Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


RfC about keeping suspect's/suspects' name in lead[edit]

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

Question amended .... Unless anyone has proof that all the people arrested/questioned/charged or named are guilty .... they are suspects. WP:BLP applies on talk pages as well as articles. The apparent level of proof at this stage has no bearing on that. Pincrete (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Keeping the perpetrator's name in the lead section lets us know who perpetrated the shooting. Look at the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Orlando nightclub shooting, and Virginia Tech shooting, all of them mentioning the shooter in the lead. This is not meant to glorify the shooter but to inform readers who did it, and this article should reflect that. - Josephua (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Also there will be more names as other people who were involved in carrying out the shootings have been arrested but their names are not released yet.Resnjari (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose too soon, let give it a few hours to make sure its the accepted perpetrators(s) Gnangarra 06:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    • we dont want to creating a circular source by outlets getting the name from us Gnangarra 06:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per WP:SUSPECT "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.". (talk) 06:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose undue in the lead at this time. The mention in the body is enough at this time until their names are ubiquitous in RS. If it is going to happen anyway, why not wait until we are sure. Wikipedia is not news and there is no deadline.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    • If we are not sure then it shouldn't be in the body. The lead is not a special place that has higher verifiability criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 07:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Agree with this. If it is not suitable for the body of the article, it is not suitable for the lead. In fact, anything not included in the body shouldn't be included in the lead, period. "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article..." MOS:LEADREL There are a few exceptions, but this isn't one. DiscantX 11:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
        • This whole RFC has got quite confused. When it started the name was comfortably in the body and there were arguments over whether or not it should be in the lead as well (see #Perpetrator name). It was removed from the body early on in the RFC and the discussion has now morphed onto whether the name should be mentioned at all. Some of the early !votes (including mine) were based on it being in the body. This could be interesting as since it is an RFC it will be open for at least 30 days and then could take who knows how long for someone to close it. BLP requires us to keep the name/s out until consensus is reached so it will be at least a month before we can mention them even if this closes in support. Since the question has changed to suspects we can't even mention their names as suspects unitil this closes. If it closes as oppose (which is looking likely at this stage) then we will have to either start a new RFC or wait for a conviction (which fits in with a lot of the !votes anyway). AIRcorn (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This rfc is about mentioning the perpetrators in the lead, not whether or not they should be mentioned at all. They are a major part of the incident and should be mentioned in both the lead and the body when confirmed. AIRcorn (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The question is - "Should the lead section have the perpetrator's/perpetrators' name?"... Yes, provided that the lead comprehensively covers other aspects of the incident too. And if they are in the lead it implies they are in the main body. In the case of this attack yes, it should go in the lead. But the victims also need to be mentioned, why were they targeted, a random location, specific target etc if sources are there for the same? But in certain cases though, not this article, this will have to be tackled on a case to case basis and this cannot be an all inclusive concept. Careful consideration though is needed in terms of timeliness for this kind of information so as not to spread misinformation even more, even if it can be reverted. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – undue in the lead at this time, but fine elsewhere. Later, if convicted, the names could go in the lead. Akld guy (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait (24 hours or so) We should wait and see how mainstream media are covering the subject. Most prob. he will get significant coverage.Cinadon36 (talk) 07:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the Wikipedia policy at WP:BLPCRIME, they should not be named in the article at all unless convicted. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support the lead should make it clear that they are suspects/not convicted. DeFacto I strongly disagree with your interpretation of WP:BLPCRIME. The article states:
This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.
Since the suspects are being, and will undoubtedly be covered extensively in the media, they will become well known (and well known specifically for these attacks). This section aims to prevent people from posting information about incomplete criminal proceedings that are not related to a person's notability. For example if a sports person was charged with some random crime, it would be inappropriate and potentially defamation to include that information until convicted.Mozzie (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:BLPCRIME. Nobody has been convicted of anything yet. This can be revisited later, after the trial. TompaDompa (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:BLPCRIME does not apply here per Common Reason. It is not a matter of dispute whether Brenton Tarrant[1] committed part of the shootings. Cinadon36 (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Cinadon36: what do you mean by "Common Reason", I would have thought that as a Wikipedia policy, WP:BLPCRIME applies to all articles. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:BLPCRIME excludes those under the purview of WP:WELLKNOWN.
BLPCRIME was developed to shield subjects from one-off allegations of crimes, over a single or two surces, appearing in bios of quite borderline-notable subjects. It was not meant to be used as a weapon to prevent mentioning the name of the terrorist, over these type of cases.
Do a GSearch for the subject and look at the amount of reliable aources which have covered him. WBGconverse 10:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: are they a "public figure"? Have they been convicted wrt this incident? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
What restrains you from performing a GSearch about Turrant and discovering the plethora of RSes that cover him? Conviction has not got anything to do with WELLKNOWN. WBGconverse 10:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: WP:WELLKNOWN implies a public figure. Are you saying that the suspect here was a public figure (despite not having a Wikipedia article about him) before this incident took place? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't matter that they weren't WP:WELLKNOWN before the attack. They are and will be well known now. WP:BLPCRIME is designed to protect people from being defamed by references to criminal proceedings that are unrelated to their notability.Mozzie (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Even if we go down the BLPCRIME route it says For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material (bolding added). It is a strong recommendation not to include information, but not a strict requirement. If anything falls outside that recommendation this is it. AIRcorn (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Aircorn: we would have to provide a convincing rationale as to why this suspect in this article is a special case, over and above others in similar circumstances, deserving exemption from a strong recommendation in a BLP policy. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
12/24 hours will answer this just wait... we need to be sure we aren't being the source as in the Sydney shootings where newspapers were quoting Wikipedia on detail - then we cited them as facts. Gnangarra 10:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
You do realise it could take a year to get a conviction (see 2011 Norway attacks). Incidently we didn't wait too long to post Anders Breivik's name.[2] AIRcorn (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
He live streamed it. There is no doubt who he is and what he did. His name is already splashed over every newspaper covering the event, which is every newspaper. This is an unprecedented incident in New Zealand and probably one of the worst such attacks anywhere. I would be interested in what you think is enough? As it is we almost never wait for convictions before naming the offenders inthese types of articles, so it is not a "special case". AIRcorn (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too soon. Wait until the story unfolds. There have been no convictions, and Wikipedia is not the place to analyze primary sources. Even news sources at this point are either regurgitating each other, or making best guesses off of what little is available. At best a mention that there has been an accused without the name would be appropriate.  DiscantX 10:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the only way that would make sense is if the perp already had a Wikipedia article. Abductive (reasoning) 11:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Are you people completely mad? An encyclopedia is supposed to navigate the sources, not conceal everything about the case including the name of the person in all the papers!!! I am very seriously considering putting this article to AfD for being too pathetic to live. Wnt (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I can understand your frustration, but that would be pretty WP:POINTy. Benjamin (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This may be a case where we should ignore WP:BLPCRIME, but I don't think we should be hasty in doing so. These people do not fit WP:WELLKNOWN, because nobody had ever heard of them until today. We can just say "the police have arrested suspects" and leave at that until more sources are available. There's no rush to get this information out there; this is an encyclopedia, not a repository of breaking news. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Edit to be clear, I oppose having the name in the article at all for the time being under the same reasoning. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    • More sources? [3] AIRcorn (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes there are sources, but at this point they know little more than we do. Take one of the top links from your search result. [4]. It consists of a very rushed interview with a former coworker and an obituary no doubt found online. The article url contains "christchurch-shooting-brenton-tarrant-what-we-know" (emphasis mine) and the title is "Christchurch shooting attacker Brenton Tarrant was a personal trainer in Grafton," which suggests the title was changed after the article was written. The news is doing what it does best: Scraping together what it can as fast as it can in order to be the first to get the scoop. My point is these sources are not necessarily reliable as of now, and Wikipedia does not need to be the first to get the scoop.  DiscantX 12:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
        • This makes no sense, the "scoop" has already gone. We write based on sources so there is no way we can have a scoop anyway, we are not wikinews. We never know more than reliable sources unless we are talking about editors conducting original research. No one is suggesting that. What are we actually waiting for. A conviction? That could take a while. Police to offically release the name of the suspect? According to BLPCRIME they still can't be named here. It seems strange for us, especially as an encyclopaedia, to go out of our way to hide a name that every other newspaper (including all the reliable ones) is using. AIRcorn (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Printing names too soon can be damaging entirely to those otherwise un-notable persons, and is directly covered under WP:BLPCRIME as well as under laws in the country where the events took place. And we can not forget Richard Jewell etc. Damage to others is a serious possibility, all too often, and many nations therefore forbid publication of those names. for example. Collect (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Collect: This is a reasonable concern. However, the RFC is not about a moratorium of minutes to days; it says nothing about a termination date. Moreover, the news coverage of this suspect's name (the first at least, but by now surely the others also) is already so thorough that he passes WP:WELLKNOWN. Even if all the papers are wrong, we would have an entire paragraph, possibly an entire section, about how the real shooter had misled police and "trolled" the public in order to frame an innocent man, and if that happened we should continue to add things about how the coverage had affected that innocent man's life going forward. Wnt (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Nope. NZ laws are clear, and the Jewell case is clear. Naming suspects is against policy unless the person is notable otherwise at the very least. Once the person actually stands trial - then is when this could be reconsidered. Your thought that this is a permanent ban on names is incorrect - both by policy and in practice on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The claims that he should not be named under WP:BLPCRIME are clearly wrong. Yet, you make a very good point. What are peoples thoughts about the relevance of NZ laws regarding not naming suspects? If NZ papers are naming him (idk) then surely it is ok for Wikipedia to do so.Mozzie (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
NZ bars the naming by media. Period. The suspects are not notable under Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Collect (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I neither know nor care what NZ law says, as Wikipedia is in the U.S. With Europe poised to pass utterly awful legislation [5] that interferes with all sorts of news, I expect Wikipedia should get a lot more unapologetic about being very strictly an American national project. Wnt (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Definitely inapt when people have not even been charged yet. If/when charged with specific crimes the situation might change, but it is certainly too soom at present. What would it add to anyone's understanding of the event? Pincrete (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
ps everyone should be aware that these people are suspects as present (not perps - regardless of the seeming level of proof). BLP applies on talk pages as well. Pincrete (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
don't indulge in these hazy posturings indicating at some violation of BLP policies over the t/p.... WBGconverse 16:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, unless there's a good reason to be uncertain about it. Benjamin (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support there is a credible source and it is described in the article as being stated by that source. WP:BLPCRIME states that you should consider it. WP:BLPCRIME does not prohibit it. the purpose is to avoid perpetrating contempt of court whereby you may influence the outcome of a case. this is publicly available information from a credible news source already in the public domain. we are not performing a criminal investigation on our own initiative. The name is relevant simply because the NZ police commissioner is withholding information in press conferences. he refuses to state whether or not they have identified the shooter which would cause alarm to the public. There may be other suspects but as of yet we only have information about the guy who actually shot a bunch of people.

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

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

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

That certainly appears to be the case.Mozzie (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose; RSs at this point are restricted to some form of official speculation, and it can't hurt to wait for official government press releases. Iseult Δx parlez moi 19:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose in order to reduce exposure of the suspects. --denny vrandečić (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per BLPCRIME; this suspect is not WELLKNOWN (he wasn't before today), and there's a long list of terrorist attacks where the media reported the wrong suspect's name. NOTNEWS means we don't need to name the suspect on the day of the attack. Levivich 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The judge didn't grant name suppression.[6] Does this change anyones mind? AIRcorn (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I give up. No response at ANI and everytime I look back it is added again.[7] I actually think the name should be in the article so the opposes can enforce BLP and the current consensus from now on. AIRcorn (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It was I who made that edit you mentioned. I was unaware of this RfC (this Talk page is enormous) and I felt (and feel) that the name should be mentioned, also because there seems no reluctance at all to name the suspect in the major news outlets, and the court appareance today has confirmed suspect's identity. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC).
I think there are good practical reasons for including his name. The debate on keeping his name out of the lead and keeping it out is taking up a lot of people's efforts. If we let it stay, this whole debate is over.Mozzie (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose What's the damn hurry? Wait a week or so. O3000 (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support There are claims here that NZ bans publication of suspects' names. I don't know exactly when this is true, but this time the name of the charged guy is all over the NZ press. For example, each of the four top dailies (according to List_of_print_media_in_New_Zealand) has published it repeatedly, as has the government-owned TV channel [8]. There is no reason to suppress it here, provided of course that he is described as a suspect and not as the perpetrator. He must not be named as guilty until a court decides it. Zerotalk 02:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • NZ has stringent name suppression laws to maintain integrity of court cases and avoid undue distress (e.g. the man charged with the death of Grace Millane in December 2018 has still not been named). In this case name suppression has been applied to the man Tarrant has been currently charged with murdering, but not to Tarrant himself ([9]). U-Mos (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Support As long as not worded to assume guilt prior to a conviction (which it currently is not), his arrest and charge is appropriate lead information. His name is widely reported, and a judge has ruled that it does not need to be suppressed. U-Mos (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose in the lead: unneeded; the name is not material at this point. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as it is recommended not to publicise names of suspected perpetrators unless the person has been convicted in court. I understand the magnitude of this tragic event, but we must be mindful of BLP concerns.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait - Until the legal process has officially confirmed the names of the perpetrators, then put it in. I understand people's concerns about giving the person 'credit' but including it is encyclopaedic, also WP:NOTCENSORED. | 🔬🚆 |   Telo | TP   | 14:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose in the lead: Regardless of what the consensus is on BLPCRIME, the perpetrators' names shouldn't be in the lead. Making the name unnecessarily prominent plays into the perpetrator's desire for fame, and increases the likelihood of copycat crimes. There is plenty of research backing this argument [1][2][3][4]. Keep the shooters' name less visible, and let the lead focus on the victims and other facts. That's not suppressing the facts, it's just not turning a murderer into a celebrity.Lijil (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment As per MOS:LEAD "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Tarrant is a major part of this article, and therefore should be part of a summary of it.Mozzie (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I do support mentioning the name somewhere, but not in the lede. SportingFlyer T·C 04:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. For comparison, see for instance Orlando nightclub shooting and Pittsburgh synagogue shooting – why should this case be treated differently? Jürgen Eissink (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC).
  • Support - a basic detail about the case, very relevant to understanding it, and something it would be wrong to exclude. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The WP:LEAD is supposed to summarize the main points of the article. One of the main points about the article is the subject's name. Otherwise, it's a central fact to this article. Tutelary (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The current iteration, where Tarrant is discussed euphemistically as "the suspect" in the lead before being named below, is unavoidably daft and the very worst faux-compromise scenario. If he's not to be named in the lead, then that means information about him isn't deemed material enough to be fronted and so should be left entirely to the "Suspect" section. U-Mos (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

We should NOT post any links to the Manifesto[edit]

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)

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)
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 (talkcontribs) 13:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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 (talkcontribs) 14:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
(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)
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 (talkcontribs) 14:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
The manifesto is a huge part of this. Does the article on Mein Kampf not cite Mein Kampf because the stuff in it is aweful? No. It's history, for better or for worse. Censoring it will never work, it will just continue to Barbara Streisand effect. We need to remain objective and that includes including the things which have unpleasantries in them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a moral police. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
As Resnjari said earlier, WP:NOTCENSORED applies here. Whatever its content, the manifesto is a valuable primary source relating to this topic. The only exception would be if there were legal issues in linking to it, and there are none that I'm aware of. Xcalibur (talk) 10:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say something about including in the wiki page a direct weblink to the document (although at this point in time i would not be in favour), i was saying more about not directly quoting from the document. I also was not in favour of excluding any mention about the manifesto which some editors raised as it is part of what happened. Only reliable sources should be used for that, not the actual document. In the end personal diligence needs to be applied as we want readers to know without giving air to the gunman's views verbatim and amplifying them which media is stating was part of his intention with the shooting. I hope that assists in clarifying things. Best.Resnjari (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that helps sort it out, thanks. I certainly didn't mean to misrepresent your views. While the Manifesto is a significant component of this story, I agree that it should be used with discretion. Xcalibur (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you guys hearing yourselves? "Dangerous ideas", "hateful ideologies". Why do you edit wikipedia, to keep the minds of people in the right narrative? As previously mentioned wikipedia is not WP:NOTCENSORED, additionally removing over 15 000 lines of text is violation of WP:Preserve policy. Smells like WP:Advocacy to me, is someone here afraid of words? If so, you should start editing out every article on religious texts, they seem much more violent and "dangerous" than a manifesto of some terrorist. Information is free and as long as I will live this will be the case, Mr. Censorship of "hateful ideologies" Konecat (talk) 07:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Konecat, check the discussion lower down about notability of the portfolio manifesto. Sounds like another RfC will have to be done... maybe? Like, apparently it could be coatracking to include his mention of trump (I wrote the part about that in the text you restored) but apparently it is not coatracking to cover in exhaustive detail his views on Muslims, link to the child abuse scandals, etc. At one point there was even a wikilink to the Arab slave trade in there. Just endless fights already about what from the manifesto is and is not relevant. I don't know the policy for something like this, but perhaps there could be separate article on the manifesto if people think a huge exegesis on it is encyclopedic. I'm not going to revert you or anything, this article has started to take it out of me already (NZer living overseas) ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I have no dog in this fight, but please refrain from abusing WP:PRESERVE. Its second sentence is: "Preserve appropriate content." and it appears to me that the appropriateness of this content is in dispute. That pretty much eliminates PRESERVE as an argument. ―Mandruss  07:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
And why would you think it's not appropriate? Because you don't like it? Appropriate in that context has everything to do with notability and reliability, not with your subjective opinion on the matter, Mandruss. Konecat (talk) 07:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I haven't said it's not appropriate. I've said that multiple editors acting in good faith feel that it's not appropriate. No editor gets to sidestep the WP:CONSENSUS process by waving policy shortcuts around. ―Mandruss  07:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Why do you try to suppress the information? Someone edited it out, yet again. Of course, they edit out the most important information. The writings on the guns and magazines and the motivations behind the attack I'd say are very notable. Yet User:Denny thinks somehow they are not and leaves the most irrelevant information for the show instead, deleteing over 13000 lines. For example, not even once does this article mention Ebba Akerlund, yet her name is on all of the guns, of the guns literally has written "THIS IS FOR HER", her name is all over the manifesto and is cited by the perperator as one of his primary reasons for this terrorist attack. I don't understand how is that not notable. This is outright WP:advocacy and attempted censorship. I want WP:ANI involved. (talk) 09:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

User:, you seem to be discussing the weapons, not the manifesto. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
He had lots of writings on the gun and we do not need to add them all. It is not worth naming an 11 year old girl in connection to this guys murderous acts, especially as her parents are strongly against it.[10] And before censorship is cried, WP:Not censored is not an excuse to add anything we want to an article. We can convey the message behind the writings without naming her directly (something like "victims of the 2017 Stockholm truck attack" is enough). AIRcorn (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I won't cry censorship, but I will say you are being sentimental. You seem unwilling to see that – according to his mainfesto – especially that victim triggered a change in his worldview which resulted in the Christchurch attacks. And, yes, the parents expressed their disgust about the connection between an alledged mass murderer and their daughter, but in the article you reference they don't say anything that you want us to believe. The connection is there, it should not be denied. And suggesting "victims of" while clearly one (young) victim is meant is a clear lie. I know the subject is far from easy, but if you can't stand the heat, please leave the kitchen – you are being sentimental and it does not seem to improve your view on the matter. I don't mean to harass you, but in my opinion you are being unreasonable. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC).

If there is a link to Anders Breivik manifesto in the article about him, there should be direct link to the Christchurch document in this article too, how is this any different? Crusier (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

That link is dead. wumbolo ^^^ 17:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Those are not dead though: Anders_Behring_Breivik#cite_note-202 & 2011_Norway_attacks#cite_note-manifesto1-31 Crusier (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
If we are not to include the manifesto, how are you all not different to the left wing attacker in Christchurch? DaneGil1996 (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
You can also read the Unabomber manifesto online, but like most of these screeds it is rambling stuff which serves only to illustrate what a wackjob the author is. Many websites have taken down the alleged Tarrant manifesto because it calls for the deaths of Sadiq Khan among others. Threats or incitement to kill are usually against a web host's terms of service.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

To censorship is useless. Whoever wanted to read the manifesto or see the video for reasons other than plain curiosity or research alread read/saw it. And I must say, probably earlier than us, the media and the authorities. Both are important primary sources. As of now the manifesto is the best source we have about the perpetrator intentions and most of what happened is in the video. -- Daniel Souza (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Why not post direct links to it ? I come to Wikipedia to get informed, unbiased information. If I've wanted positions and statements I'd head to my favourite social media outlet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Trump downplays terrorist attack[edit]

Washington Post is reporting that Trump said that white nationalist terrorism is not a problem. (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The opinion of Donald Trump is not relevant to every subject. GMGtalk 20:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
It is relevant when discussed by reliable sources. Trump is the President of the United States and his opinion is widely reported on by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a pro-trump propaganda site, it’s an encyclopedia. (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@ Can you link the source? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
[5] (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
On the contrary, Wikipedia has been repeatedly labeled as having a left-wing bias by right-wing sources. And is this commentary being made now or in the past from the WP? .--Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Pass the sources through the WP:RS test. If it is an opinion piece, take it with a grain of salt. It it is being reported as fact in several major newspapers, then it holds more water. On the separate question of WP:NOTE it is notable if the leader of the free world is either inspiring the attacks or downplaying them.Mozzie (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
[citation needed]!, I'd hardly call the POTUS "leader of the free world". Not just Trump, but any US president in the last 50-100 years. (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The Post is a leftist-leaning news organ with an agenda. Trump was very sympathetic to the victims and to New Zealand in his official response to this shooting. He didn't "downplay" this attack in any way. (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with GMG. Not every article has to be about Trump, as their essay sums up quite well. This article should only include what Trump says about THIS shooting, not shootings or terrorism or white nationalists in general. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 21:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The Washington Post is basically the Hordak to Trump's He-Man, in this context. He has many enemies in the media, but this outlet in particular has emerged as the clear leader of the horde. While I believe the main feud (the reason for stories like these even exisiting) is between a president and a press, and events like these are merely ammunition for that battle, rather than focal points themselves, I know talking about Trump will win out in the end (because even I'm doing it now). I'll just ask that we choose another member (such as Mantenna, Shadow Weaver or Grizzlor) to relay the complaint here, per the general idea of Wikipedia:Advocacy. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, March 15, 2019 (UTC)

The Washington Postis widely accepted as a reliable source by the Wikipedia community. This is all that matters. Wikipedia is NOT Conservapedia. (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Even if we trust it, we can't trust its readers to comprehend it before proposing misinformation. This story notes Trump says he thinks white nationalism (not terrorism) isn't growing (not isn't a problem). In fact, he says the small group that holds these ideas "...have very, very serious problems. It’s certainly a terrible thing.” InedibleHulk (talk) 21:53, March 15, 2019 (UTC)
That quote should be added then. Especially if multiple reliable sources report on it. (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Added to the white nationalism article, perhaps. But this article should be about these shootings. To that end, the only pertinent bit is the standard condolence/solidarity tweet, which tend to be unpopular on this site (in full) when coming from uninvolved foreign powers. Heather Timmons of Quartz reports it doesn't specify "Muslim", for whatever the hell that's worth to Trump's article. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:14, March 15, 2019 (UTC)
Mentioning any more than Trump's condolences is coatracking Trump issues on this article, at least at this time. If this causes the world to decide to go to war against Trump, then there might be something, but no, keep these types of reactions-of-reactions out of this article. There are valid articles where to include this though. --Masem (t) 22:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think this is WP:COATRACK. Coatracking is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely. This may be because an article writer has given more text to the background of their topic rather than the topic itself. It also may have been edited to make a point about one or more tangential subjects. It clearly isn't the worst case, of the article focusing on Trump despite being about the shootings. In the more subtle sense, Trump inspiring the attacks or downplaying them is relevant and should be included in a proportional manner in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:RS.23:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Did Trump inspire or downplay the attacks? Has any source said he did? The WP one here repeats "Dear god no" on whether buddy thought he was a policymaker or leader, and suggests Dylann Roof is more to blame. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:41, March 15, 2019 (UTC)
This article says that Trump downplayed the white nationalist terrorist attack in Christchurch. [6] [This comment was added by: (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)]
No it doesn't. The headline is "Trump Downplayed The Threat From White Nationalists After The Deadly New Zealand Attacks". The article notes "The president's comments from the Oval Office were not the first time he has downplayed white nationalism." This is all well and good for the white nationalism article, which isn't this one. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:18, March 16, 2019 (UTC)
Given that Tarrant is on the face if it a white nationalist, and white nationalist politics is on the asendancy, it is my opinion that the response of various right wing and nationalist leaders from around the world are relevant and should be canvassed - ranging from those who have absolutely condemned white nationalism, to Trump's equivocation, to Anning's blaming of Muslim immigrants. This doesn't deserve a whole section, but can be done in a few lines. It is surely more notable than the status quo sentence about world leaders sending in the condolances.Mozzie (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with User:Masem unequivocally and without reservation. GMGtalk 02:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't believe this belongs in the article since it doesn't seem particularly significant to the attack. It may be significant for some Trump related article, but that's a discussion for another talk page. However I also have no idea why we're talking about random stuff like the reliability of the WP when it comes to Trump. The statement was very widely covered [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. I mean heck even Ardern was asked about it [19] [20]. P.S. Some of these sources may be agency ones, but although it can sometimes be difficult to tell, from what I can tell all of them even the agency ones are from someone other than the WP. Nil Einne (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I certainly agree that "The opinion of Donald Trump is not relevant to every subject". However, the opinion of the perpetrator of the ideologically motivated crime (as described in his "manifesto" and discussed in secondary RS) is highly relevant. Of course he downplayed it [21], but this is not real issue. The real issue is that he became an inspiration for white supremacist terrorists - according to them. Therefore, I suggest to include it. My very best wishes (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I've had this edit reverted, so I will seek consensus and allow someone else to make the contribution. I think there should be something in the response section along the lines of: Reactions of right wing and nationalist leaders from around the world were varied. Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison condemned the white nationalism, while US President Donald Trump condemned the attacks but refrained from criticising while nationalism. in general, the reactions section does perhaps focus too much on condolences and too little on the condemnation of white nationalism. Perhaps it should more read that immediately after the attack world leaders sent condolences and condemned the attacks and their apparent white nationalist motivations.Mozzie (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't include. We are not short on Trump articles where this can fit. AIRcorn (talk) 04:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Take your anti-Trump bias somewhere else. This is not MSNBC.Bjoh249 (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The WSJ "source" does not support the claims being made. What percentage of whites are "white nationalists" is the point being made. The simple truth is that "white nationalism" is a fringe area in the entire world today. arrives at a figure of 5.64% of white Americans holding some "alt-right compatible views". This is thus higher than self-identified "white nationalists" by a substantial amount. " People are notoriously shy to express overtly racist attitudes to pollsters, and aligning yourself with the alt-right is aligning yourself with an openly racist movement." means that this study did not even try to count the very minimal number of people who describe themselves as "white nationalist" but even using the highest number possible from the data means under 3% of all Americans fit that description.
"Respondents were asked how important their race was to their identity on a five-point scale ranging from “not at all important” to “extremely important.” They were also asked a question measuring their feelings of white solidarity: “How important is it that whites work together to change laws that are unfair to whites?” This followed the same five-point scale. Finally, we can assess survey respondents’ feelings of white victimization from their answers to the question of how much discrimination whites face in the U.S., also on a five-point scale, ranging from “none at all” to a “great deal.”
In short - even just saying that you are "white" places you in the start of the Venn diagram for "white nationalism", as does saying that "laws which are unfair to whites" are unfair to whites. And if they ever felt they were disadvantaged due to being "white" they meet the 5.64% level. In short, an all-encompassing standard for "white nationalist" which, to me, means, "one who believes whites should band together to control the nation." YMMV. The point I am making is that such "standards" applied to New Zealand are likely even less relevant. Collect (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

White supremacy[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus in favor of inclusion. One's own interpretations does not trump a plethora of RSs and unless you can bring reliable sources supporting the alternate stance; you are invited to disengage. WBGconverse 13:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The article contains the following comment:

Please do not remove the "white supremacist" descriptor of the terrorist attack — it is widely acknowledged the attacks were the actions of a white supremacist. If you have any evidence of the contrary, please present it on the discussion page

It is clear from the manifesto that neither the motive nor ideology of the attacker is consistent with white supremacy as described by Wikipedia:

White supremacy or white supremacism is the racist belief that white people are superior to people of other races and therefore should be dominant over them.

Given the inexactitude of language use by the media, however, this is difficult to establish with secondary sources. See WP:NOTTRUTH.

Nevertheless, I thought there should be a place to discuss this matter, as it is such a clear conflict between primary and secondary sources. --π! 23:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

the manifesto isn't a reliable source on anything.©Geni (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - Feel it should not be placed in the lead. I am happy with removing "white supremacist and Islamophobic" (but keeping "terrorist attacks"), and placing them in the third lead paragraph where the white supremacist motive seems to be expanded on.Mrsmiis (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Can I assume you Support Change? (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Per his manifesto he is not a white supremacist. He is a white nationalist. Editors of Wikipedia should be smarter than this.

Support Change - In his own words he is white nationalist, a populist, and a eco-fascist. He is not a white supremacist nor an Islamophobe and both of these are specifically addressed within his manifesto. He does not support white supremacy, but he does support what he believes is the right of a native ethnicity to rule over their own country. He believed he was fighting against what he described as a group of foreign invaders who out-bred his native european population into minority within their own country. He stated he had no problem with any ethnicity and wanted each one to flourish, only in their own countries.

This should be changed to either say "a fascist by his own admittance" or something similar. Wikipedia is (I hope) better than using a pejorative term rather than an accurate one. Other words which would be more accurate than white supremacist: fascist, self-decribed eco-fascist, terrorist, radical populist

You may say that his manifesto isnt a reliable source of anything but he goes through great lengths to detail his thoughts and actions and in reality there is no more reliable source you can get on the matter of determining who he is and why he did what he did than 70 pages of him detailing in writing his exact thoughts on everything he was about to do.

News sources are *not* an accurate representation of someones personal beliefs and should not be cited as such — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Support change the ideology expressed in his manifest reflects "white nationalism" not "white supremacy". Calling "white supremacy" is not accurate. (talk) 05:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Support inclusion -- widely reported in RS sources and describes well the views the perps themselves stated they had. Well, perhaps "Christian-culture supremacism" could better fit the bill but in English words for the alleged white race tend to be (mis)used to mean that and everyone understands what is meant.--Calthinus (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
The goes against both the official gov't views, and how it has been reported in RS'd news media. (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry, but this needs to be called out -- what you just said is [demonstrably false -- here is an easy Google News search showing all the headlines of the event with the exact string "white supremacist" or "white supremacy" in them].--Calthinus (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy dictates that whatever the media says must be true, so unfortunately the wild accusations by journalists that he is "right-wing" is what needs to stay in the article. Until the media stops sensationalizing the story and starts fixing their accusations to explain the truth, the story needs to remain that he is an alleged white nationalist. Tycoon24 (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM O3000 (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Bingo! Nailed it. Instead Wikipedia is a soapbox for the thoughts of journalists. But we gotta play by the rules, so... Tycoon24 (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Forgive me for not knowing the rules on wikipedia well enough, but can a primary source not be used to supercede a tertiary source such as news media? 70 pages of the man describing his actions is much more accurate insight into his belief system than journalists own opinions on the matter. Why can a primary source not be used as cited material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
I agree with @Calthinus:. Strong support for inclusion on my part.Resnjari (talk) 06:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Good to see this addition has been made and thank you all for pushing for this addition. The addition of white supremacy is in line with the Charleston church shooting, both the Christchurch and Charleston shootings are similar in nature and based on the Tarrant manifesto and articles appearing, white supremacy and far-right extremism are legitimate motives. ThreatMatrix (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
A side note, what is everybody's opinion regarding adding Neo-Nazism as a motive? ThreatMatrix (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I Dont think neo-nazism is an apt term for this. After reading his manifesto the terms that come to mind are fascist, radical populist, and ethnostatist. The guy didnt seem to be particularly partial to Nazism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose. The white supremacist claim appears to be grounded in the assumption that since the shooter is White he must be a White Supremacist. No evidence to support this claim has been presented anywhere as far as I'm aware and no the MSM echo chamber doesn't count. If there is a basis for the claim please provide links! As it stands the evidence used in this article for the claim the shooter is a White supremacist who used neo-Nazi symbols appears to be an NZ Herald article - which only claims the shooter is Australian, and the Daily Beast which states authorities have suggested White supremacy and anti-Muslim beliefs but not confirmed it. It would seem that this piece is leaping to define this as a White Supremacist event before that has been proven. It may very well be so, but isn't Wikipedia supposed to wait before declaring it so? 人族 (talk)
Wikipedia is literally based on reliable mainstream media sources. Id say the fact they targeted Muslims and then mass murdered Muslims is plenty of evidence to show that the terrorists involved are anti-Muslim. Wikipedia is NOT conservapedia. (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Can I assume you mean Support Change?
Strongly Support Change
In his manifesto, he describes himself as a person of fascist (eco-fascist), ethno-nationalist, anti-immigration, and anti-Muslim views. In the manifesto, he explicitly says that he respects diversity and different ethnic and cultural groups, as long as they are not migrating and mixing with each other, ie. becoming "invaders".
From his manifesto: ", the attack was not an attack on diversity, but an attack in the name of diversity. To ensure diverse peoples remain diverse, separate, unique,undiluted in unrestrained in cultural or ethnic expression and autonomy (...) I wish the different peoples of their world all the best regardless of their ethnicity, race, culture of faith and that they live in peace and prosperity, amongst their own people, practicing their own traditions, in their own nations. But, if those same people seek to come to my peoples lands, replace my people, subjugate my people, make war upon on my people, ,hen I shall be forced to fight them, and hold nothing in reserve."
His views explicitly contradict the definition of "white supremacy" (white people being superior to people of other races and therefore requiring dominance over them).
The majority of secondary sources do NOT describe him or the attack as "white supremacist", but as a racist and Islamophobic terrorist attack, as how it should be referenced in the lede.1
The lede should NOT describe the terrorist attack in terms of the personal views of the perpetrator but in terms of what the attack was: an anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim terrorist attack. The rest of the article should include details about his views and his motivation in detail, mentioning that he is a self-proclaimed racist, anti-immigrant extremist, anti-Muslim, fascist,and ethno-nationalist. (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Note Is this supposed to be an RFC? Please format properly per WP:RfC and start again. Also, His views explicitly contradict the definition of "white supremacy" (white people being superior to people of other races and therefore requiring dominance over them). This is pure WP:OR and nonsense. Tsumikiria 🌹🌉 22:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
That is from the actual Wikipedia page and this is my opinion on the talk page. (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

"He believed he was fighting against what he described as a group of foreign invaders who out-bred his native european population into minority within their own country" - Except that he is by his own admission of European ancestry. In Australia and New Zealand, that makes his ethnic group the foreign invaders. If he advocates the rule of people of European ancestry over Australia and New Zealand, that's the very definition of white supremacy. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

No, Orange Mike, this is the definition of ethnostatism as he considers Austalia and New Zealand to be anglo territories. If he hadnt claimed in his manifesto something along the lines of him not having any issues with muslims as long as they stay in their pwn countries, and jews in theirs, etc... I may have agreed with you. But what he described was ethnostatism and not white supremacy

Strongly opposing change/supporting incusion Why was the phrase "white supremacist" removed from the lede? There are enough RS that are connecting the dots. Reuters, BBC, Al Jazeera, NY Times, and there are more. WP should not list a series of events, WP's purpose is to explain the "whys" and the "hows" (per RS ofcourse) Cinadon36 (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

"A symbol of renewed white identity"[edit]

So, according to this, this, etc. (lots of RS), the manifesto "hailed Trump as "a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose"". This is something highly notable/widely covered in RS and has been officially commented about by the White House [24], which makes it even more significant. I think this should be prominently described on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Does it really need to be 'prominent' in the article? It comprised exactly 1 sentence in the manifesto, followed by 1 sentence saying Trump was a horrible leader and policy maker. I do believe that this article should have much more information included from his manifesto, including this, but we shouldn't focus on Trump just because Trump is the flavor of the month, especially when its such a minor part of the manifesto. Its possibly worth a quick mention at best and no more.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
The prominence (in WP sense) is not defined by the numbers of phrases in a terrorist manifesto. It is defined by the coverage in reliable sources per WP:NPOV. It has a significant coverage. This is not "we" who are focused on the manifesto or whatever. That's the sources. How exactly this should be phrased on the page is of course debatable. My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@My very best wishes I'm inclined to agree. I would prefer not to give the manifesto too much weight in the article because honestly, it's a bunch of gibberish, and shouldn't be taken too seriously. However the current section has quite a bit of detail on other aspects of the manifesto, but glosses over mentioning Trump despite mentioning many other things possibly of less significance. The closest the current wording gets is "high-profile right wing figures", I suppose.
I support including the fact that Trump is mentioned in the manifesto (including the full quote stating that Trump is only useful as a symbol of white identity and blah blah, and not as a leader or policymaker). I think the idea Trump should not be included because he is "just the flavor of the month" makes no sense given that the section currently mentions that the manifesto calls for the death of a relatively obscure British politician. Surely a mention of the most powerful leader in the Western world, if not the world, is more significant than that. I'm about to make some minor changes in the manifesto section anyway, but won't touch the trump stuff for now. Too tired. Anotheranothername (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

My very best wishes No opinion with regard to "prominence" however I added specifically this info in the Suspect section [[25]] and it was purged by our very impartial talk page lecturer Tycoon24 [[26]]. I'm on my phone right now but will back up any revert of that disruptive edit. --Calthinus (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Because of Trump's (obvious) notability (plus the fact that he has been criticised in the past - rightly or wrongly - for allegedly inflaming extremism), this definitely needs to be mentioned - though not 'prominently'. Just a one sentence mention when describing the manifesto would be OK. And, to ensure a neutral POV, the other wording critical of Trump should also be mentioned. Ross Finlayson (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, probably. Of course there is wider problem, but it is for other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I still think it makes sense to include a discussion of the attacks' relationship to white nationalism. There is quite a bit of coverage in RS about how politicians have used nationalism and anti Muslim sentiment to their advantage, that this has enabled extremists, and has lead to their threat being ignored. This is relevant, and while it should be covered in detail somewhere else, it should be mentioned for context here.Mozzie (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
This is an example of why well-known shooters tend to get their own articles. It is relevant to him but it has nothing at all to do with the massacre. It's like describing where he went to high school in that regard. Wnt (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean. The "manifesto" is obviously important, and the event is more important than the perpetrator, at least in this case. There was also a "dossier", and it hailed Trump as "a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose" and the perpetrator claimed to carry out the attacks "to directly reduce immigration rates to European lands by intimidating and physically removing the invaders themselves." [[27]. Based on the responses above, it seems people agree to include this, very briefly and in appropriate section. My very best wishes (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
My very best wishes, I've added a reference to Trump in the manifesto section. I am not sure if it is in the right place, so if anyone wants to take a crack at finding a better spot for it in the section please do so. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Please don't turn this into another Trump attack piece. This belongs at one of the multitude of articles about him, not here. AIRcorn (talk) 04:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Aircorn The section on the manifesto has been trimmed extensively, removing both the references to Trump and the manifesto's ranting about child sex abuse, the Arab slave trade, etc. I agree that we are going to have to keep an eye on the coatracking in that section in general. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I am just got home and am catching up. AIRcorn (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Mysteriously this appears to have been removed without discussion yet again.--Calthinus (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

"OK gesture"[edit]

"During his court appearance, he smirked at the media and made an OK gesture, a symbol adopted by the white nationalist movement and online racists."

I'd say that this sentence is implying that the "OK gesture" is meant to be taken at face-value and not just as a bait for the media. It's just a meme image-board users made to trick the media into thinking that it means "white power". Perhaps the second part of the sentence could be scrapped or edited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zekacs (talkcontribs) 17:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The actual quote from the referenced article (in the New York Post) says: "(Tarrant) made an “OK” hand gesture during his appearance — a symbol used by white nationalists and racist internet trolls". However, this begs the question of whether the "New York Post" can be considered a reliable source. Personally, I don't think so, so I'd favour deleting the phrase ", a symbol adopted by the white nationalist movement and online racists", leaving just "made an OK gesture". Ross Finlayson (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Richard Spencer has used it. It can be both bait and taken at face value. It's like a lot of chan stuff in that respect. Anotheranothername (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
And it has also been stated in at least one New Zealand organ, also.HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

It's just the circle game, he "made you look". (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It needs some version of the second sentence for context. Otherwise why do we mention it at all. AIRcorn (talk) 04:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Sure IP, and those kids in Baraboo were just "waving". EvergreenFir (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. The media got got in this instance.  Nixinova  T  C  03:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Terrorist connection claims[edit]

Two al-queda jihadi's killed in US drone strikes are specifically stated to have been radicalized here by a reliable source.

...this was a terrorist recruitment center? Why is this talk being undone? (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

(ec versus censorship) The main problem with putting that here is that you have to show a connection. For example if the killer said he was attacking the mosque for that reason, or for any other reason the sources covering the massacre mentioned it, then it would be relevant here. Otherwise it can only be included at Al Noor Mosque. There's also a problem that another source gives another name: [28] which says "Masjid An-Nur mosque" and also argues against the radicalization being there. You might also see an argument about how distinctive the news is, since the U.S. has droned so many people by now that it's hard to picture a big city like Christchurch being left out, but I think that should fail. Bottom line: you have to learn how to crawl before you can walk. An-Nur (disambiguation) gives an Al Noor Mosque in Saudi Arabia as a synonym, but you ought to document if the one in Christchurch has other names, and what the variation in names means. See if you can expand other framing information about that article - what is the mosque known for, what is its philosophy? Then you can see how this and other controversies you'll probably find fit into it. But I think you will end up finding that this is a rather minor, salacious detail -- and only for the mosque article. Wnt (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
terrorist recruitment center is sourced to The Daily Stormer and doesn't belong anywhere. O3000 (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
It is certainly over the top rhetoric, but a mosque is not a person, so despite the tastelessness of it, BLP doesn't apply. It is true that a swallow does not make a summer and two people do not make a terrorist recruitment center, even if that much happened. I don't think redaction is appropriate but if you must redact, redact those three words in the title only. Wnt (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I redacted not only because there is zero evidence, but because the source was The Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi site. O3000 (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
"Jones was killed alongside Australian Christopher Havard, whose parents said he was introduced to radical Islam at the Al-Noor mosque in Christchurch.

Mosque leaders confirmed Havard stayed there and studied in 2011, but denied radical teaching took place. But a man who attended a converts' weekend at the mosque 10 years ago said a visiting speaker from Indonesia talked about violent jihad and plenty shared his views. "Most of the men were angry with the moral weakness of New Zealand. I would say they were radical."" (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The shooter's manifesto specifically states he targeted mosques that radicalized/recruited jihadi's. Its pretty relevant and provides a fair balance to all these claims that he was just a nazi. (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
So, your evidence that the mosque was a terrorist recruitment center, which you have stated outright in a heading, is a manifesto written by a suspect in the killing of 49 Muslims? O3000 (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


No, see above from Wrt "For example if the killer said he was attacking the mosque for that reason, or for any other reason the sources covering the massacre mentioned it, then it would be relevant here"

So here you have the shooter stating in his manifesto that he selected mosques for that reason, and you have the publications about those mosques confirming his suspicion. (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

You shouldn't respond to a closed discussion, but I will answer you here: while it might be true he wrote that in a large manifesto, it would be undue weight to include it if this facet is not covered by reliable sources. We have to distill a 76 page document to major points and to avoid OR of what's most important, we're following what reliable sources say about it, rather than use our (Editors) own determination. Now I have just looked for RSes that might cover this part, but have found nothing. That's not saying the manifesto never said it (disclaimer: I have not read it), but the lack of attention to that part should be reflected here by its lack of inclusion. If RSes do cover it, then we can add it as one of the attacker's claim. --Masem (t) 20:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Here the part of the manifesto is mentioned by an RSS that explains the target of the attack was due to its history of extremism (talk) 10:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Crime or murder?[edit]

He has been charged (but not convicted) of one murder. Should the article be categorised under "crimes" or "murders". Do we have to wait for a conviction? If so, can it still be categorised as a crime? Hugo999 (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

It is completely obvious he did commit mass murder, we don't need to wait until the courts confirm that. He literally livestreamed it. So yes a murder category is okay.  Nixinova  T  C  22:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to disagree on WP:BLPCRIME grounds. Murder is a specific crime. Nobody has been found guilty thereof yet. TompaDompa (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Don't confuse what some court decides versus what history will call this - that's up to responsible historians, journalists, etc. The fact that he committed mass-murder is beyond any speculation. (talk) 09:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019[edit]

Brenton Harrison Tarrant, a 28-year-old Australian, is suspected of carrying out the attack. He was arrested on Brougham Street after the attacks.[30] Mobile phone footage showed his car had been rammed against the curb by police before his arrest at gunpoint by two officers.[31] He appeared in the Christchurch District Court on 16 March, where he was charged with murder and remained in custody. During his court appearance, he smirked at the media and made an OK gesture. The case was transferred to the High Court, with his next appearance scheduled for 5 April 2019 (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 09:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Terrorist attacks[edit]

I am disgusted I need to bring this here. But after being reverted for “POV” I believe it is necessary to ask: should this terrorist attack be described as terrorism in the lead? Countless RS describe it as such: [29][30][31][32]. More can be provided if necessary.White Siddiqah (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't take a side as to whether this attack is technically "terrorism" or not. I understand "terrorism" as being committed by organized groups, not by lone wolves. This is more akin to the 2017 Las Vegas shooting though it had a more political motive. Also, so far he has been charged only with murder, not under anti-terrorism legislation. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@MaxBrowne2: there literally is an article called Lone wolf (terrorism). That is total WP:OR to state a terrorist must belong to an organized group to be considered a terrorist. Following RS is not “taking a side”.White Siddiqah (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@MaxBrowne2:, White Siddiqah is absolutely correct that we need to follow reliable sources that identify the attack as terrorism and that your opinion that, "I understand "terrorism" as being committed by organized groups, not by lone wolves", is irrelevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
So why is the 2017 Las Vegas Shooting not described as "terrorism" in the lead of that article? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
That is an irrelevant and argumentative response. That's a different article, about a different event. If you have some concern about that article, discuss it at its talk page. Here we discuss the Christchurch mosque shootings. Again, White Siddiqah is correct that reliable sources identify them as terrorism, and that the article needs to do so also. The article has categories identifying the event as terrorism and it is inconsistent for the lead not to describe it as terrorism also. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
It is a relevant comparison and it establishes wikipedia precedent. Mass shootings by lone wolves are generally not described as "terrorism", which is an emotive and generally unhelpful word. Doesn't mean it's not horrific, just that it's in a different category. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
No. There is no "precedent" here because that was a different event entirely, with no relevance to how the Christchurch mosque shootings should be described. The motive in the Las Vegas case remains unknown. In this case there is a clear political motive, as established by reliable sources. There is no comparison, then, and your comments are obscurantist. Your dislike for the word "terrorism" is again irrelevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@MaxBrowne2: The Las Vegas shooting had no known political motive. The Christchurch shootings clearly had political motives. Whether or not a mass shooting is terrorism depends on the motive (if it’s known), not how many shooters there were. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
It shouldn't be referred to as terrorism, or murder, at all until and unless the perpetrator is convicted of those specific crimes. Doing so would be a WP:BLPCRIME violation (as well as potentially libellous). I believe "mass shooting" or "spree killing" should be fine, however. TompaDompa (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Nonsense. There are multiple sources clearly identifying it as terrorism. The fact that a specific individual has not as yet been convicted for the attacks is irrelevant and doesn't mean we cannot describe them as terrorism, as that doesn't imply that he is guilty of them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Except that if an individual is convicted of murder for the attacks but found not guilty of terrorist crimes, describing the attacks as terrorism does indeed imply guilt thereof. TompaDompa (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
He has not been convicted of anything yet so your comment makes no sense. Identifying the attacks as terrorism does not imply that he is guilty of them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It does imply that terrorist crimes were committed, and a person has been charged with murder. TompaDompa (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I do not see your point. Of course "terrorist crimes were committed", as witness multiple reliable sources describing the attacks that way. There is no problem with the article stating in so many words that a terrorist crime was committed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I favour a strict interpretation and enforcement of WP:BLPCRIME. TompaDompa (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
The issue isn't that there is disagreement, but that you haven't explained your position in a way that makes sense or might convince anyone. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:BLPCRIME has nothing to do with this whatsoever. FreeKnowledgeCreator, well said--thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
There are basically no reliable sources that do not classify this as a terrorist attack ("lone wolf" version). It is absurd to invoke meaningless legalisms about "convicted of those specific crimes" in order to override WP:COMMON; and misleading remarks about "potentially libelous" are skirting WP:LEGAL territory. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I would like to note that WP:LEGAL explicitly says A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. TompaDompa (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Since when the conviction matters? To the best of my knowledge, the majority of perpetrators of terrorist attacks have never been charged or convicted. You can't prosecute the dead. — kashmīrī TALK 15:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC: "Terrorism" in the lead[edit]

Should the 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings be described as "terrorism" in the lead? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • No, per WP:BLPCRIME. A living person has been charged with murder for the shootings. Nobody has been convicted of terrorist crimes in connection with the shootings, and it would therefore be a WP:BLPCRIME violation as well as potentially libellous to state in WP:WikiVoice that it was terrorism, since that would necessitate that terrorist crimes have been committed. TompaDompa (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:CRIME. BLPCRIME does not relate here. Further, the suspect is described as a suspect and the article does not assert his guilt.~ Anotheranothername (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I remember the discussion relating to the Murder of Jo Cox before the trial concluded. It was noted then that the killing could not be referred to as a murder prior to a conviction, since that would constitute a presupposition of guilt. For the same reason, "terrorism" was avoided. The issue then was sub judice, but WP:BLPCRIME follows the same principles. I'd also like to note that sub judice also applies when it comes to New Zealand. TompaDompa (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@TompaDompa: Several editors have now explained to you that 1.) describing this event as "terrorism" is well-sourced and 2.) describing the event as terrorism does not constitute a presumption of guilt. The suspect is described as a suspect throughout. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't believe the sourcing was ever in dispute, and we always have the option of using WP:INTEXT attribution, per WP:LABEL. TompaDompa (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes because we follow reliable sources, not what we personally dislike. Describing an incident as terror, murder, etc. does not imply the guilt of whoever is involved.White Siddiqah (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    • White Siddiqah, please don't throw in IDONTLIKEIT--it's the most abused word salad on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes as per multiple reliable sources describing the attacks as terrorism. There is no BLP issue here and the attempt to claim that there is is contrived. Describing the attacks as terrorism does not imply that the suspect accused is guilty; he is noted as a suspect only in the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes per above and per multiple reliable sources.[7] [8] [9] I found some that explicitly use "terrorism" since it seemed somebody wanted to split hairs about "terror attack" and "terrorist attack" somewhere earlier on this talk page.Anotheranothername (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Not yet. The lead should be a summary of the rest of the article. There is very little in the rest of the article about it being terrorism. Work on the rest of the article and only then come back about including it in the lead. To remove "mass shooting" and replace it with "terrorist attacks" (as White Siddiqah did) is not appropriate, IMO, and I support that edit being reverted. Nurg (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Nurg: Can you please explain what content you imagine should be added to the article in order to justify "terrorist" being used in the lead? I believe the policy you are citing is WP:LEAD but that says the following: "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." It is a basic fact that this was a terrorist attack and has been described as such by RS. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
So far there is one short quote from a political leader. Is there anything more substantial that can be added? Are there sources that discuss the terrorism interpretation of the incident? (Or is it just a label that is applied without further analysis?) Nurg (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Nurg: can you explain what you mean by "the terrorism interpretation of the incident"? ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I just threw out a suggestion in response to your question. Is there anything more substantial about terrorism that can be added to the body of the article? And in response to other comments, the question is not about whether it is terrorism, or whether reliable sources call it terrorism. The question is whether it should be described as "terrorism" in the lead. Nurg (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
That is the correct question—not whether it is terrorism or not but whether we should call it terrorism in our own voice. Bus stop (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I guess this is a conflict between WP:RS (reliable sources call it terrorism) and WP:CRIME which says that we shouldn't preempt criminal findings.Mozzie (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. It was a terrorist attack of the type 'mass shooting'. The PM, Ardern, called it a terrorist attack, so that it is probably the end to the discussion. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC).
  • Yes duh--we don't need a conviction, we need reliable sources. Contrary to TompaDompa's somewhat inadequate assertions, BLPCRIMES has nothing to do with this. A comparison with some other shootings, like the one in Las Vegas, goes awry very quickly since this person, according to his "manifesto", had an explicitly political goal. That's not to say that Las Vegas can't be considered a terrorist act (I believe that it was), but that's a different matter. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Terrorism "is, in the broadest sense, 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", so the 2017 Las Vegas shooting would not be a terrorist attack because, concerning that incident, there is no known religious or political aim. Bus stop (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • You are mistaken. See a source which explains it. The Las Vegas shooter was a terrorist per US law ("According to Nevada state law, an "act of terrorism" is described as follows: "Any act that involves the use of violence intended to cause great bodily harm or death to the general population.") and also per WP policies (he was described as a terrorist in a lot of RS). He was not officially linked to international terrorist groups, despite to the claim by ISIS, but this is a different matter. My very best wishes (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I would say that even if the term is widely used, we should err on the safe side and avoid using it in our own voice. But we can quote sources using the term. Bus stop (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No. This is BBC policy. Only first part of the BBC quotation describes WP policy on this: "we should not change the word 'terrorist' when quoting someone else". Yes, we just say what sources say. "There is no agreed consensus on what constitutes a terrorist or terrorist act". It does not matter. There are numerous books specifically about terrorism. My very best wishes (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • A source that qoutes PM Ardern, who 'officially' deemed it a terrorist attack, would be particularly suitable, I think. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC).
  • Yes. This is classic terrorism attack, as follows from the "manifesto" by the perpetrator and many other factual details, and the attack has been defined as such in multiple RS. Of course there are different Definitions of terrorism, but it does not change anything. My very best wishes (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No until the investigation concludes that the purpose of the attack was terrorism-based. NZ has legal laws related to terrorism, so no matter what RSes say, they are not authoritative here to call the attack terrorism. There's elements of this guy doing it "for the lulz" given all the connection to internet culture. Let the investigation/trial finish an see how its called then. --Masem (t) 02:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    • But we can quote reliable sources designating the act as terrorism. Bus stop (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Masem:,@Bus stop: the New Zealand Police Commissioner has stated that this is classified as a "terrorist event". It's at 0:37 of the video found here. Would you consider the head of New Zealand police "authoritative"? ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
They are treating the investigation as if it was a terrorist event as to expedite certain matters, and better protect the public safety, but they still need to conclude the investigation and make a determination. So while the police authoritative , they haven't said affirmatively that the attack was absolutely a terrorist attack. --Masem (t) 02:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Masem: so to be clear, your position is that the attack should not be directly described as a "terrorist attack" until the investigation is concluded? ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
(Further: I am unable to read the minds of the New Zealand police, but I imagine they are describing the attack as a terrorist attack because it is a terrorist attack under New Zealand law: "an act that "is carried out for the purpose of advancing an ideological, political, or religious cause". ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
It is not quite that simple. This is unprecedented so there is talk that it will tried as multiple murders as opposed to a terrorist incident. Basically, we have experience and precedent when it comes to murder, but not so much in terrorism. See this article for a better explanation. It is still not know what they will go for. AIRcorn (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
So on one hand we have the New Zealand Prime Minister, the New Zealand Police Commissioner, and extensive RS describing it as a terrorist attack. On the other hand, we have the fact that the suspect has not yet been charged with terrorism. I'm going to try to write something that makes it clear the PM and Police Commissioner (i.e. authoritative sources) have described it as a terrorist attack. I do understand the concerns about wikivoice. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 04:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Except that as I mentioned before, that isn't how things work in NZ anyway. It's fairly unlikely the police investigation is going to conclude on way or the other whether "purpose of the attack was terrorism-based" since that's simply not how things work in NZ. Nil Einne (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, but in quotes Notable figures and sources have labelled this terrorism. Per WP:OR, it is not our place to judge the suspect's intent based on the manifesto, so I think it is incorrect to say "his manifesto makes it look like it's not terrorism" or vice versa. What we can say is that notable sources call this terrorism, and this fact is a notable aspect of the event due to its relation to political motivations. Leugen9001 (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Something like Leugen9001 says. Use quotes, or say "has been described as terrorist" or whatever. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Would this be acceptable in the lead: "Jacinda Ardern, the prime minister of New Zealand, described it as a terrorist attack." Nurg (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

No and this question has already been resolved. This question was comprehensively dealt with in the Move Request from just two days ago, which was on the very same topic and was quickly closed under the snowball clause. The basic reason for the decline is that we do not use the descriptor 'terrorist' in the title of any comparable incidents. See Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings/Archive_1#Requested_move_15_March_2019. (And I know this talk page is very busy but it's also my opinion that that move request should not have been archived so quickly). Oska (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Oska: That discussion is about the title of the page, not the lead. People say that the 9/11 page title does not contain the word "terrorist", but the lead absolutely does. I don't see the relevance. Omitting "terrorist" from the page title is fine but we are discussing the lead here. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Apologies. I obviously didn't read closely enough. I've struck out my comment. Oska (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. Even if the defendant was innocent, the subject of some remarkable frame-up job, somebody still committed a massacre with clear religious motivation. If this isn't terrorism, what is? Wnt (talk) 06:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes The manifesto makes it clear that the shootings had a political motive and plenty of reliable sources are calling it terrorism. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes - Every reliable source on a google search describes it as a terrorist attack. New Zealand PM described it as a terrorist attack.Myopia123 (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes Most reliable sources describe this incident as a terrorist event or a mass shooting based on political motivation which is by definition a terrorist attack.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, religious/political factor has been so widely reported in multiple RS that we can consider it fairly certain. Thus the incident bears all hallmarks of a terrorist attack. Avoiding this term at this stage would amount to WP:CENSOR. — kashmīrī TALK 20:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, extensive coverage and no reason to doubt it. WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply, both because the suspect is only described as a suspect (meaning that responsibility is not attributed to him) and because the coverage is so overwhelming and clear. Note that despite the heavy coverage we are already omitting the suspect's name from the lead, which I think is sufficient in an extremely high-profile case like this; beyond that, the purpose of WP:BLP is to protect people from harm - when coverage is already overwhelming and clear, there is no real possibility that a Wikipedia article could harm them further. --Aquillion (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Suggested wording regarding "terrorist" in the lead[edit]

@Oska:, @Masem:, @Bus stop:, @Aircorn: and others, please check my suggested rewording for the lead below: Current:

The Christchurch mosque shootings were two consecutive terrorist mass shootings at Al Noor Mosque and the Linwood Islamic Centre in Christchurch, New Zealand, during Friday prayers on 15 March 2019.[10] The attack resulted in 50 people killed and at least 50 others injured.[11][12] The suspected perpetrator was arrested and charged with murder.[13] The first attack was live streamed on Facebook Live.[14].


The Christchurch mosque shootings were two consecutive mass shootings at Al Noor Mosque and the Linwood Islamic Centre in Christchurch, New Zealand, during Friday prayers on 15 March 2019.[15] The attack resulted in 50 people killed and at least 50 others injured.[11][12] The suspected perpetrator was arrested and charged with murder.[13] New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and New Zealand Police Commissioner Mike Bush described the shootings as a terrorist attack.[16][17] The first attack was live streamed on Facebook Live.[18]


  1. ^ Lankford, Adam, and Eric Madfis (2017). "Don't Name Them, Don't Show Them, But Report Everything Else: A Pragmatic Proposal for Denying Mass Killers the Attention They Seek and Deterring Future Offenders". American Behavioral Scientist. 62 (2): 260-279. doi: Check |doi= value (help).
  2. ^ Meindl, James, and Jonathan Ivy (2017). "Mass Shootings: The Role of the Media in Promoting Generalized Imitation". American Journal of Public Health. 107 (3).
  3. ^ Lankford, Adam (2017). "Do the media unintentionally make mass killers into celebrities? An assessment of free advertising and earned media value". Celebrity Studies. 9 (3): 340-354. doi: Check |doi= value (help).
  4. ^ Pew, Alex, "Does Media Coverage Inspire Copy Cat Mass Shootings?". National Center for Health Research.
  5. ^
  6. ^
  7. ^ "New Zealand mosque shootings: 49 people killed in terrorist attacks on worshippers".
  8. ^ "Christchurch shootings: Terrorist attack at mosques".
  9. ^ "Terrorist attacks on two Christchurch mosques leaves 49 people dead".
  10. ^ "New Zealand mosque shooter is a white supremacist angry at immigrants, documents and video reveal".
  11. ^ a b "Police with the latest information on the mosque shootings". Radio New Zealand. 17 March 2019. Retrieved 17 March 2019.
  12. ^ a b "Christchurch shooting death toll rises to 50 after unaccounted victim is discovered at mosque". ABC News. 17 March 2019. Retrieved 17 March 2019.
  13. ^ a b "Christchurch mosque terror: Accused killer smirked in court". Otago Daily Times Online News. 16 March 2019. Retrieved 15 March 2019.
  14. ^ Hunt, Elle; Rawlinson, Kevin; Wahlquist, Calla (16 March 2019). "'Darkest day': how the press reacted to the Christchurch shootings". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 16 March 2019 – via
  15. ^ "New Zealand mosque shooter is a white supremacist angry at immigrants, documents and video reveal".
  16. ^ Helsel, Phil. "New Zealand mosque shootings: 49 people killed in terrorist attacks on worshippers". NBC News. Retrieved 17 March 2019.
  17. ^ "Terrorist attacks on two Christchurch mosques leaves 49 people dead". Retrieved 17 March 2019.<ref name="auto1">"Christchurch mosque terror: Accused killer smirked in court". Otago Daily Times Online News. 16 March 2019. Retrieved 15 March 2019.
  18. ^ Hunt, Elle; Rawlinson, Kevin; Wahlquist, Calla (16 March 2019). "'Darkest day': how the press reacted to the Christchurch shootings". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 16 March 2019 – via

~ Anotheranothername (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

That would be fine by me, but I think we need to get consensus from the RFC first. AIRcorn (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Approve of the proposed wording and similar wordings where we are careful to detail when and by whom it was described as a terrorist attack (quoting those with most relevance e.g. the PM and police commissioner as in the above text). I think we should avoid directly describing it as a terrorist attack ourselves. Definitions (and scope) of terrorism are still argued about so we should avoid making the interpretation ourselves. Oska (talk) 05:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
There's something that is nitpicking at me but I can't see what it is, but otherwise I'm fine with the proposed text. There is no reason to use attribution to describe the working assumption this was terrorism-related, just avoid the factual statement in WP's voice. --Masem (t) 06:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with the inclusion of Bush's description until it is added to the body of the article. I don't agree that it is a "basic fact" that can be included in the lead but not the body. Nurg (talk) 06:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Anotheranothername: I was going to add this to the body, but can't find it in the citations you have given. Can you point out to me where Bush has said it was a terrorist attack. AIRcorn (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Aircorn: My bad, he said it was a "terrorist event." He says it at 0:37 of this video here after referring to the press conference where the PM directly called it an attack. Jacinda says the attack "can only be described as a terrorist attack" at 0:49 of this video. If a (Guardian) youtube video is iffy as a source it would be nice if someone else found a better one. I apologize for conflating the two like this and if people object to the "event/attack" thing I'd be happy to make some changes to the proposed wording in order to get it right. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay I didn't go through the video. Distinguishing between Event/Attack is probably only relevant if we quote them, so the above wording is still fine. I prefer written sources, but if we use the video it is probably best to make that clear in the reference.
I’d change “The attack resulted in 50 people killed...” to “The attack led/lead to the death of 50 people...” (I’m not sure whether led or lead is correct). Otherwise, it looks good. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
You're right, that's been bugging me this whole time as well. Good suggestion. Anyway, will wait for the end of the RfC. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
The past tense of "lead" is "led". There is a word "lead" pronounced like "led", but it refers to a chemical element with symbol Pb. ―Mandruss  07:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
The attack(s) neither resulted in people killed nor led to their deaths; both are weasel wordings; rather, the attack(s) killed people. The lead's current language is best: "The attacks killed 50 people and injured at least 50." But I don't think this RfC is about the precise wording of that sentence, and a consensus for the proposed language shouldn't immunize it against WP:BOLD copy edits that don't change its meaning. ―Mandruss  11:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. Disagree with proposed change. I think that there is consensus that this was a terrorist attack. Suggesting that the term has only been used by two officials amounts to improper relativisation. — kashmīrī TALK 20:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Kashmiri I happen to agree, actually. Yesterday there appeared to be some editors who were opposed to "terrorism" in wikivoice no matter what so I suggested this compromise. But the lead actually looks a lot better now... ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Notability of manifesto and political motivation[edit]

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

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

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

For your second problem, I would simply make liberal use of terms such as "self-described", "in his own words", etc... when needed. There is no OR going on if the article states something like "The shooter is a self-described ...". For the first problem, I believe it's worth a mention. It seems to me his entire goal was to radicalize the anglosphere and his manifesto was more prominent in this goal then the movie was.
We can use the 10 year test and simply look at Ted Kaczynski's WP article -- his manifesto is mentioned in the 2nd paragraph lead — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
The manifesto can be mentioned in the lead but I think it would be inappropriate to quote it, I understand some people prefer primary sources but I think we should abide by WP:RS and use secondary analysis rather than giving the killer space in Wikipedia to explain his murderous acts. People who want to read the manifesto can find it online somewhere, Wikipedia shouldn't use it as a source. Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Full text of Breivik manifestio was used as reference in those articles, though: Anders_Behring_Breivik#cite_note-202 & 2011_Norway_attacks#cite_note-manifesto1-31 Crusier (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Rooker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

People have many motivation to kill. Some killers are intelligent. Just read this RookerBowman (talk) 05:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

I agree with my very best wishes. This is a very ideologically motivated crime, and deserves to have the manifesto's content looked at under a critical eye as determined in the reliable sources. I felt that the way that the article mentioned the manifeso was more than adequate in that respect. The current section glosses over a lot of what was said in said manifesto, without citing and debunking with specific examples, and simply looks and reads sloppy, glosses over some of the deeper meaning that was presented in the writing, among other things. Tutelary (talk) 05:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Strongly oppose removal this is a crime that could not have happened without the extensive ideology that the manifesto (in a roundabout way) demonstrates. Cutting out a lot of the details here, be they his interpretation of European/Muslim history or Euro/Muslim current events or his views on modern Western politics, is sabotaging the reader's attempts to understand what happened. This is not (only) an NPOV issue, this is a basic quality issue.--Calthinus (talk) 05:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree but that section is ripe for coatracking. I think it looks better now than it did last night (KST). The article is about the attack, not the manifesto. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I also strongly oppose removing content about the manifesto, some editors may make the case that its undue and about the actual shooting. However when a separate page on the gunman himself is created, as with Anders' page the guy had motivations and there will be a section on the manifesto. Certain right wing ideologies like white supremacism and Balkan ethno-nationalisms played their part in his radicalisation.Resnjari (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The section is prone to abuse by inclusion of random details, but that is no reason to abuse it yourself by cutting relevant information. The test here is not "notability", which doesn't apply to individual details of an article; the test is relevancy. What Tarrant thinks of Donald Trump is almost surely irrelevant but some other aspects of his thinking may not be, if they help explain what put him at the door of the mosque with a bunch of guns. Wnt (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Since there is no total consensus on the removal of the large section, I made a recap that I think is reasonable ánd significant. I hope this is a welcomed compromise. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 08:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC).
Jürgen Eissink It's a good size, but may I ask what made you omit the part about Trump? That is surely as notable (due to Trump's notability) as the manifesto's namechecking of various mass murderers. This is why I favoured the heavily trimmed manifesto section in the first place.~ Anotheranothername (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Anotheranothername, I don't know which heavily trimmed manifesto section you mean, but I agree that might be added, so feel free to do so, as far as I'm concerned. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC).
Added. It's the same sentence and position/context from the larger manifesto section. I honestly think it is a good size and hits the basic points without being like... fetishistic about all the stuff in the manifesto. Hope this version will stick.~ Anotheranothername (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
It's not bad. I don't think we have to say US president Trump though, we are not introducing the others as "mass-murderer Anders Behring Breivik" etc. It also seems a bit redundant to say " refers to U.S. President Donald Trump" as well as "writing that he is a supporter of Trump" in the same sentence. Thats getting a bit nit picky though. AIRcorn (talk) 09:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Of course we should include Brevik and whoever else was inspiration for the shooter - according to him and how described in RS. My very best wishes (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Is this reply for me? i never said anything about not including Brevik. AIRcorn (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I am tragically too busy (I will keep trying to find time) to keep track of who did what here but there are a number of things I find problematic with the current version. Denny I am very sympathetic to your view of not turning this page into a platform for Tarrant's twisted manifesto but that does not mean we don't report on it -- it means we report what extensive secondary sources like these [[33]] [[34]] say. I don't necessarily want to go back to the old version, we can work from this one. His relation to the internet is significant, and is noted, but insufficienttly. That he mentioned Trump as a source of hope, a symbol of "renewed" white identity blablabla is significant -- without hope, he would have thought he was throwing away his life for nothing (EDIT: I see that this has now been re-included, thanks). His connections to far-right movements in parts of Europe like especially Serbia are also significant (his whole idea of some sort of pan-European Christian "nation" smacks of the Ottoman millet) -- as RS can show his views were not only home grown radicalization but also significantly "Balkan-grown" . These things and many more (I will be back with more sources, hopefully when I get a moment) have been purged from the page and that is unfortunate.--Calthinus (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Here's a lot of sourcing for how his ideology was "Balkan-grown" (via the Internet... and also his visits to the region [as confirmed by Bulgarian intelligence] [[35]]) [[36]] [[37]] (this one among other things also notes the Balkanization of Breivik whose own manifesto also has "Serbia", "Kosovo", "Bosnia" and "Albania" each appearing hundreds of times in the manifesto -- together over a thousand -- more than some common verbs). Indeed he was ["entranced with former Ottoman sites" as this RS demonstrates]. --Calthinus (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Excellent points! According to one of RS above "In a 74-page manifesto that he posted on social media, Tarrant said he was a white supremacist who was out to avenge attacks in Europe perpetrated by Muslims." And this is not just something "he said". This is something he actually did, and something supported by these investigations of his travel and international connections. All of that does belong to page. The manifesto is only a part of that, but an important part. Historically, such writings were significant ( Said Sergey Nechayev: "A revolutionary is a doomed man. He has no private interests, no affairs, sentiments, ties, property nor even a name of his own... Heart and soul, not merely by word but by deed, he has severed every link with the social order and with the entire civilized world; with the laws, good manners, conventions, and morality of that world. He is its merciless enemy and continues to inhabit it with only one purpose – to destroy it.") My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Except that the RS is utterly wrong stating "Tarrant said he was a white supremacist" – he simply did not say that. The word 'supremacy' or 'superior' is not in the manifesto. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC).

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

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

  • You can not remove a lot of relevant sourced information like that just by saying: "hey, this is not encyclopedic". You must explain why this sourced information was not encyclopedic. And no, a significant amount of sourced information about victims and perpetrator(s) is encyclopedic, including why he did it and how exactly the terrorist act has been planned. My very best wishes (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Denny While from the bottom of my heart I would not argue that the views or general info about the victims is not important, the fact is that as the sole reason they were killed was existing as Muslims, it will not tell readers much about the event itself. The motives of the killer, on the other hand, are a central aspect of the crime, especially in this case where we have an ideologically motivated mass murder. In what sort of ideological massacre is the ideology behind it more important to understanding it, than the innocent victims whose individual lives meant nothing to their killers? --Calthinus (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Calthinus, I think when the article on the gunmen himself is created (its bound to happen in coming weeks or months) a more detailed section on the manifesto will be apt there, like as in Anders Behring Breivik's article on him which is separate from the shooting he did.Resnjari (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Resnjari It's still better to have here a three or so sentence blurb mentioning at least some of the "Balkan" factors rather than only the fact that a meme-ified song played (many people who know of said song aren't even aware of its origins or meaning, it's just a funny military oaf playing an accordion to many who don't even know what the Balkans are). --Calthinus (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Calthinus, i agree wholeheartedly with that. But many editors thought that a trim down was needed and excluded those Balkan factors of the manifesto that were previously in the article. When they were in the article those Balkan factors kept either getting removed or targeted and i lost count of how many times i had to address that when it happened (most of those edits did not even have edit summaries). From observation the article is being edited at a fast pace so admins might not be keeping track of all edits.Resnjari (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Alas there is consensus which can be attained here. My very best wishes would you agree with a 2 or 3 sentence or so Balkan addition in the section? --Calthinus (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, certainly, but this is not really about the manifesto. See the previous paragraph about the perpetrator. My very best wishes (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Eh, are you negotiating edit space here? A contribution should be considered by it's content and quality, not it's amount of bytes. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC).
This really needs a focused RFC as the discussion here is all over the place. AIRcorn (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Aircorn: RfCs are more organized but also a much greater waste of time. More efficient are incremental mutually agreed upon compromises on individual points when you are dealing with something that is actually a collection of other statements -- not the best topic for an RfC as you'd end up with votes like "Oppose including sentence 1 and 2, include 3, exclude4, include 5-7...".--Calthinus (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
The best advantage of an rfc is they are a lot more binding. Here you may get a group of editors coming to an agreement, but then someone else will come along and change it and you are back to square one. Having an RFC to point to is a much stronger consensus to maintain. I would suggest that ideally two most likely options are developed and then a simple RFC is devised asking editors to choose which they think fits best. AIRcorn (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I would argue that multiple incremental mutually agreed upon compromises on individual points would take at least as long. Especially since in many cases they would be dependent, e.g. "Oppose including sentences 1 and 2 unless this modified version of sentence 3 is included." Few sentences stand in isolation. I would argue that there is no efficient way to do this as long as we write by committee. ―Mandruss  22:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I do think that having something on the Balkans is needed. He was clearly influenced by certain nationalisms of the region. And it was a motivation with his whole "Remove Kebab" thing and the many names of historical figures from over there. Most readers at the moment don't really understand the Balkan factor so a 2 or 3 sentences would go a long way to addressing it like "the gunman was influenced by so and so nationalism after having made trips to so and so countries etc" or something like that based on RS.Resnjari (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose to removing content from manifesto. The content that was stated in this edit should be restored. I already commented my thoughts, but I did want to make it unambiguous where I stand. Tutelary (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Are conspiracy theories always false?[edit]

The second sentence in the Manifesto subsection says: "The conspiracy theory [that is, Camus's Great Replacement theory] falsely claims that deliberately displace white people". I would like to consider whether the word falsely is appropriate in this section.

Are we trying to say that The Great Replacement theory is inherently false? Wouldn't that violate WP:OR, as well as WP:NPOV? Or is it a case of WP:OBVIOUS? That, by simply using the words "conspiracy theory", the reader will know (or should look it up), that this theory is almost certainly false? In other words, does Wikipedia insist that you follow every link in order to understand what is in this article? What if I had never heard of the phrase "conspiracy theory"? Would I then assume, as if told by God (or Wikipedia, take your pick), that this theory made false claims.

Off hand, I can think of four ways we can handle this:

  1. Leave it as is: "The conspiracy theory falsely claims that immigration..."
  2. Remove the word falsely all together: "The conspiracy theory claims that immigration..."
  3. Put it in context by including a source: "According to Politico, that conspiracy theory falsely claims that immigration..."
  4. Remove the entire sentence completely.
(There may be others.)

Now, just between you and me, I believe that The Great Replacement is a bunch of kaka. But it just struck me that, when I read the first words of that sentence ("The conspiracy theory falsely claims..."), Wikipedia was assuming facts not in evidence. I can imagine CNN doing what we're doing now (under time pressure) but I think that the PBS Newshour would put it in context.

Any thoughts? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

If you believe that it is kaka, then let's rest this, and let people defend it who actually want to defend it. --denny vrandečić (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I also feel, here and in other articles, that adding "false(ly)" to 'conspiracy theory' is over-emphasizing the obvious and quite cringy: what is it supposed to add, and does it not unnecessary raise a question for sourced proof of the falseness? I'd say remove the word. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC).

Doesn't "conspiracy theory" by itself imply a degree of falsehood or irrationality? I think that should be sufficient. Dreadwyrm (talk) 06:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I would say it's a WP:PEACOCK term. Or maybe WP:WEASEL. Whether or not it's demonstratively false is irrelevant. It's still an analysis of the facts, and not a fact in and of itself. Let the statement stand without the injection of opinion.  DiscantX 18:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It's moot now. The whole sentence has been edited out. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2019[edit]

Change heading to Christchurch Terrorist attack. As it certainly was not just a "shooting" . Megfalconer (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: It was already decided that the page title should not describe the attack as terrorist. Check this current discussion about how to word the lead. (You can find a link to the discussion of the page title there.) ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Direct link to previous discussion (move request) on renaming the article:
Oska (talk) 06:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Deadliest attacks in New Zealand?[edit]

Is this one of the deadliest attacks in New Zealand? If not, the deadliest? The article should state something. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

My own feeling is that these sorts of statements are tasteless and could be seen as encouraging perpetrators to "go for a new record", as disgusting as such a motivation would be. Wikipedia has a List of massacres in New Zealand article; readers can make their own comparisons there on numbers of fatalities etc. Oska (talk) 06:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Oska. Also this is a little complex and will quickly lead to original research. If you must, then see what secondary sources are calling it, the media love this kind of hyperbole? (Dushan Jugum (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)).
We already have a link under "See also" to List of massacres in New Zealand. As you'll quickly see if you look there, we've not had anything comparable in intent, so there's no point in adding any sort of comment in the article itself. - Snori (talk) 06:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I was not aware there was such a competition. WWGB (talk) 06:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Even if it is, let's wait for a WP:RS to say so before adding it. Melmann (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat template[edit]

In this edit a template was added to the article based on what was said in the edit summary to be an "assumption". To me, this looks like a lesser violation of WP:NLT more than anything, so I took it out. What do you think? Wnt (talk) 06:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The template is not a legal threat, but nor is it strictly necessary. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Deaths by citizenship[edit]

I am concerned that the death by citizenship table is original research. Looking through the sources many just say they were born there or came from there. I find it odd that only one (so far) had New Zealand citizenship. The sources are a bit of a hodge podge and with so many unknowns I wonder if we are better off waiting for something a bit more reliable. AIRcorn (talk) 09:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I can confirm the deaths of 5 Indians from one of the most reliable Indian news paper Link - The-dodo-bird (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Al Jazeera mentioned name of the victims with nationality in this link - The-dodo-bird (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
CNN has mentioned the names with nationality in

The-dodo-bird (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Aircorn: It's common for people to have dual citizenship, and often it may take time for people to get New Zealand citizenship. At least one of the victims, Osama Adnan, was in the process of getting NZ citizenship when he died. Victim Abdus Samad was naturalized as a New Zealand citizen. Junaid Kara is also an NZ national. Anyhow, if foreign governments make announcements about citizens of their own country who die in the event, it's absolutely relevant. They may or may not also have NZ citizenship. I strongly suggest adding the list back, so long as it's sourced. If there is a statement in a reliable source saying many had dual citizenship, that can be added too. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

2 of the victims were born and raised in fiji, 1 was there for a visit, the other has been there for 7 years, NZ only gives citizenship after 10 years so yeah a list should be added -- (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

There was a list, but someone deleted it (twice). Jürgen Eissink (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC).
This is a classic example of why OR is a bad idea. Being born and raised in Fiji doesn't preclude NZ citizenship by descent (which is from birth). [38] Nil Einne (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Assuming it's the same person, this source [39] does say the person was a NZ permanent resident which is the more important point when it comes to any table of victims by citizenship than how long he'd been in NZ. Nil Einne (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
BTW, I'm fairly sure the 10 year thing is wrong anyway. You need to have been NZ resident status for 5 years and meet some other requirements [40] [41] for NZ citizenship by grant. After applying, it may take about 8 months before you receive your citizenship if there are no hiccups. You can obtain resident status upon first arrival in NZ if you have the right visa [42]. So you can be a NZ citizen after less than 6 years in certain ordinary circumstances. The 10 years may come in different circumstances, for example, someone who studies in NZ then works then obtains a resident visa via this pathway although practically it'll be about 10 years 8 months or so depending on application times etc for the other stuff. [43] (While I haven't considered "extraordinary circumstances", they are another reason why OR is bad no matter the fairly low chance they apply.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The above sources do not always say citizenship. The say things like "originally from", "born in", "Of .... origin" etc. It is original research to say that they have retained the citizenship from where they have come from or not gained New Zealand citizenship. Also the requirement for NZ citizenship is five years[44] not ten, demonstrating further why we should not be making assumptions. Dual citizenship complicates things and makes the list misleading. I say we wait for a more complete list in a reliable source before adding it back. There is no problem presenting the info in prose where context can be made clear. AIRcorn (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Some may clarify whether they had citizenship or just origins; a close reading of the source is necessary: quoting the sources and putting the quotes in the ref may help. The big issue is juggling dual citizenships. This India Times source stated that one of the men with origins from India was a NZ national. Also notes that some of the victims of Palestinian origin had Jordanian citizenship and are listed as Jordanians (Also: The Palestinian Foreign Ministry said Saturday that at least four Palestinians were among those killed, but acknowledged they could have been counted by Jordan or other countries."). (Now the number of ethnic Palestinians seems to be six). I would suggest at this time building the list in the talk page, after carefully reading each source and quoting it. Also preliminary numbers can change. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Why the terrorist used guns ? Can this be added[edit]

I just went through his 74 page manifesto and he states that he wants balkanization in the United States, can this be added ? Look at the following from his Manifesto

  • Why did you choose to use fire arms?
  • I could have chosen any weapons or means. A TATP filled rental van. Household flour, a method of dispersion and an ignition source.A ball peen hammer and a wooden shield. Gas,fire,vehicular attacks,plane attacks,any means were available.I had the will and I had the resources.

This conflict over the 2ndamendment and the attempt ed removal of firearms rights will ultimately result in a civil war that will eventually balkanize the US along political,cultural and,most importantly,racial-lines. This balkanization of the US will not only result in the racial separation of the people within the United States ensuring the future of the White race on the North American continent,but also ensuring the death of the “melting pot” pipe dream. Further more this balkanization will also reduce the USA’s ability toproject power globally ,and thereby ensure that never again can such a situation as the US involvement in Kosovo ever occur again(where US/NATO forces fought beside muslims and slaughtered Christian Europeans attempting to remove these Islamic occupiers from Europe). The-dodo-bird (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Nothing should be added directly from his manifesto, unless RS point it out on the first place. Cinadon36 (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Cinadon36, there are some reliable sources please take a look, I think it's notable that he used guns just because he wants he wants balkanization in the States.


Who are the other people involved?[edit]

The wikipage says "On the day of the attacks, authorities stated that four suspects were arrested, one of whom was released that day. Also on that day, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern initially stated that three suspects were connected to the shooting, and the last person arrested was not connected. New Zealand intelligence officials had told the Prime Minister that there was no information indicating more suspects were involved other than those four already arrested" What happen to them? Who are them? if they are involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigre-samolaco (talkcontribs) 11:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

They were released because they were not involved; their names were not published. Fin. WWGB (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes the next paragraph explains what happened with the other people arrested or see here [45]. As WWGB has said, there's almost no chance the police will release the names of these people in relation to the attack. Nil Einne (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Did Brenton Harrison Tarrant act alone in both locations? If the other three people were not involved, is there anyone else part of the crime yet to be arrested? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigre-samolaco (talkcontribs) 12:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • @FloridaArmy: - you trimmed the info which was relevant to Tigre-samolaco's second question above. Still think it shouldn't be there? starship.paint ~ KO 13:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    To be fair, the trimming happened after the question above so even the original wording doesn't seem to have been clear to Tigre-samolaco. Either that or Tigre-samolaco didn't read it despite it being suggested to them. Nil Einne (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2019[edit]

Closing per suggestion by Nil Einne. I agree that continued discussion is not constructive. The proposed addition has unanimous opposition from five experienced editors whose comments demonstrate at least a basic understanding of relevant content policies. As for behavior policies, I suggest the OP read WP:BATTLEGROUND (in particular the second paragraph) and come back with a less confrontational tone. Those who disagree with us in content discussions are not our enemies. ―Mandruss  13:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


New Zealand Police submitted an email to the operator of web forum Kiwi Farms, Joshua Moon, requesting the retention of "IP addresses, email addresses etc" linked to posts relating to the shooting and Brenton Tarrant. Moon declined to perform the retention.[1][2][3]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

No. Just no. You need a better source than "One Angry Gamer", to start with. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Name a reliable source that you think would be acceptable, I'll write an email and get an article written for you. (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
On second thought, I don't feel the need to. One Angry Gamer seems to be accepted as a reference on a handful of articles already. (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
It depends on a topic. With a topic swarming with media coverage it's better to use newspapers of record. For an obscure video game topic with little coverage I can see "One Angry Gamer" being used. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
This isn't a gaming related article where such a source may be acceptable. Also since the subject of this article is so widely covered worldwide, at this early stage basically nothing should be in the article except for simple stuff where there's no debate over inclusion if it isn't covered in at least 5-10 different quality sources preferable independently (i.e. not just repeats of the same agency or whatever source). So find multiple quality reliable surces like NYT, BBC and stuff like that. If you present us 5 quality sources, we can start to talk. Note that this still doesn't guarantee inclusion. For example the Trump issue above I found about 10 sources and many of these look to be semi independent (at least 2 were agency but different agencies and I'm not sure if any of the others were) but still oppose inclusion. Nil Einne (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I've presented 4 sources discussing this. CNN is not going to discuss Kiwi Farms unless it's to blame the userbase for the shooting. (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
You've presented 4 links. None of them are RS for this sort of thing. Actually, I'm fairly sure 3 of them aren't RS point blank. Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
BTW, if you have to scrape the bottom of the source barrel to find sources, that's often a very good indication that whatever it isn't worth mentioning in even a normal article. In this case you're actually completely outside the barrel, and it's a barrel larger than Lake Baikal Nil Einne (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Your idea of bottom of the barrel and mine are very different. Usually when law enforcement sends an email using an official address asking a service provider to retain information I find that noteworthy. (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
It's not my idea, it's en.wikipedia's idea. If you don't believe me, try asking at WP:RS/N.Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a person. It has no ideas. Editor consensus is what creates and interprets policy. It is your idea. This location is a perfectly acceptable location to discuss the proposed edit. If you'd like to go somewhere else I won't stop you. (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Except consensus was achieved long ago. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources already mentions Zero Hedge. Nil Einne (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Good job. How about the other two you've ignored? (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
HTF is saying "This isn't a gaming related article where such a source may be acceptable" ignoring something? I'm not commenting further since your comments make no sense. I suggest someone else close this discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Good job. How about the other one you've ignored? I'm sorry I don't make any sense to you. Just because you're frustrated doesn't mean someone else should silence me. (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Sources two and four are the same source, which appears to have been written by a fictional character. Try WP:RSSE.~ Anotheranothername (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Explain. (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
See Tyler Durden Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I see a pseudonym, not a fictional character. Zero Hedge (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I would like to point out it has been less than a day since the incident in question. Even if unquestionably reliable sources cover this it won't be a high priority and this shouldn't be scrapped immediately. (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • The sources provided are not acceptable for this article; The lack of coverage by RS indicates this isn’t WP:DUE; There are no WP articles on Kiwi Farms or Joshua Moon suggesting they aren’t notable; You aren’t going to achieve consensus to include; Your snark about CNN is out of line in an article of a recent mass shooting. There is no there there. O3000 (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • 75, come back when you have better sources. Check your sources at WP:RSN. "Search this noticeboard & archives". starship.paint ~ KO 13:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Here's a "better" source, though to be honest they don't compare to any decent blog post that believes in citing primary sources. Round 2, anyone? Wnt (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

You only have one source (two with the one below). There's no point re-opening this until we have sufficient sources that it's at least worth considering IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Nil Einne: He's not trying to start an article, he just wants a sentence. We don't require multiple sources for every sentence, or you'd never see a reference at the end of a line by itself. And what's the harm in it? It illustrates social issues directly related to the shooting. Wnt (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The point is not that you need 5 refs for every sentence, but instead as I mentioned in the closed discussion that something which is so minor so that you can only dig out 2 RSes which mention it, is unlikely to be significant enough for us to cover. For nearly everything out we mention, it is possible to find at least 5 refs because these are stuff sources consider significant. The only prominent stuff I can think of where this may not apply is the country of origin stuff. But that's a more complicated case. For starters there are various problems with handling this so we have to take great care anyway, as mentioned in an earlier discussion. But also, the dispute over whether to include that info relates more to an "all or nothing" approach. If we do decide to include the info, there are clearly way more than 5 sources discussing the country of origin of victims. There may not be 5 sources for each victim, but the significance of the info and our decision to include it was partly informed by the fact it is something many think is significant. Again this isn't some minor subject that almost no source cares about. This is a shooting which continues to receive a massive amounts of attention. If you can only find 2 sources, it's fairly unlikely that info is significant. Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

A concern on motives[edit]

While I do not doubt at the end of the day, and by Occum's Razor, that the motives for the attack will be either or both of white supremacy and anti-immigration, it should be noted that it is at this point actually impossible to factually spell out a motive. Yes, we have the manifesto, but as the suspect remains alive and will be the subject of investigation, there may be different motivations than what the manifesto puts. We have to be careful about using mass media's "armchair analysis" here to ascribe motives before the official investigation and trial are concluded; media are not official enforcement bodies. Basically, its the whole "innocent until proven guilty" approach; we shouldn't be jumping to popular conclusions that can only by made by those in authority. --Masem (t) 14:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, but there is a certain amount of WP:BLUE here. I always remember the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting where a lot of the things that the media armchair experts said about the motive turned out to be wrong. In the case of the 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings, it would be very surprising if the motive was not white nationalist extremism.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
It is one thing if the suspect died; we'd only have the manifesto and his past history to go on, but that could still be misleading. I would have no problem that as long as where these are discussed as motives, they are noted as "presumed" to be clear they are not final, and should those motives changes after investigaton, no-harm-no-foul on WP as we made it clear they were preliminary assessments. But even then, we want those statements from officials, not from mass media analysis who are not part of the investigation. --Masem (t) 14:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
The alleged gunman did not kill himself, so at some stage we are likely to see him smirking at a trial like Anders Behring Breivik and reciting the reasons why he did it. I agree that Wikipedia articles should not prejudge official investigations, but in this case it would be unlikely if the motive was something other than white nationalist extremism.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
All my concern here is to make sure that any preliminary motives are noted as preliminary/presumed, and that these are only coming from law enforcement officials rather that mass media analysis. such as in the infobox, adding "{presumed)" after each that can be sourced this way, and other changes through the article. Once the official investigation is completed, then these can be removed. --Masem (t) 15:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • One motive listed is currently "Far right extremism" - after having read his manifesto, it is not clear to me that he is right wing; his values appear to be more inline with Christian extremism. Could someone explain why an attack on persons of non-white/European heritage (his claimed motive) is right wing? I suggest "Far right extremism" is replaced as a motive with "Tribalism", unless someone can clearly explain why he was right wing? He does not claim to be, but does claim to want to cause further tension between the already established political divide, particularly involving firearms in the US and predicts there will be a civil war there. His alleged motive is also strictly territorial, claiming to wish no harm upon his target demographic outside of a fairly predictable list of countries, which he considers to be being invaded. I suggest is added as a motive. He also stated that he will be smiling throughout the aftermath of the ordeal as he believes he is contributing towards a greater good. User:Bernabean
As I said in this edit summary, the manifesto is wide ranging and rambling nonsense from which people could interpret a range of motives. The article should also steer clear of the routine armchair expert hypothesis brigade, who are out in full force at this stage after a mass shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Many people like to jump to conclusions, as if to satisfy their own need for clarification, but the picture that emerges from Tarrants actions and words is pretty nuanced, even if the results and the image of his deed are not nuanced at all. For example, ianmacm says above "it would be very surprising if the motive was not white nationalist extremism", and I agree, but the article speaks of White Supremacy, which does not seem to be Tarrants view and is something different, whether we like it or not. Bernabean makes a good point too. So I agree with Masem that adding "(presumed)" would be an improvement and the good thing to do (not everywhere, but certainly on first mentions and in the infobox). Jürgen Eissink (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC).
  • Almost all RS (media) are attributing the attack to extreme-right and white supermacism. It doesnt even seem to be a matter of debate.Cinadon36 (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, obviously. My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • This case is very different from school shootings and even from the case of Breivik in one important aspect: it was committed in a place of worship and specifically against people who practice one specific religion. This is just as a matter of fact. What else motive can this possibly be except something already openly declared by the perpetrator? I do not see any problem with using the currently existing press coverage, as actually required by WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
In his manifesto, he claims that he targeted the mosque because it was an easy target, so he could kill more people. His manifesto says that Muslims do not represent his target, he says his target is any non-white European living on European soil. He noted some other advantages of piggybacking off of the existent tension surrounding Islamic extremism and his hope and expectation that this would accelerate an inevitable culture war. More than one popular media sources have taken obvious sarcasm from his manifesto seriously and shared it out of context, regarding Spyro being where he gained his ethno-nationalist (IIRC) views. Bernabean (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)BernabeanBernabean (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
The Orlando nightclub shooting is another case where the RS media "experts" got the motive wrong. They were convinced that Mateen had chosen Pulse simply because it was a gay nightclub, but this turned out to be unsupported. It is important to remember that the media does not determine the motive, the official investigators do. This is a common mistake, the RS are not infallible and have got things wrong in the immediate aftermath of mass shootings. Don't worship the media coverage at this stage of a mass shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Still, WP is "expert"-driven. Historians make mistakes as well. Everybody makes mistakes. WP is based on reliable media, such as NYT, Reuters etc. Cinadon36 (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
We document what RS say, and if they get it wrong, RS will correct it and we then change our content accordingly. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Except the mass media, unless they are quoting the police and authorities analyzing the case, are absolutely not the authority at this point - only until the investigation is complete. Everything they're saying is claims, but not factual, so we need to avoid putting their statements as factual. It is all related to the "innocent until proven guilty" aspect - not that this guy isn't guilty, but there is a whole legally-established process that the case will be reviewed through before a motive will be determined, and we shouldn't be jumping that gun just because RSes have. --Masem (t) 16:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Of course RS not infallible, and not only about current events, but in science and whatever. But it does not mean we should not follow WP:RS and WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Media say a lot of things here, and at best it seems the article is cherry picking: why choose as 'motive' in the infobox "white supremacy" and not "white nationalism"? Why "islamophobia", not "eco-fascism"? These alternatives can be found in RS too. And indeed: could not his motive turn out to be "tribalism" or "Christian extremism" or even something else? I'm quite sure in the days to come RS will raise those possibilities, if they have not already. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC).
In his manifesto, he claims that he targeted the mosque because it was an easy target, so he could kill more people. His manifesto says that Muslims do not represent his target, he says his target is any non-white European living on European soil. He noted some other advantages of piggybacking off of the existent tension surrounding Islamic extremism and his hope and expectation that this would accelerate an inevitable culture war. More than one popular media sources have taken obvious sarcasm from his manifesto seriously and shared it out of context, regarding Spyro being where he gained his ethno-nationalist (IIRC) views. Bernabean (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)BernabeanBernabean
His manifesto is a Primary Source, it is not upon us (wp users) to analyze. Cinadon36 (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Given that media sources are presumably deliberately analyzing it very obviously incorrectly for rhetoric, I will analyze it myself and share my thoughts here. The Spyro quote is a short paragraph of a very unrealistic proposal regarding the influence violent games (Spyro is not a violent game by almost anyone's standards) has had on him and follows this up with a new paragraph which only says "No." It is very obviously sarcasm. This is one issue we will continuously face with people not reading the manifesto themselves and taking journalist's interpretations as fact. Bernabean (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The source [1] used for the motive of white supremacy says "...were allegedly carried out by white supremacists" - this is no source whatsoever, just journalists quoting other journalists. Bernabean (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
In previous articles about mass shootings, there has been a consensus not to use media reports to determine the motive ahead of the official investigation. We are now moving towards a similar situation here. While all the signs are that the shooter was a crackpot, the specific brand of crackpottery should be left to the official investigation, not journalists.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
There is a clear consensus here and in several discussions above to describe this act of terror as related to white supremacism. The sourcing is indisputable and impeccable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
As long as its attributed to those opinions, then yes. But there cannot be any factual assertion of this at this point while the investigation and trial are open. The media have zero legal authority to make that distinction here. --Masem (t) 17:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof: The claim of 'clear consensus' is very misleading, because there is not consensus on that. The closed discussion above was about whether to include 'white supremacism' in the lead. And the claim of 'indisputable and impeccable sourcing' is not very convincing either. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC).
The sourcing is not indisputable (given that the manifesto is being suppressed and interpreted for us by potentially politically motivated journalists) and it's certainly not impeccable (the source provided for the motive of white privilege provides no real evidence, only speculation), your argument is the logical fallacy of the bandwagon[2]. There is a very clear consensus in this section (a concern on motives) that the currently listed motives require improvement. Bernabean (talk) 05:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are, by definition, to be primarily based upon reliable secondary sources such as those written and created by journalists. Your unsupported and frankly conspiracy-mongering description of those journalists as "potentially politically motivated" is both inappropriate and suggests that you may not be able to contribute to this article in a policy-compliant manner. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Does the fact that media agencies are potentially politically motivated really need sourcing? Well, here you go. [3] Regardless, remove "potentially politically motivated" from the post and my point still stands. Regardless of their motivation, plenty of news sites are taking the manifesto out of context, [4][5] see the references made to Spyro and how these articles haven't pointed out that it was very clear and obvious sarcasm; though I should point out these sources aren't being used on this WP page AFAIK. Do WP users not have any responsibility to vet the sources used? My point is that the source provided for "white privilege" is NOT a reliable source due to the source admitting that him being a white supremacist is "alleged". Are you OK with using that as a source? I'm not denying that he is a white supremacist, but according to his own manifesto (in my interpretation) he is at least as territorial as he is a white supremacist, yet media isn't reporting this, so we're unable to add it as a motive? Whilst his motive regarding territory as according to his manifesto could possibly be reduced to absurdity, it is still clearly one of his motives, as according to his own manifesto which, in this case, sadly cannot be directly quoted. Bernabean (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Another name[edit]

Washington Post is reporting the name of one more suspect. ( 18-year-old) [46] Should we include? Cinadon36 (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The involvement of the 18 year old man is said to be "tangential" [47] (ie he wasn't a major player). The preceding BBC News source has not named him, and the Wikipedia article should not name him unless he turns out to be a major participant or accomplice in some way.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
(EC) I don't know who the WP is naming but since the police have said at the moment they do not suspect anyone else of involvement in the attack, the answer is clearly no we shouldn't be naming random people. Some people appear to have done dumb or disgusting stuff in possible or probable response to the attack and may be charged for it, but that's a different thing. It's also possible people will be charged for completely unrelated things uncovered as a result of the investigations, although so far I haven't heard of any. (Some of those arrested earlier probably fall into this category, but AFAIK the only one charged not quite.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


As of that article, it sounds like he was one of the people we should "seriously consider" not naming. Really, the most usable part of BLP policy is when it talks about whether information is "presented as true". The Washington Post says a connection was alleged. It doesn't say his charges are connected, and it certainly doesn't name him as the shooter the way that much of the press is doing with Tarrant. AFAICT we just don't know this person is genuinely relevant to this article. Wnt (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Minor addition request[edit]

(I'm a bit new to this)

This is regarding the 1st note "The markings included...". The writing in Armenian script can be seen on the 3rd picture on this site: [1]. The lower left bottom writing says "Սարիղամիշի ճակատամարտ", which refers to this battle: [2]. I have compared the Armenian script on the magazine to the script on the wikipedia article.

I would suggest adding: ... the 1913 Battle of Bulair, the 1914-15 Battle of Sarikamish, the 2010 Rotherham... (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


You should find a source that confirms this. Although this is very astute on your part, on wiki we have this policy about "original research" that requires that we instead cite everything to a reliable source. Thanks though.--Calthinus (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Tarrant's February or March 1991 birthdate[edit]

These sources state that Tarrant recently celebrated his birthday prior to the massacre:

Is this anything useful to add? SmokerOfCinnamon (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that we don’t need that much information on the murderer. IWI (chat) 19:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree. And, while I may be missing something, I don't see how you arrive at "celebrated his birthday prior to the massacre" from a passage about a birthday during his childhood, for which no date reference is given. ―Mandruss  21:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
The use of the word "celebrated" would have been problematic as well, almost as if we're somehow praising him. A more NPOV word would have to be used if this somehow ends up in the article. IWI (chat) 21:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Alright. SmokerOfCinnamon (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

A sentence completely missing from the code?[edit]

He was described in media reports as a 28-year-old Australian white supremacist[14][21][5][22][23][1][6] who used neo-Nazi symbols.[22][23]
I can't find this sentence anywhere in the code of the article. Why is it so? It needs editing, and nobody except for me sees an issue with it!--Adûnâi (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
And now it has been removed! Doesn't it have enough sources to remain?--Adûnâi (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It was eventually edited because of it claiming the shooter to be a white supremacist. Also, what do you exactly mean by "is not in the code of the article", since it quite clearly now is. --Asdfäölkjhgfdsa (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


‘It is the worst mass shooting in modern New Zealand history.’ Is this language, “worst” OK? Would “It is the mass shooting with the most amount of casualties in modern New Zealand history.” be better? Iokerapid (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Don't really care whether "worst" is ok or not, but "most amount of casualties" is awkward and adds unnecessary wordage. Shorten it to just "most casualties". Mr rnddude (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
If you don't like "worst" then replace with "deadliest", not the unwieldy suggestion above. Statements in the lead should be succinct. WWGB (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, I've done this now. Ross Finlayson (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. The phrasing that I added came from Terrorism in New Zealand § Christchurch mosque shootings. —Hugh (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Is "It is the deadliest mass shooting in modern New Zealand history" (or similar) in the CNN reference given, I can not find it? (Dushan Jugum (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC))
See under heading "Death toll rises to 50",[48] it reports "the biggest massacre in New Zealand's modern history". WWGB (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)).

Ardern visits Christchurch / interfaith gatherings across the nation on March 17[edit]

I'm too tired and unfocussed now to add it myself, but maybe someone could add a section on gatherings and tributes on Sunday, including a haka to honour the victims. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC).


I added a video report that I think is informative, sincere, consoling and appropriate. Please discuss if you disagree.

I also uploaded a video of the moment of arrest of Tarrant, but I think at the moment I would not add it to the article – thoughts? Jürgen Eissink (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC).

On second thought, I did add the video of the arrest, because people want to see this, I think. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC).
@Jürgen Eissink: Where do you see this Creative Commons license you talk about? It would seem strange that the news channel got hold of a cellphone video, carefully censored it to the point of near uselessness, then licensed their creation for general use. Wnt (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Strange as it might seem to you, the license is right there on the YouTube source. I don't really get what you are trying to say, Wnt. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC).
(EC) It's in the description. It's not particularly 'strange' since from what I can tell it's the default licence that channel uses for all their Youtube uploads. However that channel does not appear to be in any way associated with TVNZ since it has no tick and the description seems to be copied from wikipedia [49]. The official One News channel is here [50]. Even if it were the official One News channel, since there's no evidence TVNZ is the copyright holder of the original video I think we'd need evidence they actually had permission from the copyright holder (or the copyright had been transferred to them) to licence it in that way. Nil Einne (talk) 04:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
It's been "flickrwashed", or in this case "youtube washed". There is no likelihood that the owner of the cell phone footage allowed the network to release it under a CC license. It's a copyright violation to include. --Masem (t) 05:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Christchurch Mosque Shooting -- Flowers at the cordon.webm is extreamly unencyclopedic and without context seems to be part of Wikipedia. 'Stay strong'? also his tone is fine, but is not neutral it is is sympathetic, hushed and respectful. As one long quote it is also out of place, would we cut and past a whole newspaper article the same way. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)).
  • I don't think it is less encyclopedic than the video and the photograph of Ardern. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC).
  • Great we agree. I will delete the news report and I will not complain if you wish to delete the other.(Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)).

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2019[edit]

Please change the word suspect to terrorist. (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Not found guilty (yet) EvergreenFir (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Is 'perpetrator' New Zealand English?[edit]

I'm unsure of this, but to my Australian (maybe close to New Zealand) ears, perpetrator doesn't quite sound right. It has more of a US English tone. Would we be better off using suspect, or suspected attacker as the article is in New Zealand English?Mozzie (talk) 07:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I used to think the same, but plenty of NZ sites use the term.[51] WWGB (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I was going to leave this, but then scrolling through the article just then I noticed that the term gunman is predominant throughout the article. Therefore, for consistency, I changed the two remaining references or perpetrator to gunman as well as the four mentions of attacker. If someone thinks another term is more appropriate I'm happy to change the term back, but just take care with links if doing global replaces.Mozzie (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Context matters. Talked about in a legal sense, perpetrator might make more sense than gunman. Talked about in terms of f.i. self-defence, attacker might make more sense than gunman or perpetrator. And when paraphrasing a source, it might even be a bad idea to change perpetrator into gunman; you can not just go whitewashing an article like that. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC).

Candace Owens reference[edit]

The manifesto section currently reads: "He also mentions Candace Owens as a major influence: 'The person who has influenced me above all is Candace Owens'.[85] The shooter is clearly trolling here, as he does throughout the manifesto. The absurd nature of this claim increases when he later says of Owens, "Though I will have to disavow some of her beliefs, the extreme actions she calls for are too much, even for my tastes.”(source) It's dishonest to mention Owens here without clarifying the shooter's aim, which is to cast her in negative light, because in all likelihood he despises her, and is using her as the butt of one of his many sick jokes throughout the manifesto. It's also dangerous, given the possibility that a reader could take it seriously and seek revenge. - HappyWaldo (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The Candace Owens Line[edit]

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

This article in The Atlantic is interesting. It says that the manifesto was "designed to troll" which is a common feature of 8chan, 4chan and similar sites. Quote from the Atlantic article: "Together, the posts suggest that every aspect of the shootings was designed to gain maximum attention online, in part by baiting the media." I agree that some of the things said in the manifesto should be taken with a large pinch of salt because they look like routine message board trolling. Some of the MSM sources haven't picked up on this. As the saying goes, This is Bait.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
With that Atlantic article as well as a National Review article, I expanded a paragraph on the Manifesto about trolling, and brought up the PewDiePie reaction into that as it is related to what these articles are saying. There's more than enough sources that talk of this being shitposting rather than a serious document. --Masem (t) 15:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Very obvious throwaway reference that the author probably got off on. Not notable.--Calthinus (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

There ya go[edit] (talk) 09:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • WP is not a forum, the above link is not directly related to the Article. Cinadon36 (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
You still only have one source. As said the last time, come back when you have 5 or more and we can start to talk. There is no point announcing every one source you find. P.S. FWIW One Angry Gamer appears likely to be rejected even for gaming articles Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#One Angry GamerNil Einne (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Wait, what? Five? What are you smoking? By the time he gets that he could start his own article on this point. With two he might face an AfD with the probable result of ... merging the content back here. Why don't we cut to the chase and save some time: put the fact in the article and move on. Wnt (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
As I explained above, this is an article with an extreme amount of coverage in RS at this time. It's highly questionable the relevance of any material which is only covered in 2 RS. Even that may not be enough. We still don't cover the kerfuffle over Trump's white nationalist comments despite it being covered in far more sources and was even something the PM was asked about. As things stands, it appears no one really gives a flying flip over what nonsense the Kiwi Farms want to talk about. Nil Einne (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing wrong wth using this article from an RS to mention at least that 8chan, Kiwi Farms, and Voat are all under investigation as the suspect posted materials there. --Masem (t) 13:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Let's be clear the OP's proposal is

New Zealand Police submitted an email to the operator of web forum Kiwi Farms, Joshua Moon, requesting the retention of "IP addresses, email addresses etc" linked to posts relating to the shooting and Brenton Tarrant. Moon declined to perform the retention.

If you have some other proposal I'm not sure it's best to discuss it in this thread since it's only of marginal relevance. Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Which, as I said, is related to the three sites being investigated per the above article. I've added about this investigation (one sentence) in the video section since its part of the NZ authorities trying to lock down this video where it logically fits; I didn't put anything about how the sites are reacting, yet. --Masem (t) 14:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Masem’s addition to the article. It’s worth the one sentence note, and there is a relevant subsection in this article for it. starship.paint ~ KO 15:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
It would undoubtedly be notable if the New Zealand police became so annoyed with Joshua Moon's refusal to co-operate with the investigation that they applied for a subpoena in a US court. At the moment, Moon is laughing in their faces, but he would not be laughing so much if he received a subpoena.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, how Moon is responding is too much weight on something we don't know is undue. --Masem (t) 15:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

There's another. (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2019[edit]

Perpetrator also listened to "Grün ist unser Fallschirm" by Fallschirmjäger during the attacks. Mathiaslolkmagn (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Not done: This is correct and the in car audio playlist also included "Gas Gas Gas". But WP:V becomes involved, and there doesn't seem to be RS for this at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
How do you know it's correct then? Benjamin (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, his playlist in the car seems like a tangential point. Because he was riding around in a car full of guns with the windows shot out from the inside I suppose some of the victims on the road and witnesses might have heard it, so it's not completely irrelevant to the shooting, but until we get the proper meat of the article developed, by which I mean the stories of the people inside the mosque, stuff like this is going to be at great risk of being axed by procrusteans looking to balance everything out to nothing. Wnt (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
There are numerous less-than-reliable sources giving the full music playlist in the car, and you could watch the 17 minute livestream video if you really wanted to. As with everything else about the shooting, the music playlist has been chosen for maximum troll effect. On another note, Arthur Brown dissociated himself from the use of his 1968 song "Fire" in the video.[52] I wondered if this was notable enough. What do others think?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I think pretty much anyone who was in some way reference or had their material used and could be contacted has disassociated themselves. This includes for example the singer of Serbia Strong as mentioned in that article. (The in/famous accordion player is evidently deceased.) An exception is the obvious e.g. those actually involved in previous attacks etc. (I mean I'm not expecting comment from Anders Behring Breivik saying the shooter was wrong.) Although I wouldn't be surprised if even some of the more minor ones like those who just killed one or two people, at least publicly, disassociate themselves from this attack. I'm not convinced it's useful for us to list the rejection of every single person the nutcase somehow mentioned or involved in the attack especially since that would also require us mentioning these random people or the material in the first place. (In case it's unclear, that means I'm fairly doubtful there is a good reason to have an entire track list of the video.) Maybe it would be better to treat it like the country reaction stuff and limit it to some key examples primarily based on coverage with the rest in foot notes? Or alternatively only list rejections of those who we actually feel are useful to mention. (There would need to be a good reason why we mention that element in our article in the first place.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2019[edit]

Change “The gunman live-streamed part of the attack on Facebook Live” to “The gunman live-streamed the first attack on Facebook Live”. Removes ambiguity and clarifies that there were multiple attacks. 2600:1000:B032:89AF:8412:D08A:D71C:1B4E (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I originally wrote "first attack" but it has been changed to "part of the attack". I don't know why, does anyone? -Lopifalko (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Possibly because the live stream starts before the first attack and ends after he'd driven towards the second destination for a while, while letting off the occasional pot-shot. Nil Einne (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, at one stage after the Al Noor Mosque attack and while he is driving away, he lets off a pot shot out of the left hand front window of the car, shattering it. This is part of the attack, so I think the wording is better.--13:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Time of the Linwood attack?[edit]

There doesn't seem to be a public consensus on just when the attack at the Linwood Islamic Centre started. Very few of the many news outlets who covered the attack venture a precise time. Two of them are:

  • 1:55 p.m.:, which cites ​Latef Alabi, the Linwood mosque's acting imam, who said he heard a voice outside the mosque at about 1.55pm".[1]
  • 2:10 p.m.: Deutsche Welle, in "Timeline of New Zealand terror attack": "14:10...At the same time, a shooter enters Linwood..."[2]

Which time is right? The shooter apparently started the first attack at 1:40 p.m. at the Al Noor Mosque, then drove four miles through the center of the city before attacking Linwood. This would seem to favor DW's version of events, but of course we're not supposed to guess at such things. Perhaps the article should note the uncertainty, the paucity of sources, and the discrepancy? PRRfan (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

You have there a source that is written in the first half day after the beginning of the shooting, when things were not cleared up. The source isn't very precise about the times too. There were initially reports of several shooters: it's like you are now saying "there seems to be no consensus on the number of attackers", based on an old source, while we are now three days further in time and have more information. Don't stick to one old article. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC).
That is a very good point, PRRfan. Based on my "original" research, both times are inaccurate and it was probably about half-way between the two reported times. Maybe a well researched timeline will eventually be published by a genuinely reliable source. As the person who added the 1:55 time to the article, I am happy now for you to alter that. Note in the info I removed in that edit, that Deutsche Welle had previously said 2:40, which they have since changed, without any acknowledgement (that I can see) that they edited their article. Nurg (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Jürgen Eissink, although the Stuff article was indeed written several days after the DW one, it attributes the time to one witness who gives an approximate time. This is not terribly convincing, or at least no more so than the DW piece, which at least evinces an attempt to bring various resources to bear on the question. Until we have a more definitive timeline, I propose to write "...continued at the Linwood Islamic Centre some minutes later; various sources give 1:55 and 2:10 p.m." with cites attached to each time. Sound good? PRRfan (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
No, it doesn't sound good to me. While I don't get the fixation of some editors on the exact time frame (I proposed to remove the completely useless detailed time from the lede, but to no avail), it's easy to deduce from (1) the first attack started at 1.40, (2) that attack lasted 6 minutes, (3) the ride to the next site is appr. 4 miles/6 km, (4) Tarrant at some points drove like the madman he is, that (conclusion) it did not take him 24 minutes to drive 4 miles. But if you want to maintain your point, I strongly suggest you get some better sources, but please don't feel the need to ping me again, because I think I have been clear and I'm not the head editor here. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC).
I'd love to have better sources. I looked; couldn't find any. I'm not at all dedicated to having an exact time in the lead. But I do think it necessary to do our best to establish a time at least in the Attacks/Linwood section. To that end, it would be useful to know your source for the 6-minute duration of the Al Noor attack. PRRfan (talk) 03:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, I've seen the video, but that doesn't count, so let me Google for you. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC).
Hey, while you're Googling, perhaps you could add that to the article? Just a thought. PRRfan (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Are you even serious? Jürgen Eissink (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC).


  1. ^ "Man who scared away gunman at Christchurch mosque hailed a hero". Stuff. 2019-03-18. Retrieved 2019-03-18.
  2. ^ Welle, Deutsche (2019-03-15). "Timeline of New Zealand terror attack | DW | 15.03.2019". DW.COM. Retrieved 2019-03-18.

This article needs MUCH more about the people in the mosques[edit]

We need much more of the sort of detail described here: [53] Yeah, that's not a great source, but I like their attitude, and if you search a random name from it you'll find better sources, even for people not known to be victims (e.g.). There is a very unhealthy tendency in some Wikipedia articles to forget that the people killed and wounded and missing are the biggest part of any mass shooting story. If a moose walks out in front of a school bus, our article shouldn't be all about what happened to the moose. Wnt (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Except, victim lists tend to fail WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, barring if any of these people had some type of role in trying to stop the shooter. --Masem (t) 14:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
At some point when all of the victims are named, someone is going to add all of them to the article. Personally I would oppose this per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:BLPNAME for the victims' relatives, but experience at other articles suggests that some users will insist on the full list.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I happen to disagree with WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:BLPNAME. But my unsuccessful attempts to argue against them — for example, that articles about military actions should include the names of of U.S. troops killed in them — suggests that this policy has become rather firmly embedded in WP practice. PRRfan (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • If any victims were significantly covered in multiple RS in connection with the shootings, some info about them must be included simply per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually not really. NPOV talks about making sure to give appropriate weight to significant viewpoints, and the like, and certainly not to omit major viewpoints from authoritative RSes. It does not say anything about weight of various facts, and that's where WP:NOT takes over instead. We're summarizing the event, and going into any more significant details about the victims , outside those that were already notable, is not summarizing. Their individual identities is indiscriminate information in the context of the larger picture around this event. --Masem (t) 22:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Fraser egging[edit]

I think we should mention here, he was a senator.

What hot water a politician in a complete separate country got into for statement made related to the incident have extremely very little relevance on this incident itself. It can be discussed on Fraser's page, but linking it here would be inappropriate. --Masem (t) 14:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2019[edit]

Edit to clarify streaming sources. Was first streamed on [1] then moved to facebook live

Addition of the music played during the attacks (over the attackers car speakers during the recorded video) "Kocayine - SERBIA STRONG!" ( "The British Grenadiers - Fife and Drum" ( "Grün ist Ünser (Fallschirm Remix)" ( "Crazy World of Arthur Brown - Fire " ( "Manuel - Gas Gas Gas" (

Addition of car driven as some sort of Subaru (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The video is a bit complicated. LIVE4 GoPro is an Apple/Android app that allows login with a Facebook account, then shows the videos on Facebook.[54] As far as I can see, does not host or stream the videos itself on its website.[55]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ "NO VIOLENCE". LIVE4. Retrieved 18 March 2019.

Remove all those names he dropped in his manifesto[edit]

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

What she said. O3000 (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Ditto. Being "named in a manifesto" does not reach the level of any meaningful connection. I could use the NY phone directory if someone wrote their "manifesto" on its pages - being mentioned where there is no actual nexus between two persons is absurd. Collect (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not in disagreement with the above, but I do want to point out that in considering how the manifesto may just be a "shitpost" (stuff I added this morning), that RSes do mention PewDiePie and Cadance Owens regularly on this point, not so much putting any blame on them but that the manifesto may be designed to target these people by their critics for the blame game. As long as we're iterating that point by RSes, those two names should be kept. (And should Owens state something similar to PewDiePie that must be included). I do think the names help only to broadly categorize whom the attacker was praising but we can do that without the names, I think. --Masem (t) 16:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The author of the manifesto showed a shrewd understanding of the world of alt-right memes and trolling, and some MSM sources fell into this well known trap. Wikipedia should be made of sterner stuff, and make clear that the manifesto is intended to troll. This leads to WP:BLP problems for the living persons named in it. They probably should not be named, or if they are mentioned, there needs to be context explaining the trolling mentality.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with IanMa above, the entire point of the manifestio was to troll and can possibly lead to WP:BLP issues on the people who are named in it.TheMesquitobuzz 17:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

P.S. I am drafting a proposed redo of the paragraph, which I will propose here shortly. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Due to the agreements above, and the urgency of dealing with BLP issues, I am going to go ahead and replace that paragraph with one that does not name any persons. We can continue to discuss and tweak here. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Done. I wanted to remove the Pew-de-pie reference too, but it had been so widely reported by Reliable Sources I felt I had to leave it in. I did remove the name of the channel's owner. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Good move. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Everything else is fine but I disagree that we need to remove PDP's real name. That's his online alias, not really a channel name, and his is clearly public figure with a well known, long-established link between real name and online alias. Importantly we have his statement that distances himself from the attack, which is a necessity for BLP purposes; The others haven't spoken out yet about their inclusion so I agree removal there is appropriate to avoid implication (even though as worded by the press, they are clearly not trying to implicate any of these other BLPs) --Masem (t) 19:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
RE PDP: All of the sources used his real name, and he replied personally. If someone wants to restore his name that would be OK with me. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I've readded his name, but that's the only name that should be added at this point. --Masem (t) 20:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Imo we mention names if reliable sources provide a reason why they are relevant. It should not be wikipedia editors making the decision.--Calthinus (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Calthinus: my thoughts exactly. Cinadon36 (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Calthinus. If he baited the worlds press and they took the bait, then it is notable. If a section of the press describes it as ~bait then we can give it context. Using the manifesto as a primary source is going to lead to original research or quoting harmful nonsenses at length. Reporting the secondary interpretation of it is what we are here for. Use the names on a case by case, based on RS. Don't mind-quite like the changes made to the section though, just want the door left open. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)).
"the manifesto is intended to troll", "the entire point of the manifestio was to troll" – this is completely ignoring that the manifesto was for the large part a lot more than that, namely an exposition of his worldview and his radical solutions to make the world – in his view – a better place. Do you think the court will ignore the manifesto 'because it is only trolling'? You let yourself being carried away if you really want to maintain that "the manifesto is only trolling". You might as well say the whole shooting was trolling and therefore should be ignored. Get a grip. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC).
By the way, the manifesto opens with Do not go gentle into that good night. I wouldn't call that trolling. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC).
At least when I added it, I carefully made the point that it is a possibly raised by journalists that this is trolling. We will not know if it is or not until the investigation is over, but there's also more than enough press coverage of this idea of it being a trolling action to not include at this point. This is why this point is also after all the serious threats or statements made about manifesto. --Masem (t) 20:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
In my point here I don't care in itself whether the manifesto should be elaborated extensively in this article, and it should and probably will get it's own page, but I react on the arguments you and others give. It keeps puzzling me how people here think they are able to interpret RS but refuse to even read the words of the suspect on which they spent days of their life to write an article on. If you would have only looked at the manifesto, you would know that the trolling might indeed very well be an element of the style of minor parts of it, but instead you get stuck in the trolling narrative of some RS editors and journalists, many of whom are not equipped at all to reflect on the broadness of an issue like this and are for a large part only parroting, if not confusing memes and motives in a powerless attempt to deduce meaning themselves. You, like many others, mix up the trolling parts of the manifesto with it's actual content. Maybe the trolling parts were deliberate attempts to gain extra attention (as if the massacre itself would not be enough of a statement), maybe (I'd say: likely) they were just a reflection of his mindset, but either way it's nothing but pretext to the content of the manifesto, and downplaying the importance of the manifesto for the attacker's motives is at least silly. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC).
That's the whole issue of original research. We as WP editors cannot seem to show any expertise on the manifesto - we can read what it has but we can't make any conclusions on our own. We have to turn to RSes. And that's where right now it seems most RSes are going past anything "serious" about the manifesto and compare it closer to a shitpost because its all over the place. Now, I am sure there are scholars and other analysts out there reading the manifesto and trying to develop a psychological profile, or try it to anything else, etc. That will take time. They are doing what we cannot. --Masem (t) 21:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
WP editors can make conclusions of their own, they just can not add their own conclusion directly to an article. We can show expertise and share opinion on Talk pages. Every editor makes considerations based on own conclusions. Editors can debate about which sources are more to the point than others on a certain subject, and different existing views can be addressed in the article. RS should not be taken at face value, especially in an epoch where they have failed the public time and again. It's not a crime to be critical, and for an editor that likes to take on major issue's it should not be a difficult task to ascertain from the primary source that to shelve the source as mere trolling is, if not malicious, a sad (self) deception. In a way, I think, partially the trolling is the message, and the message should not be ignored. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC).

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

  • The answer to that question is most likely just: "Oh, well here's a thing that's not on the Wikipedia article. Let me just add that in." This is one of the reasons why we can't behave like automatons when editing. Scrutinize your sources, cross-check with other sources, consider if the addition is useful, helpful, necessary. These are vital editorial processes that go above and beyond "well it appears in RSes". Mr rnddude (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I think there's some common sense here. People that were named are all public figures, and those names were being pulled from reliable sources. So it seems reasonable (not that it necessarily is). Add that while there's active attempts to pull the video, there's little being done that I've seen about the spread of the manifesto. If it were the case that the authorities wanted the document kept a secret and some reliable press source leaked all those names, that would be definitely a reason to keep the names out. --Masem (t) 20:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
      • We should not have included, ever, names of people he wanted assassinated. Also, a lot of the names are listed with the intent to troll -- and it is specifically RS that say so (example: Candace Owens) so we have RS arguments for exclusion. In other cases -- Breivik, Trump, etc -- this does not apply as that is not the tone sources have taken. It's really pretty simple and not unethical.--Calthinus (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • If name of person X was mentioned in the "manifesto" and was discussed in multiple RS in relation to the shootings (including "manifesto"), this must be actually included per WP:NPOV. It does not matter who these people are. For example, Breivik definitely qualify. My very best wishes (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
You may be right about Breivik. Our article mentioned him only in passing, as one of many terrorists that he approved of (along with the likes of Dylan Root). However, Reliable Sources are making a much bigger deal out of a connection or inspiration between this attack and Breivik. Examples: Foreign Policy and the Norway Local. And the Sydney Morning Herald reports that the manifesto claims he had been in "brief" contact with Breivik; so does WaPo. I think we need to add a sentence about him. I'll do it. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Link to Manifesto[edit]

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

Gas Gas Gas place in a wrong order[edit]

Gas Gas Gas by Italian musician was the song which gunman played after his attack,he drove on the road in a fast speed while this song is playing according to the livestream. Patricklo0615 (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Complete list of victims[edit]

Can we have a complete list of all the victims of the murderer? The murderer has a full section detailing his name life and bio, while the victims remain anonymous. History should erase the name of the murderer but the victims should be remembered. We can use this list as a guide:

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

These lists have become a major point of contention at each new mass killing article. Usually there is no consensus to include one, so someone starts an RfC on the question, and sometimes the RfC also fails to reach consensus. Per WP:ONUS, all disputed content is omitted unless there is a consensus to include it. I am opposed to such lists for various reasons that can be briefly summarized as (1) lists of names add nothing to reader understanding of the event and are not encyclopedic, and (2) naming random victims infringes on their privacy and that of their families, which does not become unimportant when they are killed. We have no way of knowing that the dead would care to be "remembered" in this Wikipedia article. I am less strongly opposed to lists that provide descriptive information but omit names, but some of the same arguments against also apply to them.
Your comments about the victims should be remembered and a nice tribute to the innocent victims are inconsistent with Wikipedia principles; Wikipedia articles are not memorials, and we don't let emotion determine our content. ―Mandruss  00:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a "tribute" site. Does adding the names improving the readers understanding of the article topic? All pointed out above, just worth repeating. --Malerooster (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a tribute, being on a page is not an honour. Perhaps this idea should be taken to the 9/11 page or the one on the bombing of tokyo. I do not think such lists will improve the pages use as an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a memorial and we should have very similar rules for a mass shooting as any other page.(Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)).

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

See also section[edit]

I removed a link that was already in the article. I also tweeked the "warning" note a bit. I haven't followed the edit history to see what the deal was but I will. I would not add the Quebec and Cave of Patriarchs since that could grow to include a lot of other links almost list like, which this section is not intended for.--Malerooster (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Change "white supremacist" to "white nationalist"[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

  • Question as I am not an expert in this terminology: is it accurate to call Tarrant a 'white nationalist' in a New Zealand context when he is not a national of NZ? U-Mos (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Tarrant seems to hold the view that 'white nations' should be and should remain to be 'white', a view that is not restricted to NZ (or Australia). Jürgen Eissink (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

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

Media traps[edit]

The line in the article "It was suggested that memes within the manifesto (such as the Navy Seal copypasta, which lists accomplishments such as having "over 300 confirmed kills") could be misinterpreted by the media." is well sourced and all, but it's worded to imply that this was only a hypothetical. In fact, several media outlets did report that the shooter claimed to be a navy seal with over 300 confirmed kills, taking the meme at face value.

Handschuh-talk to me 01:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Those do not look like reliable sources. --Masem (t) 01:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Seven News and The West Australian are unambiguously reliable sources. The Seven News clip is hosted on funnyjunk, but the source is Seven News. It may be found hosted elsewhere, but they've almost certainly burned it from their official channels. Handschuh-talk to me 01:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Neither of these sources appear to be reliable. (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)