Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings

RfC: Change "white supremacist" to "white nationalist"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was no consensus for change. Opinion seems rather divided between supremacist, nationalist, or both, but ultimately, there is no clear consensus to go in a new direction. Part of the problem is that nationalist is used both by the mainstream media, and at the same time, relates to a significant effort at whitewashing and rebranding (the much more negatively-perceived supremacist) by those who adhere to the term. There were some alternate proposals, but these did not seem to enjoy consensus, either. Finally, I note that it has been a month since the last comment was made, so this close is long overdue. El_C 03:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Proposal: Change "white supremacist" to "white nationalist". 03:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Explanation: An earlier discussion decided that 'white supremacist' could and should be mentioned in the lede. Several editors, including myself, felt and feel that the more appropriate term would be 'white nationalist', but that encountered opposition with a reference to RS. Just now, I watched what RS are actually saying and it turns out that many mix the two terms, but it seems white supremacy is by number not in favour of white nationalism. Moreover, traditionally highly respected media chose to use 'white nationalist' in their titles, not 'white supremacist': AP, NY Times, Business Insider, LA Times, etc. etc. The current sources for 'White supremacy' are: The Sydney Morning Herald, Al Jazeera and Otaga Daily Times Online News.

Additionally, we now have the situation that 'white supremacy' is only mentioned in the lede and in the infobox, with just one (1) source quoted in the main body of the article ("white supremacist rhetoric"). The term 'white nationalist' in the article is now only mentioned once (so it is not even introduced), concerning a question to Trump that is appreciated as being important enough to mention in the article.

I very much favor to replace 'white supremacy' by 'white nationalist', not in the least as the alledged motive, because every assertion of white supremacy is linked to the manifesto, which denies, in word, white supremacy and is all white nationalist – exactly the reason that credible media outlets used the term white nationalist. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC). / Jürgen Eissink (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

Maybe unnecessary to add: the earlier discussion mixed up the (main) question about mention in the lede and the question of choice between supremacist and nationalist – it wasn't a pure discussion in this respect. Also: I present new 'evidence' (really a plethora of RS). While I think 'white nationalist' should be favored, 'white supremacy' can be mentioned as a paralel, related eco-system, of course. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 02:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

• Question as I am not an expert in this terminology: is it accurate to call Tarrant a 'white nationalist' in a New Zealand context when he is not a national of NZ? U-Mos (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Tarrant seems to hold the view that 'white nations' should be and should remain to be 'white', a view that is not restricted to NZ (or Australia). Jürgen Eissink (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

Nationalist makes more sense than Supremacist. Trump was asked about the "rising threat of white nationalism" for example, not "the riding threat of white supremacy". The manifesto self-describes "predominantly an ethno-nationalist" but he doesn't use "supremacist". -Oranginger, March 18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oranginger (talk • contribs) 03:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the basic point that it was the media that pigeonholed the alleged shooter as a white supremacist. It isn't a phrase that the author of the manifesto used himself. According to White supremacy, "White supremacy or white supremacism is the racist belief that white people are superior to people of other races and therefore should be dominant over them. White supremacy has roots in scientific racism, and it often relies on pseudoscientific arguments." This is not an accurate summary of the arguments put forward in the manifesto. The author blathers on about the need for white people to be in the majority in their own countries, but does not say that non-white people are inherently inferior. This is more like extreme nationalism than racism.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• No for all the obvious reasons - This is not overwhelmingly supported by the sources, and might unduly constitute whitewashing. Only white supremacists care making such distinctions. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 07:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  I seriously apologize. I didn't mean to accuse anyone of being white supremacist. I meant to say that White supremacists will vehemently rebrand themselves as "white nationalists", but in reality there's a not much distinction between the two. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 07:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Apology accepted and appreciated. I do recognize that white supremacists might call themselves white nationalists as some sort of excuse. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 07:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

Tarrant might be a 'white supremacist in disguise', but the fact is that he delivered a manifesto that is white nationalist to the max and pretty much in complete denial of white supremacism, and the manifesto is at the moment probably the most important source on establishing motives. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 07:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

• Yes if indeed the more reputable sources are using the nationalist description, then we should use that. starship.paint ~ KO 07:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The author of the manifesto seems to be a big fan of the Bosnian Serbs, while conveniently forgetting to mention that they committed the Srebrenica massacre. The article there gives the motive as "Anti-Bosniak sentiment, Greater Serbia, Islamophobia, Serbianisation" rather than "white supremacism". Extreme nationalism is often a thinly disguised version of racism, but the Bosnian Serbs were not classic pseudoscientific racists like the Nazis, who loved to used pseudoscientific theories to justify their ideas.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• No A white nationalist "espouses the belief that white people are a race and seeks to develop and maintain a white national identity.... White nationalists generally avoid the term 'supremacy' because it has negative connotations." The Google News count for 'white supremacist christchurch shooting' is fluctuating, but was 12,300,000. The count for 'white nationalist christchurch shooting' was 7,730,000. Assessing what is 'traditionally highly respected media' can be highly subjective. Moreover, media is open to shifts in wording. For example, NYT has used 'white supremacy' and/or 'white supremacist' in the text of multiple stories about the shooting, e.g. here and here. Like interpretations made on this Talk page, both stories identify white supremacy in the manifesto. A shift in wording to 'white nationalist' would appear contradictory to WP:NPOV. Te Karere (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Remove both. He was neither a white supremacist nor a "white nationalist" (what's that BTW?). Many of those who he killed were also white, mind you. He was simply a terrorist. He also seems to have been motivated by religion. True, Christianity does not currently support violence, but this guy was inspired by historical attitude of Christianity towards Islam. Hence also his choice of the place of attack. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Many of those who he killed were also white, mind you. Uh, do you have a source for this? ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about "many", but this guy's both white and a White. Khaled Mustafa wasn't even bearded and Linda Armstrong didn't even have an "exotic" name. I'm sure there are more, if you look. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:39, March 21, 2019 (UTC)

You say "He also seems to have been motivated by religion". Which religion? In his manifesto he explicitly addresses the question of whether he is a Christian, to which he responds in the negative. Additionally, he has been linked with neopagan Odinist groups.[1]— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 13:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it can be said he was motivated by religion because he seems to have targeted Muslims. Bus stop (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep as it is. Both wordings are widely used. However, the views by him are very close to neo-Nazi, which would be a "supremacist". My very best wishes (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Both with sources. There are many good reliable sources describing both in detail. To address the nom's argument, headlines should not ever be relied upon, and white nationalism and supremacy aren't mutually exclusive. That means that both should be included per WP:DUE, unless someone finds a source disputing one of them. wumbolo ^^^ 21:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep/No change. We follow the RS -- not the manifesto -- and use both terms. Per WP:PRIMARY. Summoned by bot. High-quality sources use both terms, sometimes in the same article (for example, NYT: [2]). Even if the manifesto wasn't designed to deceive (we wouldn't quote it to say he is a Navy Seal, etc.)[3], we would rely on high-quality, reliable secondary sources to analyze the manifesto, rather than override their assessment with our own reading of it. In this instance, doing analysis of the primary source is particularly fraught. Chris vLS (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Put another way, if the manifesto claimed that the author's views are "center-right", we would not have the encyclopedic voice describe him as center-right. Chris vLS (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Display both as much as they are used by sources -- clearly the NPOV way out of this. I do think Kashmiri has a point and if there are in fact any sources which discuss him instead as a sort of Christian or "European" supremacist rather than "white" these may also be worth mentioning too.--Calthinus (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep due to use of both in endless RS. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Follow the primary source The subject is the most authoritative source on their own views. If he denies being a "white supremacist" or identifies as a "white nationalist" then their claim holds more weight than secondary sources. However, if he is widely described as "white supremacist" by secondary sources, then obviously this should be stated in some format like "XXX identified himself as a YYY. Others describe him as X, Y, Z, ..." ILTP (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Both. Per Wumbolo and Calthinus. We don't get to pick one or the other when there's a conflict among sources. Neutrality 101. R2 (bleep) 22:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• White supremacist or both. Additional sources include here, here, here, here, here. Many of these discuss the centrality of white supremacy in depth, whereas the sources offered above only mention "white nationalism" in passing. --Aquillion (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• Posting here merely to get a recent timestamp and defeat the archive bot. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Both are suitable. They are not mutually exclusive.Vision Insider (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Both: The Guardian and the BBC describe him as a "white supremacist" however the BBC also describes him as a "white nationalist". Apparently the suspect describes himself as an "ethno-nationalist eco-fascist" in the manifesto, but we're going on reliable sources, not documents from 8chan. SITH (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Use white supremacist: even Facebook has recently acknowledged that white nationalism = white supremacy: "After New Zealand mosque shootings and civil rights backlash, Facebook bans white nationalism, separatism". There's no need for euphemisms. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  As long as Wikipedia itself doesn't redirect one to the other, they are ≠. wumbolo ^^^ 16:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Facebook exists in its own twisted world, where once-familiar concepts like Friend, Status, Timeline, News and Poker now require cheat sheets. If we're going to trust any privately-owned behemoth as an authority on synonyms, it should be Thesaurus.com (judging from its "Google Ranking", anyway). It doesn't recognize white supremacy at all, but notes white supremacists are only equal to fanatics, anti-Semites, chauvinists, diehards, doctrinaires, sectarians, segregationists, black supremacists, Klanspeople, opinionated people (that's probably debatable), prejudiced people, sexist people and xenophobes. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:56, April 2, 2019 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose link with "Christianity", as was suggested above. Indifferent to usage of "white supremacist" and/or "white nationalist". The suspect in question has explicitly answered in the negative to the question of whether he was Christian, and has as well been linked with the neopagan Odinist movement.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 13:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Use white supremacist - White nationalist is a euphemism for white separatist. O3000 (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Use white nationalist: white supremacism was associated with major phenomena, such as the slave trade and colonialism, which the shooter does not appear to promote. At least in his rhetoric the shooter doesn't seem to think of whites as supreme over anything, but rather, promotes a conspiracy scenario in which whites are at risk of being wiped out entirely. His beliefs actually have more in common with the anti-immigrant views that are the majority in several major countries at the moment than they do with those of the Confederates ... except, of course, the part about murdering people. Wnt (talk) 11:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• Use white nationalist: He is opposed to immigration. There is no indication he believed whites are a "chosen people" or superior to other genetic groups. The media could be using the term "white supremacist", rather than "white nationalist", to avoid acknowledging his actions were in response to immigration. Nationalism brings up the subject of immigration. They may want to avoid a discussion, or a public vote, on mass immigration. This is something the SPLC, for example, has stated. Jeff1948a (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
• white supremacist as has been noted, "nationalist" is just an euphermism.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. The shooter was an Aussie, but traveled to New Zealand to commit mass homicide. If so, how can he remotely be considered a "nationalist?" I presume he went there because until he committed his crime, military style, automatic weapons were considerably easier to obtain there. I think that "white nationalist" is a euphemism, as "patriot" often is, used to camouflage racist ideology. The mosques were likely targets of convenience where he could find victims of different colors and ethnicities. Activist (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to modify wording

Support Both per both being widely used by reliable sources. To which end I propose that the second sentence in the second paragraph of the lead be modified as follows....

Current wording A 28-year-old Australian man, described in media reports as a white supremacist and part of the alt-right, was arrested and charged with murder.

Proposed new wording A 28-year-old Australian man, variously described in media and press reports as a white supremacist or white nationalist and part of the alt-right, was arrested and charged with murder.

-Ad Orientem (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support - hits two birds with one stone.Resnjari (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose on wordiness. Is there a difference between media and press reports? Doesn't "or" and/or "and" already suggest "variously"? If we want both labels, just add one. As in "A 28-year-old Australian man, described in media reports as a white supremacist, white nationalist and part of the alt-right...". InedibleHulk (talk) 16:23, April 2, 2019 (UTC)

See Webster's Third, Unabridged, 2016.

press. Newspapers, periodicals, and often radio and television news broadcasting regarded as a group.

media. plural but sometimes singular in construction. A vehicle (as a radio or television program or a newspaper) used to carry advertising.

So media ≈ press + social media. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we should bother repeating what "they" say on social media. Twitter will label a celebrity anything, from "monster" to "Mossad sleeper agent". Best to stay mainstream and "reliable". InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, April 10, 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no membership for the Alt-Right or any agreement on their platform. They constantly argue about who can be considered part of the "movement". The media are so often political activists, who use their platforms to push their views. In this case they want to stigmatise all anti mass immigration groups by linking them to this incident. Perhaps it is better, and less verbose, just to describe him as a "A 28-year-old Australian man" and leave discussions about his motivations until further into the article. Jeff1948a (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's how the Alt-right article lead defines that term: The alt-right … is a … somewhat ill-defined … grouping of … far-right fringe hate groups.… Figures who are associated with the alt-right [include] Senior Advisor to the President Stephen Miller, Special Assistant to the President Julia Hahn, former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn… --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I think we should stop trying to put our own spin or OR onto this and stick to what the reliable sources are saying. They are variously using the terms "white supremacist" and "white nationalist." And most of them are labeling him as "alt right." Whether their reporting is accurate is not my concern. Our job is to repeat what is being said in reliable sources. That's it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• No change, as I think both ways has the same interpreted meaning. Best way would be just to use what the sources claim him to be. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 05:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Both but maybe use extreme white nationalist according to the BBC he describes himself as a White Supremacist [4]. Security analyst Paul Buchanan has said "He is a very clear white supremacist who has been planning this for two years," [5] The New York times has described him as a White Supremacist.[6] The motivation in my opinon would be White supremacy and extreme White Nationalism.; the term extreme white nationalism is used in these sources and other sources [7][8]--SharabSalam (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: I totally oppose using "extreme" white nationalist as it carries the possibly unintended POV that some white nationalists are "moderate".--Calthinus (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Calthinus: I do think that there are moderate White nationalists because every ideology has its extremist and moderate followers some who prefer using force to enforce their ideology into others and some who just hold and spread their ideology not by using force. If nationalists are always extremist then would that be a general rule for all nationalists? like any "X" nationalist is always an extremist, or is it just White nationalists who are always extremist?--SharabSalam (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2019 (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.

Can you say "Brenton Tarrant" in the lead yet?

I've only just read this article today and it seems bizarre that Tarrant's name is not mentioned in the lead or infobox. I see there was a previous RFC, the objections were along the lines of:

WP:NOTNEWS Too soon to include the name of the suspect.

Most of these votes were within days of the shooting and was right and proper to wait for reliable sources in the wake of a major incident. Since then Tarrant has appeared in court several times with 92 charges brought against him. There are plenty of reliable sources stating that he is the suspect and what the charges against him are.

WP:BLPCRIME This is a living person with the right to the presumption of innocence.

The lead and info box must make it very clear that at this time Tarrant a suspect charged with the crimes and not refer to him in any other way which would pre-judge the outcome of the case.

WP:NOTNOTABLE Undue prominence of a non notable person.

There is strong evidence that Tarrant seeks notoriety and people are loath to give his name more prominence that is absolutely necessary. There was a period of self censorship of Tarrant's name in New Zealand news media and even the New Zealand Prime Minister has vowed to not speak his name. However, the fact is that Tarrant has gained instant notoriety as the suspect in this mass shooting and there is no name suppression.

Let's remember WP:NOTCENSORED. Put Tarrant's name in the lead and infobox as the suspect in this case, the article is incomplete without it.

161.29.221.149 (talk) 08:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• You're misapplying NOTCENSORED, which is about "content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍". I can assure you that his name is not being omitted from the lead and infobox because some readers might consider that objectionable or offensive‍. Otherwise, no particular opinion or position. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Disagree with that. There's a significant number of people, particularly those from New Zealand, that refuse to "name the shooter" (or "terrorist"), else it "gives him what he wants". I see no reason why Tarrant cannot now be named in the Lede as the "alleged shooter".I'll also mention that obfuscating the reason for the censorship, or denying that the censorship is taking place, is in and of itself a form of censorship.Tym Whittier (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Tarrant is named below the lead, so nothing is being censored. The OP themselves listed three major arguments against inclusion in the lead, and none of them has anything to do with avoiding "content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍".

The only reason I commented about NOTCENSORED at all is because the policy is so often wrongly cited when content is omitted for any of the various valid reasons. Most of the omission we do is not censorship, and NOTCENSORED does not apply; this is one such case. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Things have moved on now that Tarrant has been formally charged and will face trial. The name appears widely in reliable sources and it would not be a breach of Wikipedia policy to mention him in the lead as long as it met WP:BLPCRIME.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

As I said here, I have no opinion on that and was only referring to the misuse of NOTCENSORED by the OP (and then to the support of that misuse by a different editor). ―Mandruss ☎ 14:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Will add to lede in line with discussion here.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk♥} 01:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

My edit was revoked, so I have created a new RFC on this topic.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk♥} 02:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

BBC News article

This is in the news today. Some interesting background material about the shooting, particularly Tarrant's links to Austria. It does, however, assume that Tarrant is guilty in a way that leads to problems with WP:BLPCRIME. It also assumes that he wrote the manifesto.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

RFC - Should a Brenton Harrison Tarrant article replace the redirect to this page?

Should there be a Brenton Harrison Tarrant article? He has been charged with 51 murders, 40 attempted murders, and engaging in a terrorist act, and there are currently nine Brenton Tarrant articles on the other language wikipedias - eg German de:Brenton_Tarrant. WP:NOTNOTABLE under "People notable for only one event" says "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. Brenton Harrison Tarrant currently redirects to Christchurch_mosque_shootings#Suspect. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk♥} 01:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• In response to a deleted comment, WP:NOTNOTABLE under "People notable for only one event" says "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role. When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King. On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example, Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination."♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk♥} 01:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Self-reverted comments didn't occur for our purposes, so there is no need to respond to them. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• Not yet. We should give this some more time, since almost all reports are still about the incident rather than the person. It's too early for a stand-alone article. -The Gnome (talk) 11:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. There are enough RS that directly cover the subject. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. It's too early says "Generally speaking, the various notability criteria that guide editors in creating articles require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources." He is notable because "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event." (Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Crime_victims_and_perpetrators) ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk♥} 22:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• The heading and the question in the first paragraph differ. I vote Yes To a redirect to this article, but Not yet to a stand-alone article for Brenton Tarrant. - I just don’t think he’s notable other than for this attack. It may be that more information comes to light during the trial or at a later date. 118.149.198.17 (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, have changed heading to " RFC - Should a Brenton Harrison Tarrant article replace the redirect to this page? "

RfC about reinstating the suspect's/suspects' name in lead

Should the suspect, Brenton Harrison Tarrant, be named in the lede? There was an RFC discussion that ended on 31 March, that decided that it was too soon to do so two weeks after the incident. Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings/Archive_9#RfC_about_keeping_suspect's/suspects'_name_in_lead. Since then he has been charged with 51 murders, 40 attempted murders, and engaging in a terrorist act, and pleaded not guilty. The lede currently says " A 28-year-old Australian man, described in media reports as a white supremacist and part of the alt-right, was arrested and initially charged with one murder." His name is not currently mentioned until the 7th section, "Suspect". A recent discussion suggests his name should now be included Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings#Can_you_say_"Brenton_Tarrant"_in_the_lead_yet?. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk♥} 02:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Checking out the "recent discussion" to which you refer, L'Origine du monde, it seems clear to me that nowhere was there a consensus that the name should be included, which is actually why you stated you're starting an RfC, i.e. this one. And another thing: The leading section, per WP:LEAD, is not a lede and should not be called that if we want to avoid confusion. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The Gnome, in that month long recent discussion I see three people in favour of including his name in the lead, one person who is neutral, and no opposition. I started this rfc to establish consensus because my edit based on that discussion was reverted, apparently based on the earlier RfC.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk♥} 22:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yes The name of the arrested suspect is now everywhere in the media, including Wiki-aceptable sources. No need to restrain ourselves any more. In fact, the article would now be incomplete without that information. -The Gnome (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. I see no reason for hiding it. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. I came to this article to check his name, and it was irritating to have to search for it.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk♥} 22:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. Reinstate the name of the suspect as per the edit by Talk. Plenty of reliable sources confirm the name, there is no name suppression ordered by the court, the edit makes it clear that this is a suspect, so no reason not to include it. 118.149.198.17 (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC about info box | accused = Brenton Harrison Tarrant

This article has a Infobox civilian attack template Template:Infobox_civilian_attack which has an info box with a space for the name of the accused. Brenton Harrison Tarrant has been charged with 51 murders, 40 attempted murders, and engaging in a terrorist act. Should he be included in the info box as the accused? It is currently empty. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk♥} 02:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• Νο. Ι'm generally treating infoboxes without the assumption (held by many ) that "infoboxes are an abomination" but this is a typical case where infobox makers got things wrong. There should never have been a place for "accused" persons or of "sus[pected] perp[etrator]s" in the template. The article's main text can, of course, offer the reports of acceptable sources about suspects or arrested people and so on, but these are (or, rather, should be) given within the appropriate context of the respective investigation. Bringing this information up, front, and center in an infobox, in unquestioning isolation, is an indirect yet clear violation of our obligation to keep a neutral stance. Let's start working towards a remedy for this unfortunate state of affairs by not posting up names. -The Gnome (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• No it's too simplistic and matter of fact in an info-box and needs the proper context and related info in the prose of the main text, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Yes If there must be an info box, it seems a simple matter of neutral fact. The authorities, and all reliable sources, seem certain he is accused, and will face trial.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk♥} 23:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Yes Infoboxes are a simple summary of what can be verified by multiple reliable sources so it is incomplete without the name. The only caveat is that this must refer to the accused rather than the perpetrator because Tarrant is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Info boxes are key/value pairs and this has inherent limitations but this is not the forum to discuss the limitations of presenting data in this format - we need to work with the template we are given. 118.149.198.17 (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. Name him in the infobox as the accused. This is a fact and does not imply guilt in any way. But naming (as accused) in the lead may carry too much weight, so I don't want him named there. Akld guy (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)