant to the article. We need to be sure to presume innocence, by using words like "suspect" rather than "perpetrator", but we shouldn't remove it entirely. Brad v 21:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, this doesn't align with Wikipedia policy. You can see the lengthy conversations regarding this here and more specifically, here. {MordeKyle} ☢ 21:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Patar knight: Please discuss here, don't just revert. Also, once a name has been removed due to an issue with WP:BLP, such as this, it should not be re-added until consensus is reached. {MordeKyle} ☢ 21:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a clear consensus at either of those discussions. I think this is something we can, and should, decide for ourselves. A blanket policy isn't terribly useful in this case. Brad v 21:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with you that consensus has not been decided, and I have fought for inclusion in these matters, as you can see. We have to err on the side of non-inclusion. As far as the WP:WELLKNOW exemption goes, Public Figure is not a Wikipedia policy. In cases such as these, where there seems to be some confusion, non-inclusion is the best route for Wikipedia. We must also consider that we are not a news source, and that the removal of the suspects name take absolutely no encyclopedic value away from this article. The information is still there. {MordeKyle} ☢ 21:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why we have to err on the side of non-inclusion—we are following the sources, and every mention of the suspect is properly referenced. We are not erring at all. Furthermore, if what you are saying is correct, we would need to revdel this entire article. Brad v 22:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bradv: WP:BLPCRIME says nothing about being properly sourced. It says, "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured." My emphasis. This guy was not know before this crime, so he is not a public figure, making him more than relatively unknown. This is not a question of sources. And no, as shown in my previous edit that has been reverted to death, despite a lack of consensus about this contentious information about a living person, we do not need to change the entire article. My edit was very minimal. I completely retained the encyclopedic value of the article, keeping all pertinent information except for the guys name. {MordeKyle} ☢ 23:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Did not see this discussion, but IMHO you're misinterpreting the policy. I don't see the argument for how a suspect in a mass shooting who has gotten multiple in-depth profiles from a range of reliable sources is a "relatively unknown individual" that BLPCRIMES applies to. This article is careful to depend on RS, and to mention not authoritatively say that he is guilty. The purpose of BLPCRIME is primarily to avoid saying that unconvicted individuals are guilty of crimes and to avoid highlighting minor crimes in articles where it is unwarranted (e.g. a news story about a robbery in a local town that names the suspect would not warrant putting that person's name onto the article for the town or into a SIA page for people with that name). It is not meant to censor the names of suspects in notable cases. Wikipedia goes by when reliable sources deem it relevant to name names and focus on the subjects; in this case it clearly has. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I specifically stated, "See talk page" in the edit summary that you reverted... Anyhow, WP:BLPCRIME specifically says we should not include "... or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured." I have fought for inclusion of this already. Bradv You seem intent on reverting without discussion anyways, regardless of Wikipedia policy anyways. {MordeKyle} ☢ 22:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The part about "relatively unknown individual" is what happens before the crime in question, not afterwards when the media is trying to gather as much information as they can. So all the new media coverage should be discounted in determine how well know he was before the crime to evaluate inclusion of the name. --MASEM (t) 22:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Exaclty. {MordeKyle} ☢ 22:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a special part of the infobox that says 'suspected perpetrstor' and not the actual perpetrator. So therefore in can be added. Also the suspect has confessed according to the media. JBergsma1 (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

As there is confirmation if the suspect is in fact the perpetrator. The name will get added to 'perpetrator' in the infobox. Simple. JBergsma1 (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. This is Wikipedia, we are WP:NOTNEWS. And apparently everyone is just going keep reverting regardless of what the policy says. So much for discussion and reaching consensus... Maybe I'll just take this issue elsewhere. {MordeKyle} ☢ 22:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

JBergsma1 Can you please put the link of the source regarding his confession? I am asking for it because a confession is notable and should be added. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

MonsterHunter32 I have added a source in which the suspected perpetrator is being charged. JBergsma1 (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I was kind of wrong about the confession. But the source mentions the suspect calling the police to negotiate. JBergsma1 (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Him calling the police was already mentioned. It's ok though. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec

There's a French article on that at fr:Centre culturel islamique de Québec which we might base an English version off of -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Great idea. I don't speak French. But I like the idea.--Élisée P. Bruneau (talk)^(contribs) 04:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Technically a better translation for 'Centre culturel islamique de Québec' might be "Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City". That makes it clear that this center is named in reference to Quebec City and not the province of Quebec.

In French, they are both just "Québec" but the province is always "le Québec", so you can tell the Islamic center refers to the city and not the province because it is "de Québec" and not "du Québec". --Saforrest (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I've translated the French article and the result is now at Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City and pointed the redirects there. --Saforrest (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Quebec (City) would be helpful for the English article, as English speakers won't know about the Le Quebec convention.

Also 600 people attended a support vigil at an Islamic centre in Guelph Ontario on 6 hours social media notice. Guelph has a population of 120,000. I can't post it, but someone could please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.248.112.148 (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Presumptuous murder cats

I think it early to call these killings murders, given that the suspects are still living people and have the right to a fair trial first. Somebody was definitely killed by somebody, but not all Canadian killing is Canadian murder, even when it's massive or terrifying. The police only determine and declare a homicide occurred, and can allege murder, but allegations aren't tried and true, even if they're ultimately true.

Just too soon to say. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey bud, the police charged him with 1st degree murder. That is the fact. Stick to the facts. Charged. With. Murder. End of story.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.248.112.1480 (talk • contribs) 2:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

You appear not to understand the difference between "charged with murder" and "found guilty of murder". WWGB (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that if a defendant is "found not to be criminally responsible for murder", the murder still took place - he was merely not responsible for it. Also, the Murder (Canadian law) article you reference seems, at least to an untutored reader, to allow for these acts being murder. I would think the affirmative defense of mental incapacity doesn't take away from it being murder, only from the defendant's criminal responsibility for it. That said, I was cavalier in reverting you the first time, and you make a good enough case I won't do it again, but not one sufficient to change my mind. Wnt (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Murder occurs when someone kills a human with either the intent to do so, or the knowledge that their actions likely might. When someone kills a human without grasping that it's a human or that weapons cause death, it's not murder. If the only person to kill the victim didn't commit a murder, a murder couldn't have logically still occured.

When somebody is found not guilty of murder, the act itself may still be an unsolved murder. In those cases, presuming it is is less serious, because the real killer isn't facing trial. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

news coverage suggestion

There has been considerable discussion of in the US of the time it took Fox News to amend its report that the shooter was Moroccan. See the Intercept for example. When I looked at their story recently they had edited the lede but further down there were still references to shooters plural. Lots of Islamophobes citing the Fox News story on social media.Elinruby (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Has it been discussed by any RS outlets? Lots of talk on twitter but we obviously can't use that. freshacconci talk to me

The Intercept is RS even on Twitter. But we probably don't want to fight the social media policy, as it exists for good reason. And luckily we don't have to as Justin Trudeau has spoken up. Mira: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/01/fox-news-deletes-false-quebec-shooting-tweet-justin-trudeau-mosque?CMP=share_btn_fb. So. we have at least one RS; the question is how to handle this. I don't want this fake news side show to overshadow the very real tragedy of this event. Elinruby (talk) 08:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

List of victims

We generally do not name victims of mass shootings, unless they were already notable, or knowledge of their names are critical for understanding the situation (for example, a victim that might have tried to stop a shooter according to eyewitness but got killed). This is both in violation of WP:BLPPRIVACY as well as WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, even though I know these names are printed in reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 02:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see either of those sources prohibiting us from listing the names of the victims. Could you please cite the exact passage that says that? Thanks,VR _talk 04:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

NOT:MEMORIAL is the easy one: we don't include names of victims as a means of any type of paying respects, etc. The section previously included, and the attempted additional is clearly to drive sympathy for the victims, which we do not do to stay neutral. The BLPPRIVACY is perhaps better explained per WP:BLPNAME - no context is lost with omission of their names, and we prefer to stay on the cautionary side for privacy-related matters. This is even if the names are widely publicized by the media - in the long-term it is not appropriate content for an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 06:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Someone has put the names of the victims back. Just letting you guys know. I personally did not remove them as I have mixed feelings about the policy and don't want to get into an edit war over enforcing a policy that I question. Elinruby (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Masem: I think this perspective is absurd. It's a little too late to avoid victimizing somebody when he's been shot to death! Death is a public act, worthy of public record.

I think more important is that Wikipedia chronically subscribes to a dangerous kind of juvenile horror-flick mentality when it comes to mass murders. Our editors tend to think that the killer is the Change Agent, the person who matters, and are content to see us build up articles about him, explain his childhood, hang on every word. But the victims are just, what, nameless mooks unworthy of mention. They did nothing but stop a bullet, is what our editors seem to think. But this is all wrong! Killers are not special, just evil, while every victim was just as much there for a reason as the person shooting the gun. It matters who they were, what they thought, what their specific religious observances meant to them. And mind, I'm an inclusionist, I don't want us to wipe away information that the press gives us about the killers. So the only opinion open to me is that the victims deserve as good a biographical coverage as our sources provide us. Let us show the world the individuality and importance of victims, and maybe fewer idiots of whatever faith will pick up the gun.

You can say that's "not important to Wikipedia", but it is important so long as people keep undoing the work of good faith editors claiming that fair encyclopedic coverage is "victimization". If their work, as I suggest above, stops victimization, then it cannot be guilty of being victimization. Wnt (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

In the long-term, barring that these unfortunate victims are determined to have had no type of heroic role in an attempt to stop the shooting, they are just names with no impact on the rest of the world; listing the names does nothing to improve the encyclopedic value of the article, and they are not necessary to describe details of the event. In contrast we do list names at Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as several of the victims had been eyewitnessed as trying to take steps to protect the children and others, and so a description of the events is difficult without naming them. But even still, in the long-term, the names of victims fade away, it is the perpetrator that is remembered.

The other problem with how these are being inserted is that people are trying to humanize the victims, which absolutely goes against NOT#MEMORIAL. "<name>, age <##>, <some profession> and father of 2" is definitely not acceptable writing under this. What is in there now, a no-name broad statement about the general background of these victims is fine, but any further than that (in light of having no additional relevance to the event's details) is inappropriate.

The other issue that is part of the larger situation is that if this was a case of 20, 50, 100 non-notable people being killed (whether by murder, natural disaster, or tragic accident), even if all the victims' names were sourced, including the full list would be inappropriate. By extension, even if it was just one non-notable person that was killed, we would thus not include the name there. This is the primary reason, to avoid the bias of listing out victims that cannot be done for larger incidents. It is not to try to value the life of the perp over those killed, but as a matter of practicality for an encyclopedia. We're linking to plenty of articles that have the names so that if people want to find the names, they can, but an encyclopedia that is not our purpose if there were non-notable to start and had no significant role in the events outside of being unfortunate victims. --MASEM (t) 16:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Masem:, your reasoning is flawed. (1) Policy WP:NOT#MEMORIAL applies to subjects of the article, and NOT what's listed inside an article. If someone were to create separate pages for the victims, then yes you could invoke WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. But this is not the case here. (2) WP:BLPPRIVACY is not violated either. How is including a list of victims, which has been "widely published by reliable sources" and "by sources linked to the subject" a violation? (3) other articles include a flat list of victims, see 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting#Casualties. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

NOT#MEMORIAL is not limited to the article-level, it applies to content within an article, so would absolutely apply to a victims list. And with BLP, even if names have been widely published, we are not required to include them and prefer to edge on not including them if their inclusion does not help the reader understand the event more. This is why we generally avoid including victims lists in articles on such tragedies. I will point to this essay (not policy or guideline) that summarizes these arguments: WP:VL. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

There is only one suspect

There is only one suspect. This edit is unwarranted. Please don't confuse the readers or malign an innocent man.VR _talk 21:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not maligning or trying to malign anyone. I only added because it has been covered by multiple sources. I have taken care not to mention much personal details about the ex-suspect so as to make sure privacy isn't violated. WP:BLPNAME and other rules apply here. But that doesn't make it less notable. We can discuss which portions should be included or not included. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

There is room to cover the wrongful arrest, but please don't re-add material about an innocently detained man under a "suspects" section when he's no longer and never should have been a suspect. The incident, and an explanation is sourced in the following Aftermath section, which doesn't have the same BLP-violating connotations. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there really only one suspect? It's being reported in the Quebecois press that there are two. Mjroots (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

That Quebecois Press article is old, it is actually from yesterday, 29 January. It said that below the headline. One of the two suspects was released only today (https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/01/30/six-dead-two-arrested-after-shooting-at-quebec-city-mosque.html). This is why I thought it is better details about arrest of both suspects and the release of one of them should be kept in the article. People might get confused due to older reports on the internet. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I have eliminated all the non-essential things about the person thought of as a suspect earlier so as to avoid any victimization to him. Only very notable information remains there ie, arrest of two suspects and release of the man as well as him being considered a witness. I hope this is acceptable. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we have to keep his name out of the article; we merely need to make it clear (as we pretty much do now) that his role was relatively heroic, as someone giving first aid who ran when police showed up only because he was afraid the shooter had returned, and who now is a witness for the prosecution. What dishonor are we protecting him from? We should merely blunt any misconception from old articles. Wnt (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules are in strong favor of privacy. The problem here is victimization. Even though released, he might be victimized because he was earlier arrested wrongly for it and people might not care whether he is innocent. It can also lead to harassment as well. We should avoid being any accessory to that and not contribute to it even though he can be easily discovered through newspapers. As such I have only kept the necessary information. Only important and notable info should be kept. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

If it's not wrong for the newspapers, why should it be wrong for us? Wnt (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Newspapers cover current events and note what is important. There is public value in knowing whom the police are currently holding or suspect. Historically, newspapers were discarded after reading, while encyclopedias were kept in bookshelves for years. TFD (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Seriously, newspapers had their archives online for years before Wikipedia was a thing. That doesn't make even historical sense. Wnt (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

"Historical," does not mean "within the last 20 Years." Anyway, whatever the newspapers do, I do not think it is a good idea that if someone googles their name, the first thing to pop up is this article saying they were a suspect in a particularly vicious murder. I am sure it would not bother you a bit if it had been you, but it would most people. TFD (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I just edited those sentences a little for readability, so everyone knows. I don't think I changed the meaning. Just noting here in case someone wants to check that. It sounds like French speakers are already involved, but ping me if someone has a language question Elinruby (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Why was the sentence about motives removed?

Right in the intro, there was a sentence that the motives were unclear. Now it's removed. Why?--Adûnâi (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

"That's not in the source and its sorta unnecessary". InedibleHulk (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Media mishandling of the news

There should be something in the article about how badly the media have mishandled the news—such as how they continued to report that there was a Moroccan suspect even after he was released, how Ezra Levant deleted inflammatory tweets, how conspiracy theories are building that there's a cover-up & that there really was more than one perp ... [6],[7], etc. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

re the Fox News misinformation

Fox News changed their reporting after Trudeau called them on it. We were using The Star, one of their outlets, as a reference for the number of injuries. First of all I'm wondering why anyone would use Fox News as a source on this, but let's stick for a moment to the specific. Our link to the article in the reference citation still worked and went to the updated and correct article, but still had the title as "Suspect in Quebec mosque terror attack was of Moroccan origin, report shows". Boo hiss. I changed it to the new title, "Suspect charged with murder in Quebec mosque terror attack". When I get a chance I'll read the article to make sure there aren't any other surprises, or better yet change the reference to a reliable news source.Elinruby (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The Toronto Star is neither controlled by the government, nor controlled by Fox News. How is it one of their outlets? (whatever "their" means, either the Canadian gov't or Fox News) If you think that the Canadian Press is an organ of the government, you are wrong. CP is the same as Associated Press except in Canada, a newswire service that is independent of government. -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Name change to "Terrorist attack in Quebec City mosque"

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” I believe this attack fits under that definition. Furthermore, Canada's own government denounced this as a terrorist attack. Therefore, i believe this article's name should be changed to "Terrorist attack in Quebec City mosque" Tala hayat (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Canadian law has its own similar definition. If police suspect terrorism, they'll press charges. If the shooter's found guilty, a move might be proper. Too soon today. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Even if it is determined to be terrorism, the right form of the name would be "Quebec City mosque terrorist attack". However, the more learned here, this doesn't seem like it is going to be the case. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Could be compared to 1999 Khulna mosque boming, Tel Aviv–Jerusalem bus 405 suicide attack, Akshardham Temple attack, Akshardham Temple attack, 2016 Ohio State University attack.... IBestEditor (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

In comparison, that boming article needs a new title faster than this one does. Thanks for pointing it out. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The move would be, to put it mildly, inappropriate. It falls afoul of words to watch and it's not the WP:COMMONNAME. Shooting is more than twice as common (9m results) as terrorist attack (4m results). It's also the most accurate description of the event. A rename to "attack" might be appropriate, but, even that is dubious for the time being. It would also make us look ridiculous to rename it to "terrorist attack" while the lede reads that; The suspect was not charged with terrorism. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Other articles do not include "terrorist." There are two guidelines/policies that suggest we not use it: WP:LABEL cautions use not to use the term and WP:COMMOMNAME says we should use commonly used terms. (News media do not usually refer to it as the terrorist attack on a mosque). Furthermore, the motives have not been proved in court and experts caution on assigning motive to lone wolf attacks. I think if you want these types of articles to use the term terrorist in their titles, you should get agreement for a policy or guideline first. TFD (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I would support this change when it is officially label as a terrorist attack. Though I'm not sure it ever will be. It is more likely to be label as a hate crime than it is to be label as a terror related incident (what's the difference anyways?). {MordeKyle} ☢ 21:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by "officially?" TFD (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

It won't be labelled terrorism "officially". Even if it was, then you'd have to rename 9/11, November 2015 Paris attacks, and literally every other terrorist incident in this encyclopaedia. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Officially, by the application of terrorism related charges being filed. I don't think this will happen, that being the point of my comment. {MordeKyle} ☢ 20:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

PMO & Fox News tweet

Shouldn't the article cover the request by the PMO to Fox News to remove the erroneous tweet about Moroccan involvement? [8] -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Working on it; see the comment I just made above. I think it is important and should be covered somewhere but I also think we should discuss in the context of respect for the victims. Elinruby (talk) 08:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Errors are not rare. Even if covered by variety of sources, I doubt it really classifies. People won't remember or care about it after a day or two. However things like details about the shooting are important. 103.232.148.4 (talk) 11:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

It matters a lot, actually -- the shooting was used to justify the Muslim ban in the US this weekend. I am just not sure if we should have it in *this* article. Someone has added it themselves by the way, apparently without reading the talk page. I have not removed it because it is in the "Government reaction" section, which is probably the best place for it if we are going to include it. But they used the Huffington Post as a reference, and there are better sources available.Elinruby (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I've changed the HuffPost source to a Toronto Star/Canadian Press story. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 15:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

This is WP:UNDUE. It should be removed from the article. {MordeKyle} ☢ 02:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

It is not the error, it is the fact the Fox error acquired an official government reaction, which is rare. -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand the notability, though it is WP:UNDUE here. It would not be so on Fox news' own article, but it is in this article. The section is government reaction to the shooting, not government reactions to the media coverage of the shooting. {MordeKyle} ☢ 20:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I was replying to 103.232.148.4 , hence the level of indentation; Though this still seems to be the most relevant article, since it is a reaction to events surrounding this incident. That the Fox News article could also use this detail does not make it the only article that could use it. As for what section the details go into, that could be changed. -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

It is still WP:UNDUE. If you include this, then you also must include every other mention of media misreporting every incident that happens these days. This just isn't notable, especially considering how news is reported these days. To focus on one minor thing like this, is just undue, no matter who the source is. You can look to many other articles for examples of this. A lot of people and organizations try their best to interject political issues into every incident like this. If try to make fox look bad or try to promote their views, you have to do the same to all the other WP:FRINGE views that people/organizations have. Wikipedia is not the place for this. {MordeKyle} ☢ 20:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

it was the target of an APPARENT Islamophobic hate crime when a pig's head was left outside the mosque

Should read "apparent" or "suspected", as nobody was caught and convicted. Remains the possibility that it could have been a false flag operation. "Apparent" is also the term used by the same cited newspaper. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/01/29/multiple-people-reported-shot-by-gunmen-at-quebec-city-mosque/%7C182.48.157.188]] (talk) 05:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Valid point. Added this source and rephrased for NPOV. Ranze (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I would think that a pig's head left outside a church, or a government office, or business, would represent the same thing, an attempt at criminal intimidation (like leaving a horse head in a bed). Intimidating a religious organization seems to be typically called a hate crime. -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I would think so too. CBC news (can't paste link because of some stupid Google prevention bot) has "xenophobic attack". Drmies (talk)

Per WP:BLPCRIME, everything that is accusatory in nature, needs to be very apparent that it is only an accusation and their must be substantial sourcing by very reliable sources. Editors must seriously consider not including this information, unless it is necessary for the encyclopedic entry. {MordeKyle} ☢ 02:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

You mean http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-city-centre-culturel-islamique-de-quebec-1.3957875 ?--Auric talk 02:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Some individual reporters have jumped to labeling the incident certain ways even though it is unresolved. We should not make that mistake. Their observations are notable to convey as observations but not as reliable sources on facts since it is an unresolved case. As WashPo rightly observes, we at best know how it apparently seems because we do not actually know the state of mind or intent of whoever put the head the since we do not know who did it. Ranze (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

This is correct. See WP:VNT. {MordeKyle} ☢ 20:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)