Jump to content

Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Saifty (talk | contribs) at 08:29, 15 March 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Perpetrator name

Is it usual to name the perpetrator? They seem to be out for glory. Why hand them that? --denny vrandečić (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia. We should note the facts, when they are reliably sourced. But, as always, we should do so with a neutral POV. Ross Finlayson (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Usually the perp is named when charges are laid so I'm unsure whether to keep it here.  Nixinova  T  C  03:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the perpetrator is obviously relevant factual information about the incident. If a crime is committed, it is relevant who did it. It should be included. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As of now, keep it in the article but not in the infobox. - Josephua (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And not in the lead, IMO.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, many articles about shootings mention the perpetrator in the lead. To avoid an edit war, I moderated the tone. I hope you approve of this. - Josephua (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is why the article states before your edit that Tarrant was one of the perpetrators. - Josephua (talk) 04:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He is just one shooter of several and this is early. There are IEDs for crying out loud. Why should we give this one guy such a prominent place in this article. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because he is the only shooter that was confirmed by the police. If more names are revealed, they will go in the lead as well. - Josephua (talk) 04:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to add the name, do so with a reliable source. I'll remove unsourced claims. --denny vrandečić (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced here: https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/live-gunman-named-four-arrested-christchurch-mosque-attacks-leave-significant-number-fatalities - Josephua (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Denny, the name in the lead was sourced. - Josephua (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now it is sourced. It wasn't when I removed it, at least not obviously enough.

Still: Can we remove the name from the lead? There's a whole section on the perpetrators later, isn't that sufficient glorifying? --denny vrandečić (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider mentioning that someone has committed a crime a way of "glorifying" that person. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is when he is the only one mentioned in the lead. There is more than one person involved. Mention in the body only. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He is the only named perpetrator at the moment, others can be added as information is revealed. The perpetrators are very important parts of this event, as they caused the event in question. Newaccountfortalkpage (talk) 06:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leave in the lead. The lead summarises the article and the people involved in the attack are going to be a large part of the article. AIRcorn (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Making famous? Popularizing? Spreading the word? Giving a platform? Helping the perpetrator reaching a larger audience?

What information need is being fulfilled by giving the name in the lead? How is this relevant knowledge? Look, I'm not saying here put the name away entirely - although I wouldn't be opposed to that, but I understand why this would be a difficult position to take in Wikipedia - but I am saying that it seems sufficient to name the name in the appropriate section. --denny vrandečić (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because it 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) 06:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with this, removal of information based on personal feelings is not helpful to the integrity of Wikipedia as a source of information.Newaccountfortalkpage (talk) 06:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newaccountfortalkpage (talk • contribs)

You are right. This should be resolved through policy. We shouldn't name shooters in the lead if there is a more detailed section coming anyway, but this requires a community decision, outside of the context of a single article. --denny vrandečić (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lead sumarises the article, so if their is a more detailed section then it is even more justification to mention it in the lead. AIRcorn (talk) 06:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to Pewdiepie

This is not just a simple pop culture reference. Pewdiepie is a "introductory drug", a gateway to further alt-right radicalization and recruitment. We should probably wait for more sources to verify, but this should not be ignored and omitted. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The perp said he wanted to create division within the west so the "right would rise again" or some other Nazi crap. I don't think this information is relevant.  Nixinova  T  C  04:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't think this information is relevant." I'm sorry to be blunt, but the relevance of the shooter screaming "subscribe to Pewdiepie!" should be obvious. If you claim you don't understand it, well, given that you prominently advertise your interest in youtube, gaming, and internet culture, and you created the article Pewdiepie vs T-series, I frankly have to question your objectivity in this matter. You have skin in the game, and I think it's influencing your interpretation.
The general relevance of internet culture to this incident is inarguable; the shooter's manifesto was written almost entirely in memes and chan-speak, he posted about the shooting ahead of time on 8chan, and was clearly motivated by conspiracy theories pushed on that platform, and he livestreamed it. And while the mechanisms of right-wing radicalization online are a subject of ongoing study, the throughline from "edgy memes" to actual bigotry is already pretty clear. And you must admit that, even if you think it was "blown out of proportion" or "taken out of context," Felix has at least been adjacent to a lot of controversy, involving a lot of things he's said and done that seem to make the alt-right think he's one of them (totally irrespective of whether or not he is).
I don't have the time to add the info myself right now, and the article is going to be a mess for a few days anyways. But you are wrong about this. And I genuinely hope that you reflect on why your reaction was to say it wasn't relevant, and what that might say about your personal biases, and how those biases can affect you as an editor. People writing about things they love is the backbone of this and every other wiki. But when you care about something, that's when being objective is the hardest. And also when it's the most important. ScreamingRobot (talk) 07:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This! Even if Felix is not a white supremacist, he consciously or unconsciously help the spread of the ideology with his "edgy humor". 36.65.223.28 (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the article should at least mention that the perp mentioned Pewdiepie's name. 36.65.223.28 (talk) 07:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely relevant as "subscribe to pewdiepie" is one of very few things the shooter said right before opening fire. However, the word 'screaming' is inaccurate. He spoke it at normal volume and it was directed at his livestream viewers rather than his victims.Wikiditm (talk) 08:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info about the perpetrator

I want to share some details of the perpetrator, I have info about him but I'm not sure if I can share them to all of you since it came from 4chan and 8chan.Swaggum13 (talk) 04:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, you can put in on the talk page, but we go by reliable, secondary sources, so they'll never land on the article unless RS confirm it. 4chan posts are very likely to be joe job too. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to agree with Tsumikiria we cannot post secondary sources unless RS confirm it, at least it posted up on ITN. Sheldybett (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe best to share it with law enforcement. No need to share it here. --denny vrandečić (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bomb at Strickland

Anyone is going to mention the bomb in Strickland Street and how that area around it was blocked off in the Incidents section? - Josephua (talk) 04:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the hypothesized bomb is in the lead? (Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Yes. - Josephua (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mosque name

Is Al Noor Mosque the same as Canterbury Mosque, which is how it is referred to in the image? Stephen 04:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manifesto

A link to the shooter who livestreamed his actions' manifesto can be

Removed link to document which has been described as hate speech. I am sure people are competent enough to find it if they want to. Wikipedia is not a place for primary sources. --denny vrandečić (talk) 06:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newaccountfortalkpage (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC) I think it would be pertinent to include this in sources, as it outlines many of the perpetrator's claimed reasons. It would be easy to say that it should be buried, but this is an encyclopedia and it's a notable piece in this event's puzzle.Newaccountfortalkpage (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, wait for police and secondary sources to confirm this. You can show this to law enforcement as evidence instead. - Josephua (talk) 05:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm strongly against linking to the self proclaimed manifesto. --denny vrandečić (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't delete other people's comments just because you don't like what's posted in them. The shooter apparently posted this himself, it's a primary source, and is an important piece of this event.Newaccountfortalkpage (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It should be linked. This is Wikipedia, remember. Our aim is to inform. This has nothing to do with ideology. Quinnov (talk) 05:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I did and will again unless there is community consensus to keep such links. Your reference to primary sources is sufficient demonstration of your understanding of Wikipedia though. --denny vrandečić (talk) 05:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you're talking down to me and think I may be stupid, which is kind of inappropriate. My main concern is that why you feel that they should be deleted, you said you are against it, but gave no valid reasons for having that feeling. You merely stated your personal opinion. Newaccountfortalkpage (talk) 05:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. This source fails on many counts, it hasnt been reputably published, its likely to be misused.=, it also violates WP:BLP. Gnangarra 06:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions section

Yet another "Reactions" section where primary sources are used to create a Quotefarm of politicians mouthing platitudes. The only thing that could make it worse is if some flagicons were added. This unencyclopedic material should be removed. Abductive (reasoning) 05:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand where you are coming from, but responses are not limited to just politicians. - Josephua (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to handle this I have seen is to use a blanket statement like politicians from around the world have condemned the attacks and then create a note listing them. The reactions arre all pretty much the same and this reduces the undue nature these sections inevitably create. AIRcorn (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The reactions section contains comments by Jacinda Ardern the New Zealand primeminister, Patsy Reddy the Governor General who is head of state in New Zealand and Scott Morrison, the current Australian primeminister. These are relevant because its the New Zealand leadership and also the Australian leadership (one of the perpetrators was an Australian), not random or other people.Resnjari (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Date

Include the year "2019" in title. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiritualized123 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems unnecessary. The incident doesn't need to be disambiguated from other incidents like this in Christchurch because there haven't been other incidents like this in Christchurch. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

== New Zealand Herald talks about the shooting at the Linwood mosque being stopped by an armed muslim prayergoer who had a shotgun/rifle. can any other sources collaborate this?

Claim that a personal firearm was used is unsubstantiated. This is unlikely. Personal firearms are uncommon in New Zealand and it is illegal to carry them on your person or in public. ==

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12213039 about 3/4s the way down the article, ctrl+f chased 97.91.17.19 (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)bisous[reply]

Plural article name?

Shouldn't the page, sometime in the future, be renamed "Christchurch mosques shootings" to reflect the 2 separate locations involved (given that the plural of mosque is mosques)? JabberJaw (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is.  Nixinova  T  C  06:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1997 Raurimu Massacre

For the person that doubted if it existed, I found this article from the New Zealand Herald: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11788645 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TangoWhiskeyDelta (talk • contribs) 05:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - Josephua (talk) 05:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist attack

Reliable sources are referring to this as a “terrorist attack”, the title of this article should reflect this. 71.218.98.55 (talk) 06:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise the media in Australia is calling it a right wing terrorist attack and the perpetrators right wing terrorists. I do agree that a change will be needed. Probably after New Zealand police give a press conference in coming hours or days.Resnjari (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When the government declares it to be a terrorist attack, then yes, it is a terrorist attack. For now though, it is just a mass shooting, and not all mass shootings terrorist attacks. - Josephua (talk) 06:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources, not primary sources. Only reliable secondary sources need to label it as such for us Wikipedia s to add it. 71.218.98.55 (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The word "terrorist" is usually not in the title of attacks. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but it does not preclude it from being a redirect for the article. Also that it was a right wing terrorist attack definitely will need to be cited, after New Zealand police does a press conference and formally gives details to the public.Resnjari (talk) 06:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is linked at List of Islamophobic incidents, so shouldn't we link that list in the See also section? Or should we remove the entry from that list? 2402:3A80:D3B:2EEA:2A23:280E:9099:496F (talk) 06:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, add it to the article.Resnjari (talk) 06:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The category should also be added. 71.218.98.55 (talk) 06:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the PM of New Zealand is calling it “an attack” and “terrorist attacks”. 71.218.98.55 (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As above, the PM has said it is a terrorist attack. Source: [1]. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Australia’s PM has referred to the attacks as “right wing terrorist attacks”. 71.218.98.55 (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Le Monde is calling it “a terrorist attack”. [1] 71.218.98.55 (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2019/03/15/nouvelle-zelande-fusillade-dans-une-mosquee-de-christchurch_5436217_3210.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1552632812

RfC about keeping perpetrator's/perpetrators' name in lead

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

Requested move 15 March 2019

Christchurch mosque shootings → Christchurch mosque terrorist attack

New Zealand PM is referring to this as a “terrorist attack”. 71.218.98.55 (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC) 71.218.98.55 (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would support it as a redirect.Resnjari (talk) 07:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed it could work as a redirect. For what we know at this time, a mass shooting is a more fitting classification. Plus a PM saying that doesn't automatically make it a terrorist attack anyways IE see Quebec City mosque shooting, which the Prime Minister called a terrorist attack at first but wasn't ended up being classified as one and the shooter wasn't even charged with terrorism.Spilia4 (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider - New Zealand mosque attack, New Zealand mosque terror attack... though I have no problem with the above ones too. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Describing it as a terrorist attack is not NPOV. It's opinion. The general practice on wikipedia is to simply describe what happened - in this case two simultaneous shootings at mosques in Christchurch. Please look at the September 11 attacks article where there is no mention of terrorism in the article title. Oska (talk) 07:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agree with Oska. While I personally consider it beyond any doubt to qualify as a terrorist attack, putting that in the article title is not consistent with general Wikipedia practice. I do agree with renaming it "attacks". 115.189.93.237 (talk) 07:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the name should be changed and I think a redirect could work. But I don't see how describing it as a terrorist attack is "not NPOV and not consistent with Wikipedia practice". With that argument 9/11 shouldn't be described as a terrorist attack, nor should 2015 Paris attacks. But they both are. Are we reserving the term "Terrorist" just for Muslims?! 64.239.159.151 (talk) 07:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Christchurch mosque attacks. Precise and explains the event.  Nixinova  T  C  08:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agree with Akld guy to move to "Christchurch mosque attacks" only due to the attempted use of explosives similar to 2011 Norway attacks. Otherwise, the use of 'shootings' to cover multiple locations seems consistent with articles like 1, 2, 3 which simply use the plural of the attack method while other articles with single attack locations don't 1, 2. 3. Most other articles on the encyclopedia don't use the word 'terrorist' in their names even though they are categorised as terrorist attacks even September 11 attacks so I am against the use of 'terror' or 'terrorist' for consistency. The Skeptical Ham (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:BLPCRIME. Terrorism is a specific type of crime. The suspects are alive, and they have not been convicted of terrorist crimes (yet). Wikipedia's editors must not do the court's job of determining whether the suspects are guilty and of what, and deciding on our own that the shooting was a terrorist attack would be doing precisely that. TompaDompa (talk) 08:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/03/15/shootings-reported-mosques-christchurch-new-zealand/
  2. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2019/mar/15/christchurch-shooting-injuries-reported-as-police-respond-to-critical-incident-live
  3. ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/03/shooter-situation-zealand-mosque-attack-190315015927391.html

IEDs

The IEDs were found on suspects vehicles, rather than just vehicles, it isn't clear in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MHL456 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14 words

I removed this phrase " who displayed neo-Nazi symbols and the white supremacist Fourteen Words on his firearms and online postings" as it cant be verified from the given sources Cinadon36 (talk) 07:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was in the NZHerald source here and sourced in body. Re-added to the lead. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 08:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3 suspects

The TVNZ link says the 4th arrest wasn't connected to the shooting --2001:569:7A3C:4400:453D:8BA7:A806:DCC0 (talk) 07:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People are quoting from the original manifesto - primary source

People are quoting from the original manifesto which is primary source even if the secondary source they are placed in does not use the words. Why is everyone pushing it to be in the lead so soon? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators should protect this page for a few hours - only admins edit

Administrators should protect this page for a few hours - Only admins to edit. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Or ECP at least. Juxlos (talk) 08:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right wing militants

Deutsche Welle are referring to the terrorists as “right wing militants”. [1] 71.218.98.55 (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://m.dw.com/en/new-zealand-twin-terrorist-attacks-kill-dozens-at-christchurch-mosques/a-47927516
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings&oldid=887857899"