Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings

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

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was no consensus for change. Opinion seems rather divided between supremacist, nationalist, or both, but ultimately, there is no clear consensus to go in a new direction. Part of the problem is that nationalist is used both by the mainstream media, and at the same time, relates to a significant effort at whitewashing and rebranding (the much more negatively-perceived supremacist) by those who adhere to the term. There were some alternate proposals, but these did not seem to enjoy consensus, either. Finally, I note that it has been a month since the last comment was made, so this close is long overdue. El_C 03:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

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

• Question as I am not an expert in this terminology: is it accurate to call Tarrant a 'white nationalist' in a New Zealand context when he is not a national of NZ? U-Mos (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Tarrant seems to hold the view that 'white nations' should be and should remain to be 'white', a view that is not restricted to NZ (or Australia). Jürgen Eissink (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

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

I agree with the basic point that it was the media that pigeonholed the alleged shooter as a white supremacist. It isn't a phrase that the author of the manifesto used himself. According to White supremacy, "White supremacy or white supremacism is the racist belief that white people are superior to people of other races and therefore should be dominant over them. White supremacy has roots in scientific racism, and it often relies on pseudoscientific arguments." This is not an accurate summary of the arguments put forward in the manifesto. The author blathers on about the need for white people to be in the majority in their own countries, but does not say that non-white people are inherently inferior. This is more like extreme nationalism than racism.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• No for all the obvious reasons - This is not overwhelmingly supported by the sources, and might unduly constitute whitewashing. Only white supremacists care making such distinctions. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 07:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  I seriously apologize. I didn't mean to accuse anyone of being white supremacist. I meant to say that White supremacists will vehemently rebrand themselves as "white nationalists", but in reality there's a not much distinction between the two. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 07:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Apology accepted and appreciated. I do recognize that white supremacists might call themselves white nationalists as some sort of excuse. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 07:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

Tarrant might be a 'white supremacist in disguise', but the fact is that he delivered a manifesto that is white nationalist to the max and pretty much in complete denial of white supremacism, and the manifesto is at the moment probably the most important source on establishing motives. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 07:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

• Yes if indeed the more reputable sources are using the nationalist description, then we should use that. starship.paint ~ KO 07:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The author of the manifesto seems to be a big fan of the Bosnian Serbs, while conveniently forgetting to mention that they committed the Srebrenica massacre. The article there gives the motive as "Anti-Bosniak sentiment, Greater Serbia, Islamophobia, Serbianisation" rather than "white supremacism". Extreme nationalism is often a thinly disguised version of racism, but the Bosnian Serbs were not classic pseudoscientific racists like the Nazis, who loved to used pseudoscientific theories to justify their ideas.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• No A white nationalist "espouses the belief that white people are a race and seeks to develop and maintain a white national identity.... White nationalists generally avoid the term 'supremacy' because it has negative connotations." The Google News count for 'white supremacist christchurch shooting' is fluctuating, but was 12,300,000. The count for 'white nationalist christchurch shooting' was 7,730,000. Assessing what is 'traditionally highly respected media' can be highly subjective. Moreover, media is open to shifts in wording. For example, NYT has used 'white supremacy' and/or 'white supremacist' in the text of multiple stories about the shooting, e.g. here and here. Like interpretations made on this Talk page, both stories identify white supremacy in the manifesto. A shift in wording to 'white nationalist' would appear contradictory to WP:NPOV. Te Karere (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Remove both. He was neither a white supremacist nor a "white nationalist" (what's that BTW?). Many of those who he killed were also white, mind you. He was simply a terrorist. He also seems to have been motivated by religion. True, Christianity does not currently support violence, but this guy was inspired by historical attitude of Christianity towards Islam. Hence also his choice of the place of attack. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Many of those who he killed were also white, mind you. Uh, do you have a source for this? ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about "many", but this guy's both white and a White. Khaled Mustafa wasn't even bearded and Linda Armstrong didn't even have an "exotic" name. I'm sure there are more, if you look. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:39, March 21, 2019 (UTC)

You say "He also seems to have been motivated by religion". Which religion? In his manifesto he explicitly addresses the question of whether he is a Christian, to which he responds in the negative. Additionally, he has been linked with neopagan Odinist groups.[1]— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 13:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it can be said he was motivated by religion because he seems to have targeted Muslims. Bus stop (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep as it is. Both wordings are widely used. However, the views by him are very close to neo-Nazi, which would be a "supremacist". My very best wishes (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Both with sources. There are many good reliable sources describing both in detail. To address the nom's argument, headlines should not ever be relied upon, and white nationalism and supremacy aren't mutually exclusive. That means that both should be included per WP:DUE, unless someone finds a source disputing one of them. wumbolo ^^^ 21:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep/No change. We follow the RS -- not the manifesto -- and use both terms. Per WP:PRIMARY. Summoned by bot. High-quality sources use both terms, sometimes in the same article (for example, NYT: [2]). Even if the manifesto wasn't designed to deceive (we wouldn't quote it to say he is a Navy Seal, etc.)[3], we would rely on high-quality, reliable secondary sources to analyze the manifesto, rather than override their assessment with our own reading of it. In this instance, doing analysis of the primary source is particularly fraught. Chris vLS (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

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

• Display both as much as they are used by sources -- clearly the NPOV way out of this. I do think Kashmiri has a point and if there are in fact any sources which discuss him instead as a sort of Christian or "European" supremacist rather than "white" these may also be worth mentioning too.--Calthinus (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep due to use of both in endless RS. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Follow the primary source The subject is the most authoritative source on their own views. If he denies being a "white supremacist" or identifies as a "white nationalist" then their claim holds more weight than secondary sources. However, if he is widely described as "white supremacist" by secondary sources, then obviously this should be stated in some format like "XXX identified himself as a YYY. Others describe him as X, Y, Z, ..." ILTP (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Both. Per Wumbolo and Calthinus. We don't get to pick one or the other when there's a conflict among sources. Neutrality 101. R2 (bleep) 22:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• White supremacist or both. Additional sources include here, here, here, here, here. Many of these discuss the centrality of white supremacy in depth, whereas the sources offered above only mention "white nationalism" in passing. --Aquillion (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• Posting here merely to get a recent timestamp and defeat the archive bot. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Both are suitable. They are not mutually exclusive.Vision Insider (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Both: The Guardian and the BBC describe him as a "white supremacist" however the BBC also describes him as a "white nationalist". Apparently the suspect describes himself as an "ethno-nationalist eco-fascist" in the manifesto, but we're going on reliable sources, not documents from 8chan. SITH (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Use white supremacist: even Facebook has recently acknowledged that white nationalism = white supremacy: "After New Zealand mosque shootings and civil rights backlash, Facebook bans white nationalism, separatism". There's no need for euphemisms. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  As long as Wikipedia itself doesn't redirect one to the other, they are ≠. wumbolo ^^^ 16:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Facebook exists in its own twisted world, where once-familiar concepts like Friend, Status, Timeline, News and Poker now require cheat sheets. If we're going to trust any privately-owned behemoth as an authority on synonyms, it should be Thesaurus.com (judging from its "Google Ranking", anyway). It doesn't recognize white supremacy at all, but notes white supremacists are only equal to fanatics, anti-Semites, chauvinists, diehards, doctrinaires, sectarians, segregationists, black supremacists, Klanspeople, opinionated people (that's probably debatable), prejudiced people, sexist people and xenophobes. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:56, April 2, 2019 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose link with "Christianity", as was suggested above. Indifferent to usage of "white supremacist" and/or "white nationalist". The suspect in question has explicitly answered in the negative to the question of whether he was Christian, and has as well been linked with the neopagan Odinist movement.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 13:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Use white supremacist - White nationalist is a euphemism for white separatist. O3000 (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Use white nationalist: white supremacism was associated with major phenomena, such as the slave trade and colonialism, which the shooter does not appear to promote. At least in his rhetoric the shooter doesn't seem to think of whites as supreme over anything, but rather, promotes a conspiracy scenario in which whites are at risk of being wiped out entirely. His beliefs actually have more in common with the anti-immigrant views that are the majority in several major countries at the moment than they do with those of the Confederates ... except, of course, the part about murdering people. Wnt (talk) 11:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• Use white nationalist: He is opposed to immigration. There is no indication he believed whites are a "chosen people" or superior to other genetic groups. The media could be using the term "white supremacist", rather than "white nationalist", to avoid acknowledging his actions were in response to immigration. Nationalism brings up the subject of immigration. They may want to avoid a discussion, or a public vote, on mass immigration. This is something the SPLC, for example, has stated. Jeff1948a (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
• white supremacist as has been noted, "nationalist" is just an euphermism.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. The shooter was an Aussie, but traveled to New Zealand to commit mass homicide. If so, how can he remotely be considered a "nationalist?" I presume he went there because until he committed his crime, military style, automatic weapons were considerably easier to obtain there. I think that "white nationalist" is a euphemism, as "patriot" often is, used to camouflage racist ideology. The mosques were likely targets of convenience where he could find victims of different colors and ethnicities. Activist (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to modify wording

Support Both per both being widely used by reliable sources. To which end I propose that the second sentence in the second paragraph of the lead be modified as follows....

Current wording A 28-year-old Australian man, described in media reports as a white supremacist and part of the alt-right, was arrested and charged with murder.

Proposed new wording A 28-year-old Australian man, variously described in media and press reports as a white supremacist or white nationalist and part of the alt-right, was arrested and charged with murder.

-Ad Orientem (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support - hits two birds with one stone.Resnjari (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose on wordiness. Is there a difference between media and press reports? Doesn't "or" and/or "and" already suggest "variously"? If we want both labels, just add one. As in "A 28-year-old Australian man, described in media reports as a white supremacist, white nationalist and part of the alt-right...". InedibleHulk (talk) 16:23, April 2, 2019 (UTC)

See Webster's Third, Unabridged, 2016.

press. Newspapers, periodicals, and often radio and television news broadcasting regarded as a group.

media. plural but sometimes singular in construction. A vehicle (as a radio or television program or a newspaper) used to carry advertising.

So media ≈ press + social media. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we should bother repeating what "they" say on social media. Twitter will label a celebrity anything, from "monster" to "Mossad sleeper agent". Best to stay mainstream and "reliable". InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, April 10, 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no membership for the Alt-Right or any agreement on their platform. They constantly argue about who can be considered part of the "movement". The media are so often political activists, who use their platforms to push their views. In this case they want to stigmatise all anti mass immigration groups by linking them to this incident. Perhaps it is better, and less verbose, just to describe him as a "A 28-year-old Australian man" and leave discussions about his motivations until further into the article. Jeff1948a (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's how the Alt-right article lead defines that term: The alt-right … is a … somewhat ill-defined … grouping of … far-right fringe hate groups.… Figures who are associated with the alt-right [include] Senior Advisor to the President Stephen Miller, Special Assistant to the President Julia Hahn, former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn… --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I think we should stop trying to put our own spin or OR onto this and stick to what the reliable sources are saying. They are variously using the terms "white supremacist" and "white nationalist." And most of them are labeling him as "alt right." Whether their reporting is accurate is not my concern. Our job is to repeat what is being said in reliable sources. That's it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• No change, as I think both ways has the same interpreted meaning. Best way would be just to use what the sources claim him to be. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 05:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Both but maybe use extreme white nationalist according to the BBC he describes himself as a White Supremacist [4]. Security analyst Paul Buchanan has said "He is a very clear white supremacist who has been planning this for two years," [5] The New York times has described him as a White Supremacist.[6] The motivation in my opinon would be White supremacy and extreme White Nationalism.; the term extreme white nationalism is used in these sources and other sources [7][8]--SharabSalam (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: I totally oppose using "extreme" white nationalist as it carries the possibly unintended POV that some white nationalists are "moderate".--Calthinus (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Calthinus: I do think that there are moderate White nationalists because every ideology has its extremist and moderate followers some who prefer using force to enforce their ideology into others and some who just hold and spread their ideology not by using force. If nationalists are always extremist then would that be a general rule for all nationalists? like any "X" nationalist is always an extremist, or is it just White nationalists who are always extremist?--SharabSalam (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add name to info box or opening paragrapgh

Isn't it already time? The suspected and proven criminal "Brendan Tarrant" Isn't even mentioned until the 8th paragraph. The media coverage surrounding this event overwhelmingly puts his name on everything. Will there be any harm in mentioning him in the opening statement or infobox?— Preceding unsigned comment added by NPCtom (talk • contribs) 10:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

"Proven criminal" doesn't seem to have happened yet. WP:BLPCRIME aplies here. Current consensus is not to name in the lead or the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Brenton Tarrant

There should be an own article about Brenton Tarrant to release this article from too much biography. -- Schmeißfliege (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

As long as the biographical details are sort of incomplete, causing speculation in all directions there is an argument for having a separate page which would make it more noticeable that there is something missing, or we are being led by the nose. Why would anyone who wants to travel the world and visit political groups (here far right) go to live at the bottom of all travel roads = Dunedin?

1. Travelling internationally would cost a lot less from Sydney.

2. Tarrant's income situation has been described as 'large inheritance' and cryptocurrency in a system that existed only two years and had been shut down by government.

3. So where do you find the money for 8 years living expenses and travel???? They need to bring out the truth here or those who have speculated that it was a far right government organisation sending someone sniffing out anti-seminitic/BDS groups are the only explanation.

Incomplete biographies do not contribute to better understanding or addressing issues. Ally Hauptmann-Gurski 2001:8003:AC60:1400:A47E:BC4F:3B35:6B58 (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Speculation and personal research is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Zerach (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

That is true but if we do not get the information on how the perpetrator got to that point and what enabled him to do his/her damage we do not learn anything how to prevent these patterns of behaviour. This is more about advocacy for more complete information from the authorities. If nobody mentions that, they do not learn either. Just image someone in Dunedin, where Tarrant is said to have lived, would have said three years ago 'this guy is probably sus', because he/she had learned what patterns of behaviour lead to this. I have not supplied information, I have outlined where more questions should be asked and which ones - to benefit the community. I have had 3 years of journalism and we learned to look at news items with the view where the chain of information was broken and ask questions. Ally Hauptmann-Gurski 2001:8003:AC60:1400:28C1:70D3:F923:E029 (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

This would run into problems with WP:BLP1E. It is a judgement call on whether to have a separate article for a perpetrator (alleged at the moment since no trial has take place yet). A biography has to be rounded and sufficiently detailed to support a standalone article. A lot of the edits here are adding exhaustive material about the alleged motives from the manifesto, and this does not add much biographical value.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Tarrant is known for only one thing (WP:ONEEVENT) and anything that needs to be said about him can be contained within this article. WWGB (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Attempted murder discrepancy

Why is Tarrant being charged with 40 counts of attempted murder when 49 people were injured in the attack? Is it possible only 40 were injured from actual gunfire and 9 victims were injured from something else? If so this needs to be corrected. Any thoughts on this discrepancy? Deathscape (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't speculate about what might be. If there are no reliable sources discussing this, then we simply accept what the Police, the press and the Courts are saying.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   08:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for news coverage to leave some questions unanswered, and we're given the choice of accepting the apparent discrepancies or removing the content that creates them. For example, we could choose to say he was charged with multiple counts of attempted murder (not that I'm advocating that, necessarily). What we can't do is apply our own speculative reasoning without source support.

I lack the interest and motivation to look for sources that resolve this, but you or anybody else is free to do so.

In other words, pretty much what Velella said, with which I edit-conflicted. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)