Talk:Quebec City mosque shooting/Archive 2

Facebook Likes

I advise everyone not to violate Wikipedia:POV by cherrypicking the shooters motives. Lumbering in thought (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I reverted you because simply adding a list of his "likes" is OR: we can't use facebook as a source and we can't editorialize about his motives. If there was a reliable source that discussed his facebook likes, mentioning it would be acceptable. But just listing some of his likes (and ignoring many others) is POV in the extreme. As it is, reliable sources have specifically discussed him liking Trump and Le Pen, not Katy Perry or the NDP. Adding them is POV. freshacconci talk to me 21:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Lumbering in thought: Liking something on Facebook has absolutely nothing to do with motivations for this crime. The addition of this poorly sourced information is a violation of WP:UNDUE.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the issue may be that some media sources made a big deal about him liking Trump and Le Pen. In light of that, there has been some social media (although not MSM as far as I know) discussion of his other likes (as in, he liked the NDP so how could he be right wing). The problem is, there is no RS discussion about him liking Katy Perry and adding it here is, as you say, UNDUE and it's also blatantly editorializing and OR. We would need some good sources to justify it and I doubt anyone has discussed this at length outside of social media. freshacconci talk to me 21:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

It isn't WP:OR to simply cite a primary source with what are by definition, political motivations. The fact that those motivations attribute to a shooter makes no difference than if they were attributed to a golfer. Other than that, I think we have WP:consensus. Please no WP:vandalism. Lumbering in thought (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually it is OR to use a primary source to establish motive. That's why we use secondary sources: others must be discussing this before we can use it. And what consensus? Two editors have stated that the info on Katy Perry et al is POV and shouldn't be included. Only you are saying we should include it. And what vandalism are you referring to? I reverted you. That is not vandalism. Don't accuse other editors of vandalism simply because you don't agree with their edits. freshacconci talk to me 22:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Lumbering in thought: I highly suggest you familiarize yourself a little better with the policies you are linking. No one has committed any vandalism here, as has been brought to your attention previously. You must however, WP:AGF, and stop accusing people of vandalism. Any mention of this guy "liking" something on facebook, and it being linked to some sort of motivation for his crimes, is nothing more than WP:OR, and any reliable sources who are reporting that this was his motivation are only stating their opinion that has no basis in fact. Short of this guy coming out and saying something like, "I did this for Trump" or "Katey Perry made me do it" there is no reason to include any of this information in this article. This whole thing is WP:UNDUE and probably WP:FRINGE.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually it seems you're still uneducated about the concept of vandalism. "The wanton removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core of neutral point of view" You've demonstrated time after time that you're quite willing to violate WP:POV without regard to our Wikipedia.

WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE are about unpopular pseudoscience, not descriptive primary sources. I hope this isn't a case of Shotgun Argumentation

"A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. "

The description of the suspect's political motives, in the section called "Suspect", is hardly "unpopular pseudoscience". My brow raised when you moved the goalposts to "I did this for X" as the new standard for talking about the motivations, which would require deleting every one of the accepted secondary sources on the basis of their irrelevancy. Funnily enough even with a confession, it makes sense to include as many political motivations as possible on the "Suspect" section. Hopefully we can reach consensus and further your education.

Hello, I'm Lumbering in thought. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.

Lumbering in thought (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Lumbering in thought: I wasn't going to respond to this, but I just can't help myself.

Actually it seems you're still uneducated about the concept of vandalism. "The wanton removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core of neutral point of view"

The content you are referring to has no encyclopedic value.

You've demonstrated time after time that you're quite willing to violate WP:POV without regard to our Wikipedia.

Please show me examples of this.

WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE are about unpopular pseudoscience, not descriptive primary sources.

WP:FRINGE is, however WP:UNDUE is not. Please read this policy.

I hope this isn't a case of Shotgun Argumentation

I've only used two arguments... I certainly hope you don't consider that "such a large number of arguments for a position that the opponent can't possibly respond to all of them."

The description of the suspect's political motives, in the section called "Suspect", is hardly "unpopular pseudoscience".

Again, this is WP:OR. Show me how "liking" something on Facebook is a political motive to murder people.

My brow raised when you moved the goalposts to "I did this for X" as the new standard for talking about the motivations, which would require deleting every one of the accepted secondary sources on the basis of their irrelevancy.

See the last point I made. I didn't move any goalposts, I simply stated that in order for us to know why he "Liked" a page on Facebook, he'd have to tell someone.

Funnily enough even with a confession, it makes sense to include as many political motivations as possible on the "Suspect" section.

No, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

Hopefully we can reach consensus and further your education.

A consensus has been reached and is in line with the above mentioned Wikipedia policies. As far as my education goes, I'm always up for learning new things, however, you'd be best served to Comment on content, not on the contributor.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 22:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Considering you forfeited the argument about WP:OR, WP:FRINGE and just now failed to provide proof this is WP:UNDUE (unpopular), I fail to see how in reality you didn't only try to explain me away. You both accepting the use of asinine techniques likes putting a line through the text as well jazzing up your response with talkquotes seems rather compensatory. You also seem to utterly fail to understand political motives compel everyone from golfers to shooters which is why I left out the non political motives. I continue to strive for consensus and educating you on vandalism.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Lumbering in thought (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lumbering in thought: I'm still not sure why I'm responding to you...

Considering you forfeited the argument about WP:OR, WP:FRINGE and just now failed to provide proof this is WP:UNDUE (unpopular), I fail to see how in reality you didn't only try to explain me away.

Huh?

You both accepting the use of asinine techniques likes putting a line through the text as well jazzing up your response with talkquotes seems rather compensatory.

Well someone lined out a user talk template you placed on a mainspace talk page... And using talk quotes makes it easier to directly respond to each point you make... I would hardly call that asinine, but whatever man.

You also seem to utterly fail to understand political motives compel everyone from golfers to shooters which is why I left out the non political motives.

I understand how political motives work. Facebook likes are not political motives. This is the issue with the inclusion here, and apparently what you cannot wrap you mind around. Just the other day I liked a Facebook page for an organization that rescues stray dogs. If I went and did something crazy like this a few days later, would that mean that that organization was my motivation for the crimes that I had committed? No, it doesn't. Could it have been the motivation? Sure. The issue is, no one knows exactly why I clicked the "Like" button on Facebook.

I continue to strive for consensus and educating you on vandalism.

Well keep striving for that consensus, I encourage you to place a request for comment or report me for vandalism. I also encourage you to open your mind a little and understand that you may not know as much as you think you do about Wikipedia. 18% of your edits on Wikipedia have been on this talk page. I think everyone here has been pretty kind to you, and tried to help you along, but you're just not going to see the light here. I do really encourage you to contact an administrator on this, because they will be best equipped to help you, if anyone can. I won't be responding to this thread anymore as there is no real conversation left to be had. Good luck to you in the future.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Yet more arguments. Now you claim to not only disapprove of it being original research unpopular pseudoscience, but that it's a totally real, primary source Facebook Like. A good example of Kettle Logic if I ever saw one. What is not a Facebook Like is your Animal Rights Like that wasn't included because it's not on his page, not because it doesn't show anyone's political motivations. I will go to the admins after I snatch all the arguments from these people and strive for consensus.

• I think we're dealing with WP:CIR here at that this point. freshacconci talk to me 14:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Lumbering in thought (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to see an admin deal with the person who is uneducated on vandalism here. But be aware putting a line through a warning doesn't lend you much competence of your own.

Lumbering in thought (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I encourage you to talk to an administrator. freshacconci talk to me 01:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

This is fascinating.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Fascinating, yes, User:MordeKyle. I'm not sure what exactly he's doing above this -- started a request for comment in the middle of a thread, wrote both support and opposing statements (I guess he's not sure what he thinks?) and then started a threaded discussion -- again in the middle of another thread -- where he appears to be having a conversation with himself. Definitely a competence issue and just flat-out bizarre. At this point I won't be responding to anything he posts as it's futile. Consensus is clearly to leave the facebook like info out and we can probably leave it at that. freshacconci talk to me 14:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC about Facebook Likes

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.

---

Should the "Suspect" section contain political motivations reflected by the shooters Facebook Likes? Lumbering in thought (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support Facebook Likes are a modern day way to show political motivations, such as the glaring lack of politically motivated badges Freshacconci has strewn across his wikipedia profile to look as neutral as possible to the wikipedia community. Lumbering in thought (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, No one actually cares about those things. Freshacconci is getting around to putting his Facebook Likes on his wikipedia page. Lumbering in thought (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment The article should not cite Facebook as the source for the suspect's motivations. However, if a reliable source reported on the suspect's Facebook activities and described it as the suspect's motivation, then it's appropriate to include. Wikipedia should make sure not to give undue weight to such reporting; the article should include any qualifiers contained in the source, such as describing them as "possible" motivations, or simply topics of investigation, as appropriate. I'm...not convinced that this is a legitimate RfC. Is the RfC mechanic possibly being abused here? --DavidK93 (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Concerning the implications of Facebook Likes in general, read my "Oppose" view. Also, Political motives compel everyone from golfers to shooters which is why the non political motives were left out. See Tiger_Woods#Other_pursuits. Assigning qualifiers like "Probable" or merely "Possible" to a primary source is WP:POV.

Lumbering in thought (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Response to DavidK93: My feeling is that a brief discussion of his motivations based on facebook likes can be used if it is well sourced -- there are reliable sources that floated the idea that liking Trump and Le Pen on facebook pointed to motive. However, that is clearly speculation based on something very trivial and should be treated as such. My thoughts on this issue have become somewhat lost as Lumbering in thought has made a mess of this talk page, starting discussions and this RfC in the middle of other comments, moving things around and leaving behind stray signatures. It's hard to follow at this point. I'd say this is not a legitimate RfC as it's malformed, he's written both Support and Oppose statements, which are actually mainly about me for some reason. I've stated elsewhere that I won't respond to him further as it's pointless at this time. At least three editors have stated that information on facebook likes should not be included as Lumbering in thought proposed: an indiscriminate selection of "likes" including pop stars and sourced by a Wayback Machine archive of facebook. He somehow feels that original research is acceptable and WP:UNDUE does not apply. In any case, there is clear consensus right now for no mention of facebook likes as proposed. As I said, a very brief mention is acceptable if it is well-sourced and it's clear that this is just speculation on the part of the sourced authors about motive and nothing further, although the value of this is debatable. freshacconci talk to me 15:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I encourage you to stop using tautologies as your evidence. In response to WP:UNDUE the explanation given was "WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE are about unpopular pseudoscience, not descriptive primary sources." It's not WP:OR to simply cite a primary source with what are by definition, political motivations. Then you make the same mistake as Morde and use Kettle Logic to say that the selection was indiscriminate anyway, when the answer was Political motives compel everyone from golfers to shooters which is why the non political motives were left out. See Tiger_Woods#Other_pursuits. I continue to strive for consensus and educating you on vandalism.

Lumbering in thought (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose unless worded exquisitely - Facebook likes are not the same as political talking points spoken to the public by a politician or celebrity. There are plenty of reasons why Facebook likes can be meaningless. Many people (and I am guilty of many of these myself):

1) have multiple Facebook accounts and make up/alter personalities for each. Go figure why, although I imagine it's the same reason people log on to Wikipedia to write poop jokes in infoboxes.

2) click "like" "dislike" on a whim, for perhaps something as ephemeral as a TV ad glimpsed that morning.

3) lie about viewpoints on Facebook to seem more acceptable to family members/friends stalking their Facebook pages (there are many closets to hide in, for many good reasons).

4) to piss off a Facebook frenemy with a different political view, after an argument earlier in the day

5) simply to troll for responses (many people see Facebook as dumb and many don't take it seriously)

6) click 'like' to make it easy to later find and reread a funny or interesting post they glimpsed in a Facebook group.

7) change their real-life political views/talking points weekly. Accordingly, likes/dislikes change. For all we know, he converted to Shia Islam the day before the shooting, and wanted to kill some Sunnis.

In short, no matter how initially coincidental it might seem, if he had clicked "like" for Hillary Clinton and then shot up some Southern baptists, concluding that the 'like' proves motive is, at very best, lazy speculation. At worst, it's stupid, as having an aggressive political/cultural stance opinion does not make one a murdering psychopath by default, even if those views may be repugnant to others. I do think, if the media makes a huge point about Facebook likes being "evidence" of motivation, then the wording should make the focus on the media's speculation, and not be worded such that the association comes off as fact. For example,

Do: After his online activity was partially made public in the press, the mainstream media noted that he had 'liked' several topics associated with anti-Muslim sentiments, with some publications speculating the 'likes' proved motive. Yvarta (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't: He had previously "liked" various topics associated with violent anti-Muslim sentiments on Facebook... Yvarta (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Concerning the implications of Facebook Likes in general, read my "Oppose" view. What is not a Facebook Like is your Hillary Clinton Like that wasn't included because it's not on his page, not because it doesn't show anyone's political motivations.

Lumbering in thought (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Clicking the "Like" button on Facebook does no indicate anything. See Yvarta's post above for a very detailed explanation.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Selective citing of Facebook likes is both WP:OR and WP:BIAS. WWGB (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not WP:OR to simply cite a primary source with what are by definition, political motivations. Political motives compel everyone from golfers to shooters which is why the non political motives were left out. See Tiger_Woods#Other_pursuits.

Lumbering in thought (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Clearly consensus is for oppose, even when factoring in Yvarta's well-reasoned exceptional situations. As WWGB succinctly put it, selective citing of Facebook likes is WP:OR. Obviously we're dealing with a basic competence situation and I don't think any of us need humour fundamental misunderstandings of original research and vandalism any further. Unless there are any legitimate objections, it seems that any editor can revert attempts to reinsert the text in question, based in consensus here. freshacconci talk to me 18:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• I have concerns about the "Suspect" section. Lumbering in thought (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The concerns are scattered around my section.Lumbering in thought (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Lumbering in thought (talk) 09:00, 2 March 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.

Islamophobic bias against the word "Islamophobia"

User:freshacconci reverted an edit of mine describing the attack as Islamophobic, saying he personally prefers the term anti-Muslim. Leaving aside the matter of why his preference should dictate content and style in this entry, absent any Wikipedia rule against it, there is, of course, the matter that his argument makes no sense whatsoever. If "anti-Muslim" and "Islamophobia" say the same thing, as freshacconci concedes, how can one be more NPOV than the other?

There's a campaign in Western politics and media against the use of the word Islamophobia, but the entire objection comes from Islamophobic sources - nativists like Bissonnette himself, far-right Zionists, and warmongering atheist writers, some of whom likely had Alex as fan, if his social media activity is any evidence.

The campaign against the word Islamophobia are exactly - and I do mean exactly - like the arguments that social conservatives raised against the word "homophobia" in the 2000s: "It's not really a phobia against Muslims/gays, this word is an attempt to gag critique of Muslims/gays".

It is not the word Islamophobia that is POV - it's attempts to eliminate that word from public discourse, despite the fact that Islamophobia, as proven by Bissonnette's example, is very much a real thing and describes sentiments and actions that are decidedly real. 177.158.153.92 (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

First of all, you need to assume good faith. Secondly, arguing your point by wildly flailing about will not win you any points. Anti-Muslim and Islamaphobia do essentially mean the same, as in being against Islam and people who self-describe as Muslim or come from a Muslim background. The difference for our purposes here is that Islamaphobia as a term is politically loaded; your examples above show exactly that. As Wikipedia must maintain a neutral stance, using the less political term anti-Muslim follows WP:NPOV more closely. Removing Islamaphobia from the article is not a denial of its existence. I'm personally of the opinion that it is a real thing. But as Wikipedia editors we need to leave our personal opinions at the door as much as humanly possible. Multiple sources state that the shooting is anti-Muslim. Some others do use the term Islamaphobia. The problem is, we cannot state categorically that it was Islamaphobic: we can state that some sources do, but we have to be careful how we do so. As it stands, the way it was written, anti-Muslim is the more neutral term. freshacconci talk to me 23:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

If there are sources that use both terms then why not use both terms? Something like, "...and had far-right, white nationalist, and anti-Muslim or Islamophobic views.". That way Wikipedia doesn't have to decide which term is more correct. Felsic2 (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

As long as it's well-sourced, I don't have an objection to that. I just feel that Islamophobia is too culturally loaded at this time, but tempering it by stating that sources calling it either Islamophobia or anti-Muslim is acceptable in my opinion. freshacconci talk to me 16:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I honestly think everyone is reading way too far into this. Islamaphobia would mean fear of Islam or Islamic people. There is no real sources that say he was afraid of Islam or it's followers. It is rather clear however, that he did, at the very least, not like Muslim people, and that makes him Anti-Muslim, does it not?  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

What a truly stupid argument. And as said above, it is truly exactly like the arguments that social conservatives used to raise against the term "homophobia" - it's not a true "phobia". You people should understand something - a word's meaning is not limited by its etymology. Words are frequently used to mean something other than its origins, or its etymology, implies. Anglophobia and francophobia don't mean fear of English or French people, respectively - they mean aversion to those nations, hatred against them. And those words, which have been around since at least the 19th century, are part of the cannon in several Western languages. Ditto more recent words like homophobia and transphobia, which are used without fuss in many Wikipedia entries, without systematic attempts to use in their stead euphemisms like "anti gay" or "anti trans". Islamophobia was created to refer to not to fear but to anti-Muslim prejudice, the same as the sister words used above, and treating Islamophobia differently from those other words is therefore itself evidence of Islamophobia. Rafe87 (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

"Anti-Muslim" and "Islamophobia" are two very different words, and we cannot presume they are interchangable. We need to stick to what the sources have affirmed. --MASEM (t) 23:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

@TheBD2000:I reverted your bold addition of conspiracy theories. I reverted because it is WP:FRINGE and not a widely held view.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 19:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• WP:FRINGE definitely applies here as does WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV -- we always have to be careful about labeling people and organizations and unless there has been a great deal of coverage in a wide-range of sources, this will come off as weasely ("many conspiracy theorists...have doubted"). Likewise, is Wikipedia calling these people/organizations conspiracy theorists? It's possible to develop a well-sourced version of this, if the Sandy Hook father discussed this event, that might be significant if it was widely covered. But again, we have to tread lightly. freshacconci (✉) 20:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

freshacconci, regarding your comment "I'm not sure what you think WP:BURDON [sic] means but there is a discussion on the talk page and you should discuss this not restore it.", WP:BURDEN states that the burden of evidence is on the editor to prove reliable sources. I backed up my edit with a reliable source, and now reverting my edit needs consensus. The edit is to remain on the page until consensus has been reached. However, it is no secret that Alex Jones is definitely a conspiracy theorist. And my source says that there are many other conspiracy theorists making hypotheses for this event. More sources are on my article Quebec City mosque shooting conspiracy theories. TheBD2000 (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC) TheBD2000 (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, TheBD2000 WP:BURDEN means you must provide a source to add something. However, it does not mean that yours is the legitimate version if other editors dispute it. If there is a dispute, the onus is on you to provide a rationale in the talk page discussion. WP:BURDEN does not give you license to edit war, which is what you are doing and it certainly does not give you license to circumvent discussion. Yours is not the preferred version and unless you establish consensus here, you should refrain from reverting. Two editors disagree with you. Make a case here. Further edit warring can result in a block. freshacconci (✉) 22:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

TheBD2000 please see WP:BRD. You were Bold and added the content, I Reverted the content, and now we are here Discussing the content. There are not two R's in BRD. Therefore it should not remain on the page until concensus is reached, especially considering that another editor has potentially brought up a WP:BLP issue.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 22:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, adding a source does not negate the WP violations. This is WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and a WP:BLP violation by stating that this Alex Jones guy is a conspiracy theorist, as is calling his network the same thing.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 22:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Misleading sentence

I removed a misleading sentence about not charging the suspect with a terrorism charge. There was a sentence that said muslims aren't given the same treatment but I looked at both of the sources for that and they were talking about public perception, not actual charges. The law is well defined in Canada that you must have a link to a terrorist group in order to get a charge for terrorism and lone wolf muslims who have carried out similar attacks did not receive terrorism charges either. Dilute13 (talk) 04:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Still in critical condition

Are some of the victims really still in a critical condition? --Klausok (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)