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)
  • I still can't believe this RfC is not over yet. :/ - Josephua (talk) 14:38, 23 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)

Your reason for opposing an article for himself is because it sickens you? Terrible people get articles all the time. Should we remove the articles for Hitler or Stalin? Alex of Canada (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

More succinctly, AndyBloch, your argument has no basis in Wikipedia content policy. !Voting is not about personal feelings. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss, although I did add what seems like a personal feeling in a parenthetical about another page, my vote here was not based on personal feelings. But even if it was, I don't think it was out of line with Wikipedia's values, which trump any rule or policy you can cite: "With initiative and experimentation, we iterate our way toward making the world a better place, an excellent place." Is the way that terrorists are covered in wikipedia "making the world a better place," or does it encourage more terrorists? My view (call it a personal feeling if you want) is that many of wikipedia's articles about terrorists are not making the world a better place, because of some editors' excessive adherence to wikipedia's guidelines and policies, trumping its values. When terrorists commit murder because they crave media attention for their views or for themselves, wikipedia should not aid their goals or encourage copycats by unnecessarily increasing attention to them. Otherwise Wikipedia is allowing itself to be used for the worst kind of advocacy and propaganda. AndyBloch (talk) 04:34, 26 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)
• Oppose for now if there is no confirmation of who did it, though if there is it should probably be put in, per WP:NOTCENSORED. Additionally, for those opposing because of New Zealand laws, I don't think those apply to Wikipedia because its servers are in the US and therefore covered by US laws. SemiHypercube 12:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support Whether or not the person is ultimately acquitted, they have become notable through their connection with this case. The purpose of the policy of not naming suspects is to respect their privacy. But extensive reporting of the suspect's name has made that moot. TFD (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - generally seems not assured a lead spot, and in this specific case seems not to have become a famous name or for the name to figure prominently in coverage. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:18, 26 March 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: [10]). Even if the manifesto wasn't designed to deceive (we wouldn't quote it to say he is a Navy Seal, etc.)[11], we would rely on high-quality, reliable secondary sources to analyze the manifesto, rather than override their assessment with our own reading of it. In this instance, doing analysis of the primary source is particularly fraught. Chris vLS (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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. [12] 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)

I think it should be mentioned. Benjamin (talk) 01:29, 24 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.[13] 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)

There would be no undue weight in including a brief history of Islam in New Zealand and you are making zero attempt to show that there would be undue weight in including a brief history of Islam in New Zealand. There would be no WP:SYNTHESIS in including in this article a brief history of Islam in New Zealand and you are making zero attempt to show that there would be synthesis in including in this article a brief history of Islam in New Zealand. Cinadon36 claimed that sources on the history of Islam in New Zealand would need to be "in relation with this specific terrorist attack". They would not need to be "in relation with this specific terrorist attack". They would only need to be "in relation" to the history of Islam in New Zealand. Bus stop (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

[Y]ou are making zero attempt to show that there would be undue weight in including a brief history of Islam in New Zealand <- This coming from you, when all you've cited is your own opinion. So, I have a simple rebuttal: WP:PROVEIT (by citing policy/guideline). You have three claims: 1) There would be no undue weight in including a brief history of Islam in New Zealand 2) There would be no WP:SYNTHESIS in including in this article a brief history of Islam in New Zealand <- both of these are unfounded opinion. 3) They would not need to be "in relation with this specific terrorist attack". They would only need to be "in relation" to the history of Islam in New Zealand <- In an article about this specific terrorist attack you don't think sourcing needs to be in relation to it? Why not include a section on the "history of Christchurch", "history of New Zealand", "history of British colonialism", etc, etc until we get to "history of the Universe"? There are sources for these subjects, and you say that [t]here would be no undue weight and [t]here would be no WP:SYNTHESIS in doing so. Why? because you said so. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll not be engaging further in this circular debate with no forseeable conclusion, instead opting to leave a comment at the new section. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, and IMO establishing a "Yes, they have a right to be here." tone in the Article about them being mass-murdered is a good idea, if the facts and RS support the assertion. It would go a long way towards dispelling the shooter's "alien invasion force" allegation.Tym Whittier (talk) 05:31, 25 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.[14] "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"[15] much more often than as "New Zealand's head of state".[16] Surtsicna (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

That last Google count is completely misleading. Try "elizabeth II" "head of state of New Zealand" [17]. 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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 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 II, 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)

  @Nurg: What is "just something simple"? If you had a first choice, what would it be? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

  Sorry, I don't know. I'm just giving a negative opinion on "Queen of New Zealand" and "Head of the Commonwealth". Nurg (talk) 21:45, 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)

  @Anotheranothername: It would help if you specified your complete preference per the other examples. I don't think your intent is "New Zealand's head of state said she was 'deeply saddened' by the attack." If it is, please confirm that. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II, New Zealand's head of state... per Nurg above.~ Anotheranothername (talk) 05:31, 24 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)
• Queen Elizabeth II as first preference - easily recognisable; wikilinked for those who don't know who she is; and doesn't clutter the article with the sort of arguments we've been having. Elizabeth II, Queen of New Zealand as second preference, because that is what she is and that is the role in which she was speaking. Queen Elizabeth II, New Zealand's head of state as third preference, Queen Elizabeth II, Head of the Commonwealth (i.e. wikilinked) as fourth preference. StAnselm (talk) 09:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• Elizabeth II, Queen of New Zealand as first preference, because that is what she is per the constitution of the country; it is by far a more common description of her role than "New Zealand's head of state"; and her role as Queen of New Zealand has been specifically mentioned in relation to the attack. Queen Elizabeth II as second preference because it might be obvious from the context that she is Queen of New Zealand and because Ardern is described as neither "Prime Minister of New Zealand" nor "New Zealand's head of government". Surtsicna (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The evidence you provided earlier for "Queen of New Zealand" being far more common was based on misleading Google search counts. I have already refuted those counts. Nurg (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

No, you have not. You also have not explained how my results are misleading. In your count you failed to exclude Wikipedia. Even if we do not exclude Wikipedia, "Elizabeth II" "head of state of New Zealand" is less common than "Elizabeth II" "Queen of New Zealand". When we exclude Wikipedia, "Elizabeth II" "Queen of New Zealand" is again more common than "Elizabeth II" "head of state of New Zealand". However you cut it, her proper title is known better than the dictionary definition of her office. Surtsicna (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: As everyone ought to know, Google results are perverse. The fact that Queen of New Zealand gets a lot of hits is because it's an obscure title and searchers are unsure what it means, not because it's the most familiar term. The more bizarre the phrase, the higher the number of Google searches for that phrase. Akld guy (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

This is not the number of searches but the number of times it is mentioned on the Internet. Surtsicna (talk) 09:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Queen Elizabeth II, New Zealand's head of state. She's a monarch and she's head of state; "Queen of New Zealand" becomes a distraction. --Hazhk (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• Queen Elizabeth II as first preference or Queen Elizabeth II, New Zealand's head of state as second preference if an explanation of her role in relation to NZ is necessary. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• Queen Elizabeth II, the queen of Great Britain. Describing her as the queen of New Zealand is going to confuse people who aren’t familiar with the whole commonwealth business. Folks are going to think that there is a queen of New Zealand and a queen of Britain. 2601:3C7:200:7020:2172:98C3:73E9:5817 (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I wonder if some people in discussion are confused by the legal realities of the situation with regards to NZ's head of state. First do not confuse the Commonwealth realm with the Commonwealth of Nations. The Queen being the Head of the Commonwealth (which means head of the Commonwealth of Nations) is not the reason she is the head of state of NZ. As our article mentions, it is only recently there was agreement over who will be the next head of the commonwealth, and AFAIK there's no reason this agreement couldn't change and maybe more importantly there's still no guarantee it will apply to the next generation. The majority (by far in terms of numbers) of commonwealth countries do not have the queen as their head of state. A few have their own monarchs. But it has been clear since he was born that Charles would be the next head of state of NZ assuming there was no change in NZ law and he didn't pass before the queen. Likewise William and George will respectively be the next head of state of NZ assuming there was no change in NZ law and their deaths didn't preclude it. Nil Einne (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Some people here are convinced that Elizabeth is not Queen of New Zealand and refuse to accept that they are wrong. Here is a NZ government website stating: "She reigns as Queen of New Zealand independently of her position as Queen of the United Kingdom." Others claim that since this information is new to them, it should not be in Wikipedia. Neither attitude is helpful in building an encyclopedia. Surtsicna (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thinking about it I am slightly wrong. It wasn't clear that Charles would be the next head of state since his mother was only heir presumptive. Until her father's death it was theoretically possible for her and so him to be pipped by her father having male issue and them having any issue etc. Still this is separate from my point which is that the head of state of NZ is a matter for NZ law (and as it is a monarchy there are clearly defined rules of succession) but the Head of the Commonwealth is something else entirely, even if these positions are currently occupied by the same person and there is now agreement for that to continue to Charles. Nil Einne (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
    • P.S. This also applies to Australia etc. I.E. While it may be true that the shooter as an Australian citizen was technically a subject of the queen, this arises because she is the head of state as a monarch/queen of Australia. It's not because of her role as the head of the commonwealth. Malaysian citizens aren't subjects of the queen unless they happen to also be citizens of some commonwealth realm country (which means they're liable to lose their Malaysian citizenship although not because of the queen bit). Indian or Pakistani citizens are subjects to no monarch (again unless .....). Nil Einne (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Of course she is the Queen of New Zealand, but that's not the issue; we are looking for how to describe her in this article. Per Wikipedia practice and policy we must follow Reliable Sources, and none of the sources reporting her comment referred to her as "Queen of New Zealand". So that construction is simply wrong for this article, and it should not be used. "Head of the Commonwealth" is also not used by the sources and should not be used. Most of the sources, being British, simply say "the Queen". Since this is not Britain, I would say "Queen Elizabeth II", just as we would use the full name for any person named. If some explanation of her relationship to New Zealand is needed, we should say "Queen Elizabeth II, New Zealand's head of state". (I now prefer "Queen of New Zealand" as my alternate choice; see below.) -- MelanieN (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • As I already said, the Scottish Daily Mail reported on 21 March that "some Kiwi observers" wondered why "the monarch, as Queen of New Zealand" did not sign the book of condolences at New Zealand House. It is therefore not true that none of the sources reporting her reaction referred to her as Queen of New Zealand, nor is it true that it is wrong for this article to describe her using her actual title as head of state. Surtsicna (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) P.S. My personal preference is for simply "Queen Elizabeth II". She is the only Queen Elizabeth II we have at the moment, so there is no need to disambiguate her. The article is about New Zealand and she is speaking about New Zealand, so there is no need to provide context. Let me ask you this: If Donald Trump comments on something that happened in the United States, would we attribute it to "Donald Trump, President of the United States"? Of course not; we would say "President Donald Trump". If Macron says something about France, we would not feel obliged to say "Emmanuel Macron, President of France"; we would say "President Emmanuel Macron". Because their connection to the event is obvious. Same with the Queen. "Queen Elizabeth II" is enough identification IMO. But I would accept the "head of state" formulation if people prefer it. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

You have a point, of course. "Queen Elizabeth II" really ought to be enough. As I said in the preceding section, however, the idea to make Elizabeth's relation to the country explicit came from a hidden note that explained to editors why her comment was relevant. And if any explanation of Macron's relationship to France were needed, we would say "Emmanuel Macron, President of France" and not "President Emmanuel Macron, France's head of state", wouldn't we? Surtsicna (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

She is the only Queen Elizabeth II we have at the moment - Per Queen Elizabeth dab, she is the only Queen Elizabeth we have at the moment. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Trump is the only President Trump we have ever had, but we still introduce him as Donald Trump. Surely the first time we mention Elizabeth anywhere, we should use the full regnal name, and afterwards use whatever feels right. Surtsicna (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Queen Elizabeth II as first choice, Queen Elizabeth II, New Zealand's head of state as second. Queen of New Zealand could lead to confusion. This is Paul (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - @Rsfinlayson, Roger 8 Roger, Akld guy, and This is Paul: - Per Head of state, "head of state" is not a proper name and is not capitalized. Will you modify your !votes accordingly to facilitate consensus? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, happy to do that. This is Paul (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, done now. Ross Finlayson (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• Done. TY for pointing that out. Akld guy (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Elizabeth II, Queen of New Zealand as it is. If a reader, even a fellow kiwi, upon reading it, is just learning that she is in fact styled as Queen of New Zealand, then...well, that's what encyclopediae are for. 202.155.85.18 (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Queen of New Zealand, Elizabeth II seems to directly mirror the first use of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. The readership should not be assumed to know any more of New Zealand's form of government than it is to know the present names of the monarch and prime minister. Imagine being a reader in a place with a different form of government, some time after the death of Elizabeth, perhaps also after Charles, and maybe even New Zealand has become a republic. This form gives clear information for what their roles are and why they matter. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• I still prefer "Queen Elizabeth II" without any other explanation or identification, but if consensus is that we need to explain her relationship with the country, I now prefer "Queen of New Zealand" rather than "head of state of New Zealand", for two reasons. One, no reliable source uses the "head of state" formulation; one source did mention the "Queen of New Zealand" title. (Most sources did not find it necessary to explain at all, which is why I still prefer just her name.) The other reason is what I found at List of titles and honours of Elizabeth II#Oceania, which outlines her actual official title with regard to the country over the years. It appears that around 1973/74 her title with regard to most commonwealth countries was altered to list her as queen of that country, rather than queen of the UK first and the country as an afterthought. So "Queen of New Zealand" accurately describes her connection to the country. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Indeed, Elizabeth is Queen of New Zealand per the country's constitution (see the law); she is mentioned as such several times on the official government websites and in the oath/affirmation of allegiance. Surtsicna (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
    • If we do decide to describe her as Queen of New Zealand, we should wikilink to that article Queen of New Zealand so as to forestall arguments or "huh?" reactions. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Those who are arguing for "Queen of New Zealand" need to take a serious look at New Zealand history. You do not understand the blatant definition which is spelled out in 2 articles of the Māori Tiriti of Waitangi. There is no legitimacy in this discussion. Clumster (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

We are taking a serious look at New Zealand laws and government websites. They are very clear about it. You started this whole furor in order to push a particular point of view. Surtsicna (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Run-off survey: The Queen

This assessment looks only at first choices and ignores the small amount of negative !voting (i.e., opposing something in addition to or instead of supporting something else). If someone else wants to try a different approach, I wish them luck.

Eight variations were supported by nineteen editors as first choice. Not surprisingly, no variation has a majority. "Queen Elizabeth II, New Zealand's head of state" was supported as first choice by 32% of the participants, and second place was "Queen Elizabeth II" with 26%. I'm proposing a run-off between those two.

@Clumster, InedibleHulk, StAnselm, Mr rnddude, MelanieN, This is Paul, and Starship.paint: @Feminist, Rsfinlayson, Roger 8 Roger, Akld guy, Anotheranothername, HuttValley, and Hazhk:

1 — Queen Elizabeth II
2 — Queen Elizabeth II, New Zealand's head of state

• 1 per this. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• 2 to state relevance to New Zealand. starship.paint ~ KO 01:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• 2 Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• 2, to justify why it is in section space and not the footnotes with other world leaders. WWGB (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• 2, not just another significant person's comment, but shows her close connection with NZ. Akld guy (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - @ScottDavis: missed above. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Note: Hello. You mentioned 18 editors, but I can see only 14+1 pings here. The other 3? JabberJaw (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  Good eye. There were two IPs, and IPs can't be pinged; the software requires an account on the receiving end. And me, since I didn't see much point in pinging myself. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  Mandruss - I think the +1 was referring to you. You missed Surtsicna in the pings. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you, so I did. And I'm correcting my numbers again: 14 initial pings + 2 IPs + ScottDavis + Surtsicna + me = 19 participants. I think. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• 2 - Informative, but not potentially confusing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsfinlayson (talk • contribs) 02:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• 2 to emphasise a connection. JabberJaw (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• 1 since absolutely no reliable source in this connection identified her as "New Zealand's head of state". -- MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• 1 since it was my first preference, and MelanieN does bring up a good point. Mr rnddude (talk)
• Comment - I don't see how we can maintain the fig leaf of pretending that we're progressing towards consensus by !voting, and not just simply voting when we're literally holding runoff elections. No clear consensus emerged from the first discussions above, and I don't think this runoff election indicates anything about a consensus emerging now. 202.155.85.18 (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  You may be confusing this with a simple democratic vote. There has been ample discussion, and if I'm not mistaken not a single editor has changed their position or showed signs of being inclined to change their position. That's an excellent indication that further discussion would not be useful, particularly for such a minor issue. The survey format is simply a way of clarifying editors' positions and moving things forward so we can attend to other matters. Also, it doesn't preclude further discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• 2, since some editors want to indicate her connection with NZ. Nurg (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• 2 I have minimal preference between these two options, my preferences almost exhausted when the options that included wikilinked Queen of New Zealand were knocked out (I typed "informal" first, then reconsidered). --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

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)

"Rewire" is a bit harsh. But yes, anyone having problems with any task should seriously consider doing it correctly (especially if it's a daily chore). Almost everything ever written has agreed that a sentence is one complete unit, conveying a whole thought. I'm all for individuality and variety in the words they contain and how they're stitched together, but by choosing to disregard something this fundamental to the game and arbitrarily choosing snippets instead (surrounding punctuation be damned), a reader is asking for problems. To that point, I'll agree with your suggestion that we "all just read words into a mental buffer until we reach a period and then start processing the buffer as a single unit." InedibleHulk (talk) 09:52, March 23, 2019 (UTC)

In the previous discussion that you linked above, I brought external evidence from two sources. You've brought your unsubstantiated personal opinions. At some point one realizes they are not dealing with a fair and reasonable editor. Carry on. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

As I said then, we don't take our stylistic cues from the news, only their facts. That notwithstanding, "He noted the company was already working on an orbital version of Starship..." and "She noted 'the same thing is happening again' with the revival. If the external world can take it or leave it alone, so can we (just like we aren't obligated to call the shooter "Mr. Tarrant".) InedibleHulk (talk) 07:23, March 25, 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)

It's my understanding and experience that dictionaries identify colloquial usage as such. As I showed in my opening comment, "say" does not require oral speech, and that sense is not considered colloquial by Merriam-Webster. To date all I've seen in counter to that evidence is unsubstantiated statements of fact (ie personal opinions); I don't think that's how we do things here at Wikipedia. I support a mix of "said" and "stated" simply to avoid being repetitive, but I don't support the idea that "said" should be reserved for spoken language. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this dispute, but as this article is written in New Zealand English, it would be more appropriate to refer to a Collins or Macquarie Dictionary for usage than a Merriam-Webster. 202.155.85.18 (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Assuming you're referring to say/state: 1. Collins say, sense 3: "You can mention the contents of a piece of writing by mentioning what it says or what someone says in it." Example: "The report says there is widespread and routine torture of political prisoners in the country." 2. Macquarie requires a subscription, I don't care to spend money to prove this point, and any editor unconvinced by now would still be unconvinced by the addition of Macquarie. Some editors recognize no higher authority on vocabulary than themselves. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Note that example also omits "that" after "says". InedibleHulk (talk) 07:26, March 25, 2019 (UTC)

As would I. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:51, 25 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)

 Done Resnjari (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Resnjari - thank you, I understand now. I have attempted further clarification. [18] What do you think, is it better or worse? starship.paint ~ KO 03:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Its good. Thank you. Best.Resnjari (talk) 04:23, 24 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/ --NikitaSadkov (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• (Redacted) (neo-Nazi bullshit) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk • contribs)

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)

Pewdiepie expressed some neo-nazi views, but no matter his views, Pewdiepie unwillingly became a center of crystallization of modern white power movement. I.e. Mosque as a building is not guilty, but when it is made a meeting place of extremists, like Pewdiepie comments section, it becomes associated with extremism. If 1/2 of your subscriber base has swastika avatars there is no way back. Remember that Swastika itself before Nazis was a pretty neutral symbol. --NikitaSadkov (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Does that mean we can't cite NSDAP documents either? --NikitaSadkov (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

That's right, you can't cite NSDAP documents for anything except saying what NSDAP documents say. They'd be a primary source, and an incredibly racist one at that. The Daily Stormer is a racist, white supremacist, disgusting shitheap of a publication unfit to be read by any decent human being, and if you believe anything written within it, you have a serious problem. The fact that you even suggested using it here is problematic, because it indicates you don't have a good concept of what is and is not acceptable sourcing on the encyclopedia. I strongly suggest that you review our policies on sourcing such as WP:V and WP:RS before further contributing here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

"I shall never be ashamed of citing a bad author if the line is good." (c) Seneca --NikitaSadkov (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

No "line" from a white supremacist shitheap site will ever be "good" as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Use of unreliable sources (particularly virulently-racist ones) is a one-way ticket to losing your editing privileges here, so I again suggest that you review the site's policies before continuing to edit, particularly in sensitive areas such as this one. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

What about lines from Stalin's period PRAVDA newspaper? --NikitaSadkov (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, it may sound funny, but I got perma-banned from Russian Wikipedia for the opposite: I questioned the validity of Kremlin sources, branding Amir Khattab "terrorist", while in practice Khattab was just fighting against uninvited invaders, who came to Chechen land. I removed the "terrorist" label, because it is not NPOV, and instantly found myself banned. So my guess is that "good source" is a very subjective and politically loaded term. One man's terrorists are another man's freedom fighters. --NikitaSadkov (talk) 20:17, 23 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)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Do not censor other people's comments. [19] There is no basis in policy to do this and there is every basis in policy not to do this. The Daily Stormer article is out there and the racists already know where to find it. The question is whether you think that pulling down the window shade will stop the oncoming train. Wnt (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I've removed it again — you can go ahead and take me to ArbCom if you want to make a public thing about your belief that we should use patently-unreliable white supremacist anti-Semitic neo-Nazi hate sites as sources on Wikipedia. Good luck with that.

The site and its monstrously-racist, disgusting and depraved bullshit, is, of course, out there as something which exists. That doesn't mean we have to ever link to it on these pages, much less even think about using it as a "source" for bullshit claims in an article about a mosque where a white supremacist just murdered 50 people because they were Muslim. Have you even taken 10 seconds to think about what you're doing and what this looks like? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic, not helpful, and WP:FORUM-like. TompaDompa (talk) 09:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do you have Muslim friends? Ask their opinion on the genocide of gays in Chechnya, executions for homosexuality in other Islamic countries, and what Quran prescribes about gay men. Also ask them, what should happen to a woman in say Iran or Saudi Arabia, if she refuses to wear hijab/niqab/burka, or even more, what would they do if their wife starts wearing "indecent" dress, like say miniskirt. For me talking with Muslims was very educational and eye opening. Just don't do it in real life - I got assaulted by one Tajik Muslim after speaking to him in defense of gay rights. --NikitaSadkov (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• should stay removed: this is not about censorship but about basic decency. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• I did not propose using it as a source, but the link weakened the original poster's argument, so it seems counterproductive to remove it. An article about pro wrestling is going to discuss pro wrestling sources, an article about chemistry is going to discuss chemistry sources, and an article about a white supremacist murdering people is going to discuss white supremacist sources. This shouldn't come as a shock to anyone. This stuff is out there and either you can hide your eyes or you can refute it. And on Wikipedia, our job is to educate. Wnt (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a related discussion regarding teh content proposed here at Talk:Al_Noor_Mosque,_Christchurch#Addressing_allegations_of_radicalism. starship.paint ~ KO 08:52, 25 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)

I've had a back and forth with bus stop about the background section in another talk section above here. Our back and forth was limited to the "history of Islam in New Zealand" (i.e. the last paragraph, and most specifically the second sentence). The paragraph is bits of history trivia that is unrelated to the subject of this article. I've pointed predominantly to due weight for why it shouldn't be there, but also to synth for why we don't relate a to b unless sources do. I have no idea what relevance the appearance of Muslims in Christchurch in 1874 has to this article besides bus stop's assertion that it is and that you only need a source, any reliable source on any subject, to include it. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Mr rnddude—you are alleging policy violations but you are not spelling them out. Bus stop (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Others may work out for themselves whether I spelled it out or not: 1, 2, 3, and 4. I left a final brief comment about disengaging as, by this point, the discussion was going in circles. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

If the entire background section was removed, it would not be a great disaster. It is a pedantic history lesson that has little to do with the shooting itself. I'm not sure how it came to be there, but it just growed like Topsy and is now too long and off topic.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I removed it. The relevance to this event is not immediately obvious, and it's improperly placed even if relevant. TompaDompa (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

And I 'unremoved' it. It's important to provide some context for this crime - in particular, that (1) attacks like this (and mass shootings in general) are very rare in New Zealand, and (2) the Muslim population of New Zealand is (percentage-wise) very low. We can justifiably argue about how big the "Background" section should be, but I don't think it's reasonable to say that it should be omitted entirely. Ross Finlayson (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I almost agree with the person who deleted the entire “Background” section. Not really; a background section is appropriate; but this reads like an essay. Maybe more like WP:SYNTH since it is sourced. I checked some other mass shooting articles such as Westgate shopping mall attack, Gujba college massacre, Charleston church shooting. They have a background section but it is about the immediate incident; it’s not about the history of the country. My advice: Drop the "history of Islam in New Zealand" paragraph. Drop the "Islamophobia worldwide" paragraph. Keep the earlier shootings. Keep any background that may turn up with a direct connection to this specific incident. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Could people please stop deleting the entire "Background" section. There's far from consensus for this here. Ross Finlayson (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi MelanieN—Why "Drop the "history of Islam in New Zealand" paragraph"? I could see changing it. But why drop it? I would say the most crucial aspect of any "background" section would be a brief allusion to a history of Islam in New Zealand, just touching on the high points, such as population surges and landmark indications of integration into civic society. Our own article Islam in New Zealand is a good starting point. Bus stop (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

IMO we seem to have a rough consensus here that there is too much general information in that section. So I have trimmed the section by about half - not dropping any paragraph, but removing excessive detail and generalization. This was just my doing, so others can tweak it as needed. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop, I didn't see your comment before doing this, but I disagree. Let people go to the article you cited if they want that much detail. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC) P.S. I added a "see also" tag to the section, referencing the article Islam in New Zealand. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for shortening/simplifying the "Background" section; I think this is an improvement. (However, I removed the "See also" link for now; see the edit summary for the reason.) Ross Finlayson (talk) 06:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I think these reverts should stop. The 3RR has been exceeded. We are running now at 4 reverts. Dr. K. 07:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments that seem to agree with my original view. I think the background section should remain but be quite short and relatee to the immediate prelude. Time will uncover any extra info that might be suitable for inclusion. Bus Stop - I think the reasoning behind some of your edits fails to convince me.

Now, an observation by me for what it's worth. This was a pretty much chance event without much background build up in Christchurch or NZ. The guy, who was not a kiwi, chose Chch because it was easy: low security, lax NZ gun laws, and he had had some prior knowledge of the city. There was no background local conspiracy backing him; he was not targeting a base for radical militant islamic ideology. The third place he was supposedly heading for was either in Ashburton or a Hornby child care centre. Anybody with any knowledge of the area will tell you that the Ashburton idea is rather strange (a good 45-60 minute drive at top speed-after having alerted the whole country of what he was up to.) The Hornby child care centre sounds more realistic. The problem is most media outlets overseas don't realise the impracticability of the Ashburton option so just report it as if it is possible. Immediately after these shootings it seemed pretty clear that this was an out of the blue event by a non-local nutcase. There is no anti-muslim sentiment in Chch beyond the isolate personal views of a small few, the sort you would find anywhere in the world. That Deans Ave mosque is absolutely not viewed locally as any sort of out-of-place building acting as an enclave of alien foreign people. It is in one of the more exclusive and desirable areas of the city. So, I am a little bemused when I see editors trying to make what has happened fit into some type of 'mass shooting' template. Another way this event is being mis-reported, and to an extent mis-edited here, is that unlike many other countries, NZ has regional differences that make different cities pretty different from each other. There isn't even a mainstream national newspaper. Ethnic diversity and race issues in Christchurch are noticeably different from, say, Auckland. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Roger 8 Roger—you say "Bus Stop - I think the reasoning behind some of your edits fails to convince me." I have made this edit. Please feel free to weigh in to what I presume will be ongoing discussion. Bus stop (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The shortening of this sub-section does not go far enough and is following the wrong route. The general background should be about the far right worldwide, anti-islam worldwide and slack NZ gun laws. Specifically, it should been about this person, his background and why he chose NZ and his actions in the months leading up to this event (bearing in mind he has not been convicted). Those earlier massacres have absolutely nothing to do with this event and should be removed with their citations. As the NZ PM has said several times, this man is not a NZer and his actions are not those of NZers. The background detail should be found elsewhere, not in NZ. Why not look at Grafton to see what it was in his youth that made him start on the path to become what he came to be? The Stuff article used to confirm NZ, especially Chch is a hotbed of the far right, has been given undue weight. Those general, opinions with few actual examples, comments by a couple of academics are being misused. A 1989 murder by a skinhead? A free speech protest in Auckland recently when the mayor banned a far right speaker? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The mayor did not ban the speaker. The mayor refused permission for council-owned venues to host the speaker. The speaker was free to seek a venue anywhere else in the city. Akld guy (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion the above commentary by Roger 8 Roger is misguided. In my opinion the background section is about Muslims in New Zealand. The 50 people killed were Muslims and the killings took place in Islamic Mosques. I think the primary concern of a background section in this article is the shedding of light on the Muslim identity in New Zealand. The Islam in New Zealand article is synonymous with the background section. We are not going to transplant the "Islam in New Zealand" article into the background section of this article but the "Islam in New Zealand" article serves as the template for the primary subject to be addressed in our background section. We are trying, in the background section, to shed light on the presence of Muslims in New Zealand. Whatever that background might be, we should unflinchingly convey that information to the reader. It would not matter an iota whether New Zealand was welcoming or antagonistic to newcomers. Your analysis gives prominence to material that would be of secondary importance in a background section, properly understood. You say "As the NZ PM has said several times, this man is not a NZer and his actions are not those of NZers." Let me try to keep this discussion on topic. Why would you be citing the comments of the New Zealand Prime Minister when ostensibly we are discussing the background section of this article? The background section of this article is not primarily about the pronouncements of the New Zealand Prime Minister. The background section is primarily about the Muslims of New Zealand. Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The background section is primarily about the Muslims of New Zealand. I disagree. This is not how we treat the "background" section in other articles. We don't explain the historical situation of Blacks in the United States in the case of a racially motivated shooting. We don't trace the historical basis of antisemitism in a synagogue shooting. We don't analyze the gun-ownership situation in the state or the country. The section is for background about the immediate incident. I do favor a link to the "Muslims in New Zealand" article, which I see has been removed once already. Do we need a separate discussion about that? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree with MelanieN. A much better way to handle is simply {{see also|Islam in New Zealand}}. Islamophobic mass murders like this one do not have actual Muslim history as the background, but a cartoon fantasy version of it that doesn't exist in the real world. That is why the background of the shooter himself is much more important than the background of his victims, because it is not their true background that they were killed for, but rather a fantasy version of it.--Calthinus (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Excellent point. There is nothing rational or reality-based in this kind of act. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

"There is nothing rational or reality-based in this kind of act." Please explain that to the deceased 50 Muslims who were killed in the midst of worshiping in an Islamic mosque. Bus stop (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a non-constructive retort that is just an emotional trigger. I would simply repeat what I just said. They were not killed for their real background, but rather the shooter's hallucinated version of what it was and meant.--Calthinus (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Calthinus—I would call that "spin". 50 Muslims were killed in the midst of worship in an Islamic mosque. That is the subject of this article. You are engaged in explaining away the central theme of this article. You explained that "mass murders like this one do not have actual Muslim history as the background". You are free to explain that angle somewhere in the article, provided that viewpoint is supported by reliable sources, but you are not at liberty to foist that explanation into the forefront of a discussion about the purpose of a "background" section of this article. I prefer to examine the most basic facts. Those inevitably involve the 50 deaths. You are comparing a "mass murder" to a "cartoon fantasy". You are saying "the background of the shooter himself is much more important than the background of his victims". I think I understand what you are saying, but that does not obviate the salient fact that the 50 deaths were Muslim. That is not a fact that can be reduced in significance. Muslim identity is a very real part of this article. Bus stop (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't twist Calthinus's words. They did not compare the murders to a cartoon fantasy. They compared the shooter's understanding of Islam to a cartoon fantasy. Nobody is taking away from the fact that these people were targeted for being Muslim. But the shooter's reasons for doing it were not based on "the history of Muslims in New Zealand" (in fact he wasn't even from New Zealand). His reasons were based on the false and twisted "information" - the cartoon fantasy - that he absorbed about Islam in the process of getting radicalized. For that reason, the actual history of Islam in New Zealand is a footnote to these shootings. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

In determining whether the Background section should link to the Islam in New Zealand article we are not essentially concerned with the shooter's country of origin or the shooter's misunderstanding about the true history of Muslims in New Zealand. Calthinus is saying "Islamophobic mass murders like this one do not have actual Muslim history as the background, but a cartoon fantasy version of it that doesn't exist in the real world." And you are saying "he wasn't even from New Zealand" and "the shooter's reasons for doing it were not based on the history of Muslims in New Zealand". I think those are gratuitous comments in the context of the question we are addressing concerning linking to the "Islam in New Zealand" article from the "Background" section. Bus stop (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Is that all we are disagreeing about here? Yes, we should link to the "Islam in New Zealand" article from the background section, as we now do. I though you were still arguing for a full exposition, in the article, of the history of Muslims in New Zealand. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MelanieN—no, we don't need a "separate discussion about that". Bus stop (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, it is in the article now, and it looks like several of us agree it should be there, so I guess we don't. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Islam in NZ should be a 'see also' or similar, that's all. So, Goff didn't ban the speaker, he banned him from speaking at council premises. All is now clear. :) Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

It is interesting that you aren't providing any reasons. You just feel it would be best to take the link to Islam in New Zealand away from the "background" section? I can't say you've provided compelling reasoning. Bus stop (talk) 20:50, 24 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)

Moving the suspect after the aftermath is not logical, because the reactions are all about the suspect's particular brand of lunacy. It could have been a shooter from ISIS who had some nitpick about how the mosque was holding services, and then all the reactions would be totally different. Definite oppose here. Wnt (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't usually edit these kinds of articles, so I was not aware of the usual order (and didn't have time to look at others earlier), and that is a fair point. I also take the point about the Aftermath. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

No. A focus on the perpetrator is important as this was an ideologically motivated crime. --Calthinus (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

'Manifesto' deemed objectionable

If you're in Commonwealth, and downloaded said manifesto or got it into your browser cache, now is the good time to take measures, before police came checking your downloads list. I doubt your explanation that you did that to write a wiki article will satisfy them: https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/385399/christchurch-mosque-shootings-manifesto-deemed-objectionable The document was examined under the Films, Videos & Publications Classification Act and was deemed objectionable for a number of reasons.

Chief Censor David Shanks said others have referred to the publication as a "manifesto", but he considers it a "crude booklet" which promotes murder and terrorism.

Mr Shanks said this publication crosses the line to make it objectionable under New Zealand law.

According to the Department of Internal Affairs, "knowingly" possessing or sharing objectionable material carries up to a 14 year jail term.

--NikitaSadkov (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

It's a fair point. Some people have asked why there isn't a link to the full manifesto in the article. As already pointed out, many websites removed it because it contains incitement to kill various people which is both illegal in various countries and against the terms of service of a website. In Britain, the Terrorism Act 2006 makes it an offence to access or distribute certain types of material. This renders material illegal where "the use or threat is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public... the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause."[20] So do be careful if you are British, Mr. Plod is watching.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

We do link to the manifesto in the appropriate way (I think, since I added it), namely by linking to a news article about it that includes the full text. The problem with linking to the manifesto "directly" is the question of directly where?. The shooter isn't likely to be maintaining a page - even if the 'social media' weren't censoring personal archives of it, they couldn't be trusted not to change. So we had to have some reputable newspaper publish it and archive.org to mirror it so we had a chain of custody on the evidence. As for the British, I pity them, but Wikipedia came from the U.S. and is based on the U.S. for a reason. Wnt (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, that's purely a New Zealand ruling. Commonwealth Wikipedians needn't worry. And as the only known member, I assure you (dear reader, Chief Censor and all good people under the sun) this bad apple didn't spoil the bunch in the least. I'll even mantain we remain the least harmful environment on the entire mainstream web, at least insofar as subdivisional pseudoanonymous virtual communities of nationals and/or ethnics are concerned. Did you know "least offensive website" finds six Google results and "most offensive website" finds fifty-eight? That's almost ten times worse, and the "best" suggestion for the former is a Yahoo! Answer promoting 4chan/b/. Wake up, sheeple! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:32, March 25, 2019 (UTC)

Quotes from The Daily Stormer

The article contained this sentence: 'Andrew Anglin, the founder of the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer, said this was "by far the funniest" mass shooting he had seen, that the victims were "death cult invaders", and that the gunman was already a "folk hero" to many.'

The source given was a Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) article, which was quoting The Daily Stormer. So Wikipedia was quoting The Daily Stormer (a neo-Nazi primary source) under the guise of quoting a secondary source (the SPLC). Verbatim quotes, without any analysis or commentary, about the funniest mass shooting, and vilifying the victims is contrary to common decency, let alone Wikipedia's principle of neutrality. Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for extremists to vilify people and laugh at murder. Serious analysis by academics or reliable commentators of far-right reaction may be warranted, but just presenting quotes from a neo-Nazi is not.

I have deleted the sentence. If you think the material should be added to the article again, please build consensus here first. Thanks. Nurg (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much weight is due; perhaps more context is needed, but I'd tend to support inclusion. Benjamin (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Very well said, and I agree with the edit, Nurg. That material doesn't belong in our article. Bus stop (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I could perhaps see it as being due if there is a notable backlash to Anglin or The Daily Stormer specifically. Even then, I'd prefer not using the direct quote. We already have the sentence However a number of alt-right leaders overseas and online posters supported the attack, hailing the gunman as a "hero". to describe the phenomenon. TompaDompa (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Leave it out. Clearly the guy was attempting to get publicity by being outrageous. Clearly, it didn't work; the comment didn't get a lot of coverage. Maybe if it had caused a huge backlash, as TompaDompa says; but it does not have that kind of coverage and so should not be included here. The existing sentence, quoted above, is enough. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

OSM map in the infobox

I understand that OSM maps are quite common in event infoboxes. I don't know how much actual thinking or discussion has occurred on this subject, and it may be that this is so common simply because it's so common. Sometimes it's constructive to take a hard look at conventional thinking, and inconsistently better is always better than consistently mediocre.

1. Let's examine what information can be gleaned from the OSM map without clicking. The two locations were in a city called Christchurch. The reader already knew that after reading the first sentence of the lead, if they didn't get it from the article's title. The two locations were at about the same latitude. The two locations were separated by an area of apparently denser streets, possibly a downtown area. That is the benefit of something that consumes a considerable amount of space in the infobox.

2. One click gets you a zoomable, scrollable OSM map. Or, two clicks via the coordinates gets you a Google Maps map, which offers all of that plus various other features including "Satellite" (aerial photography) view, Street View, distance measuring, and more. Or, two clicks via the coordinates can also get you a Bing map or an OSM map. A reader can get the interactive map facility they prefer and are familiar with, instead of being forced to use OSM.
The downside: Readers have to know what they can get by clicking on coordinates; it's not obvious. But it is obvious that they can get something, since coordinates are clearly a link. After the first click, they see big icons at the top of the resulting page, labeled Bing Maps, Google Maps, Google Earth, and OpenStreetMap; the rest is easy. My reasoning assumes a bit of curiosity on the part of most readers, and it favors readers with some experience using Wikipedia.

I submit that the OSM map in the infobox is a net negative, and I propose its removal. Comments? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I WP:BOLDly removed it. TompaDompa (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't some readers familiar with the city also get an immediate sense from that map of where the shooter was driving around taking potshots at anyone on the sidewalk? Wnt (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Almost all readers familiar with the city are tucked up in bed right now, being almost 4 am Monday morning. There is no report of shots being fired from a moving vehicle. Akld guy (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Restore it. This happened in separate, identifiable places; so of course we should show a map of them, with links to further tools for those wanting them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

New Zealand heading in reactions

There should be a New Zealand category in the reactions tab where notable New Zealander's responses and reactions can be included. The event happened in Christchurch, New Zealanders were among those killed and New Zealanders I'm sure will agree they can probably give the name of someone who personally part of the response. The response on a national level was massive, anyone who was in New Zealand at the time will agree, personally I have never seen such a surge of action in so many departments across the whole of the country.

This should be above/before the world leaders section as it was a New Zealand event, those killed chose to live in New Zealand and the shooter chose New Zealand as a target. It should therefore take precedence over the interesting, yet after the fact reactions of world leaders who are otherwise uninterested in the racial and religious political issues of New Zealand.

Although the reactions of world leaders are interesting, reactions of relevant New Zealanders are more important as the event took place in New Zealand. Clumster (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

accidental duplicate - not sure if I accidentally deleted someone else's information 2600:1700:7A51:10B0:B1ED:B440:CA68:E8D9 (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

connection to Norse Mythology

I have noticed there is a connection between White Supremacists and Norse Mythology when I first read into the Nordic Resistance Movement.

I have provided three references for connections of White Supremacy regarding its connection to Norse Mythology. Only one is about the Christchurch mosque shootings. I think that helps demonstrate that the connection is widespread. I think an inclusion about this shooting's connection to Norse Mythology should be made in the article and am hoping someone can help with that and that a consensus can build.

The shooter wrote, “…if I don't survive the attack, goodbye, godbless and I will see you all in Valhalla!”

I have requested similar topic inclusions on the "Norse Mythology" article, the "Valhalla" article, and the "Norse Mythology in Popular Culture" article.

2600:1700:7A51:10B0:B1ED:B440:CA68:E8D9 (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources

This is is being blown massively out of proportion, based on only one quote, in a manifesto that is known to have been designed to offend. --Calthinus (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like a bit of original research to me. As I noted during the discussion about the Dylan Thomas poem, 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. His mention of Valhalla may or may not indicate a link between Norse mythology and white supremacy this incident, but that's not a conclusion we can draw without reliable evidence. The links here don't provide any strong evidence for a link. This is Paul (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this OR? I am not the author 2600:1700:7A51:10B0:B1ED:B440:CA68:E8D9 (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

In terms of this article it is original research. We don't know if the perpetrator's mention of Valhalla was a nod to the Nordic Resistance Movement or just another one of those confused ramblings. It's something we may never know. This is Paul (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I do see that a lot of different reliable news outlets have described the manifesto as 'rambling'. I don't disagree with that. Still it seems the Cross of Odin symbols he used and the use of Valhalla were related to Norse Mythology. 2600:1700:7A51:10B0:B1ED:B440:CA68:E8D9 (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Be that as it may, reliable sources need to be providing us with evidence of those links; we don't need to be theorizing about them ourselves. This is Paul (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources

The link seems to have been established by the anti defamation league. I provided that citation in the references. It doesn't seem likely that the use of the Cross of Odin on his weapons and references to Norse Mythology in his manifesto was all just 'trolling' or 'rambling'. There seems to be a consensus that it is rambling but there is also a consensus that he did what he did for white supremacy. I suppose that as the story develops this topic will be touched on further. 2600:1700:7A51:10B0:9445:E83D:A5BF:DEFF (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Reactions

In the section, I think there could be some mention of the Australian politician who blamed the attack on Muslim emigrants and was subsequently egged. This was a very notable and reported incident. Currently the reactions shown are largely from one side. Furthermore, the line about PM Imran Khan's reaction seems to be overcited. Would be a good idea to trim some of those down. DA1 (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Being egged for one's views, even famously, does not make one a world leader. But yeah, we don't need five stories for one claim. Fixed that much. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:34, March 25, 2019 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: Not a world leader but it does need to be mentioned somewhere. It was one of the most reported stories of this saga following the shooting itself. DA1 (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the main plot is about a guy shooting a hundred people and how things turned out for them. Reactions from uninvolved people to reactions from other uninvolved people belong in articles like Fraser Anning. Someone getting egged after previously being dry is really something; someone getting egged after a hundred people get shot is just something else, no matter how many times it's reprinted. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:41, March 25, 2019 (UTC)

Most people, including myself, didn't even know his name. So that "Fraser Anning" could be helpful if linked somewhere to some capacity. I don't see how this wasn't relevant, when it was widely reported and dealt entirely with that violent incident that preceded it. DA1 (talk) 09:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Few should have known his name before he was egged. But after that was widely reported, anyone with any interest learned it in the lead of any story they read or saw. Now they (should) know where to learn more about this widely-named person (like whether he was already on the path to political eggdom or only suddenly turned because of the shooting). InedibleHulk (talk) 09:58, March 25, 2019 (UTC)

This is really confusing logic. So you're making the assumption people months or years from now will be reading news articles elsewhere that happen to mention him? While that's fine I don't see how that helps Wikipedia readers of this actual article, which will be most people reading on this subject in the future hereon. DA1 (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm saying people who still care what happens to Anning, his policies, his career, his livelihood and his clothes will still know enough to look for it in the article specifically about him. This event and subsequent shaming may very well change his future, but he won't alter this event he mentioned's past. A completely different guy will have still shot a hundred people, and that'll still be the story readers expect to find here, not a bunch of spin-off trivia. Everything leads to other things, and many of those things have their own articles.

In theory, I wouldn't mind including his reaction to the clear subject of this article, as would (and often does) make perfect fucking sense in a section called "Reactions". But in the real world, the eggsplosive reaction to his reaction would seem a glaring omission, and someone would add it just for completeness. Then maybe someone else will add his reaction to that reaction, etc. It's happened before in reactions to Trump's reactions to reactionary stuff, and that was ridiculous enough, but at least people remember Trump's name and there's a decent case to be made that future historians might value how an American president's responses sat with the press and public at the time. The overwhelming interest just isn't there in Franning's case, so an exception to the whole idea of remembering what we're talking about seems even less unwise. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:26, March 25, 2019 (UTC)

Alt right section

Milo claims that two Al Kaida terrorists had ties to the christchurch mosque. It should be in this section of the article. Source:

https://sputniknews.com/asia/201903171073315161-milo-yiannopoulos-al-noor-mosque-radicalism-report/

https://web.archive.org/web/20140727140346/www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-east/10310496/A-Kiwi-lads-death-by-drone

Above comments added by 5.204.64.161 talk at 20:21, 24 March 2019

It shouldn't be in that section unless it has some relevance to the events discussed in this article. This is Paul (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

These individuals always refer to mosques like they have memberships. What are "ties" in their view? Unless they were personally involved with administration or were notable figures within the congregants, these "ties" involve merely praying at or paying visit to one? I'm surprise they don't describe their high schools or the groceries they went to as having "ties" as well. DA1 (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos is hardly a reliable source and I'd take anything he says with not a grain of salt, but about ten pounds of salt. Just cus "Milo" said it doesn't mean it should automatically be included. The articles listed merely quote him, and don't actually determine the veracity of his wild claims. As is, his claims, if introduced, would represent serious WP:BLP issues. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Milo is a no-no. @This is Paul, DA1, and CaptainEek: but this assertion didn't originate from Milo, it is from the since-deleted 2014 Stuff article reported: Jones was killed alongside Australian Christopher Havard, whose parents said he was introduced to radical Islam at the Al-Noor mosque in Christchurch. Mosque leaders confirmed Havard stayed there and studied in 2011, but denied radical teaching took place. But a man who attended a converts' weekend at the mosque 10 years ago said a visiting speaker from Indonesia talked about violent jihad and plenty shared his views. "Most of the men were angry with the moral weakness of New Zealand. I would say they were radical." starship.paint ~ KO 08:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint:Why was it deleted? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• @CaptainEek: - I have no idea. starship.paint ~ KO 08:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

(EC)The stuff.co.nz source is fine. The only question worth answering here is related to WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH. Any relationship between alleged radicalism at the mosque and the shooting needs to be reflected in the coverage of reliable sources. The only one drawing that relationship so far appears to be Milo as quoted in Sputnik News. Including that in the article would be giving undue weight to a viewpoint that is not being widely reflected in coverage, and to infer a relationship ourselves would be synthesis. 202.155.85.18 (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, the coverage is WP:UNDUE and not relevant on this page. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a related discussion regarding teh content proposed here at Talk:Al_Noor_Mosque,_Christchurch#Addressing_allegations_of_radicalism. starship.paint ~ KO 08:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Milo is definitely not a reliable source and anyone that thinks he is should look into the topic of reliable sources. This is utter nonsense. 2600:1700:7A51:10B0:7D2E:15E8:B117:2E4B (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Should the manifesto get an article?

Brenton Tarrant's manifesto has become quite a major story even aside from the shooting itself. There has also been further controversy, due to the banning and censorship of the document, with people even being arrested or investigated for posting or sharing it in Canada, and New Zealand. I think a fairly decent article about the manifesto, and the controversy surrounding the ban could be made. Alex of Canada (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I proposed that previously, and your interest is good to hear. Though you don't need to ask on a talk page before starting an article. Wnt (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I oppose that. Lots of these sickos write manifestos. The last thing we should do is let them succeed in drawing massive attention to their "philosophy" because they killed people. The Unabomber for example wrote a manifesto - so important to the case that it actually led authorities to him - but it doesn't have a separate article. You are free to write an article, of course, but if you do, I will nominate for it to be merged back into this article. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• No. Our job is not giving oxygen to this crap. --Calthinus (talk) 04:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

As with every article, the notability criteria apply. My own opinion is that the manifesto probably fails WP:NBOOK, WP:NWEB and isn't independently notable of either the person, event or fringe theory with which it is associated. Now, the livestream on the otherhand seems to have taken on a life of its own and it has received significant coverage that is fairly independent of the mass shooting itself. It also seems likely that that will continue, and I think at some stage, an article for that recording will be made, or at the very least a significant section in this article will be needed to deal with that subject. 202.155.85.18 (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Our job is to write an encyclopedia, not to decide what gets 'oxygen'. This isn't "PRpedia". I should say (as I said in my link above) that it seems like putting cart before horse to have an article about only the manifesto rather than the author, since the manifesto is basically notable because a killer wrote it. But if there is some issue in starting Brenton Tarrant on account of people citing BLPCRIME without citing WELLKNOWN, the manifesto would make a perfectly good GNG-able article on its own until such time as it has a parent article ready to receive a merge. Wnt (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• FUCK NO. The ravings of a murderous madman have no place here. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• No, because the Unabomber manifesto and Anders Behring Breivik's manifesto don't have separate articles either. They don't have that type of independent notability. Whether they are offensive is covered by WP:NOTCENSORED. Mein Kampf may offend some people, but it is notable enough for an entire article. Tarrant's alleged manifesto isn't.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• No - The manifesto receives enough coverage in this article (five whole paragraphs of it), and it doesn't have independent notability. Mr rnddude (talk)
• No - it has no independent notability beyond this article starship.paint ~ KO 08:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Absolutely not Not only does it fail the notability guidelines, the manifesto is a piece of raving garbage literally designed to cause division, trip folks up, and is designed to be so "ironic" and full of sarcasm its hard to know what is or isn't meant to be serious in it. The best it should get is a mention that it exists, not an in-depth discussion of what it did or didn't mean. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• No. Just no. WWGB (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Not yet unless and until you can establish notability, as Starship.paint says. The fact that there aren't articles for the Unabomber manifesto and Brevik's manifesto aren't relevant, unless there are discussions to refer to. Similarly the "raving garbage" and "ravings of a murderous madman" would not be good reasons, we cover notable written works regardless of the author's sanity or criminality.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC).

I wasn't trying to cite WP:OTHERCONTENT, but the Unabomber and Breivik manifestos do not meet WP:GNG and the alleged Tarrant manifesto doesn't either.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• No especially if it as meandering and nonsensical as the media has presented. --Masem (t) 14:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Definitely no since it doesn't appear to be independently notable. This is Paul (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• No on notability grounds. But as Ianmacm said, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and offensiveness is not a reason for exclusion. 79.168.3.237 (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• It seems this discussion is snowballing. 202.155.85.18 (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Burj Khalifa projection

This could fit there: Image of Jacinda Ardern projected onto world's tallest building. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a reaction to Ardern's reaction to the shootings, not a reaction to the shootings. It would fit better at Jacinda Ardern#Christchurch mosque shootings. Being cast upon a very tall building, even briefly, is a pretty huge personal honour and something I think people interested in her career would like to know. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:57, March 25, 2019 (UTC)

 Done Added there, with that CNN article as a ref. —Hugh (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

[Un]Bolding

The suspect's name is in bold, there is a comment citing guideline WP:R#PLA. There is some discussion of this in Archive 5, but the question there was more about whether to include the name at all. I don't think this is a good reading of WP:R#PLA, anyone typing the name will see it in the first sentence as the subject, and the title of the article and section make it clear why you have been redirected there.

This is not a practice I have seen in common use elsewhere, so possibly this guideline is also out-dated.

I propose un-bolding the name here.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC).

Done, at least for now. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC).

Agree. That guideline says : "It will often be appropriate to bold the redirected term" - but that works much better when the term is in the lede/intro, than deep in the body. - Snori (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2019

Please apply the reference fixes made in this diff: [21]

Thanks! 79.168.3.237 (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. —Hugh (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

No problem! 79.168.3.237 (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)