Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings

RfC about keeping suspect's/suspects' name in lead

Should the lead section have the suspect's/suspects'perpetrator's/perpetrators' name? - Josephua (talk) 06:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Question amended .... Unless anyone has proof that all the people arrested/questioned/charged or named are guilty .... they are suspects. WP:BLP applies on talk pages as well as articles. The apparent level of proof at this stage has no bearing on that. Pincrete (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Keeping the perpetrator's name in the lead section lets us know who perpetrated the shooting. Look at the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Orlando nightclub shooting, and Virginia Tech shooting, all of them mentioning the shooter in the lead. This is not meant to glorify the shooter but to inform readers who did it, and this article should reflect that. - Josephua (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Also there will be more names as other people who were involved in carrying out the shootings have been arrested but their names are not released yet.Resnjari (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose too soon, let give it a few hours to make sure its the accepted perpetrators(s) Gnangarra 06:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • we dont want to creating a circular source by outlets getting the name from us Gnangarra 06:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as per WP:SUSPECT "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.". 202.155.85.18 (talk) 06:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose undue in the lead at this time. The mention in the body is enough at this time until their names are ubiquitous in RS. If it is going to happen anyway, why not wait until we are sure. Wikipedia is not news and there is no deadline.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • If we are not sure then it shouldn't be in the body. The lead is not a special place that has higher verifiability criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 07:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Agree with this. If it is not suitable for the body of the article, it is not suitable for the lead. In fact, anything not included in the body shouldn't be included in the lead, period. "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article..." MOS:LEADREL There are a few exceptions, but this isn't one. DiscantX 11:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
      • This whole RFC has got quite confused. When it started the name was comfortably in the body and there were arguments over whether or not it should be in the lead as well (see #Perpetrator name). It was removed from the body early on in the RFC and the discussion has now morphed onto whether the name should be mentioned at all. Some of the early !votes (including mine) were based on it being in the body. This could be interesting as since it is an RFC it will be open for at least 30 days and then could take who knows how long for someone to close it. BLP requires us to keep the name/s out until consensus is reached so it will be at least a month before we can mention them even if this closes in support. Since the question has changed to suspects we can't even mention their names as suspects unitil this closes. If it closes as oppose (which is looking likely at this stage) then we will have to either start a new RFC or wait for a conviction (which fits in with a lot of the !votes anyway). AIRcorn (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support This rfc is about mentioning the perpetrators in the lead, not whether or not they should be mentioned at all. They are a major part of the incident and should be mentioned in both the lead and the body when confirmed. AIRcorn (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment The question is - "Should the lead section have the perpetrator's/perpetrators' name?"... Yes, provided that the lead comprehensively covers other aspects of the incident too. And if they are in the lead it implies they are in the main body. In the case of this attack yes, it should go in the lead. But the victims also need to be mentioned, why were they targeted, a random location, specific target etc if sources are there for the same? But in certain cases though, not this article, this will have to be tackled on a case to case basis and this cannot be an all inclusive concept. Careful consideration though is needed in terms of timeliness for this kind of information so as not to spread misinformation even more, even if it can be reverted. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – undue in the lead at this time, but fine elsewhere. Later, if convicted, the names could go in the lead. Akld guy (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Wait (24 hours or so) We should wait and see how mainstream media are covering the subject. Most prob. he will get significant coverage.Cinadon36 (talk) 07:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per the Wikipedia policy at WP:BLPCRIME, they should not be named in the article at all unless convicted. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support the lead should make it clear that they are suspects/not convicted. DeFacto I strongly disagree with your interpretation of WP:BLPCRIME. The article states:

This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.

Since the suspects are being, and will undoubtedly be covered extensively in the media, they will become well known (and well known specifically for these attacks). This section aims to prevent people from posting information about incomplete criminal proceedings that are not related to a person's notability. For example if a sports person was charged with some random crime, it would be inappropriate and potentially defamation to include that information until convicted.Mozzie (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:BLPCRIME. Nobody has been convicted of anything yet. This can be revisited later, after the trial. TompaDompa (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME does not apply here per Common Reason. It is not a matter of dispute whether Brenton Tarrant[1] committed part of the shootings. Cinadon36 (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: what do you mean by "Common Reason", I would have thought that as a Wikipedia policy, WP:BLPCRIME applies to all articles. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME excludes those under the purview of WP:WELLKNOWN.

BLPCRIME was developed to shield subjects from one-off allegations of crimes, over a single or two surces, appearing in bios of quite borderline-notable subjects. It was not meant to be used as a weapon to prevent mentioning the name of the terrorist, over these type of cases.

Do a GSearch for the subject and look at the amount of reliable aources which have covered him. ∯WBG^converse 10:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: are they a "public figure"? Have they been convicted wrt this incident? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

What restrains you from performing a GSearch about Turrant and discovering the plethora of RSes that cover him? Conviction has not got anything to do with WELLKNOWN. ∯WBG^converse 10:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: WP:WELLKNOWN implies a public figure. Are you saying that the suspect here was a public figure (despite not having a Wikipedia article about him) before this incident took place? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that they weren't WP:WELLKNOWN before the attack. They are and will be well known now. WP:BLPCRIME is designed to protect people from being defamed by references to criminal proceedings that are unrelated to their notability.Mozzie (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Even if we go down the BLPCRIME route it says For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material (bolding added). It is a strong recommendation not to include information, but not a strict requirement. If anything falls outside that recommendation this is it. AIRcorn (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Aircorn: we would have to provide a convincing rationale as to why this suspect in this article is a special case, over and above others in similar circumstances, deserving exemption from a strong recommendation in a BLP policy. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

12/24 hours will answer this just wait... we need to be sure we aren't being the source as in the Sydney shootings where newspapers were quoting Wikipedia on detail - then we cited them as facts. Gnangarra 10:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You do realise it could take a year to get a conviction (see 2011 Norway attacks). Incidently we didn't wait too long to post Anders Breivik's name.[2] AIRcorn (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

He live streamed it. There is no doubt who he is and what he did. His name is already splashed over every newspaper covering the event, which is every newspaper. This is an unprecedented incident in New Zealand and probably one of the worst such attacks anywhere. I would be interested in what you think is enough? As it is we almost never wait for convictions before naming the offenders inthese types of articles, so it is not a "special case". AIRcorn (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Too soon. Wait until the story unfolds. There have been no convictions, and Wikipedia is not the place to analyze primary sources. Even news sources at this point are either regurgitating each other, or making best guesses off of what little is available. At best a mention that there has been an accused without the name would be appropriate.  DiscantX 10:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, the only way that would make sense is if the perp already had a Wikipedia article. Abductive (reasoning) 11:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Are you people completely mad? An encyclopedia is supposed to navigate the sources, not conceal everything about the case including the name of the person in all the papers!!! I am very seriously considering putting this article to AfD for being too pathetic to live. Wnt (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I can understand your frustration, but that would be pretty WP:POINTy. Benjamin (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose This may be a case where we should ignore WP:BLPCRIME, but I don't think we should be hasty in doing so. These people do not fit WP:WELLKNOWN, because nobody had ever heard of them until today. We can just say "the police have arrested suspects" and leave at that until more sources are available. There's no rush to get this information out there; this is an encyclopedia, not a repository of breaking news. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Edit to be clear, I oppose having the name in the article at all for the time being under the same reasoning. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • More sources? [3] AIRcorn (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes there are sources, but at this point they know little more than we do. Take one of the top links from your search result. [4]. It consists of a very rushed interview with a former coworker and an obituary no doubt found online. The article url contains "christchurch-shooting-brenton-tarrant-what-we-know" (emphasis mine) and the title is "Christchurch shooting attacker Brenton Tarrant was a personal trainer in Grafton," which suggests the title was changed after the article was written. The news is doing what it does best: Scraping together what it can as fast as it can in order to be the first to get the scoop. My point is these sources are not necessarily reliable as of now, and Wikipedia does not need to be the first to get the scoop.  DiscantX 12:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
      • This makes no sense, the "scoop" has already gone. We write based on sources so there is no way we can have a scoop anyway, we are not wikinews. We never know more than reliable sources unless we are talking about editors conducting original research. No one is suggesting that. What are we actually waiting for. A conviction? That could take a while. Police to offically release the name of the suspect? According to BLPCRIME they still can't be named here. It seems strange for us, especially as an encyclopaedia, to go out of our way to hide a name that every other newspaper (including all the reliable ones) is using. AIRcorn (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Printing names too soon can be damaging entirely to those otherwise un-notable persons, and is directly covered under WP:BLPCRIME as well as under laws in the country where the events took place. And we can not forget Richard Jewell etc. Damage to others is a serious possibility, all too often, and many nations therefore forbid publication of those names. https://qz.com/1493781/google-may-break-nz-laws-by-publishing-name-of-grace-millanes-killer/ for example. Collect (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  @Collect: This is a reasonable concern. However, the RFC is not about a moratorium of minutes to days; it says nothing about a termination date. Moreover, the news coverage of this suspect's name (the first at least, but by now surely the others also) is already so thorough that he passes WP:WELLKNOWN. Even if all the papers are wrong, we would have an entire paragraph, possibly an entire section, about how the real shooter had misled police and "trolled" the public in order to frame an innocent man, and if that happened we should continue to add things about how the coverage had affected that innocent man's life going forward. Wnt (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Nope. NZ laws are clear, and the Jewell case is clear. Naming suspects is against policy unless the person is notable otherwise at the very least. Once the person actually stands trial - then is when this could be reconsidered. Your thought that this is a permanent ban on names is incorrect - both by policy and in practice on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The claims that he should not be named under WP:BLPCRIME are clearly wrong. Yet, you make a very good point. What are peoples thoughts about the relevance of NZ laws regarding not naming suspects? If NZ papers are naming him (idk) then surely it is ok for Wikipedia to do so.Mozzie (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

NZ bars the naming by media. Period. The suspects are not notable under Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Collect (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I neither know nor care what NZ law says, as Wikipedia is in the U.S. With Europe poised to pass utterly awful legislation [5] that interferes with all sorts of news, I expect Wikipedia should get a lot more unapologetic about being very strictly an American national project. Wnt (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Definitely inapt when people have not even been charged yet. If/when charged with specific crimes the situation might change, but it is certainly too soom at present. What would it add to anyone's understanding of the event? Pincrete (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

ps everyone should be aware that these people are suspects as present (not perps - regardless of the seeming level of proof). BLP applies on talk pages as well. Pincrete (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

don't indulge in these hazy posturings indicating at some violation of BLP policies over the t/p.... ∯WBG^converse 16:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support, unless there's a good reason to be uncertain about it. Benjamin (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support there is a credible source and it is described in the article as being stated by that source. WP:BLPCRIME states that you should consider it. WP:BLPCRIME does not prohibit it. the purpose is to avoid perpetrating contempt of court whereby you may influence the outcome of a case. this is publicly available information from a credible news source already in the public domain. we are not performing a criminal investigation on our own initiative. The name is relevant simply because the NZ police commissioner is withholding information in press conferences. he refuses to state whether or not they have identified the shooter which would cause alarm to the public. There may be other suspects but as of yet we only have information about the guy who actually shot a bunch of people.

Verify references (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• The name is plastered over the page now I'm way too tired from fighting over this page. If someone else can figure out a way of keeping the suspects name off the page until we get some consensus on whether we cal legally include it, I congratulate you.Mozzie (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I removed it and asked for an edit filter at WP:ANI. I can't think of anything else that we can do. AIRcorn (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The cat is out of the bag. there are five reliable references from 4 different news sources, some international. I could understand if they didnt also have pictures of his face from the livestream immediately before he continued to shoot people. I don't think there's any chance of smearing an innocent person's name in this instance. Verify references (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

That certainly appears to be the case.Mozzie (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose; RSs at this point are restricted to some form of official speculation, and it can't hurt to wait for official government press releases. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 19:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose in order to reduce exposure of the suspects. --denny vrandečić (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per BLPCRIME; this suspect is not WELLKNOWN (he wasn't before today), and there's a long list of terrorist attacks where the media reported the wrong suspect's name. NOTNEWS means we don't need to name the suspect on the day of the attack. Leviv ich 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment The judge didn't grant name suppression.[6] Does this change anyones mind? AIRcorn (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I give up. No response at ANI and everytime I look back it is added again.[7] I actually think the name should be in the article so the opposes can enforce BLP and the current consensus from now on. AIRcorn (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• It was I who made that edit you mentioned. I was unaware of this RfC (this Talk page is enormous) and I felt (and feel) that the name should be mentioned, also because there seems no reluctance at all to name the suspect in the major news outlets, and the court appareance today has confirmed suspect's identity. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC).

I think there are good practical reasons for including his name. The debate on keeping his name out of the lead and keeping it out is taking up a lot of people's efforts. If we let it stay, this whole debate is over.Mozzie (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose What's the damn hurry? Wait a week or so. O3000 (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support There are claims here that NZ bans publication of suspects' names. I don't know exactly when this is true, but this time the name of the charged guy is all over the NZ press. For example, each of the four top dailies (according to List_of_print_media_in_New_Zealand) has published it repeatedly, as has the government-owned TV channel [8]. There is no reason to suppress it here, provided of course that he is described as a suspect and not as the perpetrator. He must not be named as guilty until a court decides it. Zero^talk 02:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• NZ has stringent name suppression laws to maintain integrity of court cases and avoid undue distress (e.g. the man charged with the death of Grace Millane in December 2018 has still not been named). In this case name suppression has been applied to the man Tarrant has been currently charged with murdering, but not to Tarrant himself ([9]). U-Mos (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Support As long as not worded to assume guilt prior to a conviction (which it currently is not), his arrest and charge is appropriate lead information. His name is widely reported, and a judge has ruled that it does not need to be suppressed. U-Mos (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose in the lead: unneeded; the name is not material at this point. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as it is recommended not to publicise names of suspected perpetrators unless the person has been convicted in court. I understand the magnitude of this tragic event, but we must be mindful of BLP concerns.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• Wait - Until the legal process has officially confirmed the names of the perpetrators, then put it in. I understand people's concerns about giving the person 'credit' but including it is encyclopaedic, also WP:NOTCENSORED. | 🔬🚆 |   Telo | TP   | 14:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose in the lead: Regardless of what the consensus is on BLPCRIME, the perpetrators' names shouldn't be in the lead. Making the name unnecessarily prominent plays into the perpetrator's desire for fame, and increases the likelihood of copycat crimes. There is plenty of research backing this argument . Keep the shooters' name less visible, and let the lead focus on the victims and other facts. That's not suppressing the facts, it's just not turning a murderer into a celebrity.Lijil (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment As per MOS:LEAD "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Tarrant is a major part of this article, and therefore should be part of a summary of it.Mozzie (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I do support mentioning the name somewhere, but not in the lede. SportingFlyer T·C 04:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. For comparison, see for instance Orlando nightclub shooting and Pittsburgh synagogue shooting – why should this case be treated differently? Jürgen Eissink (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC).
• Support - a basic detail about the case, very relevant to understanding it, and something it would be wrong to exclude. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support The WP:LEAD is supposed to summarize the main points of the article. One of the main points about the article is the subject's name. Otherwise, it's a central fact to this article. Tutelary (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment The current iteration, where Tarrant is discussed euphemistically as "the suspect" in the lead before being named below, is unavoidably daft and the very worst faux-compromise scenario. If he's not to be named in the lead, then that means information about him isn't deemed material enough to be fronted and so should be left entirely to the "Suspect" section. U-Mos (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The perpetrator is a material part of the incident and not mentioning it in the lead section would be WP:UNDUE. feminist (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• It does not matter. The important thing is that the body of the article contain this information. Whether the name of the suspect is in the lede or not is of relatively little significance. Bus stop (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Obviously the situation now is drastically different from literally the day of the shooting, which was when this RFC started. The suspect has been widely named by all sorts of reliable sources, has appeared in court, and has been denied a publication ban on his name. There is more than enough in the body (per MOS:LEDE and mirroring general coverage/relevance to have the name in the lede. Also, in this case, WP:BLPCRIME does not apply to the suspect, given that his actions instantly made him a public figure whose notability derives from this criminal act. BLPCRIME is meant to protect those who are genuinely relatively unknown. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• IAR Oppose - Leading is not the Wikipedia way, but I'll say it anyway. The names of the suspects/perpetrators are immaterial. We do not need to name them at any point in the article or in time. A recent example of a step forward in this regard was the editorial consensus to refrain from creating an article for the Stoneman Douglas shooter. They don't need memorials, indeed we should refrain from memorializing them. Some of you are almost certainly familiar with the study that found that the media has a role to play in the uptick in mass shootings. The more attention they receive, the more like-minded narcissists will emulate them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia project and not the mass media, but it is by far the most viewed and easily accessible one in the world. It has an impact. So I'll propose an impossible counter-proposal expunge from the article completely. It's a set of syllables that conveys only one meaning: we made this person famous, and you can be famous too. pre-emptively, it is pointless to cite policy or guideline here. This is an WP:IAR proposal. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I would say that sometimes memorialization and providing good quality information overlap, as I think the two overlap when considering the inclusion or omission of the names of both suspect(s) and victim(s). They are one and the same, only varying slightly by the choice of words that we use. We can't rule out providing good quality information on the basis that such information is one-and-the-same as memorialization. There are no easy answers. We are writing about an event that many of us understandably don't want to speak about. But I think that only means that we must write dispassionately. These people have names. Therefore I feel that it is unavoidable that those names be included. As for whether the suspect's name should be in the lede, I think that is an unimportant question. I think it would be fine to leave the suspect's name out of the lede. Bus stop (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose If Wikipedia is not a memorial, why memorialise literally the person who needs it least? Times are changing, and so the site should, too. It has been recognised that notoriety contributes to the problem of further attacks. Think of it like this: If it turns out that having the perpetrator's name on Wikipedia increases the chances of another terrorist attack - by any amount, large or small - is it worth doing it? Vision Insider (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose And if the decision is made to put his name in the lead at least don't give him his own wikipedia page with his picture and a stats box. (This sickens me every time I visit it: Stephen Paddock.) We might as well print up mass shooter trading cards and send them to all terrorist groups. AndyBloch (talk) 06:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, lead section must include name of the perpetrator. Doing otherwise would be just ridiculous. As of today, there is no any doubts who that perpetrator was. My very best wishes (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Notability of manifesto and political motivation

How notable is the manifesto? I added information about the manifesto to the lead per WP:LEAD to parallel the article body. @Denny: undid the edit, stating that the manifesto is not notable.

One problem with saying that the manifesto is not notable is that the suspect's motivations clearly are notable. Stating facts about the manifesto is a way to allow the reader to draw conclusions about the motivations in a neutral way that bypasses debates over whether eco-fascism is left or right w ing.

Thus, I think we need to work together to resolve two problems. First, the narrow problem: is the manifesto itself notable enough to be in the lead? Second, the broad problem: how do we neutrally cover the suspect's motivations while not wading into WP:OR territory? Leugen9001 (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

For your second problem, I would simply make liberal use of terms such as "self-described", "in his own words", etc... when needed. There is no OR going on if the article states something like "The shooter is a self-described ...". For the first problem, I believe it's worth a mention. It seems to me his entire goal was to radicalize the anglosphere and his manifesto was more prominent in this goal then the movie was.

We can use the 10 year test and simply look at Ted Kaczynski's WP article -- his manifesto is mentioned in the 2nd paragraph lead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.12.249.87 (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The manifesto can be mentioned in the lead but I think it would be inappropriate to quote it, I understand some people prefer primary sources but I think we should abide by WP:RS and use secondary analysis rather than giving the killer space in Wikipedia to explain his murderous acts. People who want to read the manifesto can find it online somewhere, Wikipedia shouldn't use it as a source. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Full text of Breivik manifestio was used as reference in those articles, though: Anders_Behring_Breivik#cite_note-202 & 2011_Norway_attacks#cite_note-manifesto1-31 Crusier (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Space to explain his reasoning is also space for others to criticize it for themselves.Bernabean (talk) 04:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The 10 year test is great - here is one of the attacks by the Unabomber: American Airlines Flight 444 - there is no mention of the Manifesto, nor is the Unabomber mentioned by name. So, yes, I totally agree, let's do it like this.

And yet I originally learned about the manifesto from the WP Ted Kaczynski article. Possibly you can't compare a situation which involved multiple related crimes at different times to a single massive crime? - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, no - we use any self-description only if there are reliable secondary sources providing such. We do not using the Manifesto itself as a source.

The manifesto is not notable, and whether we can understand the motivations of the suspects from it has to be established first. Considering that it was written by a suspected mass murderer, it is not necessarily to be considered a good source for Wikipedia. Who knows? Maybe his motivations were that he was impotent, or that he couldn't find a job, or that he had a troubled youth, or whatever. What he writes is not for us to be interpreted, but for relevant experts. Once they have published their findings, we can summarize them in the article and provide references.

I will not read the manifesto. I don't have the necessary expertise and background to read something written by a mass murderer, to interpret it, and put it into the right context. That's for others to do. So, no, the manifesto is not notable enough to be featured in the , and the extended exegesis of it in the article needs to be severely shortened. --denny vrandečić (talk) 03:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't that make everything published by RS refutable until reliable criminal experts have analyzed it appropriately? Journalists likely do not have the necessary expertise or background; why are you so willing to take their word? Bernabean (talk) 04:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I actually support Denny's huge cut to the manifesto section here although I doubt it will last long. I agree that it had gotten way too specific/exegetical (even though I had been improving the wording etc of that section for the last few hours). The view of including only major details about the contents of the manifesto will keep more and more details from creeping in that don't necessarily belong on this page (manifesto's reference to trump, to child sex abuse by Muslims in the UK, blah blah) and also possibly stop future bickering about the suspect's political views.~ Anotheranothername (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Multiple sources established why he only attacked Muslims just fyi. It wasn't just anti-immigration, it was revenge as well as their higher birth rate than any other group. So that will be necessary. RookerBowman (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The section on the manifesto shouldn't be longer than the section on the victims, otherwise I don't think that due weight is given to the importance of these two facets of this tragic event. --denny vrandečić (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• This is an ideologically motivated crime. Therefore, describing the "manifesto" per multiple RS is very important. Removing it from the lead and from the body of the page I think is unacceptable. This is something published by multiple RS, and no, we do not use the writings by the suspect directly as a source. My very best wishes (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no requirement to make any section longer or shorter, please don't make up such weird claims. It That is irrelevant. As long as his ideology and motivations are covered in a short para, that is succinct. RookerBowman (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've made it very short now, just two paragraphs. RookerBowman (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Here is version prior to your unilateral removal. I agree, this could be made shorter, but not that much. You removed a lot of important details covered in multiple RS. That is what defines notability. My very best wishes (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Rooker.

My very best wishes, Notability is not Wikipedia's only policy. There is also the requirement to not give undue weight. I removed almost 16,000 characters, and the result was still longer than the section on victims. Unless someone argues convincingly that the manifesto of a mass murderer, who will likely turn out to not be the most psychological stable person, deserves so much weight compared to fifty innocent victims, I think that my edit was for the better. Wikipedia does not have to be a platform for the exegesis of the mind of a mass murderer. --denny vrandečić (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I already expanded the Victims section because it needed more details about the missing people. Now it's longer than manifesto. RookerBowman (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Rooker. Let's keep it this way.

To also make it very explicit: I am thankful for anyone who put energy into creating the text that I deleted, I understand that a lot of energy went into this, and that a lot of people were trying to improve Wikipedia by working on these 16,000 characters in 100s of edits. I nevertheless think that we are breaching Wikipedia's policy here by having this overlong section. I understand that it must be frustrating to see the results of your work be suddenly removed. I suggest to step back for a moment, and consider the wider picture. I hope you will find that it was indeed giving undue weight to an aspect of this tragic event. --denny vrandečić (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The manifesto has been covered a lot. I already cut out what I could. There is nothing undue anymore. Cutting his ideology and especially his motivations for attack cannot be done. Please stop making up reasons to hide why he attacked Muslims. The man is sound, his manifesto is actually very clever. Nothing else I will say. RookerBowman (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree on your assessment that someone who decided to murder innocent people is "sound" or "clever". --denny vrandečić (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

People have many motivation to kill. Some killers are intelligent. Just read this https://www.bellingcat.com/news/rest-of-world/2019/03/15/shitposting-inspirational-terrorism-and-the-christchurch-mosque-massacre/ RookerBowman (talk) 05:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Though some comments are distractions, his hatred of immigrants, fascism and sympathy to the far-right is true. RookerBowman (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the sources agree on that, and thus that should be mentioned. Let's agree to disagree on the question how sound the murderer is and move on, it doesn't have an effect on the rest of the work. --denny vrandečić (talk) 05:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with my very best wishes. This is a very ideologically motivated crime, and deserves to have the manifesto's content looked at under a critical eye as determined in the reliable sources. I felt that the way that the article mentioned the manifeso was more than adequate in that respect. The current section glosses over a lot of what was said in said manifesto, without citing and debunking with specific examples, and simply looks and reads sloppy, glosses over some of the deeper meaning that was presented in the writing, among other things. Tutelary (talk) 05:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Strongly oppose removal this is a crime that could not have happened without the extensive ideology that the manifesto (in a roundabout way) demonstrates. Cutting out a lot of the details here, be they his interpretation of European/Muslim history or Euro/Muslim current events or his views on modern Western politics, is sabotaging the reader's attempts to understand what happened. This is not (only) an NPOV issue, this is a basic quality issue.--Calthinus (talk) 05:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree but that section is ripe for coatracking. I think it looks better now than it did last night (KST). The article is about the attack, not the manifesto. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I also strongly oppose removing content about the manifesto, some editors may make the case that its undue and about the actual shooting. However when a separate page on the gunman himself is created, as with Anders' page the guy had motivations and there will be a section on the manifesto. Certain right wing ideologies like white supremacism and Balkan ethno-nationalisms played their part in his radicalisation.Resnjari (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• The section is prone to abuse by inclusion of random details, but that is no reason to abuse it yourself by cutting relevant information. The test here is not "notability", which doesn't apply to individual details of an article; the test is relevancy. What Tarrant thinks of Donald Trump is almost surely irrelevant but some other aspects of his thinking may not be, if they help explain what put him at the door of the mosque with a bunch of guns. Wnt (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The coverage by reliable sources, notability and relevance of the manifesto is sufficient enough that it should be mentioned in the article. I don’t particularly care whether or not it’s in the lead. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Mentioned? Sure, I totally agree. But an exegesis several thousands of characters long? That's giving too much weight to those words. That's giving undue weight to the manifesto. --denny vrandečić (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Since there is no total consensus on the removal of the large section, I made a recap that I think is reasonable ánd significant. I hope this is a welcomed compromise. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 08:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC).

Jürgen Eissink It's a good size, but may I ask what made you omit the part about Trump? That is surely as notable (due to Trump's notability) as the manifesto's namechecking of various mass murderers. This is why I favoured the heavily trimmed manifesto section in the first place.~ Anotheranothername (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Anotheranothername, I don't know which heavily trimmed manifesto section you mean, but I agree that might be added, so feel free to do so, as far as I'm concerned. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC).

Added. It's the same sentence and position/context from the larger manifesto section. I honestly think it is a good size and hits the basic points without being like... fetishistic about all the stuff in the manifesto. Hope this version will stick.~ Anotheranothername (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not bad. I don't think we have to say US president Trump though, we are not introducing the others as "mass-murderer Anders Behring Breivik" etc. It also seems a bit redundant to say " refers to U.S. President Donald Trump" as well as "writing that he is a supporter of Trump" in the same sentence. Thats getting a bit nit picky though. AIRcorn (talk) 09:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course we should include Brevik and whoever else was inspiration for the shooter - according to him and how described in RS. My very best wishes (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this reply for me? i never said anything about not including Brevik. AIRcorn (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I am tragically too busy (I will keep trying to find time) to keep track of who did what here but there are a number of things I find problematic with the current version. Denny I am very sympathetic to your view of not turning this page into a platform for Tarrant's twisted manifesto but that does not mean we don't report on it -- it means we report what extensive secondary sources like these [[10]] [[11]] say. I don't necessarily want to go back to the old version, we can work from this one. His relation to the internet is significant, and is noted, but insufficienttly. That he mentioned Trump as a source of hope, a symbol of "renewed" white identity blablabla is significant -- without hope, he would have thought he was throwing away his life for nothing (EDIT: I see that this has now been re-included, thanks). His connections to far-right movements in parts of Europe like especially Serbia are also significant (his whole idea of some sort of pan-European Christian "nation" smacks of the Ottoman millet) -- as RS can show his views were not only home grown radicalization but also significantly "Balkan-grown" . These things and many more (I will be back with more sources, hopefully when I get a moment) have been purged from the page and that is unfortunate.--Calthinus (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Here's a lot of sourcing for how his ideology was "Balkan-grown" (via the Internet... and also his visits to the region [as confirmed by Bulgarian intelligence] [[12]]) [[13]] hr.n1info.com/English/NEWS/a377784/Bosnia-s-ambassador-Christchurch-shooter-inspired-by-Serbian-nationalist-songs.html [[14]] (this one among other things also notes the Balkanization of Breivik whose own manifesto also has "Serbia", "Kosovo", "Bosnia" and "Albania" each appearing hundreds of times in the manifesto -- together over a thousand -- more than some common verbs). Indeed he was ["entranced with former Ottoman sites" as this RS demonstrates]. --Calthinus (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Excellent points! According to one of RS above "In a 74-page manifesto that he posted on social media, Tarrant said he was a white supremacist who was out to avenge attacks in Europe perpetrated by Muslims." And this is not just something "he said". This is something he actually did, and something supported by these investigations of his travel and international connections. All of that does belong to page. The manifesto is only a part of that, but an important part. Historically, such writings were significant ( Said Sergey Nechayev: "A revolutionary is a doomed man. He has no private interests, no affairs, sentiments, ties, property nor even a name of his own... Heart and soul, not merely by word but by deed, he has severed every link with the social order and with the entire civilized world; with the laws, good manners, conventions, and morality of that world. He is its merciless enemy and continues to inhabit it with only one purpose – to destroy it.") My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Except that the RS is utterly wrong stating "Tarrant said he was a white supremacist" – he simply did not say that. The word 'supremacy' or 'superior' is not in the manifesto. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC).

It is not just about the notability. And it is not about censoring this information. Wikipedia is not a government, therefore removing information from Wikipedia does not constitute censoring, unless it is the government censoring it. I am sure there is a sufficient number of forums that discuss the manifesto in as much detail as anyone would desire. Wikipedia is not a place for that. We offer the sum of all knowledge. For interpreting such works as the manifesto, there are researchers, and I am sure we will get good reliable sources on that within a year or two. Then we can cite these and summarize their findings. But describing in detail the manifesto of a mass murderer, using his own words as a primary source, when one or two sentences would suffice, that is not for Wikipedia.

We saw one edit that tried to add more information about the victims. It was immediately removed. Because not encyclopedic. What makes the life of innocent victims less relevant than the writings of a mass murderer? I see that the article still puts an undue weight on the murderer and his writing. I suggest that we further trim the amount of text on the assailant, and in extension, on his words. We don't discuss the crazy ideas of every delusional murderer in detail in most other murder cases, why should we do it here? Do we want to tell people: "Listen, in order for your ideas to be heard, you need to kill 50 people." Is that the message we want to send? --denny vrandečić (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• You can not remove a lot of relevant sourced information like that just by saying: "hey, this is not encyclopedic". You must explain why this sourced information was not encyclopedic. And no, a significant amount of sourced information about victims and perpetrator(s) is encyclopedic, including why he did it and how exactly the terrorist act has been planned. My very best wishes (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Denny While from the bottom of my heart I would not argue that the views or general info about the victims is not important, the fact is that as the sole reason they were killed was existing as Muslims, it will not tell readers much about the event itself. The motives of the killer, on the other hand, are a central aspect of the crime, especially in this case where we have an ideologically motivated mass murder. In what sort of ideological massacre is the ideology behind it more important to understanding it, than the innocent victims whose individual lives meant nothing to their killers? --Calthinus (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Calthinus, I think when the article on the gunmen himself is created (its bound to happen in coming weeks or months) a more detailed section on the manifesto will be apt there, like as in Anders Behring Breivik's article on him which is separate from the shooting he did.Resnjari (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Resnjari It's still better to have here a three or so sentence blurb mentioning at least some of the "Balkan" factors rather than only the fact that a meme-ified song played (many people who know of said song aren't even aware of its origins or meaning, it's just a funny military oaf playing an accordion to many who don't even know what the Balkans are). --Calthinus (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Calthinus, i agree wholeheartedly with that. But many editors thought that a trim down was needed and excluded those Balkan factors of the manifesto that were previously in the article. When they were in the article those Balkan factors kept either getting removed or targeted and i lost count of how many times i had to address that when it happened (most of those edits did not even have edit summaries). From observation the article is being edited at a fast pace so admins might not be keeping track of all edits.Resnjari (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Alas there is consensus which can be attained here. My very best wishes would you agree with a 2 or 3 sentence or so Balkan addition in the section? --Calthinus (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, certainly, but this is not really about the manifesto. See the previous paragraph about the perpetrator. My very best wishes (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Eh, are you negotiating edit space here? A contribution should be considered by it's content and quality, not it's amount of bytes. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC).

This really needs a focused RFC as the discussion here is all over the place. AIRcorn (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Aircorn: RfCs are more organized but also a much greater waste of time. More efficient are incremental mutually agreed upon compromises on individual points when you are dealing with something that is actually a collection of other statements -- not the best topic for an RfC as you'd end up with votes like "Oppose including sentence 1 and 2, include 3, exclude4, include 5-7...".--Calthinus (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The best advantage of an rfc is they are a lot more binding. Here you may get a group of editors coming to an agreement, but then someone else will come along and change it and you are back to square one. Having an RFC to point to is a much stronger consensus to maintain. I would suggest that ideally two most likely options are developed and then a simple RFC is devised asking editors to choose which they think fits best. AIRcorn (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I would argue that multiple incremental mutually agreed upon compromises on individual points would take at least as long. Especially since in many cases they would be dependent, e.g. "Oppose including sentences 1 and 2 unless this modified version of sentence 3 is included." Few sentences stand in isolation. I would argue that there is no efficient way to do this as long as we write by committee. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I do think that having something on the Balkans is needed. He was clearly influenced by certain nationalisms of the region. And it was a motivation with his whole "Remove Kebab" thing and the many names of historical figures from over there. Most readers at the moment don't really understand the Balkan factor so a 2 or 3 sentences would go a long way to addressing it like "the gunman was influenced by so and so nationalism after having made trips to so and so countries etc" or something like that based on RS.Resnjari (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose to removing content from manifesto. The content that was stated in this edit should be restored. I already commented my thoughts, but I did want to make it unambiguous where I stand. Tutelary (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The Candace Owens Line

The line stating that Canace Owens is a major inspiration should definitely also mention that this is one of many cases of sarcasm and irony present in his manifesto. Leaving things ambigious like in this instance will lead to people being blamed that have nowt to do with any of this, the same way that people are already blaming video game Fortnite even though his reference to this in his manifesto was obviously sarcastic. Same old with Owens, who by the likes of the perp is seen as a laughably weak conservative, not even to mention her skin colours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.213.112.75 (talk) 08:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

This article in The Atlantic is interesting. It says that the manifesto was "designed to troll" which is a common feature of 8chan, 4chan and similar sites. Quote from the Atlantic article: "Together, the posts suggest that every aspect of the shootings was designed to gain maximum attention online, in part by baiting the media." I agree that some of the things said in the manifesto should be taken with a large pinch of salt because they look like routine message board trolling. Some of the MSM sources haven't picked up on this. As the saying goes, This is Bait.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

With that Atlantic article as well as a National Review article, I expanded a paragraph on the Manifesto about trolling, and brought up the PewDiePie reaction into that as it is related to what these articles are saying. There's more than enough sources that talk of this being shitposting rather than a serious document. --Masem (t) 15:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Very obvious throwaway reference that the author probably got off on. Not notable.--Calthinus (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a fair bit of shitposting in the manifesto, but I think we should be very careful about disregarding it entirely. Most of it seems very serious to me, with common use of sarcasm and the occasional meme/giant troll. Bernabean (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Remove all those names he dropped in his manifesto

If we must describe what is in the manifesto (which in a sense makes us complicit in his trolling), I STRONGLY object to naming all the living people he cited in it. For God's sake, we devote most of a paragraph to naming them all! I think we should remove them all and summarize in a sentence or so - "In his rambling manifesto he named numerous living people as inspirations" or something along those lines. We have nothing except the word of a psycho murderer to link their names to this assault. Per BLP we need multiple reliable sources to include negative or controversial material about a living person; we have nothing close to that. IMO it is a BLP violation to list all these people here. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

What she said. O3000 (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Ditto. Being "named in a manifesto" does not reach the level of any meaningful connection. I could use the NY phone directory if someone wrote their "manifesto" on its pages - being mentioned where there is no actual nexus between two persons is absurd. Collect (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not in disagreement with the above, but I do want to point out that in considering how the manifesto may just be a "shitpost" (stuff I added this morning), that RSes do mention PewDiePie and Cadance Owens regularly on this point, not so much putting any blame on them but that the manifesto may be designed to target these people by their critics for the blame game. As long as we're iterating that point by RSes, those two names should be kept. (And should Owens state something similar to PewDiePie that must be included). I do think the names help only to broadly categorize whom the attacker was praising but we can do that without the names, I think. --Masem (t) 16:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The author of the manifesto showed a shrewd understanding of the world of alt-right memes and trolling, and some MSM sources fell into this well known trap. Wikipedia should be made of sterner stuff, and make clear that the manifesto is intended to troll. This leads to WP:BLP problems for the living persons named in it. They probably should not be named, or if they are mentioned, there needs to be context explaining the trolling mentality.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with IanMa above, the entire point of the manifestio was to troll and can possibly lead to WP:BLP issues on the people who are named in it.TheMesquito^buzz 17:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Reliable Source coverage: in Google searching the only name I found repeatedly mentioned by mainstream sources was Trump's, and most of that coverage was about the White House reaction to it. Mentions of Oswald Moseley were not in mainstream sources. Mentions of Candace Owens were mostly in articles saying her name might have been included to troll journalists. We claim to follow Reliable Sources, but in this section we are way out ahead of them. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I am drafting a proposed redo of the paragraph, which I will propose here shortly. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Due to the agreements above, and the urgency of dealing with BLP issues, I am going to go ahead and replace that paragraph with one that does not name any persons. We can continue to discuss and tweak here. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. I wanted to remove the Pew-de-pie reference too, but it had been so widely reported by Reliable Sources I felt I had to leave it in. I did remove the name of the channel's owner. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Good move. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Everything else is fine but I disagree that we need to remove PDP's real name. That's his online alias, not really a channel name, and his is clearly public figure with a well known, long-established link between real name and online alias. Importantly we have his statement that distances himself from the attack, which is a necessity for BLP purposes; The others haven't spoken out yet about their inclusion so I agree removal there is appropriate to avoid implication (even though as worded by the press, they are clearly not trying to implicate any of these other BLPs) --Masem (t) 19:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

RE PDP: All of the sources used his real name, and he replied personally. If someone wants to restore his name that would be OK with me. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I've readded his name, but that's the only name that should be added at this point. --Masem (t) 20:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Imo we mention names if reliable sources provide a reason why they are relevant. It should not be wikipedia editors making the decision.--Calthinus (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Calthinus: my thoughts exactly. Cinadon36 (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Calthinus. If he baited the worlds press and they took the bait, then it is notable. If a section of the press describes it as ~bait then we can give it context. Using the manifesto as a primary source is going to lead to original research or quoting harmful nonsenses at length. Reporting the secondary interpretation of it is what we are here for. Use the names on a case by case, based on RS. Don't mind-quite like the changes made to the section though, just want the door left open. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)).

"the manifesto is intended to troll", "the entire point of the manifestio was to troll" – this is completely ignoring that the manifesto was for the large part a lot more than that, namely an exposition of his worldview and his radical solutions to make the world – in his view – a better place. Do you think the court will ignore the manifesto 'because it is only trolling'? You let yourself being carried away if you really want to maintain that "the manifesto is only trolling". You might as well say the whole shooting was trolling and therefore should be ignored. Get a grip. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC).

By the way, the manifesto opens with Do not go gentle into that good night. I wouldn't call that trolling. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC).

At least when I added it, I carefully made the point that it is a possibly raised by journalists that this is trolling. We will not know if it is or not until the investigation is over, but there's also more than enough press coverage of this idea of it being a trolling action to not include at this point. This is why this point is also after all the serious threats or statements made about manifesto. --Masem (t) 20:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

In my point here I don't care in itself whether the manifesto should be elaborated extensively in this article, and it should and probably will get it's own page, but I react on the arguments you and others give. It keeps puzzling me how people here think they are able to interpret RS but refuse to even read the words of the suspect on which they spent days of their life to write an article on. If you would have only looked at the manifesto, you would know that the trolling might indeed very well be an element of the style of minor parts of it, but instead you get stuck in the trolling narrative of some RS editors and journalists, many of whom are not equipped at all to reflect on the broadness of an issue like this and are for a large part only parroting, if not confusing memes and motives in a powerless attempt to deduce meaning themselves. You, like many others, mix up the trolling parts of the manifesto with it's actual content. Maybe the trolling parts were deliberate attempts to gain extra attention (as if the massacre itself would not be enough of a statement), maybe (I'd say: likely) they were just a reflection of his mindset, but either way it's nothing but pretext to the content of the manifesto, and downplaying the importance of the manifesto for the attacker's motives is at least silly. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC).

That's the whole issue of original research. We as WP editors cannot seem to show any expertise on the manifesto - we can read what it has but we can't make any conclusions on our own. We have to turn to RSes. And that's where right now it seems most RSes are going past anything "serious" about the manifesto and compare it closer to a shitpost because its all over the place. Now, I am sure there are scholars and other analysts out there reading the manifesto and trying to develop a psychological profile, or try it to anything else, etc. That will take time. They are doing what we cannot. --Masem (t) 21:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

WP editors can make conclusions of their own, they just can not add their own conclusion directly to an article. We can show expertise and share opinion on Talk pages. Every editor makes considerations based on own conclusions. Editors can debate about which sources are more to the point than others on a certain subject, and different existing views can be addressed in the article. RS should not be taken at face value, especially in an epoch where they have failed the public time and again. It's not a crime to be critical, and for an editor that likes to take on major issue's it should not be a difficult task to ascertain from the primary source that to shelve the source as mere trolling is, if not malicious, a sad (self) deception. In a way, I think, partially the trolling is the message, and the message should not be ignored. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC).

There are sources that specifically discuss the idea that the manifesto was intended to troll and which go into depth on which parts of it are particularly likely to be trolling vs. accurately reflecting the writer's views. We should rely on those. For instance, see this one on Owens vs. Breivik or Trump. We can't decide which parts are worth paying attention to ourselves, and we definitely shouldn't try to analyze the manifesto ourselves, but we can and should use the analysis produced by reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 06:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, of course, but it helps if any editor that wants to edit the manifesto section has at least a basic understanding of its composition and content. I'm afraid some are too terrified to even look at the document and yet think they can value what RS say about it. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 06:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

P.S. In retrospect I can't believe that we included, even for a minute, the names of people he said should be assassinated. What were we thinking? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• The answer to that question is most likely just: "Oh, well here's a thing that's not on the Wikipedia article. Let me just add that in." This is one of the reasons why we can't behave like automatons when editing. Scrutinize your sources, cross-check with other sources, consider if the addition is useful, helpful, necessary. These are vital editorial processes that go above and beyond "well it appears in RSes". Mr rnddude (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I think there's some common sense here. People that were named are all public figures, and those names were being pulled from reliable sources. So it seems reasonable (not that it necessarily is). Add that while there's active attempts to pull the video, there's little being done that I've seen about the spread of the manifesto. If it were the case that the authorities wanted the document kept a secret and some reliable press source leaked all those names, that would be definitely a reason to keep the names out. --Masem (t) 20:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    • We should not have included, ever, names of people he wanted assassinated. Also, a lot of the names are listed with the intent to troll -- and it is specifically RS that say so (example: Candace Owens) so we have RS arguments for exclusion. In other cases -- Breivik, Trump, etc -- this does not apply as that is not the tone sources have taken. It's really pretty simple and not unethical.--Calthinus (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• If name of person X was mentioned in the "manifesto" and was discussed in multiple RS in relation to the shootings (including "manifesto"), this must be actually included per WP:NPOV. It does not matter who these people are. For example, Breivik definitely qualify. My very best wishes (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

You may be right about Breivik. Our article mentioned him only in passing, as one of many terrorists that he approved of (along with the likes of Dylan Root). However, Reliable Sources are making a much bigger deal out of a connection or inspiration between this attack and Breivik. Examples: Foreign Policy and the Norway Local. And the Sydney Morning Herald reports that the manifesto claims he had been in "brief" contact with Breivik; so does WaPo. I think we need to add a sentence about him. I'll do it. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'd oppose blanket removals, though we definitely shouldn't include any names that are just mentioned in his manifesto and nowhere else or which are mentioned only in passing in the sources, with no context to provide or evaluate relevance. When there has been substantial secondary coverage discussing a name in relation to his manifesto, we should consider covering it via that (with an emphasis on what that coverage has said.) In cases where the name has been mentioned but the context in reliable sources is dubious or skeptical (eg. Owens) we should decide on a case-by-case basis depending on the level of coverage, whether it's sustained in the long term, how focused it is on that aspect and so on. --Aquillion (talk) 06:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Why is everyone saying this guy is trolling? Is that for us to judge? Anything anyone writes could be serious or non-serious. As for what to repeat from the manifesto: stuff which the media has highlighted, I guess? If there are parts that were not focused on by reporters then they aren't important. -Oranginger, March 18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oranginger (talk • contribs) 03:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Several reliable sources specifically said that believe him to be trolling, so it's important for us to take that into account and be cautious about eg. aspects that most sources are dismissive of, like Owens. That said, the sources also tend to emphasize that certain parts are trolling, while others are taken more seriously (or have connections to the topic that are citable to places other than his manifesto.) Also, there is a point where even if he's trolling, we might have to cover that trolling (eg. if it eventually turns out that there's an overwhelming volume of sustained coverage on his mention of Owens, which most sources describe as trolling or trying to target her.) But we should show some caution with those aspects. --Aquillion (talk) 06:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Its not too bad as it is now. I do feel it gives too much weight to Pewdiepie and that could be trimmed though. AIRcorn (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, especially since Pewdiepie was not mentioned in the manifesto. Editor Masem construed, or extracted, an example out of an article that does not give that example directly; when I tried to correct he would not let me. The text doesn't even need an example, but one could from RS also get examples from inside the manifesto. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

If anywhere it fits best back in reactions. The last two sentences could be combined and reworded to still explain the possible consequences. AIRcorn (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Overall, however, I agree with BLP concerns here and made an edit to fix a similar problem on page about Breivik [15]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Link to Manifesto

Did we link the manifesto. I think it's important for wikipedia readers to have a direct link to it so they can read for themselves. CheersBaldr The Brave (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It contains information inciting killing of certain people. It may well fail WP:ELNO number 3 (I am not sure on the US laws around this, but I know it is illegal in other countries). AIRcorn (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I haven't personally read his manifesto, but as for U.S. law, the Supreme Court has held that the "government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is 'directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.' The government cannot "prohibited the mere advocacy of violence". Brandenburg v. Ohio. I doubt that any written material is likely of producing imminent lawless action, so his manifesto is likely protected speech under the U.S. 1st Amendment. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

As there are direct links to the Breivik manifesto here: Anders_Behring_Breivik#cite_note-202 and here: 2011_Norway_attacks#cite_note-manifesto1-31 on English Wikipedia, I can't see why it should be any different in this case Crusier (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Complete list of victims

Can we have a complete list of all the victims of the murderer? The murderer has a full section detailing his name life and bio, while the victims remain anonymous. History should erase the name of the murderer but the victims should be remembered. We can use this list as a guide: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/16/asia/new-zealand-mosque-shooting-victims/index.html

Including their name, age and background should be a nice tribute to the innocent victims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.134.28.204 (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

These lists have become a major point of contention at each new mass killing article. Usually there is no consensus to include one, so someone starts an RfC on the question, and sometimes the RfC also fails to reach consensus. Per WP:ONUS, all disputed content is omitted unless there is a consensus to include it. I am opposed to such lists for various reasons that can be briefly summarized as (1) lists of names add nothing to reader understanding of the event and are not encyclopedic, and (2) naming random victims infringes on their privacy and that of their families, which does not become unimportant when they are killed. We have no way of knowing that the dead would care to be "remembered" in this Wikipedia article. I am less strongly opposed to lists that provide descriptive information but omit names, but some of the same arguments against also apply to them.
Your comments about the victims should be remembered and a nice tribute to the innocent victims are inconsistent with Wikipedia principles; Wikipedia articles are not memorials, and we don't let emotion determine our content. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a "tribute" site. Does adding the names improving the readers understanding of the article topic? All pointed out above, just worth repeating. --Malerooster (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a tribute, being on a page is not an honour. Perhaps this idea should be taken to the 9/11 page or the one on the bombing of tokyo. I do not think such lists will improve the pages use as an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a memorial and we should have very similar rules for a mass shooting as any other page.(Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)).

• No, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. We don't include the names of victims in articles purely to memorialize them or to attempt parity with the coverage of the killer. (I would be skeptical of the idea that being mentioned in an article is automatically a good thing anyway.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Without being a complete list, I'd like to see more information than the age ranging from 2 to 71. Men/Women and more specifics about the age, for example? Other than minimum one 2-year-old and minimum one 71-year-old it doesn't tell us much about the other 48. -Oranginger, Marc h18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oranginger (talk • contribs) 03:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

BBC published a list of victims today: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47593693, although NZ authorities said also today they have only identified 12 victims so far: https://www.afp.com/en/news/3954/nz-returns-first-shooting-dead-after-delay-angers-families-doc-1es9m95. (. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

This article should include a complete list of victim names just like 90% of similar articles. WP:MEMORIAL is not applicable. It is a policy which concerns the initiation of new articles on the subject of deceased individuals who do not meet notability requirements. WP:MEMORIAL says "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." The victim names in this article constitute content. At WP:NOTEWORTHY we find "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". And "The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it." (I added the bolding.) Just as we would not remove the victim names from articles such as Stoneman Douglas High School shooting and Pittsburgh synagogue shooting we should not omit information on the identities of the victims in this incident. We exist to provide information, not to deliberately omit information. Those who are unhappy with the wording at WP:MEMORIAL should endeavor to change the wording at WP:MEMORIAL rather than blithely running roughshod over what it actually says. Listing names and ages does not constitute memorialization. It is informational in the context of this article. Bus stop (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

We exist to provide information, not to deliberately omit information. WP:ONUS: "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article." Thus, we "deliberately omit information" all the time; in fact that's half of what we do. Why, just yesterday I deliberately omitted about a dozen things in various articles. Please don't pretend we are violating some Wikipedia fundamental by omitting these lists. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:MEMORIAL does and has always applied to all article content, like everything on WP:NOT, and this fact is entirely-uncontroversial; it has been explained to you at length on numerous occasions, and your efforts to convince people otherwise have consistently fallen flat. The section you are referring to refers to the specific notability guidelines that fall under that that guideline, not to WP:NOT, which specifically says it applies to all article content. If you want to challenge that, you should try to change the wording of WP:NOT, rather than repeatedly encouraging people to ignore or violate WP:MEMORIAL. --Aquillion (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that's really a moot issue. Wikipedia Pillar 5 says, "The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording...". The spirit behind omitting memorial victims lists is exactly the same as that behind excluding memorial articles. I've yet to see an explanation—let alone a convincing explanation—let alone a community consensus for said explanation—for why the principle should apply to one but not the other; all I see is people spouting their interpretations of a written rule. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

We are writing an article about the killing of 50 people. In such an article the names of the people killed constitute relevant information. Relevant information for whom? Not for the editors such as you or I. But for the benefit of readers. Including the names of the victims benefits some readers. Omitting the names of the deceased only makes the article less useful to some readers. Bus stop (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

You can say something is relevant, but your argument will not convince many others unless you can say—convincingly—how it's relevant, how it benefits some readers. In the end, it's how many others you can convince that matters. You are far short of convincing me. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

(EC) Outside of demongraphics, the only people that will be impacted by the list of non-notable victims are friends and family; the bulk of the world others sees them as 50 people killed by this guy (with so far, one notable athlete killed among them). It may seem cold and heartless but 1) it is not our place to provide that type of memorial, and 2) the full list of victims, particularly from a 1st world countries like NZ, will be readily published in other media. A demographic breakdown (age, genders, nationalities, and in this case religion) define the group better than 50 random names. --Masem (t) 18:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

"Outside of demongraphics, the only people that will be impacted by the list of non-notable victims are friends and family" That is totally incorrect. "it is not our place to provide that type of memorial" That is totally incorrect. It is our practice in 90% of such articles to contain victim lists. "A demographic breakdown (age, genders, nationalities, and in this case religion) define the group better than 50 random names." The names are the names, whatever they may be. In the context of this article the names of the people killed are entirely relevant. I would be in favor of including considerable background information, such as that which is provided to us by various good quality sources. We are an encyclopedia, not a parochial organ of Britain and America. Some of the individuals killed were born in Afghanistan. I contend that is relevant information for inclusion in this article, along with at least the name and age of every individual. You are arbitrarily deciding that relevant information should be omitted. Doing so would only make the article weaker and less useful to a broad swathe of people. Bus stop (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

It is our practice in 90% of such articles to contain victim lists. Please stop touting that 90% number as if it's meaningful. A majority of that is not the result of close scrutiny of the question, since it happened before this became a controversial issue at Wikipedia. Much of it involved little or no discussion at all. Far more meaningful is what has happened more recently, and that includes the Stoneman Douglas—which closed as "no consensus" and resulted in inclusion of a list only because the list had been edit-warred into the article prior to the start of the RfC, in violation of policy—and Aurora, Illinois, which is soon to close with a consensus to omit a list. Even if that older stuff had resulted from close scrutiny, consensus can change. While there have been recent consensuses to include a list, that number is far below 90%, and it hardly constitutes an overall community consensus for the lists. When the issue has been taken to the community in community venues, there has never been a consensus to include or omit the lists, even as a mere default; rather, if there was any consensus it was that this needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In other words, the precedent argument has consistently failed at community level. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

In addition to Mandruss' above statement, I will still contend that if any victim was not notable before the event and had no significant role in trying to deter the event (as was the case of some of the teachers at Sandy Hook), the name is meaningless to nearly the entire world save for the victim's family and friends. If you don't know the "John Q Smith" that was a victor, how does their name help? On the other hand, knowing how age, gender, nationality, etc. break down does give some weight to the victims as a group. It does not disrespect the victims as a whole but puts who has died in a context that has more meaning for the rest of the world than just names. --Masem (t) 20:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is primarily your effort to keep victim lists out of articles, Mandruss. You more than anyone else can be seen spearheading an effort to omit victim lists from articles. Near the top of this section you say "These lists have become a major point of contention at each new mass killing article." That is primarily because you are making them a point of contention. Not an article has gone by of a "mass killing" event at which you are not to be found trying to bring about the omission of a victim list. I am not doing that. Do you not see that I do not weigh in before you? You are not the master of article writing. Nor am I. But I refuse to stand by idly while you try to impose your will, in your little pet area of article-writing. Omitting the names of the deceased would not be for the benefit of the reader. The reader only encounters an article that is deficient in relevant and expected information. It is a contrivance to argue that a list of 50 names in this article is irrelevant. Furthermore I have never created a victim list or added to a victim list. I simply support their inclusion. I don't initiate arguments favoring their inclusion. You seem to think that you have the answer to this. And you are not content to stand on the sidelines and let the article develop as it may, vis-a-vis victim lists, by relatively uninvolved editors. 90% of articles contain victim lists because this is relevant information in such articles. These are not articles that take overviews of such incidents—articles such as Mass shooting, Workplace violence, etc. The articles we are discussing treat material of specific incidents. Wikipedia should be a resource on such incidents. Please don't weaken these articles by arguing for the removal of relevant information. Bus stop (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

You can count me in on trying to get such lists removed for the reasons stated over and over. O3000 (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

It is primarily your effort to keep victim lists out of articles, Mandruss. If I've convinced more editors than you have, good for me, but I believe most editors' positions are already established when they arrive at this kind of discussion. But thanks for showing that you have no respect for the consensus process, you do far more to defeat your position than I do. I'm off to do something more useful for awhile, have a nice day. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I also oppose a list inside the article, but would it not be possible to create Category:Lists of victims of mass shootings and the like? The article could link to such a list. Compare f.i. List of victims of the Babi Yar massacre. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

The Babi Yar massacre comprised 33,771 deaths. There are practical concerns differentiating 33,771 deaths from 50 deaths as concerns article construction. Bus stop (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "no respect for the consensus process" The process has long ago established a semblance of consensus. 90% of articles contain victim lists. Wouldn't that constitute a semblance of consensus? Bus stop (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Masem—how can you on the one hand say that it constitutes memorialization and on the other hand say that it disrespects people? Aren't these two concepts almost mutually exclusive? Bus stop (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

As a casual user of Wikipedia I was surprised to find a long technical discussion on this issue instead of some more substantial information about the victims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a04:ae04:c806:2b00:7936:4b60:b17:93d8 (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

As always (when there are fewer than 100), I'm down for a list of names, ages and hometowns. Just to let readers know who died in this story about real people dying. Hobbies, aspirations, jobs, relatives and interests belong on their respective Facebook pages and (somewhat) in newspaper sidebar stories. If MEMORIAL applies to content regarding a notable Wikipedia subject by any stretch of the imagination, it'd only be because of stuff like that. Wait for the entire list to be publicized first, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, March 20, 2019 (UTC)

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

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)

• 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: [16]). Even if the manifesto wasn't designed to deceive (we wouldn't quote it to say he is a Navy Seal, etc.)[17], 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)

Remove Suspects Name

The New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, has asked that the suspect's name be forgotten and erased entirely from history. I feel that this would only be possible with Wikipedia's support with the removal of his name/details from the page. Instead just refer to him as "The Suspect" or if he is found guilty, "The Murderer". This goes towards ensuring that he has no legacy, and that in 50 years time no one remembers his name or who he was. Instead we need to remember his victims for their lives.

If this was to be approved by Wikipedia, It would be supported greatly by the people of New Zealand.

--Dunners 1080 (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

This is known as damnatio memoriae and the police chief said something similar after the Umpqua Community College shooting in 2015. Unfortunately, it didn't prevent further mass shootings in the United States. No amount of damnatio memoriae is going to bring back the victims of the Christchurch shooting, and there is a legitimate public interest in knowing the alleged shooter's name and background. WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NOTCENSORED both apply here. It would also be somewhat futile not to mention the name of the alleged shooter, as it is legally available in the NZ news media.[18]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Removing it is out of the question per WP:NOTCENSORED. But how about minimizing it, maybe use his name the first time per subsection? Then 'he' instead of his name when possible. starship.paint ~ KO 11:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Forget the white bear? Jürgen Eissink (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

Was he saying this "officially" or "rhetorically"? There have been cases where there has been legal orders to block names even though press usually outside a country gets access to them, and that's where this might be something to consider on WP. But if he was asking rhetorically, then that's inactionable for WP. --Masem (t) 14:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Tarrant's court-appointed lawyer made no application for bail or name suppression. [19]. I don't suppose that he would have been granted bail anyway, but judges sometimes prevent the identification of the accused pending a trial. In this case, there would have been problems with name suppression, because it would have appeared widely in the foreign media and on the Internet whether the NZ courts liked it or not. Jacinda Ardern said "He sought many things from his act of terror but one was notoriety, that is why you will never hear me mention his name. He is a terrorist. He is a criminal. He is an extremist. But he will, when I speak, be nameless. And to others, I implore you: speak the names of those who were lost rather than the name of the man who took them. He may have sought notoriety but we, in New Zealand, will give nothing – not even his name."[20] This is a request rather than a legally binding ruling. I don't think that simply naming the gunman is a problem, and removing names like Adam Lanza and Lee Harvey Oswald from Wikipedia would not be very helpful. What is unacceptable is glorifying the shooter in Christchurch. There are now numerous very poor taste memes doing this online, and this is the real problem area.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Then I read that as rhetorically and while a very valid point (seeking attention, similar to trolling), it still remains unactionable for WP. --Masem (t) 15:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

We could invoke WP:BLPCRIME to remove his name, at least temporarily, if we want (it has already been mentioned before). In fact we could get a consensus here to remove his name for no other reason than we have a consensus as almost everything is built on concensus. I don't think either of these things are likely or even advisable. We could more feasibly remove the infobox (it adds nothing as is) and not bold the name though. AIRcorn (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I think your suggestion ("...remove the infobox (it adds nothing as is) and not bold the name…") would satisfy all needs of Wikipedia and would give the murderer not the satisfaction. I strongly support your suggestion. --JonValkenberg (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Bolding is needed since his name redirects here (as it should), and he is a primary subject of the article. For the same reason I'd lean toward keeping the infobox (but that's no biggie since really the only thing it adds that isn't in the section is his criminal charge). We're already giving his name less attention than usual by not including it in the article opening. ··gracefool 💬 21:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

It should be in the article lede; it's standard practice for all articles. The reason for the advocacy against this is political, which contradicts our NPOV policy. While consistency is not absolutely important, it's a good thing to be consistent from article to article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Bolding is not needed. Nothing is needed. It is generally accepted and probably should stay, but it is not needed per se. Consistency within an article is important, but consistency from article to article is not really important at all. In many cases it pigeon holes us into a certain way of presenting information when there are differences between said articles or even worse leads to lame wars on spelling and formatting. FWIW I have supported having the name in the lead from the beginning, I just don't like the "we must do it this way arguments". Guidelines are just guidelines for a reason. AIRcorn (talk) 07:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, there is no reason to bold the name. It's not like there's readability issues here we're trying to account for. TarkusAB^talk 14:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Removing the suspect's name is a ridiculous idea. Wikipedia exists for the purpose of providing information that readers are searching for. That's also the reason we bold redirected terms, so readers can quickly find and identify the information they are looking for. The suspect will likely eventually have his own article at some point, just like Dylan Roof and Anders Breivik do, as I suspect he is already well on the way to becoming an infamous terrorist. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

song "Fire"

"When the gunman returned to the car, the song "Fire" by The Crazy World of Arthur Brown, was playing.[40] The video streaming stopped as the gunman was driving along Bealey Avenue"

-Red marquis (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

But we are not blaming rock and roll and we are not drawing causation out of meaningless correlation. We are providing the reader with information about the event that transpired.

The source says "When the gunman returned to his car after the shooting, the song “Fire” by English rock band “The Crazy World of Arthur Brown” can be heard blasting from the speakers. The singer bellows, “I am the god of hellfire!” as the man, a 28-year-old Australian, drives away."[21] Bus stop (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, how is that relevant detail? Unless it is being suggested the song had something to do with the shooter's motivations. I'd accept its inclusion if the shooter himself said the song definitely inspired him. Since there is no such connection, it is irrelevant detail that should be excised. -Red marquis (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we are permitted to tell the reader what transpired in an event. We provide information. That is our raison d'être. Bus stop (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

It is a trivial detail, like the make of the car, or the like. Yes, its documentable, but it is indiscriminate information, at least at this point. --Masem (t) 14:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Then please feel free to remove the "make of the car". Bus stop (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Red marquis—you write "Removing irrelevant detail again." You don't get to determine what is relevant. Bus stop (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Red Marquis here. We're an encyclopedia, summarizing important and relevant information. We are not a police report providing every detail. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

These days, people choose their playlists. It is not random radioplay. The importance I won't judge, but personality-wise it is relevant. While the make of the car also echoes personal taste (bearing in mind that it might not have been his), large purchases such as that more closely echo financial status, which can be derived independently if it is deemed important. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Besides, we are just reporters. Reporters of what? Reporters of what reliable sources say. We should not be exercising editorial "judgement" that has the effect of depriving readers of relevant information. Many "irrelevant" details become iconic markers for an event. It is ludicrous that at this early stage, editors are already arguing for what to omit from an article. Shouldn't we gather our material together and then perhaps weed some of it out in the weeks to come? Bus stop (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

No. That's ridiculuous. Random IPs apparently sure the perp was listening to his own Spotify playlist, rather than a random song (on a streaming service, or even *gasp!* the car radio?! WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE applies. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Remove song (and car if you want), as the above post shows the inclusion of this kind of data implies we are making a link that is unfounded outside of pop psychology (right or wrong). This is a trait of tabloid journalism. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)).

"pop psychology"? Please tell me where you see any pop psychology? Bus stop (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but you're incorrect. We should indeed exercise some judgement on what information is relevant per WP:NOTEVERYTHING policy. We as editors do indeed need to determine what merits inclusion while looking to sources for guidance. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Well，the Gas Gas Gas should also be removed according to your standard.It is just an eurobeat style anime song played while gunman fled the scene which is nothing to do with gunman's motivation.What did you think of it？ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.136.41.61 (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Quick quote from the lyrics of Fire (Arthur Brown song): "I am the god of hellfire! And I bring you Fire, I'll take you to burn Fire, I'll take you to learn I'll see you burn... Fire, to destroy all you've done Fire, to end all you've become I'll feel you burn." This blares out from the car's audio system after the shooting at the Al Noor Mosque. This is the work of serious troll and sick fuck. The text doesn't really do it justice.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Who is a "serious troll"? I'm not sure what you're saying. Bus stop (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

We've been through this already. Every piece of music in the live streamed video has been chosen carefully for maximum trolling effect. I'm sure that the shooter put a great deal of thought into the music that would be played during the video. This isn't a random playlist off a disc, it has all been planned. Fire (Arthur Brown song) is a regrettably good choice, because it is so disturbing when it is used in the video.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I still don't know what you are saying. Are you calling the suspect a "troll"? I thought a troll was an obnoxious Internet presence. I'm just trying to reconcile the label (troll) with the action taken (killing people). Bus stop (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying that the alleged shooter is a troll. The entire manifesto is a mixture of trolling and shitposting (fortunately the MSM now seems to have realized this after some early lapses). The same is true of the music in the video. I am reminded of Luka Magnotta, who played the New Order song "True Faith" during the Lin Jun murder video. This wasn't a random choice either, people pointed out that it was used in American Psycho (film). Unless you have actually watched the live stream video, it is hard to explain how sick and disturbing its use of music is. It is a key part of the video, and has been chosen carefully in advance.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

OR learned me (not sure if any RS picked it up) that he in fact had a bluetooth speaker hooked to his gear. The music was audible during his rampage outside the car also, be it supressed by gunshots most of the time, and probably by loss of signal inside the mosque. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

The only RS that references a portable speaker is The Wall Street Journal (WSJ 17 March 2019 / cached mirror): "The shooting stopped suddenly, and Mr. Faysal said he could hear the attacker reloading directly outside the door. He also heard military music coming from what he believes was a portable speaker carried by the shooter. He prayed for the man not to enter." The speaker can be seen on one of the photographs that Tarrant uploaded to Twitter. I mention this all to answer suggestions that the music was perhaps incidental and irrelevant to his motives – his equipment suggests otherwise. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC).

Even if he had a speaker, this doesn't conclusively demonstrate that the music was chosen for the audience let alone that it was trolling. It could be the only thoughts he had when choosing to have the speaker and music were either himself or alternatively some nasty idea of how it would affect his victims. And for the latter, while it may have affected one of them, this doesn't really tell us how significant it was overall compared to every other horrible thing the shooter did. It also doesn't mean by itself he spent much time on any, it could easily be a spur of the moment thing that he's forgotten he even did. It's not like it's difficult to get a bluetooth speaker in NZ. It may be when combined with other things about what he did, said including his song choices, etc, as well as the responses of others, reasonable conclusions could be made and significance of at least some of it established. But that's why we require reliable secondary sources and not editor OR from watching the horrific video. As a similar example, when I read several reports that the shooter used a strobe light, I wondered if it was significant and remarked we should keep an eye on sources covering it. But although some sources have mentioned it (I linked to them when I made my first comment), so far it doesn't seem like it's been widely covered, so potentially it's not significant. It seems easily possible the attack was so overwhelming and unexpected that in the end it would have made no difference. Nil Einne (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

We are permitted to describe the incident. If reliable sources take note of an aspect of the incident, we are permitted to inform the reader of that particular aspect of this lengthy incident. You are writing "this doesn't conclusively demonstrate that the music was chosen for the audience". It doesn't matter. The experience is the same whether the "choice of music" was random or a real "choice". But a source has to demonstrate for us that they think this point is worth taking note of. A source tells us "When the gunman returned to his car after the shooting, the song “Fire” by English rock band “The Crazy World of Arthur Brown” can be heard blasting from the speakers. The singer bellows, “I am the god of hellfire!” as the man, a 28-year-old Australian, drives away."[22] I don't think inclusion of this fact is meant to provide insight into the suspect's motives. Inclusion of this is meant to describe what people saw watching the live-stream. And the music may have been heard by those on the street within earshot of the suspect's vehicle. But this is not clear to me based on the one source. Bus stop (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

BUTTING in for a second. 1) Ian - please tone down your language - you are too good of an Admin for that. :-) 2) I'm a dinosaur who was still in England when "Fire" was out - Arthur Brown was a nut. For his television appearance performing this song (and concert appearances) he wore a helmet with parrafin on top which was flaming. HIS intention of that song was just another part of being bizarre ... taken out of context of the times and the LP jacket and so on, it may be sinister if one is missing the humor. This psychopath interpreted it in whatever way that was going on in his hate-filled heart - what should be considered for relevance is, does this use of an entirely harmless song insult the memory of Brown, vs. its use by this mass-murderer. HammerFilmFan (on location elsewhere ... )

• Many reliable sources have described the use of the song. [23][24][25] Some even specifically quote the God of Hellfire lyrics.[26][27][28] It is the sources who judged this information to be relevant. Furthermore Arthur Brown reacted with sadness to this event, and cancelled a performance as a result.[29]. starship.paint ~ KO 02:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Remove irrelevant reference to poem

This edit by Jürgen Eissink needs to be reverted. The user asserts that the terrorist's use of a poem in his manifesto is important. No, Jürgen Eissink, it is not. The terrorist's use of a poem is utterly inconsequential. The mention of it conveys no useful or important information whatever to readers, and should be removed promptly. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I will say that the poem opening the manifesto is of at least as much importance as him playing music, and certainly more important than any of the single songs that are mentioned in the article. The poem by Thomas is pretty wellknown, but far from mainstream and I think it's also far from being an alt-right meme, if the poem is at all known by alt-righters. To speak in nowadays bit worn terms: he opens his manifest with a reference to high culture – he in this one move tries to lift himself up and simultaneously tries to tear down, so to say, an artwork that has been the intellectual posession of a distinct class for some 70 years. It is an attempt for iconoclasm, that certain readers recognize without further explanation. That is my reasoning, and yours is, if I may summarize: "unimportant, utterly inconsequential, no useful information". I hope you come up with something better than that, if you like to maintain the tone of your voice. And needless to say that many RS mention the poem. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC).

That "The poem by Thomas is pretty wellknown" is irrelevant. The article is not about a poem and it is not about Dylan Thomas. The relevant question is, what important information does the terrorist's use of a Dylan Thomas poem convey to readers? The answer is none. It does not matter if a terrorist is pretentious enough to use a poem or has an interest in "high culture". That does nothing to explain his actions. Mention of the poem should be removed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

You have not convinced me. I suggest we wait for other opinions. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC).

You have not convinced me either. That the poem is "far from being an alt-right meme" lends the terrorist's use of it no importance at all. Your personal interest in a terrorist's use of a poem, and your belief that "he in this one move tries to lift himself up and simultaneously tries to tear down, so to say, an artwork that has been the intellectual posession of a distinct class for some 70 years", is of no matter. Why do you imagine other editors will care about a terrorist's use of an artwork or share your interest in it? You have produced exactly no reliable sources that indicate that that particular detail of the manifesto is of any importance. Plainly it isn't. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I added a reference, that links the poem to the death of T.'s father: "Perhaps tellingly, Tarrant opens the document with 'Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night', the poem by Dylan Thomas as an ode to his dying father." I will look for more sources. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC).

Your reference was not needed. Nor does a brief passing mention of a terrorist's use of a poem in a newspaper article give us a good reason to mention that point in the article. Please get over your fascination with this inconsequential point. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm amazed that you know with such unwavering certainty what is "inconsequential". Bus stop (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I make no apology for my judgments. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

One of the main questions in this sort of article is "why did he do it", or "who is the person that did this?" Therefore I think some degree of allusion to that poem warrants inclusion. We should be alerting the reader to this aspect of the event. Bus stop (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there should be information that helps suggest why the terrorist did what he did. No, that does not include the terrorist's use of a poem. It explains exactly nothing. Wikipedia articles are not meant to be collections of random trivia that individual editors happen to find interesting so no, we should not be "alerting the reader to this aspect of the event". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Information provided by good quality sources should be considered for inclusion. We don't write these articles. Sources write these articles for us. Bus stop (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

For the archive: I added a source, and FreeKnowledgeCreator deletes it right away. This is beyond proportional! Jürgen Eissink (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC).

Your additional citation was not needed because the fact that the terorrist used a poem was already properly cited. If information in an article is already properly cited there is no need for additional citations. It would have been a different matter entirely if, together with the citation, you had added article content suggesting that the terrorist's use of a poem was important - but of course you didn't. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

You said: "You have produced exactly no reliable sources that indicate that that particular detail of the manifesto is of any importance." So I got another source that suggests a meaning to the presence of the poem and you dismiss it without even looking. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC).

I did look at the article. It contained nothing consequential - just a brief passing mention of the use of the poem, and the vague comment that it was perhaps telling. There was nothing of substance worth mentioning in the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

We want to know how substantial is the support in sources for the reference to the poem. Aren't you complicating the process by immediately removing the sources? You aren't the only one evaluating the sources. Bus stop (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It is not necessary to include the source in the article for editors to assess its importance. Anyone can look it up online. The article mentions the terrorist's use of the poem very briefly, vaguely suggests that it is somehow telling ("perhaps tellingly"), but says absolutely nothing of any real importance or consequence about it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator, you should not have removed the source, and you should put it back while discussion here is ongoing. Here's why: whether or not we mention the poem will not be based on your opinion, or Jürgen's, or mine, or anyone's. It will be based on whether Reliable Sources think it is important enough to mention. To determine whether it has enough Reliable Source support, people need to see what sources there are. "Anyone can look it up online" is no reason to remove it from where people can see and evaluate it now. Apparently the publisher of the piece thought it was "consequential" enough for a mention; all of us, not just you, will determine whether the mention has importance or not. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The source has been restored, thank you. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC).

I think it was well described here. The psychopath misuses good poetry to "justify" his murders. I agree with FreeKnowledgeCreator here. There is no any real connection between the poem and the shootings (see ref above), except the connection in the twisted mind of the psychopath. My very best wishes (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A source need not say something of "real importance or consequence about it". This may be the crux of our disagreement. This is not a Jigsaw puzzle. The pieces do not have to fit together. We should want to assess whether sources actually mention the poem. If they do, then reference to the poem should find its way into our article, even if we can't say anything of "real importance or consequence about it". Bus stop (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: That is a very interesting article. It is really a quality source giving large argument for including a decent reference to the poem(s) in our article. The author's interpretation is not far from my reason, given above, but better expressed, or at least quite different. I really don't see how you from this source decide to not mention the poem – it screams relevance to the interpretation of the manifesto. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC).

According to the publication, the author of the poem was an anti-fascist. Now, the actual fascist/Nazi/white supremacist cites a poem by the anti-fascist to "support" his murder. Should we put that nonsense by the supremacist to WP? No, I do not think so. My very best wishes (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

P.S. It is very strange that he cited Dylan Thomas. I would expect them to cite The White Man's Burden... My very best wishes (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

We have a section on the manifesto: I don't see why we should only say "It's content is anti-immigrant, white nationalist and meme loaden. It mentions Breivik and has a Black Sun in it. Oh, and he mentioned PewDiePie in the video", while we could also add something like "The Atlantic deemed the use of Dylan Thomas' poem 'Do not go gentle', that opens the manifesto, a "perversion of authorial intent", repurposing the work of an outspoken anti-fascist poet to advocate direct terroristic action. The document closes with Henleys 'Invictus', a poem famously invocated by among others Nelson Mandela while imprisoned, and here "plausibly" used to underpin the attacker's "necessary action". Tarrant was not the first mass murderer to employ works of art for show of "messianic bravery" etc. etc." I think we have a different view on what an encyclopedia is. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC).

• The "manifesto" is an extremist primary source. We are not going to mention everything it tells. We mentioned Breivik because multiple RS tell that mentioning of Breivik in the "manifesto" was relevant to the case, i.e. Breivik indeed was a possible "inspiration" for the murderer (and that also sounds logical for everyone, is not it?). There are no RS telling that Dylan Thomas was a real inspiration or reason for the crime. The source I cited tells it was not. Same applies to poetry by Kipling (noted in the source). My very best wishes (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, you write that whether we mention the poem, "will be based on whether Reliable Sources think it is important enough to mention." Well, no. It won't. Bar unusual exceptions, the reliable sources Wikipedia uses are not written specifically for Wikipedia, and thus they obviously do not contain statements such as, "This should be mentioned on Wikipedia", or "This should not be mentioned on Wikipedia", which we are then obliged to follow. It is always up to editors to use their judgment about such things, and thus their opinions do matter. So what a very peculiar comment for you to make. Bus stop apparently believes that we must mention the poem in the article simply because one newspaper article briefly mentions it. No. That is not the way things work here. WP:PROPORTION applies: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject". The poem is an unimportant point; there is no reason to mention it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

"Should we put that nonsense by the supremacist to WP? No, I do not think so." Why not? Because it doesn't make sense? It doesn't need to make sense. It is what it is and it stands on its own merit or lack thereof. We are not writing a novel here. We are documenting an event. Bus stop (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

"Bus stop apparently believes that we must mention the poem in the article simply because one newspaper article briefly mentions it. No. That is not the way things work here. WP:PROPORTION applies: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject". The poem is an unimportant point; there is no reason to mention it." You can't say that there is no reason to mention it. In the final analysis maybe we won't mention it. If the reference to the poem is a "minor aspect" of this subject then what do you consider a major aspect of this subject? Isn't the act of killing 50 worshippers a "riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma"? (Winston Churchill) Bus stop (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately it isn't going to be possible to mention everything in the manifesto, since a lot of it is rambling junk anyway. I can't say that there is no reason to mention it, but it seems to have problems with WP:DUE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The impossibility of mentioning everything in the manifesto is in no way unfortunate. We can mention the points that actually matter; excluding those that don't (like the poem) is not something to regret. I am not going to get bogged down in discussion with Bus stop, whose recent comments are off-the-point. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The poem offers at least some insight into what the alleged shooter was thinking, so it is a mistake to say that it is completely irrelevant. The real problem is WP:DUE as the sourcing has not identified it as a key part of the motive. It is undoubtedly notable that John Hinckley's attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan was influenced by The Catcher in the Rye, and Mark Chapman had a copy of the book after he shot John Lennon. We're not at the same stage of establishing key importance for the Dylan Thomas poem.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

How, precisely, does the poem offer any relevant "insight into what the alleged shooter was thinking" that could not have been gleaned from some other part of his manifesto? It is not helpful to just assert that it does, and I see exactly no evidence that it does. The problem is not that "the sourcing has not identified it as a key part of the motive" but that the poem is not part of "the motive" at all. How does a Dylan Thomas poem motivate mass murder of Muslims at prayer? It doesn't. There is no comparison to the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "I am not going to get bogged down in discussion with Bus stop, whose recent comments are off-the-point." Please give me a concrete example from within the context of this article of something that has "real importance or consequence" about it. My hunch is that you cannot because this is not something that makes sense. In the final analysis the act of killing 50 worshipers will defy understanding. Bus stop (talk) 05:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The entire manifesto is relevant, that is obvious. But I don't think we are anywhere near the stage of saying that the alleged shooter did it simply because he read a Dylan Thomas poem. The sourcing does not say this, so there are problems with WP:DUE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Was about to add something along the lines of ianmacm. WP editors cannot assign importance of anything in the manifesto until they show the weight of sources to back it up that explain why it is important. This is clearly there for the argument that the document was a shitposting. We can't be armchair analysts here, and if sources only mention the poem is in there but dont explain why that's important, then we shouldn't include it. --Masem (t) 06:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Masem—do sources mention why anything is "important" in the context of this incident? I love the fact that some of you seem to think you are going to find the "reason" for this shooting. Do you seriously think a source is going to come along to say that they have uncovered the "cause" of the event? I guess they may, eventually. But until then we are building the article, to an extent, on those observations that sources deem noteworthy. These can be trimmed back 6 months from now. Bus stop (talk) 06:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Individual sources may point out things as important, so in a case like this, it is better to focus on points made by multiple sources who (presumably) independently came to the same conclusion. That's how we (editors) have to judge independence at this point. --Masem (t) 15:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Akld guy:: I agree that the material you just removed is not weighty enough to warrant such prominence, but if you read the discussion above, you'll probably get the feeling that one of the dedicated somebodies above (who do not believe we can interpret any of the shooter's motives, but nonetheless insist the manifesto is "trolling") will put it back in before too long. I think they need better sources; the section insisting the attack and manifesto were "shitposting" was excessively long and POVish. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: I think the PewDiePie aspect of the paragraph you just restored is UNDUEly long, plus that section of the article is just horribly written at the moment. Is Wikipedia now doing PR for PewDiePie? It's enough to have that he expressed his condolences in the reaction section. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem with the PDP stuff is that when it was in the reaction sections, editors were complaining that we had this "Random" Youtuber next to global leaders - which is a fair point. But with at least the Atlantic article, they used PDP specifically as an example of how the attacker was shitposting, and part of the trolling aspect. Because PDP can be mentioned there instead of responses, it makes a lot more sense. Does that make the section look long? Yes, but that's because there's probably more than can be had about other motivations (anti-immigration, etc. ) to be added before to give more balance. --Masem (t) 14:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I commend this edt's reference to "shitposting". We are not including details of the manifesto or the live-streaming to "understand" the actions of the suspect. We are only passing along to the reader the aspects of the manifesto and the live-streaming that provide the reader with an understanding of of this specific incident and we are only passing along those points that have been noted by reliable sources. They call it shitposting, we call it shitposting. Bus stop (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• I completely agree with Ianmacm. Yes, that's precisely the point. There is no any real relevance established by RS. To the contrary, the only detailed publication on the subject (one that I linked to above) tells the poem is NOT relevant. Same applies to everything else in the "manifesto": names of people, whatever. Some of that may be actually relevant to the crime as established by RS; other things are irrelevant, and this is one of them. This should be excluded. My very best wishes (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• While the poems may not be relevant to or indicative of the motives, the section on the manifesto should eventually give attention to the composition of the manifesto. From a legal point of view it will not be possible to establish possible motivation from the manifesto if it's construction and content is not analyzed as to which parts are relevant to the motives and which parts are just shitposting. But while we do not, obviously, need to duplicate the manifesto, the intelligent discern of it's elements should not be labeled irrelevant or unencyclopedic. The fact that the manifesto contains three poems by "dead white males" may not be indicative of the motives, they most certainly are indicative of the mindset of the perpetrator. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC).

Some extremist writing like Catechism of a Revolutionary are historically notable. Others, such as that particular "manifesto," is hardly anything significant and does not deserve a lot of space on the page. This is just an eclectic rambling, a shitposting. My very best wishes (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Your opinion is just an opinion. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC).

Yes, the more I look into this the more I have to agree that the concept of "shitposting" is the context for references made by the suspect. There is no significance to "remember lads, subscribe to PewDiePie". That is utter shitposting. This is nihilism only. Bus stop (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

One should separate the significance of the intent, the significance of the content and the significance of the impact. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC).

Yes, one should. One should place the causes of the impacts within the concept of shitposting, a word I had not heard of until 24 hours ago. I would have called these nihilistic impulses. They serve as the backdrop and probably ultimate explanation for the references in the so-called manifesto. Therefore we should enumerate noteworthy points but we should also point out that this has been called shitposting. Bus stop (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Come on, folks. Almost all of this long discussion has been about how we personally feel about this: whether we think is important or irrelevant. That is not how Wikipedia works. This is an encyclopedia, not an op-ed forum reflecting our own views. One of Wikipedia' core concepts is verifiability, which states "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors." I can't believe I am having to explain this; this is Wikipedia 101. Discussion here should focus only on the coverage of the poem(s) by Reliable Sources: is the coverage enough, and significant enough, for us to mention? or isn't it? -- MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Despite this ongoing discussion, My very best wishes deleted the part on the poem. Should one user impose the narrow horizon of his own intellect and affection onto Wikipedia and highjack a subject on the basis of nothing but an opinion that nowhere transcends the passion to shout "shitposting"? Calling on MelanieN and others to weigh in here, because I fear a block if I even try to bring back, in any form, sourced reference to the significant use of poems in the manifesto. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC).

And, mind you, this censorising is done by a user who doesn't get tired of shitposting his own pathetic poems to at least four Wikipedia pages, including his User page. It is scandalous. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC).

Comment on the content, not the contributor. --Masem (t) 16:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Like I said in edit summary [30], that was an example of obvious WP:OR, and I removed it. My very best wishes (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Just saying it doesn't make it true. You know very well that someone reduced the section 'Manifesto' and shifted its content to a new section 'Motives' after this discussion had developed, so you could have rearranged the info, but you felt it necessary to frustrate the discussion and delete. I pity you. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC).

As the one that moved info between "Manifesto" and "Motive" section, even if I didn't move that, the poem still was out of place as why it was included was not explained, and the only explanation was editors' claims that it was "relevant". --Masem (t) 17:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Please acknowledge that above I gave a sketch of a possible edit that does provide relevance and explanation as to the composition of the manifesto and the place and purpose of classic poems in it. Not an explanation of motives, but of the content and possible a better explanation than those given for mentioning f.i. the memes, the (other) symbols and the songs. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC).

But that's your reasoning, not one supported by sources (yet). If you can show the sources that make the inclusion of the poem in the manifesto a subject of importance, then you have a starting point. --Masem (t) 17:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. Did you even read the discussion, Masem? The sketch is not my reasoning, it is derived from source. I am battling here with people who refuse to read, it seems. It's tiresome. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC).

That source would justify mentioning that he included three poems in the manifesto, and not necessarily stressing any one over the others, but part of the manifesto's attempt to rally others to follow in possibly violent action against immigrants. I think there might be other sources that would support this but not finding them immediately. Stressing that as it was included, mentioning just one poem doesn't provide the linkage we'd want to see pulled from RSes. --Masem (t) 18:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Whatever. Shitpost overlord My very best wishes has already decided. With my very best wishes, Jürgen Eissink (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC).

Perhaps Jürgen Eissink and My very best wishes should not edit this area of the article and in their stead allow Masem or MelanieN form the wording for this area of the article. Bus stop (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, but I have a semiotic interest in events like this and will not let myself be silenced or be witheld from making well sourced attributions that potentially heighten the image and understanding and I will not let dimmed visions have free way to effectively obscure and deny meaningful information. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC).

It is impossible for us to say that the poem had any significance unless multiple third-party source deem it to be relevant. Until then this is a classic case of WP:UNDUE. Also BBC News describes the manifesto as "a confused jumble of thoughts and misinformation which rambles on for 74 poorly-written pages" and suggests that much of it had no relevance to the events that occurred. This is Paul (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It was part of the event and there should be mentioned as part of the event. In a section dedicated to the manifesto, the manifesto could (and I asy: should) be described, regardless of it's relevance to the motives, although of course the content of the manifesto is related to the motives. Maybe the manifesto should get it's own article. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC).

Leave out song lyrics, what was playing on his radio, poetry he included in his "confused jumble of thoughts and misinformation." Include them much later, but if, and only if, multiple reliable sources deem them to be significant to the event. WP:NOTRANDOM and WP:UNDUE apply and it would be WP:OR for us to attach any significance to the inclusion of a poem without multiple RS doing so. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Point of order: My concern here is nothing but an encyclopedic description of the manifesto and its components, equal to for instance Anders_Behring_Breivik#Compendium. I'm getting sick of people's only argument "it's shitposting and we should ignore it". I mean, who would want to delete the text on Breivik's document? I quit this discussion and am sad to see that many let themselves be dictated by their own or external sentiments, emotions and possibly even political motivations. Don't let censorship prevail. Some users should be ashamed of themselves and they should really be ostracized for insisting their shallow thoughts should be up and leading. It's disgusting. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC).

The problem is, as of looking through what RSes are talking today, most have taken a position that the manifesto is rambling and not really any hard-line screed but basically "Shitposting". Not all, and I am sure there are people looking seriously at it as part of the investigation (in part to build a case, to construct a psychological profile, and possibly for any cryptographic messages that may be triggers for other attacks), but the media broadly is not reporting on the manifesto in that way, so we really cannot switch that around too much per UNDUE. Its not that we can't include serious analysis of the manifesto but they should be backed by more than one or two sources at this point, and should more than just name-dropping what's in the manifesto but to understand what that implies about his motives. No one is closing the door to say "WP is only going to treat the manifesto as a shitposting", only that our hands are bound by what RSes describe. It is OR to try to stress anything else about the manifesto any other way. --Masem (t) 18:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Despite Jürgen Eissink's claims, removing mention of the poem has nothing to do with censorship. No one is proposing removing mention of the poem because the poem is somehow offensive or hurts people's feelings. They are proposing removing mention of the poem because there is an absence of reliable sources indicating that it has any importance whatever in the context of the terrorist attack the article is concerned with. Including unimportant trivia in an article because someone happens to find it fascinating is what is disgusting. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Someone - I think User:Masem - split off most of the content of the manifesto into a separate section "Possible motives". I have undone this and would like to discuss. IMO the description of the manifesto obviously belongs in the section about the manifesto. It's kind of a leap to describe that stuff as his "motives", especially when there is controversy about how much of it is his actual motives and how much of it is trolling for media attention. Let's just call it what it is: the content of the manifesto. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I did do that. The issue is that there is a logical connection between the "shitposting" aspects the media has given the manifesto and him calling out PDP during the attack, an extension of that "shitposting". But editors have removed the PDP stuff then from that because PDP wasn't mentioned in the manifesto. As I pointed out above, while the PDP stuff could also be in the Reactions section, editors were complaining about this "random" youtuber being mentioned alongside the world leaders. The attacker's reference to PDP and PDP's reply need to be called out in this article per BLP (for PDP, not the attacker), and the only logical place that doesn't make it seem out of place is the "shitposting" discussion. --Masem (t) 22:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

PDP makes good sense in the "video" section because he actually said it during the livestream. (We should make that clearer in our item. And I wonder if we can't shorten that PDP item; even though it got a lot of mainstream coverage, a whole paragraph seems like excessive attention paid to that one thing.) BTW I found this article particularly informative, basically explaining that a lot of the stuff in the manifesto was in-jokes and references that only the "hyper-online" would get. I'm not suggesting we put that in the article unless more articles make the same point. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Now that I see it in place, I agree PDP in the video section presently is the best place. I just added a brief reconnection to the "shitposting" aspect but otherwise fine with it there. --Masem (t) 00:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Source-based discussion

The above discussion is very long and dominated by a few people, so that it is impossible to determine consensus - and there is almost no attempt to evaluate the issue according to what independent reliable sources say. If we are going to include a mention of one of the poems or all three, we absolutely need to know what kind of coverage there is on the subject - what sources mention the poem(s) and what they say. Please list any such sources below, just the sources here, with discussion below - so that we all can see exactly how much coverage exists and what it is like. Keep in mind that the manifesto itself IS NOT such a source; we are not permitted to independently evaluate his use of the poems or to decide what we think he meant by them. Here are the actual sources I have seen cited so far; please add any more and then we can discuss this like Wikipedians. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Australian Broadcasting Corporation | "Fuelled by a toxic, alt-right echo chamber, Christchurch shooter's views were celebrated online."
• Irish Independent "Mum was blissfully unaware that her son's world had turned as he travelled the globe."
• The Atlantic "When Poems of Resilience Get Twisted for Terrorism."

Discussion of sources

Are they reliable sources? What do they actually say about the poem(s) and how much importance do they attach to them? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Two first sources mention the poem only in passing and do not tell it motivated the shooter or it was significant in any aspect in relation to the crime. Third source ("Poems of Resilience Get Twisted for Terrorism") tells the poem is NOT relevant ("The Dylan Thomas work actually most relevant to the New Zealand killer’s case is thus not the one quoted in the manifesto, but the Hitler mockery movie"). My very best wishes (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Get a room

The choice of poem used to open the manifesto may be interesting and may be discussed by sources, hence it belongs on Wikipedia if people are willing to summarize them. But it does not belong here, because it is a detail (one poem) of a detail (the manifesto) of a detail (the person accused). Either we should finally start Brenton Tarrant or we should have an article The Great Replacement (which is actually GNG-worthy in itself by now), as much to serve as a toilet for some of this stuff as for the interest in its own right. I would favor the former option because the manifesto is quite arguably not "independently notable" (people only pay a moment's attention to it because the author happened to be this person, and when they talk about it they are talking about his motivation, so anything written about it is relevant to his article etc.) Wnt (talk) 10:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2019

Tarrant recorded his beliefs in a 74-page manifesto titled "The Great Replacement", Dimness (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

This is already mentioned in the article. There is a bit of a problem here, because the Times source here says that Tarrant allegedly posted the manifesto online. There is some WP:BLPCRIME here, even if it looks likely that he did post the manifesto. However, I don't object to saying that the document is 73 or 74 pages long and called The Great Replacement, because this is clearly stated in reliable sourcing. The sources can't make up their minds whether it is 73 or 74 pages long.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

"Self-described" or "Media-described" White Supremacist ?

Does this BBC article has any merit in saying the shooter is a "self-described" white supremacist?

Right now the wikipedia page only says the shooter is a "media-described " white supremacist. Should we add the "self-describe" part into the article?--Aceus0shrifter (talk) 08:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

References

See the RfC Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings#RfC:_Change_"white_supremacist"_to_"white_nationalist" above. It is largely the media that decided that the author of the manifesto was a white supremacist. It isn't how he chooses to describe himself in the manifesto.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

How many died in hospital

The number of how many died is hospital is 2 NOT 1 Aubreywak (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Evidence? WWGB (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Move section about the gunman down?

Referring to the copious discussions about whether or how to refer to the killer, I have a suggestion. Is there any reason why we cannot move all of the details about him (including his name, IMO, although I note arguments for having it in the lead at some point), his motives, manifesto, etc. - the whole section - to below the Aftermath section? Then the info is there for those who want it, but more prominence is given to the atrocity, the victims, and the bits which show that the best of humanity has been evoked by the actions of one who intended to damage such impulses towards unity and fellow feeling. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

No. As the instigator of the attack, he is more notable than the victims. The article also follows a roughly chronological order. WWGB (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Youtube has disabled comments to all music videos used in the New Zealand video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en1uwIzI3SE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atuFSv2bLa8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGrxHO-B2TY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KZCiWizEkw

after comments became the departments of imageboards.

--NikitaSadkov (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

We need third party sources to confirm this was made and its importance. --Masem (t) 13:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing on Google News about this at the moment, but that could change. It depends how long ago they did it and whether news outlets have picked it up yet. Also the video "Grün ist Ünser Fallschirm" looks like it's been deleted. This is Paul (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

IMO we have to seriously consider how much coverage to give these sort of things, looking at the level of sourcing etc. While it's obviously part of the story, I'm not so sure how big a part. For example, AFAICT we still don't seem to mention how Youtube temporarily disabled searches for recent uploads and temporary removed the requirement for human moderators to review bot flagged material. [31] Nil Einne (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

No way to know if YouTube dis the disabling, or if the channels themselves disabled the comments. Or if the channels did it at YouTubes request, or at a government request, or god knows how many other possibilities. 182.0.174.58 (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

After the Unite the Right rally in 2017, website bosses became wary of allowing any material that would cause advertisers to pull out of the site, or lead to government bans. Even 4chan split itself into two sites, 4chan.org and 4channel.org, because the boards like /b/ and /pol/ were pretty much a complete no-no for advertisers. The Christchurch mosque shootings are a continuation of this effect, and it could be mentioned in the article if reliable sources make the connection. Otherwise, it runs into problems with WP:OR to say "site x banned y" without giving any sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Background

I have finally added a short background section following the discussion at Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings/Archive 3#Comparison to previous shootings. AIRcorn (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

First Muslims in New Zealand

In the background section are we sure the first Muslims arrived in New Zealand in 1769? That was the year James Cook mapped the coastline, so did he have Muslims in his crew? This could do with a reference. This is Paul (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Why is this relevant at all if it was 200+ years ago?--Calthinus (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

This kind of stuff may belong in the NZ article. Makes no sense here. O3000 (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I removed that sentence (and its reference) entirely. The source does not appear to be reliable. Ross Finlayson (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

That is myopic. The "background" section provides "background". 50 Muslims were killed—that is the subject of this article. We want to know the historical background of Muslims in New Zealand. And we want to know the relation(s) between Muslims to other New Zealanders in New Zealand.

The "background" section was telling us Islam is practised by less than 1 per cent of the population.[32] The first Muslims arrived in 1769, although large-scale immigration didn't begin until the 1960s, with the arrival of Fijian Indians. Immigratoin has continued with refugees from countries such as Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.[33] The first Muslims in Christchurch arrived in 1874. The Al Noor mosque opened in 1985, and was the first in the South Island.[34] The Linwood Islamic Centre opened in early 2018.[35] Bus stop (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted. I think the source is adequate. Bus stop (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It's fair enough to provide some background, and to give statistics of the Muslim population, because as you rightly say, the article discusses the deaths of fifty Muslims, but claims about the exact year when the first Muslims arrived in New Zealand could be difficult to corroborate. I would support a partial restore but without the 1769 claim. This is Paul (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Someone else's edit (re)removed the bogus 1769 claim. Note that we already have an article Islam in New Zealand; this article should link to that one for more details; a detailed discussion of the history of Islam in NZ belongs there, not here. (Note, BTW, that the Islam in New Zealand article makes the (much more credible claim) that the first Muslims in NZ arrived in the 1850s.) Ross Finlayson (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

No idea on the reliability of the source, but that is what it said. Everything else in it appears accurate so it may be a typo. The very first link was to Islam in New Zealand, it is still there, it has just been edited out to an easter egg. I don't know your definition of detailed, but one sentence The first Muslims arrived in 1769, although large-scale immigration didn't begin until the 1960's with the arrival of Fijian Indians and has continued with refugees from countries like Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria is hardly detailed. Background and context is one of the differences between an encyclopaedia and a collection of breaking news stories. AIRcorn (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I added "Main article: Islam in New Zealand" to the background section. Bus stop (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The main topic of the section is the background to the shooting though; that section hatnote isn't appropriate. I've changed it to {{See also}}. —Hugh (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree see also is better. Thank you both. AIRcorn (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I really wish Wikipedia editors would think about perception and consequence before throwing things in. Put aside, for a second, that this article is about the massacre and not about the 250 year history of New Zealand. Just focus on the link being made. The entire section is about the massacre of 50 people in a mosque, and we're tying that to "Islam in New Zealand". What are we trying to say with that? That there's a link between massacres and Muslims in New Zealand? Mr rnddude (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Your point is well taken. With that in mind, I moved the "See also|Islam in New Zealand" link to the end of the section (following the paragraph that's talking specifically about Islam in NZ). Ross Finlayson (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually I think a brief history of Islam in New Zealand is in order in the Background section, and I think that could include early history, because that implies what I would call "deep roots". I think we can safely assume Muslims were targeted. All things considered I don't think this edit was entirely out of place. Bus stop (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Please, this guy wasn’t even a NZ’er. This has nothing to do with the history of NZ. A mass murder occurred. The victims could have been Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Maoris, whites, blue-eyed people. Let’s stop trying to add some sort of rationale behind a pathological act. O3000 (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Did he target a type of people? Bus stop (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, because he was sick. If he targeted women because he hated women, would we have a history of NZ women? If he targeted chess players because he was a failed chess player, would we.... Such additions suggest some rationale behind an insane act. Let's just stick to the facts. O3000 (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

If he had targeted women with the same ferocity a link to misogyny in New Zealand and some background would be entirely appropriate. Also extremism is not a mental illness.[32] AIRcorn (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. But, the link wasn’t to Islamophobia. It was to Muslims in NZ in general. O3000 (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

If this is just about the see also/main then that wasn't my doing. My original addition had three parargraphs (see User:Aircorn/sandbox for the draft). I linked Islamaphobia at the start of one paragraph and spelt out and linked Islam in New Zealand in another. Except for my now obvious error in the arrival of the first Muslims I prefer how that was presented. But this is wikipedia and people will and should change this. AIRcorn (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Its a background section, not a section about the massacre per se. It is meant to provide some context on the situation in this country prior to the event. It does not focus on Islam, it also mentions the rise of the right and history of similar violence (or lack of it) in New Zealand. If you are worried about a see also then add a see also to List of massacres in New Zealand as well. Or go back to how it originally was and spell it out in prose. Having it at the end just looks strange. AIRcorn (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Why do you think a history of Islam in NZ provides context? Appears like OR/SYNTH to me. A background to paranoid schizophrenia is probably more on point. But, I won't add that because it's also OR. O3000 (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Because Muslims were targeted. Because sources covering the tragedy are talking about the history. AIRcorn (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

It does not focus on Islam <- This is in itself a prime reason not to add a "main/see also" tag to Islam in New Zealand in that section. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, I removed the "see also", and moved the link back into the main text. Ross Finlayson (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I am fine with that. AIRcorn (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm less fine with that. It's not ok to contort the language in order to shoe-horn a link into the prose. "Islam in New Zealand" is not something practised. If people think that link is needed and justified, and you can't find a natural way to include it in the body, put it in the See also section. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

... or just pipe the link. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if you can without creating an MOS:EGG. At one point we linked "Islam" to that article, which exceeded my EGG tolerance by a fair margin. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

And I see you did just that without waiting for comments here. Okie dokie. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought about that, but I think the context of the prose is clear enough on being about practitioners of Islam in New Zealand that there shouldn't be a surprise about where the article links. I suppose you could do something like: According to the 2013 New Zealand census, over 46,000 or 1.2 percent of [[Islam in New Zealand|New Zealand residents practice Islam]]. Also... the timeline is that I actually did that first, and then thought to leave a comment here. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC) Amended for a sentence fragment correction on 16:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Undone for consensus first. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you.
I'm a very conservative linker and I think the real utility of any link should be seriously considered. Speaking generally, too many editors just link anything they can without putting much thought into it. I question the real utility of a wikilink in that context. So my preference is the See also section. (I also wonder how many readers will want to learn more about the 2013 New Zealand census upon reading that sentence.) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Muslims were targeted. The author expressed anti-immigrant views. So it's relevant to describe immigration of Muslims to New Zealand. starship.paint ~ KO 03:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Are there any RS (multiple needed) that examine muslims to New Zealand in relation with this specific terrorist attack? If not, it is OR/SYNTH. Cinadon36 (talk) 07:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Cinadon36—providing information on the history of Islam in New Zealand would not necessarily be original research or synthesis. We would not need sources involving the history of Islam in New Zealand "in relation with this specific terrorist attack". Bus stop (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bus stop:Why is that? If it is an important aspect of the topic, RS will cover it. Cinadon36 (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Cover what? Cover the history of Islam in New Zealand? Reliable sources cover the history of Islam in New Zealand. Bus stop (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Not what is being said. The relation of the history of Islam in New Zealand to this attack should be covered in sources discussing the attack. If no reliable sources connect the two subjects, then, for all intents and purposes, we're not supposed to either. As a counter example to illustrate: there is a connection in the article made between the Bosnian war and this attack. That connection is made by RS, so we can include it. If, however, no RS connected the two subjects, but some editors did, that would be OR. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: Please tell me why "The relation of the history of Islam in New Zealand to this attack should be covered in sources discussing the attack." Bus stop (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Because we take statements from sources discussing the subject matter to determine its relevance to the subject (DUE weight). I.e. if sources discussing the shooting deem a fact on a separate subject to the shooting to be relevant to the subject of the shooting, that is when we're supposed to include it. Otherwise you revert to "I think this statement is relevant", instead of "these sources think this statement is relevant". It's perfectly acceptable to use sources discussing the history of Islam in New Zealand for an article on that topic, but its relevance to another standalone topic is determined by sources on that other topic. Again, I'll give an example: This is the first mass shooting since the Raurimu massacre, in 1997 <- this statement is relevant not because it's true, but because it is discussed in relation to this specific shooting in several sources: 123 - subscription required4 - here a 2001 shooting is described as a murder spree which may throw doubt on the claim within the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no such requirement. It would not be synthesis to include in this article material on the history of Islam in New Zealand, even if that material was not found in a source discussing the 15 March 2019 incident. Bus stop (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

... except there is such a requirement per WP:DUE: An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. And it all relates back to the core principle of synthesis: [d] not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. That includes, ostensibly, relating subject a to b where reliable sources don't. There's now a new section dealing specifically with synthesis issues. I've pointed to a relevant source to retain the Raurimu massacre bit in the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Use of the word "terrorism" in the first sentence

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: Regarding your revert of my edit, none of the other articles in {{Terrorism in New Zealand}} use the word "terrorist" or "terrorism" in the first sentence. Articles about other terrorist attacks, such as 2019 Utrecht shooting, Charlie Hebdo shooting, Manchester Arena bombing also do not use the word "terrorist" in the first sentence of the article. I'd note that my edit did not remove the mention of "terrorist"; it merely moved this fact to a new sentence. Wikipedia should avoid sensationalism, and I don't see why this article should be treated any differently from other articles about terrorist attacks. feminist (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

That is whataboutism. If Rel. Sources are confident about using this specific word to describe the incidence, so should we. Using the word "terrorism" in the first sentence is not sensationalism, it is accurately describing what happened.Cinadon36 (talk) 07:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Feminist, you altered a description of the attacks as acts of terrorism, replacing it with a statement that the attacks had simply been "described" as terrorism ("The attacks have been described as an act of terrorism"). If the justification for that is avoiding "sensationalism", then I do not accept it. There is nothing sensationalist about unambiguously referring to terrorism as terrorism; rather, that is simply accurate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

So, is there a problem with other articles about terrorist attacks? Most of these attacks have been referred to as terrorism, yet their articles do not define them as "terrorist" in the first sentence. We should not deviate from precedent without strong evidence that this attack is different, or the approach in previous articles is wrong. Also see WP:TERRORIST: we should be very careful with using contentious labels, particularly as media treatment of this attack is not substantially different from other attacks where we don't define them as "terrorist" in the first sentence. feminist (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

In practically every other case that I'm aware of, the use of the word terrorist in any form required in text attribution and qualification. This has been true regardless of how widespread the use of terrorist/m was in reliable sources, for the express reason that the term is value-laden and contentious. There's also an explicit instruction within WP:TERRORIST to use in-text attribution when the term has received widespread use, or not at all when not widespread. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

But not all cases though. September 11 attacks is a famous counter example where there's even a FAQ on the talk page discussing it. Note I make no comment on what we should do in this article, simply that there is clear well established precedent for what we're doing so how it should be handled here would need to be based on consensus on what works best here based on source treatment. Nil Einne (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Some other random examples which are called terrorist with or without refs in the first lead sentence (without in-text attribution) 2014 Peshawar school massacre, 2005 Ram Janmabhoomi attack, 2008 Mumbai attacks, 2017 Westminster attack, 2017 Amarnath Yatra attack, 2002 Adora terrorist attack, 2004 SuperFerry 14 bombing, 2012 Burgas bus bombing, 2003 El Nogal Club bombing, 2015 San Bernardino attack, 2017 London Bridge attack. I don't know how well established the consensus is in these cases but it does demonstrate this seems to be common practice. (Incidentally, this is one of the many reasons why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally a problem. It depends on which "stuff" you chose.)

Note that AFAICT the original dispute was over where to describe them as such (in the first sentence or elsewhere), not whether to use the term in the lead without in-text attribution. Manchester Arena bombing does say "The incident was the deadliest terrorist attack and the first suicide bombing in Britain since the 7 July 2005 London bombings." in the final sentence in the lead. While Charlie Hebdo shooting does not explicitly call the attack or attackers terrorist in the lead, it does say they belong to a terrorist group and calls the Hypercacher kosher supermarket siege attacker a terrorist. (Although Hypercacher kosher supermarket siege itself does not.) BTW I'm excluding infoboxes from this analysis.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

And the FAQ on the 9/11 page just says this: "The contributors have arrived at this conclusion [to use the word terrorism] after looking at the overwhelming majority of reliable sources that use this term as well as the United Nations' own condemnation of the attacks." Well, we have the first part in the case of this article, anyway. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a difference here in that there is a person that is going to stand trial on charges, and if so wanted, these could be terrorism related. Should he be convicted on terrorism charges, that makes this a terrorism act, fact-in-WP-voice. This also alludes to a passage of time before actually attaching "terrorism" to this. --Masem (t) 14:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. This is convincing, and shows that the use of "terrorist" in the first sentence is common. It's just that coincidentally the articles I picked at first all did not include the word "terrorist" in the first sentence, leading to the confusion. feminist (talk) 03:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• I think this is pretty much a textbook example of terrorism, and majority of sources tell the same. So, I would agree with revert by FreeKnowledgeCreator. My very best wishes (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Undue source

The article currently includes one blogger Robert Evans' quote about "shitposting" and the shooters motives. Based on the author's own description of himself on his Twitter: "I'm an author, editor and occasionally a journalist. Currently playing with VR." Notable quotes should be restricted to more serious and reputed journalists and experts in field. He also writes for Cracked.com, which is just one step above TheOnion. This is a WP:DUEWEIGHT issue. DA1 (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 09:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

If we were using his post as the direct source, this would make sense. However several other RS have pointed to this source, giving it weight for inclusion even if he is not any type of expert, they are showing agreement with his concnclusion. --Masem (t) 10:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the source again, the author somehow manages to misquote the shooter's 8chan post even with a screenshot right there. Surely someone confident enough in their knowledge of Shitposting would know the semantic difference between "a real life effort" and a "real life effort post". Except that the "real life effort post" thing kind of breaks down the distinction between "stuff I'm writing on the internet for fun" and "stuff that I really believe", doesn't it? Masem, since you feel this material is worthy of inclusion, would you mind dropping some links to the RS that point to this source? I can't really seem to find them. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

And even if RS are referring to this source extensively, I'm not sure how that warrants quoting whole long sentences from this source, as in the version that was up until recently. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 11:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Links pointing to it: CNN,The Atlantic, BBC, Bloomberg, New Republic, The Independent, CJR, Newsweek, National Post. And that's not exhaustive.

Now when this was deleted [33] I see that someone used the direct source to the blog; when I added it a few days ago I used the Atlantic's article with a secondary link to the NatReview to avoid the UNDUE issue. And the length of the quote was reasonable given that it is explaining to an audience likely unfamiliar with the concept of "shitposting" and how it could even apply to this attack. --Masem (t) 11:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. After thinking about it a bit more I think the reason the section of "Manifesto" we are discussing right now bugs me is that it's explicitly motive-focused, while the paragraph before it simply states things that are clearly in the manifesto. As User:Masem and others have stated above, we should be extremely wary of ascribing any motive to the shooter at this point. There is a difference between stating the contents of the manifesto as reported in RS, and stating interpretations of the manifesto as reported in RS. I wonder whether anyone else sees it the same way. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Propose to remove "suspected perpetrator" infobox field

Please see Template talk:Infobox civilian attack#Suspected perpetrator field?. Whether the field is removed from the infobox template or not, I don't think Tarrant's name should be in the infobox here until he is (presumably) found guilty of the attack. U-Mos (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion now moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Remove "suspected perpetrator field" in Template:Infobox civilian attack. U-Mos (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2019

Please change "As gun-policy specialist Philip Alpers noted," to "As anti-gun activist Philip Alpers noted,"

Wiki rule: Weasel words - you are giving a non-notable authority and neutrality that he does not have. 202.50.145.175 (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done: Changed to "As Philip Alpers of gun-policy website GunPolicy.org noted", per the NYT description of "said Philip Alpers of GunPolicy.org, a clearinghouse for gun law data worldwide". We can't say "anti-gun" unless a source says so, and even if it does, something like "gun control" may be preferable. feminist (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Queen of New Zealand?

This is incorrect. Elizabeth II is not queen of New Zealand. Her correct title, to and reasonable New Zealanders, is the Queen of England. The Māori people of New Zealand recognise the Kīngitanga as their monarch and this disparity between tangata whenua and manuhiri in naming of their monarch should be corrected to better reflect modern New Zealand terminology.

Myself as a New Zealander I have never heard this awkward wording of Elizabeth the second's title. Clumster (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

See www.royal.uk/new-zealand. She is the Queen of New Zealand. WWGB (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth II#Titles, styles, honours and arms : "In each of her realms she has a distinct title that follows a similar formula: Queen of Jamaica and her other realms and territories in Jamaica, Queen of Australia and her other realms and territories in Australia, etc." By extension we can arrive at Queen of New Zealand and her other realms and territories in New Zealand—or, a shortened version, Queen of New Zealand. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

It is misleading to write "Queen of New Zealand" even if that is an official title because it sounds like New Zealand is her primary country of residence/kingdom. We should at least add a couple of words explaining the Commonwealth link. The current wording is ridiculous even if it is an official title with its own Wikipedia page.~ Anotheranothername (talk) 06:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll add that it's also confusing. As an Australian, I've never heard anyone refer to Queen Elizabeth (which is what you'll usually hear) as the Queen of Australia. Aussies, in their typical two syllable fashion, are more likely to call her "Lizzie" than anything else. If this is a common term in NZ, which it doesn't appear to be, then that's fine. Otherwise, I think it's best to use her formal widely known title: Queen of England. That's if a formal title is necessary at all, and we can't just write "Queen Elizabeth". Mr rnddude (talk) 06:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. Too tangential to the subject of the article, a pair of shooting attacks on Muslim places of worship. If readers want to learn more about the monarchy and the Commonwealth, that's why we have wikilinks. But, no objection to "Queen Elizabeth". ―Mandruss ☎ 06:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, to be specific, Elizabeth is not (and has never been) "Queen of England" as mentioned in the first comment here, since the Kingdom of England legally ceased to exist in 1707. BTW she is also Queen of Canada, Australia, and a dozen other places, and has been so for a very long time. So the point here is that there are "common" perceptions, and "technical" ones. Elizabeth's common name/role vs legal/historic one. I had edited the sentence a week ago to clarify the difference, but it was subsequently edited out.JabberJaw (talk) 07:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase "Queen of New Zealand" is not suitable. Media reports usually refer to Elizabeth as "Head of the Commonwealth" and this might be a better phrase to use.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Added Head of the Commonwealth as first description... starship.paint ~ KO 08:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I suggest "Queen Elizabeth II, New Zealand's head of state". Nurg (talk) 09:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

That sounds good. I've made that change now. Ross Finlayson (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth is Queen of New Zealand. That is not just a technicality. You do not hear that title often just like you do not hear "Queen of the United Kingdom" often. In everyday speech, she is known simply as the Queen or Queen Elizabeth in all the Commonwealth realms. Yet it is spelled out when necessary; just yesterday the Scottish Daily Mail reported that "some Kiwi observers" wondered why "the monarch, as Queen of New Zealand" did not sign the book of condolences at New Zealand House. The constitutional position that makes Elizabeth's reaction relevant is that of Queen of New Zealand. If Adern is not defined as New Zealand's head of government but as prime minister, I do not see the point in removing the mention of the office that makes Elizabeth's words relevant. Surtsicna (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Your revert now reverted. New Zealanders, including me, are telling you this is inappropriate and that they don't want it. Akld guy (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Why not use "Queen Elizabeth II, Head of the Commonwealth, ..." - it doesn't beg the question of the the Queen's role but does give reason why she is a voice of the highest government official here. --Masem (t) 15:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

She is best described as head of state, the current wording. All of you, have some respect for what NZedders are telling you. In my 50 years of adult life, I have never heard her referred to as Queen of New Zealand. Not once. Yes, it is a formal title, but it's nowhere near as suitable as "head of state". Akld guy (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Your nationality is of no relevance here. Neither is mine. Elizabeth's title as head of state is Queen of New Zealand just like Adern's title as head of government is Prime Minister of New Zealand. Many in the UK may have never heard her referred to as Queen of the United Kingdom but that is what she is. I am certain you have never heard Elizabeth called "head of state of New Zealand" either. NZ's most circulated newspapers do describe her as Queen of New Zealand, however, when the context calls for it.[34] "Queen Elizabeth II, New Zealand's head of state" is unnecessarily verbose and convoluted. We should not be afraid of telling our readers something they may not have known.
Besides, I have just cited a newspaper mentioning Elizabeth as Queen of New Zealand specifically in relation to this attack, and apparently it is NZedders who described her as such. Surtsicna (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

What you are "certain [I] have never heard" is irrelevant here. It's only your opinion, and you are wrong. Please correct your link. Akld guy (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Which link would you like me to correct? Surtsicna (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

This is silly. While "Queen of New Zealand" is technically correct, it's an unusual phrase that has the possibility of confusing some people into thinking that this is a different person from the "Queen Elizabeth II" that everyone knows about. This article is about a massacre, not "the formal title of New Zealand's Head of State". The less precise (but also more understandable) "New Zealand's head of state" reads better. Ross Finlayson (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

If there really is a possibility that some people may think that there are two leaders known as Elizabeth II, how is "Elizabeth II, New Zealand's head of state" any better than "Elizabeth II, Queen of New Zealand"? "New Zealand's head of state" sounds technical and detached, like "the USA's head of state" instead of "President of the United States". Besides, Elizabeth seems to be described as "Queen of New Zealand"[35] much more often than as "New Zealand's head of state".[36] Surtsicna (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

That last Google count is completely misleading. Try "elizabeth II" "head of state of New Zealand" [37]. And comparison with "the USA's head of state" is irrelevant. Nurg (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Going back to my suggestion, most people in the world would take "Queen Elizabeth II" to be the Queen of England regardless of any other context. So I was suggesting you build on that and then tell why she is important to NZ, which is due to being its head of state via the Commonwealth , which is a term I would expect most English-speaking users to be aware of even if they can't name all the countries in the Commonwealth. It remains accurate and provides enough context so that uses can recall that NZ is part of the realms she overseems. "Queen of NZ" while technically correct is weird looking to me (US) and simply just calling her the head of state may may making thinki it is a different person than the Queen of England. --Masem (t) 16:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

"Head of the Commonwealth and Queen of New Zealand" or vice versa would also be reasonable, given the attacker's links to Australia and even the UK. Surtsicna (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Here we go again! She is Elizabeth II, Queen of New Zealand. Aren't there more important things to discuss on this specific talk page? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

She is Queen of New Zealand. This is not debatable, it's factual. However, head of state is less contentious, and I would support that wording. --Hazhk (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not understand how it can be contentious at all if it is not debatable. Why should something that is factual be considered contentious anyway? Because some editors did not know about it before reading it here? I cannot imagine coming to a talk page to demand that a piece of info be pulled just because it's news to me. Surtsicna (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I would support the use of "Elizabeth II, New Zealand's head of state" rather than "Elizabeth II, Queen of New Zealand", the latter being a phrase I'd not heard until it was used by Wikipedia. Also she's not the Queen of England in spite of the term being popular in various places around the world. She's Queen of the United Kingdom. The last Queen of England was Elizabeth I. This is Paul (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is not about New Zealand's form of government, and a reader of this article is not likely to care about New Zealand's form of government—at least not while reading this article. They came here to read about an attack and its aftermath. "Queen Elizabeth said she was 'deeply saddened' by the attack." If a reader of that sentence doesn't already know the Queen's role in New Zealand government, that lack of knowledge will not impede their understanding of the article subject. That completely figurehead role makes her comment no more or less significant. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

That sounds entirely reasonable. It should be noted, however, that the apposition naming Elizabeth Queen of New Zealand evolved from a hidden note to editors explaining why her words were there. The idea was that if editors did not understand why we quoted her, readers would not either. Surtsicna (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I struggle to see why any editor or reader would wonder why we're quoting the Queen in a section titled "Reactions->World leaders"—unless it's that she's not really a leader, being only a figurehead, which would be entirely unhelpful hair-splitting. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems that some wondered why she was mentioned alongside New Zealand officials (the prime minister and the mayor). Surtsicna (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

So insert a paragraph break. Problem solved. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

If there is no indication of her connection to New Zealand, not even being in the same paragraph as the prime minister or the mayor, then there is no apparent reason to quote her while relegating other leaders, e.g. the Pope or the King of Saudi Arabia, to a footnote. I still think there is merit in your original assessment, even if it may leave some people wondering why we are mentioning her at all. Surtsicna (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I think debate has pretty much run its course. Let's start a survey and see if there is anything resembling a consensus. I will do so below. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• • • Less contentious in the sense that's less obscure. Arguably the title "Queen of New Zealand" is going to throw many readers because it's used so rarely. --Hazhk (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: For those who are unaware, the phrase "Queen of New Zealand" has been used on NZ coins (see here). What is used in conversation is not all that relevant to what we use in an encyclopedia article, and opinions of New Zealanders do not need to be given greater weight here. Anyway, it sounds like we need an RfC on this topic. StAnselm (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC) --Hazhk (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Those are commemorative coins, never used in circulation. The title does not appear on the $2, 50c, 20c and 10c coins currently in my pocket. Akld guy (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I am completely dumbstruck by the argument that "a phrase I'd not heard until it was used by Wikipedia" should not be used on Wikipedia. We are essentially having people stop by to say that Wikipedia should not provide information of which they were previously unaware. Never mind its accuracy; I did not know about it, so it should not be here. Surtsicna (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

It's a question of weight. With one exception New Zealanders are telling you here that the title carries little weight. Akld guy (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The Constitution of New Zealand carries far more weight than what any New Zealander says on a Wikipedia talk page. Surtsicna (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The question of weight is decided by editors on a Wikipedia talk page. Akld guy (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh? I thought it was decided by New Zealanders. Surtsicna (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is an indication that you're running out of argument. Akld guy (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I am merely paying attention to what you are writing. Surtsicna (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

New Zealanders are not the only target audience, or even the most important one. I think some editors may be overinterpreting ENGVAR. The choice of how to refer to the Queen is not equivalent to the choice between "practising" and "practicing" or the choice between 22 March 2019 and March 22, 2019. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Survey: The Queen

• Queen Elizabeth per this. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• Queen Elizabeth II We don't specify which country "Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern" leads, no need to hammer home which realm Lizzie rules. But to single out Great Britain, Canada or the general Commonwealth rather than the relevant one is a bit crazy. We likewise don't refer to Ardern as the Labour Party Leader or MP for Mount Albert. Fancy people are always a lot of things, some pertinent. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:18, March 23, 2019 (UTC)

• Queen Elizabeth It has been mentioned that people coming to this page will not be interested about her "figurehed" status, I argue otherwise. If she truly is Queen of New Zealand, does not the responsibility of the protection on all Māori and people whom she "reigns over" lie on her? This is stated in Te Tiriti, our founding document, of which there are two. Above and beyond the laws and rules of England and the internet deciding if she is Queen of New Zealand it has already been decided Te Tiriti and The Treaty of Waitangi which is the most suitable candidate to base the argument on. . It is mentioned here that there is plenty of disparity between the two versions of Te Tiriti or The Treaty. This is our governing document and should not be ignored, and certainly not on a page such as this. Visitors coming to this page may be interested about previous attacks in New Zealand, and if so attacks from Pākehā on Māori will likely be of interest to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clumster (talk • contribs)

The British monarch is not labelled as the Queen of New Zealand in our founding documents, the title is more correctly "Her Majesty the Queen of England" One reading the English version of this document may also assume that because the word sovereignty is used that means she was granted the Māori tūpuna's mana and allowed to reign over them. This is incorrect as the Māori version states "kawanatanga katoa" which is a poor at best translation of sovereignty. Te Tiriti is the document that the Māori people's leaders understood and signed, which does not make "Her Majesty the Queen of England" the "Queen of New Zealand" this is a title which has been later added by foreign sources. This was never agreed upon by the Māori people of New Zealand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clumster (talk • contribs)

To give context to what Clumster is saying here, there is in fact a Maori king. Not widely known outside New Zealand. Akld guy (talk) 06:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• Queen Elizabeth, Head of the Commonwealth - her common name, followed by title which clarifies her relevance. starship.paint ~ KO 03:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Her relationship to the Commonwealth is irrelevant. Her relationship to NZ may be relevant. Nurg (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Christchurch is equally within New Zealand and the Commonwealth, so neither is more or less relevant. One's just more direct and focused. Perhaps because it also involves an Australian subject of hers, the fuzzier distinction is preferable this time (at least to "Queen of New Zealand and Australia", which I imagine some might want lengthened to "Queen of New Zealand and Queen of Australia"). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:54, March 23, 2019 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that "Head of the Commonwealth" is less direct and less focused, that is a reason to not use it. Nurg (talk) 04:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

If viewed as a purely New Zealand topic, yes, it's a reason not to use it. If the Australian attacker aspect seems to make the attacks international and her sadness a bit deeper, it's a reason to use it. I'm on the fence, so sticking with plain and simple "Queen Elizabeth II". InedibleHulk (talk) 05:01, March 23, 2019 (UTC)

• Queen Elizabeth, Head of the Commonwealth Her relevance is important. feminist (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• Queen Elizabeth II, New Zealand's Head of State That's enough. It makes it clear (to a reader who might not already know) (1) who she is, and (2) what she has to do with New Zealand. Ross Finlayson (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• Queen Elizabeth II, New Zealand's Head of State Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• Queen Elizabeth II, New Zealand's Head of State as per Ross Finlayson above. Akld guy (talk) 05:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• Either just something simple or include "New Zealand's head of state" (sentence case) or "New Zealand's monarch". I disprefer "Queen of New Zealand" (though that's ok in articles about constitutional matters). "Head of the Commonwealth" is irrelevant (unless she referred to the murderer being one of her subjects). Nurg (talk) 06:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• New Zealand's head of state" for non-constitutional matters per Nurg above and there's no reason to capitalize "Head of State". ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 06:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• Queen Elizabeth II, New Zealand's head of state no actual mention of the Queen's role as head of the Commonwealth --HuttValley (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Say/state and that

(Copied from User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator) ―Mandruss ☎ 10:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Re this, Merriam-Webster say, sense 1a, disagrees with you. Do you assert some higher authority on vocabulary, such as a more respected dictionary? If it's just that you "know" better than the dictionary, I'm likely to take exception. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Mandruss. Is there any particular reason you are coming here to my talk page to discuss this extremely minor issue? Generally, I prefer it if people discuss edits to a particular article on the talk page of the relevant article, not on my personal talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

---

Ok, as it's an extremely minor issue, you won't mind self-reverting all of those changes to this article? ―Mandruss ☎ 10:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes I mind self-reverting, having better things to do with my time. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

No problem, I have the time to do it for you. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Before I go much further with extra "that"s, do you (or Mr Dude) have time to resurrect and/or revert any of that minor issue? If so, I'll fold. If not, I'll gladly burn them all. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:28, March 23, 2019 (UTC)

My position is unchanged from that discussion, but I lack the energy to continue the dispute at one article after another. You keep removing the "that"s and others will keep adding them, and everybody gets to enhance their edit counts. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The system works. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:57, March 23, 2019 (UTC)

I'm not aware that "the system" is for a single editor to make widespread copy edits that he knows have been strongly disputed with external evidence, with no more support than what you got in that discussion: A tepid "Both sound okay to me, but I would side with whatever saves us 5 characters.", from a username since indeffed for socking. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

This single editor is part of the system. As you say, others will keep adding them, if they want. Just seeing how others feel about wordiness here. Unless I'm forgetting something, it's only come up between us at this article and the other last year, which is technically one after another, but not quite "widespread" or all that exhaustive. Just occasional BRD stuff, and if it turns out trimming is unpopular, the system still works. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:39, March 23, 2019 (UTC)

This example, and there are likely more like it, shows that you have little instinct for when the word is important for reading comprehension and when meaning would be clear enough without the word (in which case the word merely provides unnecessary clarity without harming reading comprehension). You are painting with too broad a brush and you might reasonably "recuse" from these edits. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Even after giving it some thought, that sentence means the exact same thing to me, with or without "that". Also would mean the same if we'd said Bender "said", "stated" or "opined" the same idea. But if you see a difference, I don't mind the reversion. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:08, March 23, 2019 (UTC)

Right, it means the exact same thing to you, with or without "that", because you already know what the sentence means. To understand this you have to put yourself in the place of a reader encountering the sentence for first time. They would see "noted the use of live streaming video" and conclude incorrectly that Stuart Bender noted the use of live streaming video. Reading further, they would be forced to back up and reassess the meaning, and, in a sentence of that length, it might require several passes to understand what it says. Good writing means making it possible to get it right on the first pass. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

If a reader concludes anything mid-sentence, they're doing it incorrectly. If they stop at the period, as all good writers intend, there's no reasonable excuse. Maybe a shorter sentence could help (as might entirely omitting the opinion of a non-notable fellow). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:12, March 23, 2019 (UTC)

In other words, any reader having this kind of problem should rewire their brains so they read "correctly". Are you hearing yourself? I think you should consult a reading expert. People have varying reading strategies, and we don't all just read words into a mental buffer until we reach a period and then start processing the buffer as a single unit. I certainly don't—my mental buffer is too small—I process a phrase at a time, and I think Wikipedia should consider readers like me. I agree that the sentence is longer than sentences should be for our target reading level (8th or 10th grade?), but that's a separate issue; the grammatical ambiguity problem would still occur in a shorter sentence. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer "stated" to "said" when "the manifesto" is the subject. Literally, printed words do not speak or say anything, and while the contrary colloquial usage may usually be acceptable, the mixture of printed and video dissemination by the killer in this instance tends to require more clarity. Wnt (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Missing verb?

This sentence seems to be missing a verb: "On social media, he posted a slew of Balkan nationalist material, and remarked that he hoped the ability of the US to "project power globally" would diminish so that events such as the NATO intervention in Kosovo in response to a Serbian ethnic cleansing campaign against Kosovar Albanians in which, in the shooter's interpretation, "Christian Europeans" were "attempting to remove these Islamic occupiers from Europe"" 81.82.241.72 (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, something is wrong, good catch 81. Not sure where should be corrected? starship.paint ~ KO 01:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Al Noor Mosque Was In the News Before

Before the shooting that mosque appeared earlier in the news after a few middle eastern militants got recruited through it: https://web.archive.org/web/20140727140346/www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-east/10310496/A-Kiwi-lads-death-by-drone https://investigatemagazine.co.nz/19770/the-new-jihad-the-radicals-next-door/ https://dailystormer.name/christchurch-new-zealand-mosque-recruited-al-qaeda-jihadists-killed-in-drone-strikes/

The www.stuff.co.nz article either got deleted or censored to avoid inciting further anti-Islamic sentiment.

--NikitaSadkov (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Please don't cite dailystormer here. O3000 (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't want the power to tell people what sources they can't cite, but I do have the power not to find them particularly credible. I'm afraid I didn't hit the relevant part skimming through the second source. But the first source tells the tale: one brother converts at a mosque in Sydney, the other converts at the mosque at issue here, then goes off to join his brother at the mosque in Sydney, and they end up on an odyssey to see Islam at its worst. Trying to blame the mosque for that person becoming a militant is like trying to blame 4chan and Pewdiepie if the shooter read or talked about them. Every nutcase starts somewhere. In any case, this would be at most relevant to the mosque, not to the shooting, so this isn't the spot for it. Wnt (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Why is DailyStormer not blacklisted? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Generally, blacklists are reserved for cases where people are likely to try citing it even though they shouldn't, or for when we've faced people spamming it. We don't blacklist every unusable source (there are too many); and the Daily Stormer is so transparently unusable as a source that it's never been necessary. Currently it looks like it's cited in about six places, either on its own page or on the pages of far-right figures, always in concert with a secondary source to establish something the article's subject wrote there: here. --Aquillion (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: This is going to sound ridiculous, but remember, supposedly the blacklist is "just a spam blacklist" rather than a Great Firewall of Wikipedia secretly blocking potentially contagious wrongthink. Yeah, I know, people would have to be stupid to believe that, but this is the sort of symbolic item the blacklist might make the right call on to keep up appearances. Wnt (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Background section

This should be considerably reworded or even deleted. It draws conclusions, directly or implicitly, that are not directly backed by the sources used. More generally, there is absolutely no link at all between the Raurimu massacre - or other mentioned events - and this shooting: meaning they are not relevant background detail. Some editors have been drawing false conclusions. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The claim of first mass shooting since the Raurimu massacre is now tagged for inadequate source. I looked for sources for the claim and found none, although it's certainly true. Akld guy (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The most recent mass shooting was in 1997, when six people were murdered and four wounded in the North Island town of Raurimu. Until now, the deadliest mass shooting in the country had been in 1990, when a gunman in the small township of Aramoana killed 13 people and injured three. from the Atlantic. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I have replaced the current inappropriate sources with that one. Whether it survives is another matter. Akld guy (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, there is a degree of improper synthesis in that section. Fences&Windows 23:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

+1. There are also WP:TOPIC issues here. What is needed is sourcing that refers to the Christchurch shooting, not a general history lesson about Islam in New Zealand, other mass shootings etc, which is beyond the scope of this article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion to move whole "Suspect" section below "Aftermath"

(Or even after "Reactions"). Reasons, briefly:

1. More logical.

2. Reduces focus on perpetrator. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

It's less chronological, as the suspect always shows up in real life before any aftermath does. In real life and the news, the suspect naturally receives the most focus, both as it happened and as the judicial process rolls on. It be a bit jarring to general audiences if Wikipedia suddenly played by different logic, especially since we've usually gone the normal way with these types of articles. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:40, March 23, 2019 (UTC)

In articles about attacks, the Suspect section usually follows the Victims section. It's not about reducing focus on the perpetrator as without him we would not have an article. WWGB (talk) 05:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)