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 SJCAmerican (talk | contribs) at 19:52, 15 March 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Link to manifesto

The reference to the manifesto does not link to any searchable text.

I propose to alter the link to the archive here: https://archive.org/stream/TheGreatReplacement_20190315_1216/The%20Great%20Replacement_djvu.txt

Can somebody please do that?

Adinov (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetrator name

Should we add the number of people that were Captured that were in connection with the attack? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FultzXD (talk • contribs) 08:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Agree their names can be included in the lead with more detail later.Mozzie (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons we should take care not to recklessly defame anyone lest they be innocent. Having said that it is entirely appropriate to include their names given suitable sources. Censoring their names to avoid giving them attention is not a consideration.Mozzie (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the article say two shooters? No source on that. All indications point to a single shooter. Change the article.

This is Wikipedia. You can change it. No. You should change it (if you think it would improve Wikipedia). Mozzie (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree[1] Brenton Tarrant appears in an anti-doping ruling. cant confirm atm if its the same guy. The shooter is reported to have worked as a personal trainer so the occupation and name fit. https://www.asada.gov.au/news/rugby-league-athlete-receives-sanction-3 Verify references (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't confirm it, don't risk defamation on Wikipedia's part by saying it.Mozzie (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

actually the question wasnt really an agree or disagree question so im not sure if i agree. I mean, yes we should post the name now that a reputable source has identified the attacker. Verify references (talk) 16:26, 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]

Removed the claim as it is not corroborated from multiple reliable sources. Nizil (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that PewDiePie is an introductory drug, as reported by sources [1], to deradicalization and helping victims of terrorism. Definitely should not be ignored as it is a WP:DUE reaction reported by many sources. wumbolo ^^^ 10:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on WP:BLP grounds. I think it'd be prudent to wait until we have a reputable third party making the same claim. Melmann (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Wait until there has been time for third parties to analyze this. At this point, opinions on PewDiePie's involvement in this is entirely WP:OR and WP:POV  DiscantX 10:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It seems very speculative at this time. Let's wait for more thorough, informed and thoughtful analysis and stick to key facts for the immediate future.Mozzie (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A posting on Bellingcat [2] (I'm honestly not sure how their editorial process works, but I respect the site) argues that Pewdiepie and similar references were what the writer calls "shitposting", i.e. deliberately misleading or provocative. The "gateway drug" model proposed above is a somewhat plausible hypothesis (right-wing culture -> right-wing ideology -> racism -> murder), but another plausible hypothesis is that one-sided class warfare -> depression -> overdoses and suicides -> ways to put a bright face on a suicide -> choosing some "cause" to use for an excuse. No doubt you can propose more such models. We should mention all the references like Pewdiepie because we exist to transmit the information, but we should be careful not to imply any given interpretation of what they mean apart from what we can source. Wnt (talk) 13:51, 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]

Strong oppose on including information from 4chan and 8chan. They are not reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The aim isn't to get information out as quickly as possible, but rather for it to be well sourced and accurate. But thanks for contributing :) Mozzie (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bad idea simply because it has precedent. "How 4chan Trolled Two of Its Friends by Framing Them for the Oregon Mass Shooting" https://gawker.com/how-4chan-trolled-two-of-its-friends-by-framing-them-fo-1734265649

Verify references (talk) 16:54, 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]
I recommend adding the information in the attacks section after the main detail of the attacks.It is probably to peripheral to the important information to appear in the lead.Mozzie (talk) 13:24, 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]
The PDF is available at [3]. Wikipedia does not exist to conceal information, but to facilitate research. We are not here to teach people virtue, but to allow them to navigate the available information. Wnt (talk) 11:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wnt: and yet, it's a primary source. Wikipedia's policy on that is quite clear, and I'm also quite uninterested in idea that not citing a primary source is an example of either censorship or virtue-management. Iseult Δx parlez moi 19:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is news media articles (secondary sources in this sense) that feature the main body of the manifesto. It is unnecessary to explicitly cite the main article; given that removal of these cites are ongoing, it is also just plain inefficient, as these citing will be invalid shortly anyway. If you truly want to reflect the info within the manifesto, just cite NYT article about it: [4]. WeifengYang (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


No where in the manifesto does he say he is an specifically an anti muslim, he says he has no problem with muslims outside and only has problems with non European Immigrants living in European countries.

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]
If the reactions are kept to curated prose, not indiscriminate lists, we will be fortunate. Abductive (reasoning) 11:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone wants to input the reactions from the Muslim world, this might be a good list Dhio-270599 12:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At least the excessive use of flags hasn't started yet. AIRcorn (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that wikipedia is a work in progress. It doesn't have to be perfect. Let the Quote farm happen for now and edit it later. A bit of extra time will give some perspective on what to keep.Mozzie (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reactions are not all the same and there has been significant coverage of what countries have said regarding the shooting. This definitely deserves mention. This is standard practice on wikipedia with respect to terrorism-related articles.Bless sins (talk) 16:00, 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]

Personal firearm

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]

Summarizing that link: in the Linwood mosque shooting (7 dead), a prayer goer returned fire with a long gun, chased the Linwood shooter(s) and fired shots at their car as they sped off. He was quoted by bystanders as telling responding police that he acted in self defense. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fog of early reports: Other accounts indicate an individual in the mosque took a gun from the shooter; the individual outside ("Muslim local chased the shooters and fired two shots at them as they sped off") could be someone else.

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 main shooter does not identify himself as right-wing or even a white supremacist. He identifies himself as an anti-immigration racist.
Agree with Harizotoh9. Even for terrorist attacks, we don't put terrorist in the title. As much as we want to do it, and as true as it is, and as evil as terrorism is, and as much as it should be named, terrorist is a very loaded word, and isn't encyclopedic in a title. Absolutely give it prominence in the first sentence of the article. Mozzie (talk) 13:31, 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: [5]. 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”. [2] 71.218.98.55 (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Workman, Michael; Hutcheon, Stephen; McGrath, Pat (March 15, 2019). "Christchurch shooting attacker Brenton Tarrant was a personal trainer in Grafton". ABC.
  2. ^ 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 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose too soon, let give it a few hours to make sure its the accepted perpetrators(s) Gnangarra 06:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
WP:BLPCRIME does not apply here per Common Reason. It is not a matter of dispute whether Brenton Tarrant[6] committed part of the shootings. Cinadon36 (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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. ∯WBGconverse 10:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Winged Blades of Godric: are they a "public figure"? Have they been convicted wrt this incident? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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. ∯WBGconverse 10:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[7] AIRcorn (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
I can understand your frustration, but that would be pretty WP:POINTy. Benjamin (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • More sources? [8] AIRcorn (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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. [9]. 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
don't indulge in these hazy posturings indicating at some violation of BLP policies over the t/p.... ∯WBGconverse 16:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Requested move 15 March 2019

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved per snowball clause (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


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]
> with "attacks" unambiguously referring to two locations
Not necessarily. That could be parsed as describing multiple attacks on one mosque at different times. Oska (talk) 08:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. In that case, each attack should have its own article. Akld guy (talk) 10:11, 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 shootings were a terrorist attack would be doing precisely that. TompaDompa (talk) 08:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with everyone else here. This is a terrorist attack, yes. But other terrorist attacks, as mentioned, did not have "terrorist attack" in their titles. Vida0007 (talk) 09:11, 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
  • Oppose Too soon. Wait until the story unfolds and a commonname evolves. The addition may possibly be justified but unnec both because it isn't normal nor needed for clarity ... like me, most readers will at the moment know only counry or city/mosque/shooting. No objection to redirect.Pincrete (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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]

Actually, two SUSPECTED bombs were found on ONE vehicle.

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]

Because it's key to the event and understanding it? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:37, 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]

Oppose, no rationale given. Articles are not preemptively protected. If there is edit warring between registered editors or vandalism, then it will be fully protected. Rob3512 chat? what I did 08:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
REASON: For editors pushing matter to the lead from secondary sources that only have a video from the terrorist as a primary source. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still stand by the reason, but I take back what I said related to full protection needed. Not needed. Issues seem to be sorting out. Thanks DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So why is it semi-protected now? Addition of poorly sourced material or something, according to the log. Yeah, right! How is it that whenever an article such as this comes along there's always a mad scramble to get it protected for no valid reason? Anyone would think that some people here don't like IPs and new editors; surely not. Silas Stoat (talk) 16:29, 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

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2019

SECTION TITLE: Ideology

Brenton Tarrant wrote in his 130 page manifesto titled the The Great Replacement that:Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). "the person that has influenced me above all was Candace Owens. Each time she spoke I was stunned by her insights and her own views helped push me further and further into the belief of violence over meekness. Though I will have to disavow some of her beliefs, the extreme actions she calls for are too much, even for my tastes." Jmc498 (talk) 08:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done based on WP:BLP grounds with regards to Candace Owens. Implicating third party in a serious attack based only on primary evidence may be highly libellous. Do not link living people to this incident without multiple rock solid, third party, independent, non-partisan and highly reputable sources. Melmann (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism categories

The categories identifying the attack as terrorism should be restored. The New Zealand government is now clear that the attack was terrorism. This isn't a BLP issue, as including the categories doesn't imply that any particular individual is guilty of terrorism. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not their call, though. It's the up to the courts. Just like it isn't up to anyone abut the courts to decide whether a killing is murder or, say, manslaughter. I also noted that someone added it back with reference to some kind of talk page consensus that I frankly have a hard time seeing. TompaDompa (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It 's not court's call though. It's secondary sources who will decide whether it was an act of terrorism or not. Cinadon36 (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Terrorism" in most countries' laws has specific definitions that creates certain recourse as to actions policy/officials can take, and increases penalties that those committing the act can be sentenced to. Secondary sources may call the attack terrorism, but it is something that investigation officials and courts need to declare. So we can't go by secondary sources in this case. We can quote, for example, the PM's statement, but he's not in a position to be determining the long-term application of the word. --Masem (t) 14:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"He"? Are you referring to the Australian PM or something? While the attacker may have been Australian born, and probably an Australian citizen, it seems of limited relevance. If you are referring to some other PM (Malaysian?), it seems even less relevant. Nil Einne (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not the courts who decide, regardless of the laws that state may have. Secondary sources, historians and journalists, look at the circumstances and make the call - which they have. Universally, this is being reported as a terrorist attack. 50.111.50.240 (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath - The two bags at Britomart

Should the recent news of two controlled explosions at Britomart in Auckland be included in the aftermath? Bomb squad was brought in, the train station was closed and everything. Letmejustcorrectthatforyou (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesians-Malaysians injured

Hi, are informations about (the number of) injured foreigners, eg. Indonesians/Malaysians, acceptable to be written on the page? If not, is there any WP rule/guide that indicates so? Thank you in advance. Dhio-270599 10:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties and victims

Just attempted to add this section. Any objections? @Musicfan122:

It's too soon to add a template like this. We should wait until there's more information on the victims. Musicfan122 (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree, since this feels like notable information, and similar content is often included in the development of similar articles... Anyway above is the most recent version with all known nationalities. Neegzistuoja (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties and victims

Victims by citizenship
Citizenship Deaths Injuries
 Bangladesh 3 4-5[1]
 Jordan 2 8[2]
 Pakistan ? 4[1]
 Afghanistan ? 3[3]
 Turkey ? 3[1]
 Indonesia ? 2[1]
 Malaysia ? 2[4]
 Saudi Arabia ? 2[5]
Total 49[6] 48[7]

The New Zealand Police initially declined to confirm the number of fatalities. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern was the first to announce that 40 people died in the attacks. This figure was later revised to 49 people, including 41 at the Al Noor Mosque and 7 at the Linwood Islamic Centre.[8] As of 21:00 NZDT on the evening of the attacks, one person had died from their wounds at Christchurch Hospital, and 48 people were being treated for gunshot wounds, 20 of whom were in a serious condition.[6]

Wahidullah Waissi, the Ambassador of Afghanistan to Australia, New Zealand, and Fiji, stated on Twitter that three Afghans were injured in the attacks.[3] A statement released by the Malaysian Foreign Affairs Ministry noted that two Malaysians were treated in hospital for their injuries. Retno Marsudi, Indonesia's Foreign Minister, stated that six Indonesians were inside the Al Noor Mosque at the time of the attack, of whom three were confirmed to have escaped.[4]

The honorary consul of Bangladesh, based in Auckland, confirmed that three Bangladeshis were known to have been killed, and four or five injured. The Jordanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that two Jordanians had been killed and eight had been injured. Statements were released by other foreign ministries detailing the number of known injuries, including four from Pakistan, three from Turkey, and two from Indonesia. The Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Wellington stated that two Saudis were among the injured.[1]


- Neegzistuoja (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is not allowed, please delete. An update: 2 Indonesians injured, as confirmed by Tantowi Yahya, the Ambassador of Indonesia to New Zealand. (from an Indonesian news article)[9] Dhio-270599 11:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC) ---- (update: a source in English)[5] Dhio-270599[reply]
Update: a man with Saudi Arabian nationality was injured[10][11] Dhio-270599 11:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e "Foreigners among those targeted in New Zealand mosque attack". Associated Press. Retrieved 16 March 2019.
  2. ^ "Two Jordanians killed, eight injured in New Zealand terrorist attack". The Jordan Times. Retrieved 15 March 2019.
  3. ^ a b "The world reacts to New Zealand mosque attacks". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 15 March 2019.
  4. ^ a b "Christchurch shootings: 2 Malaysians injured; 6 Indonesians were in mosque during attack". Channel News Asia. Retrieved 15 March 2019.
  5. ^ a b "Malaysians, Indonesians injured in Christchurch shootings". The Straits Times. 15 Mar 2019. Retrieved 15 Mar 2019.
  6. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference stuff-111313938 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ "48 patients with gunshot wounds being treated at Christchurch Hospital after firearms incident". Canterbury District Health Board. Retrieved 15 March 2019.
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference guardian was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ "Dubes Tantowi Yahya Ungkap, 2 WNI Ayah dan Anaknya Ditembak Saat Salat Jumat". Warta Kota (in Indonesian). Retrieved 2019-03-15.
  10. ^ "Saudi citizen injured in New Zealand terrorist attacks". Arab News. 15 Mar 2019. Retrieved 15 Mar 2019.
  11. ^ "Saudi Arabia confirms injury of Saudi national in New Zealand attack". Ecns.cn. 15 Mar 2019. Retrieved 15 Mar 2019.

Votes?

Support as this is an event that is likely to have a number of international victims, not just New Zealanders. Melmann (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Object looks ridiculous to me. Is there such a thing for a lot of other articles of this type? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omysfysfybmm (talk • contribs) 11:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Omysfysfybmm: It is similar to November 2015 Paris attacks#Casualties. Neegzistuoja (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support it is factual and relevant, especially given the apparent diversity of nationalities among the victims. Thanks to either Musicfan122 or Neegzistuoja (it isn't clear) for making the template. Mozzie (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sabine's Sunbird: The totals on the bottom row wouldn't need to be the sum of all other rows. Dual nationals could be included under both of their nations, perhaps with a footnote to clarify e.g. "One of the X nationals was also a citizen of Y". Neegzistuoja (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should NOT post any links to the Manifesto

I've noticed there are several cited articles that can trace to the Manifesto online. We should not promote the Manifesto, nor publish any content of his hateful ideologies here. I don't think I need to elaborate on the reasons why promoting the Manifesto is a bad idea.

P.S. May all the victims Rest In Peace. Aceus0shrifter (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Content on the Manifesto is in the article because it is cited via RS news sources. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. News outlets are writing about the manifesto due to events and the shooter's motivations. In a similar past example there is content about Anders Behring Breivik and his "manifesto". It is unpleasant situation, however the best editors can do is use RS sources and write based on facts.Resnjari (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Resnjari, we are not censored, but we can have editorial restraint to limit it's distribution where possible. If there are other RS of equal quality which do not link to it, we can prefer those. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is RS media is linking it to what happened. I'm not saying to recite the document verbatim, but its important for readers to know that it contained hate speech and so on. The perpetrators of the shooting where not doing things in some void. It was a clear and meretriciously planned act with an ideology (i.e rightwing/conservative politics and so on) behind it.Resnjari (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We can of course include stuff about this manifesto-thing based on what RS says about it, but any quotes or whatever picked directly from it by editors should be removed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the reasoning of Aceus0shrifter (and I myself share the same feelings against this hateful ideology) but I do not think that either we can promote or hide his Manifesto. Once it is on the net, anyone can find it. What we have to do, is to summarize Rel Sources. If many RS are mentioning a particular phrase from his manifesto, that means it is an important phrase and we should mention it too. If not, then we shouldn't reproduce it.Cinadon36 (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That. And what is in the article right now is not that important, sources will calm down and get better eventually. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Picking quotes directly from it is otherwise known as using primary sources, i.e. it should be done "carefully". There is a lot of stuff in there that is genuinely interesting -- for example, its position on homosexuality is that "I simply do not care all that much what gay people do. As long as they are loyal to their people and place their peoples well being first, then I have no issues." It would appear that well within my lifetime the Western world has gone from routine prime-time footage of people calling for all gays to be put to death to a situation where even the most infamous self-professed fascist expresses an attitude of tolerance even despite the apparent contradiction with his obsession about birth rates. As matters of political persuasion go, this is bloody miraculous. But putting it in this article might admittedly be seen as "UNDUE" by those with more immediate interests. Wnt (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Resnjari, correct. It was however also an act that was attempting clearly to USE popular and Internet culture to enlarge the effects of said act and ideology. We should not let ourselves be used, not even indirectly by RS. We are not in a rush here. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TheDJ yes i agree. I think the current info on the manifesto in the article balances it out without giving air to hate ideas contained inside it. This article will grow, just the like the Brevik one many years ago and info comes to hand.Resnjari (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed any direct quotes from the manifesto on the page. That said we can't exclude any reference to the hate document. It was a ideological text that the shooter had articulated for the events. We cant shield readers from bad things in the world otherwise much of the Wikipedia articles would not exist. The best that we can do is write the article in a civil manner via RS sources and yes there will be uncomfortable information as NZ police and future court cases relay to the public through the media the horrible details.Resnjari (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec many) @TheDJ: saying we aren't "censored" but have "editorial restraint" is a distinction without a difference. We are not writing down to the readers as a group of low-castes who can't be allowed to get bad ideas in their heads and who trust us to be their Parents and tell them "this is bad" without saying too much. We are writing for researchers here! Because every single person on the planet has the right to be a researcher -- to delve as shallowly or deeply into any matter he or she pleases. And no amount of blather by talking heads looking to grind an axe against gun ownership or Pewdiepie is going to substitute for a researcher gaining access to the primary document. Wnt (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wnt I find any sort of extremism to be revolting, including free speech extremism. Like FB takes down videos of live broadcast shootings we have similar responsibilities. We are a global platform, not an experiment in free speech. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't care to list or explain those responsibilities? Responsibilities to who or to what? Which news articles are "too much like news" to use? Never forget how much worse than useless it is to take this content out of wider public exposure as Facebook is doing -- people go from complaining that there are some racists on Facebook, where they could argue with them, to delivering lurid denunciations of the "toxic cesspool" of places like some Gab forums where they regrouped. No doubt the next step will be that if you run any internet-connected computer where two people can talk without being watched by a censor that you ought to go to jail, and any opposition to that is "free speech extremism". Then call me a free speech extremist, proudly, because I know full well that if you succeed at censoring every single place the racists can talk, they will spend more time loading their guns instead. Who benefits from that? In any case, as you notice, all this is off topic for Wikipedia, because we are an experiment in free speech - the freedom of the people to write an encyclopedia. And to do that, we need to preserve and cherish the sources. Wnt (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think what editors here were concerned about is making direct quotes from the manifesto in the article which by default air those views even though the editor adding the content did not have this in mind. Anyway the manifesto stuff is fixed.Resnjari (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2019

Please change the reference after Pavlo Klimkin's tweet from <ref>https://twitter.com/PavloKlimkin/status/1106463663182020608</ref> to <ref>{{cite tweet |user=PavloKlimkin |author-link=Pavlo Klimkin |number=1106463663182020608 |date=March 15, 2019 |title=We stay together with the people of New Zealand after the heinous mosque attacks in #Christchurch. My thoughts are with all affected by this sickening act of violence and hatred.}}</ref> Straight Red (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: I do not see the name Pavlo in the article anywhere. It may have been removed. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Were the gunmen really "terrorists"?

According to Wikipedia, "Terrorism is...the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people or fear to achieve a religious or political aim". Do we have any sources indicating that Tarrant and/or his fellow gunmen were trying to spread terror (as opposed to just kill Muslims)? For example, something Tarrant posted (and we are quoting) in his manifesto.

If not then shouldn't we rephrase (in the lead for example) "has been described as a terrorist attack by the Prime Minister" to something like "has been attributed to a terrorist attack by the Prime Minister", without the wikilink to terrorist attack. Also, in my opinion, the Terrorism in New Zealand sidebar should be taken down until we get reliable sources that the gunmen intended to spread terror. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

a)We should follow mainstream media. If they are branding the gunmen as terrorists, we have to follow b)The shooting does create terror among Muslims and gunmen were trying to achieve a political aim (pure white Christian NZ/West).Cinadon36 (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"'This can only be described as a terrorist attack' - PM Jacinda Ardern" We seem to be paraphrasing correctly. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As Cinadon36 and others have said, it's not up to us to WP:OR whether or not his actions meet some definition of terrorism, but to go with what reliable sources say. I mean it's not like it's hard to find stuff in the "manifesto" where he specifically says it's by definition a terrorist attack, and talks of creating fear, but that's not for us to judge. As with all of these sort of things, it's full of contradictions like where he talks about how he doesn't want fame and will soon be forgotten since no one remembers all the other perpetrators but also compares himself to Nelson Mandela and talks about how he too will win a Nobel Peace Prize. Or where he acknowledges Australia is a European colony but then in in another breath says all "colonisers" are guilty and apparently deserving of death (which in the context, must include the children he killed many I suspect who were born in NZ). I've seen some suggesting there was some degree of trolling hence stuff like the kebab reference and the PewDiePie one (well in the video). So there are good reasons we don't engage in OR based on primary sources, let alone definitions from other articles. Nil Einne (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But , NZ as in most countries, have legal definitions of what is terrorism that are determined by investigators and courts, and which if an act is deemed terrorism, set into play new rules and penalties. Secondary sources may call it a terrorist attack, but we really should wait for how the authorities in the investigation determine how they will treat it. --Masem (t) 14:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, not really. Terrorism is one of those things which isn't simply a legal matter. If this act is widely considered a terrorist attack then this should be mentioned and the sidebar is relevant. We will also mention what any offenders are charged with and convicted of if or when that happens. By the same token Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior has the sidebar and is mentioned in Terrorism in New Zealand even though no one was ever charged with any offence relating to terrorism. This probably arises in part because even the government behind the attack seemed to agree it was a terrorist attack (albeit before they admitted their involvement), but again it's not for us to judge. Nil Einne (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When used as it is now by secondary news sources, its effectively a label - its a subjective call based on only what they know has happened. We should not be factually treating it as terrorism until the approrpate gov't agencies have completed their investigation and confirm it is one. I am not saying this will not ultimately be defined as such, but WP cannot jump the gun here, even if the press are doing it already. --Masem (t) 14:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except if you're talking about the legal standpoint, the government has very limited room to even decide whether something is an act of terrorism. Most of the stuff relating to terrorism that is under the purview of the government relates to terrorism financing or designating groups as terrorist entities. Otherwise, it's really up to the courts to decide. Ultimately the PM's statements are as good as any considering NZ law and norms. Nil Einne (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even with that, we should not be rushing to call it as such until the motives of the attackers are clear and the investigation is completed. Terrorism is a very strong word, and at this stage, extremely persausive on how people see the incident, so we should still not be factually calling it that, but certainly can include attributes uses of the word. --Masem (t) 15:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's largely beside my point. I never commented on whether or not we should label it terrorism in wiki voice. I'm not even sure if anyone else in this discussion, apparently besides you did. Incidentally, why do you keep speaking about "the investigation" as if it's some end all. Do you actually have any real understanding of how things work in NZ? I have to admit, especially considering you mentioned some random male prime minister above, I have my doubts you have any real understanding of anything about NZ. Nil Einne (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gov't agencies don't make the call on "terrorism" ... the act itself does. Do you think Stalin's Russia, North Korea, Nazi Germany would have defined some of their heinous acts in a legitimate way? Historians and journalists are the deciding factor.50.111.50.240 (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no doubt that this was a terror attack and multiple sources describe it as such. There is really nothing to discuss here. BeŻet (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia

Many people in New Zealand and around the world are connecting this act to Islamophobia or anti-Muslim hatred. For example, this Haaretz article covers many in the Muslim world making such statements. The New York Times says

Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said, in reacting to the attack, "We must stand against Islamophobia and all hate." A Muslim Australian leader also attributed this to Islamophobia. As did Mehreen Faruqi, an Australian senator.VR talk 13:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a term was briefly mentioned in an article or a tweet does not mean that it is the main motive of the attack. As the sources state, the motive is more leaning toward white supremacy and anti immigration, thus if we were to insert a template, it should pertain to anti-immigration. Musicfan122 (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason we can't include both links to Islamophobia and White supremacy.VR talk
Adding Islamophobia at the very least to the "See also" section is very appropriate. It is bizarre to it being removed from there.Bless sins (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems unnecessary to me. It's already in the article as it should be. There's no point having it in the WP:see also. Likewise for right-wing terrorism and list of massacres in NZ so I've removed them too [10]. Probably Islam in NZ should be incorporated into the article too, but I've left it until someone does. Nil Einne (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Writings on firearms

"The shooter's Twitter account [...] showed firearms with [...] the names of victims of terror attacks in the West scrawled on them."

Edward Codrington, Feliks Kazimierz Potocki, Șerban_Cantacuzino were victims of terror attacks in the West? Cited source says that they were fighting agains Ottomans in XVII (Potocki & Cantacuzino) and XIX (Codrington) centuries. --Anoneedes (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It can be added if you add a source that mentions this, and there are plenty, like: https://www.news.com.au/world/pacific/gunman-who-opened-fire-on-christchurch-mosque-addresses-attack-in-manifesto/news-story/70372a39f720697813607a9ec426a734. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Ah, it seems that he scrawled both victims and fighters. The cited source I mentioned is already in the text, but I can't edit the article yet (new user). --Anoneedes (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Second shooter, simultaneous attack'

Under Linwood Islamic Centre it says there was a second shooter in a simultaneous attack'. This was indeed an impression in the first hours after the attack, but it seems there was only one shooter who drove from the first mosque to the second. Since there is only one source talking about the second shooter and the simultaneity, I'd suggest to be cautious on this point and rephrase the section. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I rephrased the section, adding a source too. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks Jürgen Eissink. Good pick up.Mozzie (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:8GAUGE, will you please explain why you keep adding information that says there were multiple attackers, while later information has shown otherwise? Jürgen Eissink (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

User:Jürgen Eissink, My bad. I was unaware of this later information. My edits were just being repeatedly deleted without explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8GAUGE (talk • contribs) 18:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions section 2

The following were removed from the reactions section by User:Aircorn (→‎Reactions: No reason to single out the USA or UK). Should they be there?

Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Theresa May and the Malaysian Foreign Ministry have condemned the shootings and expressed support for the victims and families.
President of the United States Donald Trump tweeted, "My warmest sympathy and best wishes goes out to the people of New Zealand after the horrible massacre in the Mosques. 49 innocent people have so senselessly died, with so many more seriously injured. The U.S. stands by New Zealand for anything we can do. God bless all!". In the initial moments after the attack, Trump posted a link to Breitbart the far-right news site, which featured a news feed about the attacks. After several hours, the attack was deleted.

I suspect they will ultimately evolve, but they will just keep getting added in anyway?Mozzie (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction sections that primarily consist of "Leader X of country Y offered their condolances" are useless to include; they clutter up too many of these types of articles, when a single sentence, like "World leaders, including, X, Y, and Z, offered their condolances". Specific reactions that involve actual "actions" like providing investigative assistance, relief or funds to support those affected, etc. are what should be documented indivudally. --Masem (t) 14:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but they will just keep popping up. Theresa May's already has. It is just easier to leave them there for the time being and they will get cleaned up in a few days.Mozzie (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At most they will be moved to an independent article that may or may not be deleted later. Undue is a real concern and the reactions of the world should not dominate the reactions of the country involved. Yes people will continue to add them, because it is easy to copypaste a quote and some editors like their country to be mentioned when these things happen. Maybe we can get some consensus here now, or should we just create International reactions to the Christchurch mosque shootings and be done with it. AIRcorn (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe put a comment at the start of the section, something along the lines of READ THIS BEFORE ADDING REACTIONS. We can put it in a big border of hash tags or asterisks or something.Mozzie (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Once the other article is created (if we go that route) this is probably best. AIRcorn (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the point is that we use the comment to keep the reactions section small so that the content never needs to go to another article. Who needs an article on reactions? Mozzie (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a recentism tag and made a very ugly prominent hidden comment in the section. Hopefully that works. Crosses fingers. Mozzie (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And the tag keeps getting removed. Sigh.Mozzie (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to get soundbites from English-speaking leaders on the EN WP. Then someone will come along and say, what about the leaders who speak French, or German, or Spanish, etc? They get added. Soon it becomes a quote-fest of everyone who makes a tweet about it, and the article gets bogged down with said quotes. Leave it for now, then spin it out to its own article. Although, past form shows these are now being deleted at AfD. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - if the bulk of reactions are just words of condolences, that's not really encyclopedic. Of course all world leaders are going to come out to talk about how bad the incident was, so this type of coverage is routine. A single sentence can coverage the bulk of these, it does not at all need to be a separate article at this point. --Masem (t) 15:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Example I added the following: Fraser Anning, a far right wing Australian politician released a widely criticised press release claiming that the attacks highlighted the "growing fear over an increasing Muslim presence" in Australian and New Zealand communities. this is notable because it is a right wing politician attacking the victims and he is from the apparent attacker's home country. Yet it was reverted. In the spirit of WP:STATUSQUO would someone else be so kind as to reinstate it.Mozzie (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a perennial problem. Personally, I think summary statements would be better. "Condolences and condemnations of the attack were offered by many world leaders, such as ..." EvergreenFir (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring: a call for good faith

There seems to be a bit of edit warring going on in this article. I have had a few WP:GOODFAITH edits reverted/or deleted withing seconds of making them. It would be great to see some more civility all round? We should try to improve people's contributions instead of indifferently destroying them.Mozzie (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have already reported one editor for edit warring.[11] Bless sins (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I dropped out of contributing early on because my first attempts at cleanup were instantly reverted despite hours later those cleanups were justified as the page developed. Let the Wikipedia process work. No editor owns this page. Danbert8 (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Horrific but maybe should be mentioned?

According to stuff I've seen (e.g. [12] warning detailed description of the video), the video shows the shooter shooting the bodies on the ground multiple times, even going outside and reloading or getting a new gun perhaps in part so they can do this. I assume to try an ensure there was no chance of survival and no one was hiding among the bodies. This is sort of mention in this news.com.au source [13]. Can anyone find a better source? While one the one hand, this almost seems like an unnecessary gratuitous detail; on the other hand, it seems to speak to the shooter's intentions and also may be a factor in the casualty figures.

On a related note, there's also been reports based on an interview that in the Linwood attack, someone was able to wrestle the gun off the shooter. He escaped and while I haven't seen reports of what happened after, he did apparently have multiple guns in his casecar so this may not have stopped him. But it seems possible this helped reduce the casualty count there as people were able to run away. Still too early IMO, but may be worth keeping an eye on. [14]

According to stuff I've seen, someone also attempted to tackle the shooter in the Al Noor mosque but unfortunately didn't quite make it. I've seen this mentioned in at least one okay source [15], again maybe something to keep an eye on.

Possibly always going to be too minor to mention? but apparently the shooter also had some sort of strobe light attached to their gun at least at the beginning. (I think was mentioned here [16].) From what I've seen suggested, in the video the it doesn't seem to be that bad, but of course video tends to be a very bad way to judge how bright something actually is.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC) 15:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how much weight we should give these first-hand accounts now. There is usually a lot of confusion from eyewitnesses. I am sure in due time, once reports are corroborated we will get a clearer picture of how events unfolded. AIRcorn (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, only one of them is a first hand account. All the rest are based on the video, not first hand accounts. Sadly I'm not sure anyone survived to give first hand accounts of the rest. We obviously need more RS to comment, but if they agree with these interpretations of the video, then I think they're worth considering. (I think we need more comment on the significance of the strobe light too before we add it.) And for the 1/4 that is based on a first hand account, when I said 'worth keeping an eye on' I meant 'see if it's corroborated and accepted'. Independent corroboration is likely to come for the first and last in time I suspect, although I'm not convinced we need to wait for that if the multiple sources agree with the interpretation of the video. Nil Einne (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Australian politician reaction

"Politician lashes out at Muslims after Christchurch shootings: ‘They are the perpetrators’" Should we add this to the reaction section?

https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/politics/politician-lashes-out-at-muslims-after-christchurch-shootings-they-are-the-perpetrators/news-story/8e3f11fe73821dc3e65d75432ac76f2e

Nusent 16:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it has no direct bearing on the attacks. It might be material to include on the politican's page, but there, consider RECENTISM to make sure the statements stick. --Masem (t) 16:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, that is a new thing I learned today. Recentism. Nusent 16:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Woah steady on there. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Wait for a few more opinions before responding. Let people discuss the point. The correct interpretation wins, not the popular vote per se.Mozzie (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AgreeThis should be included because it is WP:NOTABLE Fraser Anning attacked the victims, he is a right wing politician and he is from the attackers country. That makes this more notable than a generic platitude.Mozzie (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Using this article about a serious attack to coatrack critical of a national politician is absolutely not appropriate, at least at this stage. If this ends up where, for some reason, Anning is forced to leave office or the like, that's a brief mention in a reactions section, but the brunt of the details would be at Anning's page. But if this is just a "Anning said something that was criticized by others", it has no bearing here. --Masem (t) 16:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the time being, it is WP:notable. It is in multiple reliable sources. If at some point in the future it proves to be irrelevant it can be removed. I note that there is no WP:COATRACK policy. What is coatrack?Mozzie (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mozzie: add the content to the politican's page, its definitely relevant there. Best.Resnjari (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Video Copyright

Who owns the copyright over the video, if victim faces are to be blurred? Shooter's family? NZ government? Can we sample some iconic catchphrases like "subscribe to PewDiePie"?

NikitaSadkov (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is presently the shooter's copyright. That will probably be lost upon whatever conviction he has but then will fall to the state (NZ). So no, we cannot include samples of the video at all. --Masem (t) 16:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you believe he will lose copyright? Trade (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We can include fair use clips of coyrighted works. Why do you think we "cannot include samples of the video at all", User:Masem? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well true, we could, but it would be extremely distasteful to include them in the first point, and authorities are asking people not to share the videos, which we should also abide by. --Masem (t) 16:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the government's intellectual property automatically public domain?
Only in the US and maybe a small number of other countries. Also I should clarify even in the US, it's only the federal government and it's, only stuff the federal government creates. It does not apply to copyright transferred to the federal government. Nil Einne (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the conviction thing mentioned earlier come about? Are you suggesting a instrument forfeiture order will be used? I wasn't aware that even covered copyright but I guess copyright may be intangible personal property so perhaps it does although I admit I haven't heard of it being used in that way before but I don't pay that much attention. But that's an interesting point especially in light of the above discussion, since it seems to me it's questionable if the video was really "used to commit, or to facilitate the commission of" if the offender is just charged with murder and attempted murder. If the offender is charged with committing a terrorist act, then I guess it probably would. If they're charged with some cybercrime offence, then maybe it is, but I doubt it will meet the 5 year minimum threshold. (Well I'm assuming it's based solely on the offence that the video was used or facilitated the commission of.) But then again, I wonder if the government could confiscate without a conviction using the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009. Nil Einne (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Media has to be hosted on wikimedia, and to be hosted there it has to be free of copyright. I've been down this road over far ore trivial things. I can't see it being hosted.Mozzie (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? AFAIK, there's nothing stopping videos being hosted on en.wikipedia, the same we do with images. It's generally better to host them on commons if they meet commons requirements, but it's fine to host them here if they don't but meet out requirements. E.g. content copyrighted in the country of origin but not the US, or content allowed under NFCC. To be fair, there must be very few videos which are allowed under the NFCC since in most cases a small number of frame captures would probably be enough but still..... In this particularly case, I'm very doubtful that even frame captures would be allowed. What can they possibly convey that can't be adequetly conveyed with text? Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe my understanding of this is a bit out of date. Can anyone say if non Wikimedia media is allowed on Wikipedia? Can we include YouTube videos in articles?Mozzie (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As indicated above, content on Wikimedia Commons must be free in both the US and the country of origin. The English Wikipedia accepts files that are free only in the US and it accepts fair use files in a very limited number of cases. See also Wikipedia:Non-free content. The vast majority of Youtube videos will qualify neither for upload to Commons nor for local upload on the English Wikipedia. GMGtalk 17:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Well it can't be 'out of date' since commons postdated en.wikipedia and content under fair use (or other acceptable content) was never completely forbidden on en.wikipedia. I'm confused what you mean by "non wikimedia media", but it's trivial to find a NFCC content since for better of worse, it's a fundamental part of en.wikipedia. E.g. File:Just_Dance_cover.png. I don't know what you mean by "include YouTube videos". Content will need to be uploaded to en.wikipedia or commons and will need to comply with the policies for each. For commons, the basic relevant requirement is that it's under a suitable licence, or is in the public domain in the US and the country of origin. For en.wikipedia, it either needs to be under a suitable licence (although in that case it's generally preferable to upload to commons), in the public domain in the US (if it's 'also' in the public domain in the country of origin then again commons is likely a better choice), or it meets out NFCC including having a fair use rationale. As I already mentioned, the number of videos for which this will apply is very small. Actually if you're talking about whole videos copied from elsewhere it's probably zero since even if there is some compelling reason why the video is needed, it probably doesn't apply to the entire video but instead only a short portion of it. Note that because NFCC is so difficult for people to understand, it's probably not worth thinking about unless you're already fairly experienced with our copyright norms. And since cases where content is public domain in the US but not the country of origin are also so rare, it's probably fine to simply think that you should probably only be uploading content to commons. In other words, it's not that it's forbidden to upload content here, it's just that there's no reason to since you should only be uploading content which can also go on commons unless you really understand what you're doing. Nil Einne (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing to add: maybe in the future a still or short segment of the video may be appropriate but it would have to satisfy NFCC. This means the image should be iconic of the attack or significant in the investigation. Appropriate uses of such non-free would be the Columbine High School massacre (that video replayed extensively on news that made it iconic to the incident) or the Boston Marathon bombing (the security video shot of the brothers on their way to plant the bombs). But in here, it will be a matter of time - maybe days, weeks, or more. Right this moment, it would be inappropriate. --Masem (t) 18:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of him in suspects

Should we put a photo of him in suspects? NPCtom (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPCtom, Sounds great but who will upload his image to commons ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dog-pox-is-a-disease (talk • contribs) 18:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best not to; he'd become the only person with a picture in the article which in my opinion is undue attention. Too many BLP issues with that at the moment. J947 (c), at 18:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia Strong

The song is called "Bog je Srbin (i on ce nas cuvati)", actually. The footage also contains other imageboard-culture-related music, such The British Grenadiers' march, "Gas Gas Gas", and "Fire" 83.25.246.209 (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The anti-Muslim phrase "Remove Kebab", a slogan originating from Serbia that spread globally. As a guy living in Serbia, i literally hear this phrase the 1st time. I never ever heared it b4. And the reference is pretty weak. When u google it its just gives u an info that it was used by someone to name a yt video from 2009 filmed during the war (which of the same kind there are plenty). Im quite sure that any dictionary in serbian (slang dictionaries or otherwise) doesn't mention this phrase. --Ivan VA (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was a Polandball-related meme. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It originates from eu4, iirc, and before that from a copypasta which you can find by googling 'yuo are worst turk'. Iseult Δx parlez moi 19:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PewDiePie in the Reactions Section

Do we really want to know what some guy called PewDiePie has to say about this? I acknowledge his YouTube channel was mentioned by the attacker, but it seems incongruous to have his views alongside those of world leaders. I moved mention of him and his YouTube stuff to another section. Surely that's enough. We don't include the views of, for example, the Christchurch police chief in the Reactions section, so why this YouTuber? Silas Stoat (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact he was called out makes him much more relevant to the situation than random world leaders offering condolences. Without this, the article suggests PDP may have been complicit in the attack. --Masem (t) 18:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AKAIK he is the most popular youtuber of all time, with an audience larger than probably many prime time television shows. GMGtalk 18:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From where was he called out? His views are of no consequence whatsoever. He speaks for no one, unlike the world leaders. By all means put some text in somewhere to state that he had nothing to do with it - maybe even quote him - but not in a section that's obviously designed for the reactions of world leaders and the like. As for him being the most popular YouTuber of all time - until today I'd never heard of him - and I don't live a sheltered life! Silas Stoat (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[17] GMGtalk 18:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering, did you waste your own time putting that puerile shite together? Silas Stoat (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[18] GMGtalk 19:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If that's aimed at me, you're wasting your time again. I'm not even going to click on the link. Grow up! Silas Stoat (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit hostile, and certainly not WP:AGF. Iseult Δx parlez moi 19:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay guys, a bit of silliness going on here from all of us, nothing too dramatic, but why has some randomer (must be an admin I guess), come in and removed the edit history for the above comments and over 20 more edits? Silas Stoat (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The deletions are unrelated to this thread Silas Stoat. Somebody posted material either copyrighted or disruptive (it's relating to a video link, so the reasoning could be either). As a result any version of this page that contained the link had to be suppressed. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, understood. Thanks for that. Silas Stoat (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who was the first hero?

I see a bunch of articles about the hero who finally ended the attack by tackling the gunman and taking his shotgun. [19] But in the video at Bestgore there is a first hero at the first mosque who tried to tackle the shooter within the first 30 seconds, and I think managed to actually touch the gun before being killed. But that seems buried under the search hits for the one who succeeded. Does anyone remember seeing a coverage about this part? Wnt (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We just need to wait for reliable sources to report this. Wikipedia isn't a breaking news source, so no need to be hasty.Mozzie (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was not first hero (according to the video at 7:00, I am not allowed to post the link) that guy was just trying to run for his life but he was pushed by the terrorist which was mistaken as an attempt to grab his weapon. Dog-pox-is-a-disease (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we discussing results of WP:OR? Iseult Δx parlez moi 19:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturer

The weapon he used https://www.hera-arms.de/ The song during the shooting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYhokl7vMCY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.200.12 (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC) https://ibin.co/4aIqnywJm02A.jpg[reply]

This falls under WP:OR. Iseult Δx parlez moi 19:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Without electronic sound samples youtube.com/watch?v=cpICJqfjkYw That's how their songs were youtube.com/watch?v=KJkOTTCcRRY youtube.com/watch?v=haEH3KLQQnw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8109:b40:2258:92b:b4a9:2d61:92d0 (talk • contribs)

Again, OR. Iseult Δx parlez moi 19:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Video

A reminder: don't post links to the video anywhere on Wikipedia. Editors who disregard this warning may be blocked: BLP applies in the strongest terms, and that's only a start. Acroterion (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would this apply to the manifesto too, or does this depend on discussions above? Iseult Δx parlez moi 19:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Precedents exist for things like the manifesto, as distasteful as it may be, but the video is clearly out of bounds. Acroterion (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the manifesto technically fall under a BLP violation, though, considering that government sources have released no names and that reliable sources have him as a suspect, and thus BLPCRIME would apply? Iseult Δx parlez moi 19:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it could, I've not been following that part of the event. Acroterion (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPCRIME explicitly refers to reporting crimes about people who are not well known. The people who committed these acts are suddenly, or very soon will be suddenly well known. Therefore these matters can be published given sufficient reliable sources. The issue with media is pretty much one of copyright as I understand it.Mozzie (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but not quite. Per WP:COPYLINK, there should be no links to copyright violations. However, if a reliable source has the video and is not a copyright violation, it should be included as an external link as it is discussed in dozens of other RSes. As per WP:NOTCENSORED, stuff should not be removed because it is seen as "offensive", and editors who edit war to remove such content may be blocked too. Per WP:BLPEL, it is alright to include controversial links to reliable sources. wumbolo ^^^ 19:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A video of identifiable people being killed falls under BLP, completely apart from considerations of copyright. Any link to anything along those lines should be the outcome of a broad community discussion. Acroterion (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The term Turkofagos is wrong

Turkofagos was the popular nickname of Greek revolutionary Nikitaras during the Greek war of independence, The western media is wrong saying it was used to describe Greek militias generally. SJCAmerican (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings&oldid=887932449"