Talk:2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apparent contradiction[edit]

In the wake of the incident, the Canadian government introduced a bill to expand the powers and courtroom anonymity of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), Canada's spy agency. The bill was slated to be introduced the day of the shootings, which postponed it.

OK if the word "introduced" means into parliament, this may be technically consistent. But the text should be written in a clearer way, if, indeed, this has any place in the article.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

Example:

The Canadian government had already prepared a bill to expand the powers and courtroom anonymity of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), Canada's spy agency, which was due to be introduced the day of the shootings, and was postponed by the event.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

Unencycplopaedic slang[edit]

The statement that "the downtown core of Ottawa was placed on lockdown" is unencyclopaedic slang, and poor English. "Central Ottawa was subject to unprecedented security measures" would be a more accurate statement.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

what is wrong with lockdown? A similar thing happened after the Boston Marathon bombing and the same term was used. All buildings closed etc. Legacypac (talk) 07:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Lockdown" is, in fact, the term used by the CBC, National Post, Global Television, The Globe and Mail, Ottawa Citizen, CTV, BBC, Yahoo!/Agence France-Presse, etc. In fact, the usage of "lockdown" to describe what happened is pretty much universal. Resolute 14:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Central Ottawa was subject to unprecedented security measures" is so vague as to be meaningless. Were there more police officers on patrol? Tanks in the street? Mounties going door-to-door? "Lockdown" is a common and easily understood word. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 February 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 00:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa → 2014 Ottawa shooting – WP:CONCISE, WP:COMMONNAME. It is more common to identify the incident as happening in Ottawa (963 Google Books souces) than Parliament Hill (734 Google Books sources); as noted in the last RM in 2014, the murder of the Canadian soldier didn't even happen on Parliament Hill (see map), making the fact that this inaccuracy in the title has persisted for over three years rather embarrassing.

Sites of shooting

The last RM failed because it proposed "attacks" rather than the favoured "shooting". Before that, it was nonsensically claimed "2014 Ottawa shooting" would imply 365 days of shootings, when in fact, as another user noted, "'2014 Ottawa shootings' no more means there was a year of shootings than '22 October 2014 Ottawa shootings' means there was 24 hours of shootings." There may have been other guns fired in 2014 in Ottawa, but it doesn't matter; this is recognizable and indisputably the primary topic for "2014 Ottawa shooting". Ribbet32 (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, no one at the article 2016 Nice attack has ever to my knowledge ever suggested that they thought that the attack lasted for the calendar year based on the title.--72.0.200.133 (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Title has been stable for years and I'm pretty sure this title was rejected early on when there was a lot of interest in the page. The significance is that the shootings happened at Parliament Hill, not just the city of Ottawa. The proposed title is inprecise amd covers all the shootings that happened in the City that year - and we deturmined there were a few of those. Clearly a less precise title does not help the reader understand or find the topic. Further - the War Memorial IS on Parliament Hill (which cover a wider area than the Parliament Buildings). Legacypac (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consensus can change and WP:PRECISE says "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." Say "2014 Ottawa shooting" and no one is going to think of any other shooting than this one. Google the phrase and see what turns up. It is WP:RECOGNIZABLE and the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC beyond the shadow of a doubt. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Only one of the shootings was at Parliament Hill. I tried to debate this when the event happened, but it fell on deaf ears. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the reasons given by Legacypac. Proposed title is ambiguous. The key fact about this event is that it was an attack at Parliament for some sort of political reason, and it in fact ended right in the Parliament buildings. The location is the most important point and should be reflected in the title. The same pattern is seen with Quebec City mosque shooting - it's not just that there was a shooting in Quebec; the fact that it occurred in a mosque is key to the significance of the article. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support more nature title. I suspect very few people get to this page from the search bar by typing in the name directly (this far too unwieldy), and the shorter name remains sufficiently precise without confusing any other events. We don't try to put any spin into the motives/target of the attack beyond the general location (eg the 2016 Nice attack above). The mosque article is consistent when the attack it at a single building/structure, ala 2017 Westminster attack, it's not specifically calling out the mosque as a critical element, only that that is the most precise location. --Masem (t) 13:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not spin when the title indicates why the event is notable. Why is this event more notable than any other shooting in Ottawa in 2014? Because of its location and the fact that at one point, the shooter was actually in the Parliament buildings. For whatever his motives, it was an attack on parliament - that's what makes it notable, and putting that in the title is not spin. Nor does the title of the Quebec City mosque shooting article provide a precise location - Google indicates that there are five mosques and one Islamic centre in Quebec City, and the article title doesn't tell which one. The reason for including "mosque" in the title of that article is the same as for referring to Parliament in this article title - the fact of the attack was on a mosque was part of what made it notable. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 11:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure but the 2016 Nice attack occured on public streets over a significant portion of the city's waterfront areas. It was an attack on the city of Nice and it's population, so that is the right title. This was an attack on Canada's Parliament, not the city of Ottawa generally. Legacypac (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fatal shooting was at the National War Memorial, which is not part of Parliament Hill. It may be close to Parliament Hill, but it is never confused for it. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The War Memorial is across the street from the Parliament Buildings, part of the Parlimemtry precinct, and clearly within the area commonly known as the Hill. The reason Ottawa is in the title is there is more than one Parliament Hill in the world, so we agreed to add Ottawa to DAB it. This was also the most prominate shooting in Ontario that year, but a move to 2014 shooting in Ontario would not be a good idea either. Frankly, I can't understand the motivation to make the page harder to find by choosing an imprecise title. The current title unambiguously refers to a particular series of events.
The Canadian Encyclopedia calls it [1] "Parliament Hill Attack" Macleans called it Parliament Hill shootings http://www.macleans.ca/bearing-witness-parliament-hill-shootings-oral-history/. Legacypac (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, you're not familiar with Ottawa. No one here refers to the War Memorial as being part of Parliament Hill (the "Parliamentary Precinct" is a very different definition). Parliament Hill is an actual hill on which the War Memorial is not on. Personally, as a local, I've found the article title to be border-line offensive in its ignorance. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lean oppose. If anything, including Parliament Hill in the title serves as an immediate aid in identifying the significance of this event vis a vis every other and often borderline routine article we have on shootings. And it does so while remaining concise. Really, the best objection presented is the fact that the War Memorial isn't technically on Parliament Hill itself. But given it is literally across the street, that is really just quibbling. Resolute 14:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "literally" across the street. It is a few blocks east of Parliament Hill. I know I'm being pedantic, but I think it's important not to underestimate that the two places are distinct locations, and are not confused for one another. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Earl Andrew with your local knowledge can you compare this statutory definition of the Hill with the location of the War Memorial? [2] with the map [3] showing it immediately across the street from the Parliament building grounds, just like the Prime Minster's Office is also immediately across the street. In land use designation we always count the zoning line as going to the middle of any fronting streets, but even if 100% of Wellington St is outside the Hill, the National War Memorial grounds are 20 m from the Parliamentry grounds, which is close enough for me in naming an event.
For a local, the idea of what is on the Hill is one thing, but sitting beyond the Rockies our perception of what is "Parliament Hill" is broader. By way of analogy, someone in Ontario may correctly (in their mind) say I live in Vancouver even though there are a few separate cities between me and the City of Vancouver, but someone sitting downtown Vancouver considers anything south of False Creek as hinterland. While traveling outside Canada I usually say I live in Vancouver because most people have an idea of it's existence from the Olympics etc, even though I would never say that to someone who lives in the Vancouver area. Legacypac (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. If a major event happened in Surrey I would be just as insistent the article title not include Vancouver. They are separate places. I will admit that the War Memorial is technically across the street, I guess, but I still maintain that it's not part of Parliament Hill so it shouldn't be in the article title. Is just mentioning Ottawa in the title too ambiguous? -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it would be ambiguous. Why would a shooting in Ottawa in 2014 be notable to the international audience reading Wikipedia? As soon as you include "Parliament" in the title, anyone reading it immediately knows from the title alone why it's notable. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ottawa is best known as the capital of Canada. I maintain there is nothing ambiguous about the proposed title and that it satisfies every naming convention, including WP:CONCISE, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:RECOGNIZABLE, and yes, WP:PRECISE, which specifically states that "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." Ribbet32 (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ottawa is the capital, yes, but it's also a large city. Just saying a shooting in Ottawa does not identify that it was an attack on parliament. The topic of an article is more than just time and place; the target of an attack is a key aspect of the topic of an article about that attack. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the East Block is itself separate from Parliament Hill, then yes, it is literally across the street. Resolute 21:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ottawa has almost a million people in it with various shooting events. It's too imprecise alone. I agree with the user that said the current title instantly tells anyone why the topic is notable, while the proposed title leaves the reader wondering why there is an article. Legacypac (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_shootings_at_Parliament_Hill,_Ottawa&oldid=1196675231"