Talk:2014 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu ramming attack

reversion of POV/SYNTH by original author, who had added words NOT in the sources.

The presumption, not in the sources used to have asserted it in the original version of this article, that this was a "terrorist attack", is a controversial matter under dispute in Canada and also re attempts to rename the Parliament Hill shootings article, where I laid out the origins of the "terrorist incidents in Canada" category, which was also created by the author of this article, whose specialty per his contributions appears to be terrorist articles worldwide. Such wording, and its use by the PM and RCMP, is viewed askance by many in the Canadian media and also from the Leader of the Opposition; public sentiment at large is that these were crazy people, not terrorists or organized by IS or Iran or anyone; "just" people with serious personal problems and drug issues; as evinced here by the suspicious origins (yes, suspicious) of this article and category, built on fabrication and propagating a distortion of the media reports as if it were a fact....is not just POV but rank SYNTH and SOAP and is an abuse of Wikipedian neutrality for political ends.

The attempt to reinstate that fabrication I have reverted and will resist; the issue of "what is terrorism?" hangs over these events, and also in the case of the 2014 Moncton shootings which terrorized Moncton and saw three Mounties die and were more systematically ideological (just white and conservative, though preaching open rebellion), yet the media (and the government and RCMP) have sidestepped the term "terrorist incident" for that; that question/point comes up again and again in media and blog commentary on the "terrorism hype" that is being used by the government to advance Patriot Act-style police powers and surveillance laws despite widespread opposition....and serious reservations about calling either event "terrorism" and any silly claims that these were the first times that Canada has seen terrorism (far from it).

There is also serious concern in Canada that "terrorism" has been used to describe/denounce environmental and native and other protests, and a general consensus that "we are a wounded nation, not a terrorized one" per one journalists/blog on HuffPo. Foreign attempts to inflate these events as a terrorist strike at the heart of Canada etc are out of proportion to their context and with disregard to the controversial nature of the terminology in Canada, and the agenda that it is being used to serve, and in the context of other events in Canada which the media avoid calling "terrorism" but which partisan pundits regularly do. These were not IS attacks, they were not terrorism by any normal measure...and Wikipedia should not allow itself to be used for dissemination of propagandized reporting, as was done here from teh very first edit, without any citation at all saying what Shulmaven wrote.

What I see in the original cites and wording, however, is a clear introduction of the "terrorist theme" to this article, rather than an innocent parroting of foreign coverage which is generally a crib or op-ed extenuation on actual Canadian coverage...on the other article there have been blatant false edit comments, wording added that wasn't in the sources provided (just like here), so any pretense that the attempt here was to "improve" the article by introducing the same unsourced, SYNTH-interpretation wording is, to put it politely, disingenuous. The category should be deleted (I had not fielded a CfD yet due to the ongoing RM at the Parliament Hill article...which is now closed), as also observed on the Parliament Hill talkpage, as unsubstantiated, POV and created with the "terrorist" wording in the same way that "X was a terrorist" was fabricated here, with obvious POV, given the background of the author in streams of Middle East-related terrorist-themed articles in his user contributions. The edit comment of his restoration of the questionable wording said "improve, I hope". No, it wasn't an improvement; no fabricated, blatantly POV rewording of the sources, or outright POV fabrication, should ever be portrayed as "improvement" to a Wikipedia article.

A crazy man "inspired" by a terrorist group IS (Couture-Rouleau) is not automatically a terrorist, and the media (e.g. the National Post) expressly did not say that; in the case of Zehaf-Bibeau, his converted Islam was far out of left field, spouting how the Hadith is the work of the Devil, and raving about the end of the world...when not f**ked up on crack. Hardly an IS warrior, and someone IS would likely have beheaded if he'd spouted off at them like he had to the elders at the Mosque in Burnaby. in Couture-Rouleau's case, given he is said to have actually been inspired by IS' recent call for the faithful to kill Canadians, that's a wholly different thing than saying that he "was a terrorist". His lawyer might differ, but he's dead and doesn't have one, same with Zehaf-Bibeau. But the Canadian public-at-large differs, as do many notable journalists and others....and the Leader of the Opposition also.Skookum1 (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

re the suspect origins of this article and the attempt to re-POVize content, and POVize the title

The attempt to re-title this article to match the "terrorism hype" campaign that is hotly under dispute in Canada despite int'l media's unwitting repetition/propagation of that theme has been reverted. Given the attempted mover's use of completely fabricated wording not in sources given and an attempt yesterday to "improve" the article by reintroducing those fabrications, I'm of the opinion that Shulmaven should be blocked and his contributions on scores of other articles on terrorism also face review and rollback. Here are my initial comments on a section about this page's POV activity/authorship on the Ottawa shootings talkpage, where I have also added notes about today's attempt to POVize the title]]:

I have discovered that the word "terrorist", including in since-removed wording from the lede, was in the original version of the article created by ShulMaven, also on the 27th. Again, the word was not in the sources used, and given the parallel creation of the category by the same user, and the POV issues with it here, and in Canada at large, such actions as creating articles with other-than-sources wording that is of POV nature is observed; and the call to delete the category underscored. Much of the SJsR article was worked on by a new SPA whose only edits, virtually, have been on that page, or this one, plus adding this to List of terrorist incidents, 2014 and two in the 2014 New York City hatchet attack article. The article was greatly expanded, also, by another user whose history includes edits on the Michael Brown matter and on such as 2014 Isla Vista killings and a rather interesting set of other articles/diffs. Worth looking at ShulMaven's contributions, also. Not pointing fingers, just observing that POV-inclined editors have propagated the use of the term "terrorism" and their edit histories/agendas are worth referring to. I'll remove these incidents from the list of terrorist attacks articles, for what by now are obvious reasons in wikipedia terms.

I will be filing a CfD on the POV category title also created/fabricated by Shulmaven.....and am contemplating the POV noticeboard, though it has a backlog. These are not trivial concerns; dishonest edit comments, POV text fabricated without sources and more.Skookum1 (talk) 04:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)\

I removed the unrelated NYC and Jerusalem items from the See also, and in noting hte new addition there looked into it, it was made entirely by Shulmaven, saying in his initial edit "new page, provoked by rise in this tactic bringing tactic, motivation under scrutiny". Continued POV/SYNTH of this kind should not be tolerated; I will file an AfD on that article also, because of its obvious POV motivation and genesis. Propaganda is not welcome in Wikipedia.Skookum1 (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Links were there because the incidents werediscussed as similar or related, in the press.ShulMaven (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• 2014 New York City hatchet attack
• October 2014 Jerusalem vehicular attack
• reply oh, well, if you're going to start using blogs and op-eds to bolster your case it makes the lack of neutrality in your obvious agenda had all the more clear as POV and opinion-only. I don't suppose you've even though to look at the many Canadian blogs and op-eds that are very critical of the government/police rhetoric/agenda here. If we're going to start including blogs and op-eds, this article has a long way to go before it achieves balance. One of your Daily Beast titles reads "Lone Wolves, Terrorist Runts, and the Stray Dogs of ISIS Why ISIS and al Qaeda rely on loners and losers to carry out their terrorist agenda in the West" as if they were ISIS and not just crazy men with drug problems as is a very common consensus in Canada which even a casual scan of the Huffington Post, ipolitics.ca and any number of blogs will readily show, as will the political agenda underlying the propagation of descrptions of these events as "terrorism" or trying to link them directly to ISIS. In Zehaf-Bibeau's case, the girlfriend of the soldier killed has called for action on the mental health crisis and the article about that (in www.straight.com) didn't not mention "terrorism" even once; the government/police propagation of the term, which began on Conservative Party Twitter accounts, is also widely criticized and viewed askance in mainstream op-eds as well as throughout blogspace. Also typical of the parroting effect of the international press is the claim that the photo of Zehaf-Bibeau that was attributed to ISIS was not released by ISIS, only repeated by it, yet throughout world media it was reported it was an ISIS photo. The reliability of parroted misinformation is a problem; but you are intent on perpetuating and inflaming it.Skookum1 (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

References

yet another false edit comment "according to sources"....uh, no

Seems to be yet more SYNTH coming from the same editor who fabricated what sources had said to suit his own POV/agenda. This edit says "according to sources" but I just read through both sources given, the word "presumably" is in neither, and indicates presumption by the editor, and is therefore SYNTH/OR and speculative in nature.Skookum1 (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I reverted it not just because it was grossly misspelled but because of the "presumably"...it is not a Wikipedian's "job" to "presume" anything, or to re-interpret reportage according to a visible agenda.Skookum1 (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

yet another false edit comment to mask POV deletion

Glenn Greenwald is not "fringe" and this particular column has been widely repeated on Canadian sites and beyond. I have restored it, placing it in the American commentary section. It seems I will have to review all of Shulmaven's edits since my expansion to check their validity and the veracity/believability of the edit comments. British and European commentaries up next, to offset the US-military-mouthpiece RAND Corporation analysis...Skookum1 (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

and yet another

This deletion of a citation was marked as "minor" by Shulmaven; since when is deleting a citation "minor". Not the first false/misleading edit comment by Shulmaven, seems I'll be finding more in reviewing his recent edits.Skookum1 (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

and another

this edit is labelled "detail, source" but the change from "wanted" to "had attempted" is not in the source.Skookum1 (talk) 05:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• That is general comment by Glenn Greenwald not a specific reaction to this incident alone and other comment removed also is a general one .42.111.197.50 (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

British Newspaper Article

I have deleted both of the british newspaper articles that were on this page. Neither of them pertained to this incident. Nothing to do with this article. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed ACanadianToker- those articles are actually about the new Canadian anti-terror legislation and effects on privacy and freedoms. Most of the quoted opinion pieces are on that topic, mentioning this topic in passing for background. Legacypac (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Revisions and Corrections

I've just posted a revision. I checked all cited sources and found a number of statements in the article were not reflective of the sources. Similarly, some of the quotes presented from opinion pieces did not accurately reflect the thrust of the article quoted and at least one directly contradicted what the article's lead in to the quotes says. Although prominent claims were made in the article, in fact none of the sources cited actually said this was not a terrorist attack (with the exception of one neighbor quoted, which is still in there). In particular the assertion that Mulcair denied this event was a terrorist attack was simply not correct (he was only talking about the Ottawa event only). Many of the cited articles are actually attacking proposed changes to anti-terrorism laws that per about to be tabled, mentioning this event only as part of the context, and although they are really best put in another article about terrorism legislation, I've grouped them together at the end of this article. Inserted is some additional details about the subject's radicalization. The statement that he came out of the car with his hands up (implying unjustified police shooting) was a very unfair use of just part of a witness statement, omitting that the same witness and other witnesses said he charged the police with a large knife, which witnesses said was still stuck in the grass after the shooting. Legacypac (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the section is needed. I have deleted the guardian articles though. I don't think they really addressed this incident, nor the proposed anti-terror legislation. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with both your interpretations/claims but am weary of arguing the obvious and winding up in pointless word-games and already got sucked into an edit-war by such activities. Mulcair was referring to both events in his original speech/statement and in the first article I saw about it. And re both Guardian articles Toker's opinion is not just wrong, it's counter-factual; both articles are about both events (O'Toole's says "two soldiers" meaning the one who died in SJsR as well as Nathan Cirillo and both addressed the anti-terror legislation/agenda of the government. Another similar statement is on the Ottawa article from Elizabeth May:

Green Party leader Elizabeth May said in the House of Commons: "I would put money on these being the acts of isolated, disturbed and deeply troubled men who were drawn to something crazy. I do not believe that it was a vast network, or that the country is more at risk today than it was last week."

Note the "deeply troubled men. She was not referring to ZB alone, just as Muclair wasn't (ok in the one article linked it's in the ZB context but there are other articles out there)

Then there's the ongoing attempt to suppress the obvious terrorism-connection/comparison to the Moncton shootings, which has been ongoing here for a while, which mirrors the govt's/RCMP's own aversion to that comparison. Say what you like about Emer O'Toole's article, or the comparison, being "not relevant", that's your opinions and not what is sourceable. On that note, also on the Ottawa article and very clear about that is this:

Linda McQuaig, an award-winning journalist and former NDP candidate, said "lots of hype about Canada and our institutions being under attack — even as it got harder to explain the difference between the ‘terrorist’ murders of two soldiers and the ‘non-terrorist’ murders of three RCMP officers in Moncton. The main difference appeared to be that the shooter in Moncton was not a follower of Islam".[157]</ref>

But calling white black seems to be par for the course around here....and I weary of the game and know the rules don't matter, rather force of POV claims and opinions is what's going on here; and the upshot is POV censorship. @IndelibleHulk:, @Alaney2k: please take note of this. If not for my now-aversion to these articles I'd have added McQuaig's comment here, but not doubt the two back-scratching each other's POV above would find some quasi-rationale to delete/suppress it too. I really should de-watchlist these articles, it's time-consuming and pointless, given the ongoing censorship/suppression/twisting of sources and claims that t hey don't say what they do will continue; and LP's claims that what the article said did not match what was in the article did not match what the sources said is just revanchist trying-to-point-the-finger back at me for pointing out his own many egregious/erroneous source-abuses on the Ottawa article (and already linked and commented on on that talkpage, despite his demands in his ANIs against me I produce proof...I already had). I tried to summarize only in my intros to the Guardian articles, I did not fabricate things, or make any kind of OR/SYNTH, such as with done re a G&M cite where "ISIL" and the Governor-General weren't mentioned though they were in LP's use of that cite (since deleted from the Ottawa article).

McQuaig's comment and the Guardian article are sourced materials; the opinions of Toker and LP as to whether they're irrelevant are only opinions of Wikipedians...Wikipedians who have a noticeable POV agenda, at that. And it's not like only McQuaig and O'Toole have made that comparison, ipolitics.ca had various articles about that, and places like canadians.org and rabble.ca have other op-ed copy saying the same thing. I dislike "process" so had not gotten to file a POV noticeboard yet about the ongoing info-suppression on these and other articles and got swept up in having to defend myself against the ANIs launched against me by LP....but I may yet, if what I see going on here and on the other page continues, i.e. "soaping" articles and using specious opinions and claims to justify censorship. @Wifione: note I have not used any expletives, but this is a good example of the ongoing POV problems that led to the edit war.Skookum1 (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Skookum1: I think your getting a little bit mixed up go double check the diffs. I don't remember seeing any globe and mail articles.. Also there is explicit mention of the moncton shootings.. Its under the media reaction sections

"In an opinion piece, Linda McQuaig, said "lots of hype about Canada and our institutions being under attack — even as it got harder to explain the difference between the 'terrorist' murders of two soldiers and the 'non-terrorist' murders of three RCMP officers in Moncton. The main difference appeared to be that the shooter in Moncton was not a follower of Islam".[26]"

- A Canadian Toker (talk) 04:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The G&M item referred to was removed here from the Ottawa article; compare what the addition I reverted said vs. what the G&M article actually had in it. Not the first time that kind of thing has gone with both articles = including this one from its very first edit. Reply below re McQuaig, I hadn't realized it was here yet, I'd added the O'Toole quote as someone had taken out the See also for the shootings a few times, saying "irrelevant".Skookum1 (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

the Bourque comparison/connection to the PM's "terror agenda"

As noted in the previous section, it's not hard to find sources that do raise the question of the comparison between the non-branding of the Moncton shootings as "terrorism" by government and police and the events in SJsR and Ottawa, which were, and right off that bat that term was applied:

...on Oct. 22, Prime Minister Stephen Harper immediately connected his killer to radical Islam and terrorism. Long before any facts were in, Harper claimed that all Canadians had been attacked by the actions of Michael Zehaf-Bibeau. There was never any talk from the PM about Zehaf-Bibeau’s mental instability or addiction to crack cocaine. His mother and Cpl. Cirillo’s girlfriend were left to develop that side of the debate on the fringes of the alternative media. The government’s narrative was immediately picked up and amplified by the CBC. The news coverage on the day of the shooting, and over the subsequent days of fear and grief that followed, looked like a pep rally for the PM’s version of events.

That is from this November 23 article on ipolitics.ca by Michael Harris. Farther on in the article makes very explicit the issue about the political/official disconnect (mirrored here by the editors who have been purging this page of that, as above) on NOT speaking of the Moncton shootings/Justin Bourque as "terrorism", and also the case re an individual known only as GG whose case is under wraps in Calgary right now. Lest I be accused, as above, of not saying what the article says when trying to condense it, I will blockquote a highly relevant passage from that article here; this belongs in some form on this page, and on the Ottawa page, and on the Moncton shootings page; there isn't, so far as I know, any article on GG's plan to bomb the Bantrel Tower in Calgary (unless it's on that building's article, if there is one, I haven't looked yet):

Admittedly, the prime minister had been dealt a hand he could play to the hilt with plausibility and great effect. After all, even though he came to his conclusion that Zehaf-Bibeau was a terrorist before the facts had been gathered, the shooter had killed a man in uniform and then attacked the seat of government in Canada. Surely it was not unreasonable to characterize such a man as a terrorist?

Understood — but then there’s this mystery to explain. If Michael Zehaf-Bibeau had committed a terrorist act in Ottawa by attacking important symbols of Canadian authority and governance, then what about the man known to the public only as “GG” who is currently going through the court process in Calgary?

GG is a former Canadian military intelligence officer — hence the secret name — who was planning to blow up a downtown skyscraper. It turns out that the skyscraper in question, the Bantrel Tower at 700 Sixth Avenue in Calgary, also housed a Veterans Affairs Office. GG had sought help from that office because he was “wound up very, very tight.”

He was looking for compensation for health care expenses incurred while still in the military. He was convinced that an H1N1 flu shot he had been given in the Forces had led to his contracting multiple sclerosis. Unsatisfied with the response he received from the Veterans Centre, GG gathered weapons, firearms and explosives and apparently planned to blow up the building that housed it.

When they arrested him, authorities also found a detailed map of the Bantrel Tower he intended to bomb. Oddly, though this was a major attack on a government installation in which the casualties would have been significant, GG faces no charges under Ottawa’s terrorist legislation.

When Justin Bourque shot down five Mounties in Moncton earlier this year, killing three of them, he specifically said he was out to kill government officials and wanted to start a revolution. Although he also mused about blowing up gas stations, he faced no terrorist charges arising out of his murderous rampage against authority.

Michael Zehaf-Bibeau and Martin Couture-Rouleau, who murdered Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, should be killing-cousins of Justin Bourque and the man known as GG. All of the them struck out against representatives of the government of Canada, or planned to in their own very violent ways.

Yet Stephen Harper weighed in on only two of the cases — those of Zehaf-Bibeau and Couture-Rouleau, whom he deemed to be terrorists. He had nothing to say about Bourque or the man known as GG, though their crimes and planned crimes (GG has entered a guilty plea on three charges) were similar strikes against the government and authority. Why?

Glenn Greenwald, the man in charge of the Edward Snowden Archive, was recently in Ottawa and was asked by journalist Jesse Brown how the word “terrorist” could be defined. Greenwald replied that it didn’t seem to be just about what a person did, but what they believed. Timothy McVeigh was a mass killer, Omar Khadr was a terrorist. A terrorist was a Muslim who acted out violently

For the record, Zehaf-Bibeau and Couture were Muslims, while Bourque and GG were not.

Italics for emphasis/highlighting were added by me (other than casus belli as normal for bits from Latin).

I know I can find more sources making "the Bourque connection", beyond O'Toole's article and Linda McQuaig's statement, but there's only so much time in a given day. The attempts to suppress that connection in this article, and in the Ottawa article, have been ongoing, with "removers" over and over saying again "irrelevant" but the sources are very clearly saying otherwise. If those removing the content were not so clearly of the "terror agenda" bent and not so clearly pro-government/authorities as they have been, their only-opinions as to relevance or irrelevance still would not stand up to the reality that they are only Wikipedians, and their opinions about what sources say or about (demonstrably wrong) are quite irrelevant. The connection to Justin Bourque and, as indicated above, the GG/Bantrel Tower matter, is sourceable and relevant, no matter what the info-suppression claims are. Unless you can find [legitimate] sources/op-eds that say "Justin Bourque was not a terrorist and those saying that are wrong the burden of proof-of-irrelevance is on your shoulders, not mine.

No doubt some put-down of this post will follow, and some attempt to dismiss Harris' ipolitics.ca article just as has been done with O'Toole and Greenwald and the Guardian editorial, and would no doubt be done if I or anyone came up yet more sources making exactly the same points and raising very same questions. Answers will be given by the deletion of same, with opinions of hostile editors being used as the justification. Dissociation and disconnection and suppression are stock fare in the propagandists' toolkit, same as in public relations firms' retooling of language/reality to mean something different than what it does. Such are the times. What's going on here is a demonstration that not only the Russian and Ukrainian and Chinese content and the like on Wikipedia is being systematically attacked/undermined and distorted by POV activists, paid or otherwise.Skookum1 (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Now that the recent attempt to silence me with a block or topic ban is over, I'll be watching this and further developments, and reviewing other sources, and may take a few days to launch it, but an ANI on the POV discussion board is long overdue. I just dislike process, and would rather not have to "take things upstairs" to deal with recalcitrant and ongoing POVism; no ANIs would ever be necessary if inclusion of information was as much a common practice as exclusion of information as there has been way too much of here.Skookum1 (talk) 09:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This clearly shows you are not keeping your word - because you agreed not to edit here. Legacypac (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@Skookum1: there is explicit mention of the moncton shootings.. Its under the media reaction sections

"In an opinion piece, Linda McQuaig, said "lots of hype about Canada and our institutions being under attack — even as it got harder to explain the difference between the 'terrorist' murders of two soldiers and the 'non-terrorist' murders of three RCMP officers in Moncton. The main difference appeared to be that the shooter in Moncton was not a follower of Islam".[26]" - A Canadian Toker (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I missed the addition of that here; I had only added O'Toole's item when putting it here, and because of being "busy elsewhere" had noticed the addition of the McQuaig quote. O'Toole's wording clearly references both this event and Ottawa, your removal of it, and the other Guardian article, is still info-suppression IMO.Skookum1 (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Also timothy mcveigh was most certainly a terrorist. - A Canadian Toker (talk)

That was Michael Harris' content/comparison; I see that the Timothy McVeigh article does have Category:People convicted of terrorism charges on it.Skookum1 (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)