Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Mosque name

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

Plural article name?

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

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

1997 Raurimu Massacre

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

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

Requested move 15 March 2019

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

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

---

Christchurch mosque shootings → Christchurch mosque terrorist attack

New Zealand PM is referring to this as a “terrorist attack”. 71.218.98.55 (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC) 71.218.98.55 (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I would support it as a redirect.Resnjari (talk) 07:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed it could work as a redirect. For what we know at this time, a mass shooting is a more fitting classification. Plus a PM saying that doesn't automatically make it a terrorist attack anyways IE see Quebec City mosque shooting, which the Prime Minister called a terrorist attack at first but wasn't ended up being classified as one and the shooter wasn't even charged with terrorism.Spilia4 (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Please consider - New Zealand mosque attack, New Zealand mosque terror attack... though I have no problem with the above ones too. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Move to "2019 Christchurch terror attacks" or "2019 Christshurch terrorist attacks". More precise. --58.110.165.157 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Move to Christchurch mosque attacks. The current Christchurch mosque shootings is a little ambiguous as it could mean multiple shootings at one mosque, or as in this case, shootings at multiple mosques. Therefore my preference is for Christchurch mosque attacks, with "attacks" unambiguously referring to two locations. Later, "terrorist" could be inserted, but I think simple is better. Akld guy (talk) 07:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

> with "attacks" unambiguously referring to two locations

Not necessarily. That could be parsed as describing multiple attacks on one mosque at different times. Oska (talk) 08:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Not really. In that case, each attack should have its own article. Akld guy (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Clearly a terrorist incidence. I feel "2019" is not necessary as there aren't any other Christshurch terrorist/shooting attacks Cinadon36 (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support. There seems no difference b/w the acts of so called terrorists or these perpetrators. saifty (saifty|talk) 08:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Describing it as a terrorist attack is not NPOV. It's opinion. The general practice on wikipedia is to simply describe what happened - in this case two simultaneous shootings at mosques in Christchurch. Please look at the September 11 attacks article where there is no mention of terrorism in the article title. Oska (talk) 07:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Agree with Oska. While I personally consider it beyond any doubt to qualify as a terrorist attack, putting that in the article title is not consistent with general Wikipedia practice. I do agree with renaming it "attacks". 115.189.93.237 (talk) 07:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think the name should be changed and I think a redirect could work. But I don't see how describing it as a terrorist attack is "not NPOV and not consistent with Wikipedia practice". With that argument 9/11 shouldn't be described as a terrorist attack, nor should 2015 Paris attacks. But they both are. Are we reserving the term "Terrorist" just for Muslims?! 64.239.159.151 (talk) 07:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Move to Christchurch mosque attacks. Precise and explains the event.  Nixinova  T  C  08:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Agree with Akld guy to move to "Christchurch mosque attacks" only due to the attempted use of explosives similar to 2011 Norway attacks. Otherwise, the use of 'shootings' to cover multiple locations seems consistent with articles like 1, 2, 3 which simply use the plural of the attack method while other articles with single attack locations don't 1, 2. 3. Most other articles on the encyclopedia don't use the word 'terrorist' in their names even though they are categorised as terrorist attacks even September 11 attacks so I am against the use of 'terror' or 'terrorist' for consistency. The Skeptical Ham (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• The Washington Post, The Guardian and Al Jazeera are all referring to it as a “terrorist attack”. 71.218.98.55 (talk) 08:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:BLPCRIME. Terrorism is a specific type of crime. The suspects are alive, and they have not been convicted of terrorist crimes (yet). Wikipedia's editors must not do the court's job of determining whether the suspects are guilty and of what, and deciding on our own that the shootings were a terrorist attack would be doing precisely that. TompaDompa (talk) 08:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, few if any terrorist attack shave that in the title. It's very strange to use that word here. We have the 9-11 attacks, 2015 San Bernardino attack, etc. Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose See September 11 attacks, Surabaya bombings, Orlando nightclub shooting. Descriptor has never had "terrorist" in it. Juxlos (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• This is definitely act of terrorism. --Höyhens (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with Oska. It meets the definition of a terrorist attack but adding it to the title is not consistent with other articles.Johndavies837 (talk) 08:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with everyone else here. This is a terrorist attack, yes. But other terrorist attacks, as mentioned, did not have "terrorist attack" in their titles. Vida0007 (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose in favor of "mass shootings", an obviously good title. wumbolo ^^^ 10:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

References

• Oppose suggested title but instead would support the addition of the year into the title, to be consistent with others. IWI (chat) 10:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is without a doubt a terrorist attack, but we should keep it consistent with other articles. Even September 11 attacks do not mention "terrorist" in the title. BeŻet (talk) 10:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Too soon. Wait until the story unfolds and a commonname evolves. The addition may possibly be justified but unnec both because it isn't normal nor needed for clarity ... like me, most readers will at the moment know only counry or city/mosque/shooting. No objection to redirect.Pincrete (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

IEDs

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

Actually, two SUSPECTED bombs were found on ONE vehicle.

14 words

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

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

3 suspects

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

Right wing militants

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

References

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2019

SECTION TITLE: Ideology

Brenton Tarrant wrote in his 130 page manifesto titled the The Great Replacement that: "the person that has influenced me above all was Candace Owens. Each time she spoke I was stunned by her insights and her own views helped push me further and further into the belief of violence over meekness. Though I will have to disavow some of her beliefs, the extreme actions she calls for are too much, even for my tastes." Jmc498 (talk) 08:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Follow the money?

WP:NOTAFORUM TompaDompa (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We know that Tarrant has not had a job for a few years - but travelled the world. Who funded him or can you really sustain such a lifestyle with profits from a cryptocurrency? (It was not the famous one.) Is it impossible that he was part of a mercenary/paramilitary unit for a while and then they dropped him? Or will it be like with Paddock, the Las Vegas shooter, the past does not come out in satisfactory details, leaving us to guess in which secret network they might have been? Follow the money - true here also. Ally Hauptmann-Gurski, 2001:8003:AC60:1400:C85:1B33:5A48:DBEB (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC) The Talk Pages are not to be used to discuss the subject, but for discussing Reliable Sources to improve the article. WP:FORUM 50.111.50.240 (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Nationality of suspect

This edit by Wiki.0hlic, which removed mention of the suspect's nationality from the lead, needs a prompt revert. It makes a major difference to how one understands the attack that it was not perpetrated by a New Zealander but by someone from outside the country. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk)

 Done U-Mos (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Mention of gasoline?

In the video, gasoline can be seen in the suspect's trunk before and after the shooting. Additionally, while driving away from the first scene, the suspect even noted that he had enough time to "burn it to the ground" and that he didn't need to leave so early. Is this worth adding/mentioning?

98.116.108.186 (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. We should wait for reliable sources to cover this before including in the article. Wikipedia isn't a place for original research, speculation, or rumours. Mozzie (talk) 04:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Stop saying "Read the manifesto"

We're not about interpreting primary sources ourselves. We should remove everything that is based on the manifesto itself and only report on what reliable sources say about it. None of us should be forced to read the words of a mass murderer in order to contribute to this article. --denny vrandečić (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we should not use the manifesto as a WP:PRIMARY source. Let WP:SECONDARY reliable sources determine what is important from it. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Political position of attacker

The current page states that he is on the far right, but his manifesto points to him being an alt-righter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oktayey (talk • contribs) 04:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• He claimed in his manifesto he's most closely aligned with Communist China as well ReaIestTruth (talk) 05:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Multiple reliable sources refer to him as "right wing", Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources, not primary sources and original research. 71.218.98.55 (talk) 05:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

That should read "far-right" - meaning extremist.50.111.50.240 (talk) 06:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• His primary source/manifesto is not very reliable. He could have put comments in there to intentionally provoke a response or to mislead people. We need to rely on secondary sources. Leugen9001 (talk) 08:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

What basis is there to accept those secondary sources though? For instance the Australian PM identified the shooter as right-wing but as far as I'm aware there's nothing in his background to suggest this is the case. 人族 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree with 人族... the most accurate view we can get into the man's head is 80 pages he wrote on his own thoughts. It does not violate any WP guidelines by including any of this, and it could even be prefaced with 'self-described' to distinguish it from what secondary sources describe him as

• He is a self-described authoritarian left, he attacks conservatism in his manifesto as well as corporatism and declares both to be one and the same. As far as his manifesto not being reliable source for anything, i disagree. 80+ pages of his own thoughts are much more reliable than media speculation and narrative pushing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.12.249.87 (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Can we have the full name of the suspect?

I see his full name is Brenton Harrison Tarrant. Is this allowed to be added? Sources are here [1] and [2]. Thought I should ask instead of just adding it. --TheDomain (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Bomb at Strickland

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

the hypothesized bomb is in the lead? (Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)).

Yes. - Josephua (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I recommend adding the information in the attacks section after the main detail of the attacks.It is probably to peripheral to the important information to appear in the lead.Mozzie (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Info about the perpetrator

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

I mean, you can put in on the talk page, but we go by reliable, secondary sources, so they'll never land on the article unless RS confirm it. 4chan posts are very likely to be joe job too. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I am going to agree with Tsumikiria we cannot post secondary sources unless RS confirm it, at least it posted up on ITN. Sheldybett (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Verify references (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Personal firearm

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

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

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

Summarizing that link: in the Linwood mosque shooting (7 dead), a prayer goer returned fire with a long gun, chased the Linwood shooter(s) and fired shots at their car as they sped off. He was quoted by bystanders as telling responding police that he acted in self defense. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Fog of early reports: Other accounts indicate an individual in the mosque took a gun from the shooter; the individual outside ("Muslim local chased the shooters and fired two shots at them as they sped off") could be someone else.

Terrorist attack

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

To be precise the media in Australia is calling it a right wing terrorist attack and the perpetrators right wing terrorists. I do agree that a change will be needed. Probably after New Zealand police give a press conference in coming hours or days.Resnjari (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

When the government declares it to be a terrorist attack, then yes, it is a terrorist attack. For now though, it is just a mass shooting, and not all mass shootings terrorist attacks. - Josephua (talk) 06:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources, not primary sources. Only reliable secondary sources need to label it as such for us Wikipedia s to add it. 71.218.98.55 (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The main shooter does not identify himself as right-wing or even a white supremacist. He identifies himself as an anti-immigration racist.

Agree with Harizotoh9. Even for terrorist attacks, we don't put terrorist in the title. As much as we want to do it, and as true as it is, and as evil as terrorism is, and as much as it should be named, terrorist is a very loaded word, and isn't encyclopedic in a title. Absolutely give it prominence in the first sentence of the article. Mozzie (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

As above, the PM has said it is a terrorist attack. Source: [3]. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Australia’s PM has referred to the attacks as “right wing terrorist attacks”. 71.218.98.55 (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Le Monde is calling it “a terrorist attack”. 71.218.98.55 (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Manifesto

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I understand that you're talking down to me and think I may be stupid, which is kind of inappropriate. My main concern is that why you feel that they should be deleted, you said you are against it, but gave no valid reasons for having that feeling. You merely stated your personal opinion. Newaccountfortalkpage (talk) 05:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. This source fails on many counts, it hasnt been reputably published, its likely to be misused.=, it also violates WP:BLP. Gnangarra 06:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The PDF is available at [4]. Wikipedia does not exist to conceal information, but to facilitate research. We are not here to teach people virtue, but to allow them to navigate the available information. Wnt (talk) 11:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wnt: and yet, it's a primary source. Wikipedia's policy on that is quite clear, and I'm also quite uninterested in idea that not citing a primary source is an example of either censorship or virtue-management. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 19:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Which policy are you referring to?
WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD
WP:PRIMARYCARE
"The person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the person says about himself or herself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for clearly attributed controversial statements." --π! 23:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

There is news media articles (secondary sources in this sense) that feature the main body of the manifesto. It is unnecessary to explicitly cite the main article; given that removal of these cites are ongoing, it is also just plain inefficient, as these citing will be invalid shortly anyway. If you truly want to reflect the info within the manifesto, just cite NYT article about it: [5]. WeifengYang (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Taking a look at Wikipedia's policy regarding no original research, I can understand the need for objectivity, however it is still an important document. I'll also note, even with this document, secondary sources are quoting it incorrectly. For example "The manifesto says he chose New Zealand as the target two years earlier and had been planning the attack for three months." (Currently cite 51) is incorrect. According to the manifesto, he started to plan an attack two years ago, but it wasn't original targeting New Zealand. The Christchurch targets where only set three months ago, it was a Dunedin before that after a post by the Otago Muslim Association that I can't date as the post was taken down.

And while we shouldn't fill in info on a article based on primary, there's nothing wrong with linking to information for people to look into themselves. Wikipedia is here to provide factual information, not hide things. Ignoring the manifesto completely would be a mistake I feel. Especially considering the NZ government is cracking down and censoring information. Ryonez (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ryonez: Isn't Dunedin in New Zealand too? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@ImmortalWizard: It is, but the point was the initial planning wasn't for New Zealand in the first place. When he did switch to it, the target was going to be Dunedin, but without the post that triggered them, I don't know when that decision was made by them. Ryonez (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

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

He's an evil, hateful piece of shit but we shouldn't hide information. I strongly disagree with his manifesto, I do, but it should still be shown. For the simple reason that hiding something because it's offensive is wrong. You can't just hide humanities worst from everyone. Alex of Canada (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Date

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

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

Casualties and victims

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

It's too soon to add a template like this. We should wait until there's more information on the victims. Musicfan122 (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree, since this feels like notable information, and similar content is often included in the development of similar articles... Anyway below is the most recent version with all known nationalities. Neegzistuoja (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Casualties and victims

Victims by citizenship

Citizenship	Deaths	Injuries
Egypt	4	?
Bangladesh	3	4-5
Jordan	2	8
India	2	1
Saudi Arabia	1	1
Pakistan	?	4
Afghanistan	?	3
Turkey	?	3
Indonesia	?	2
Malaysia	?	2
Total	49	48

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

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

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

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

If this is not allowed, please delete. An update: 2 Indonesians injured, as confirmed by Tantowi Yahya, the Ambassador of Indonesia to New Zealand. (from an Indonesian news article) Dhio-270599 11:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC) ---- (update: a source in English) Dhio-270599

Update: a man with Saudi Arabian nationality was injured Dhio-270599 11:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Update: 2 Indians have died in the attacks, one seriously injured (note: confirmation was from the leader of All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen Party, not a some sort of government official; if this is not acceptable enough by the rules of WP, please delete) Dhio-270599 20:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Update: 1 of the 2 injured Saudis died due to the injury. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Votes?

Support as this is an event that is likely to have a number of international victims, not just New Zealanders. Melmann (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment It's too soon to add a template like this. We should wait until there's more information on the victims. Musicfan122 (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree, since this feels like notable information, and similar content is often included in the development of similar articles... Anyway above is the most recent version with all known nationalities. Neegzistuoja (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Object looks ridiculous to me. Is there such a thing for a lot of other articles of this type? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omysfysfybmm (talk • contribs) 11:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Omysfysfybmm: It is similar to November 2015 Paris attacks#Casualties. Neegzistuoja (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Support it is factual and relevant, especially given the apparent diversity of nationalities among the victims. Thanks to either Musicfan122 or Neegzistuoja (it isn't clear) for making the template. Mozzie (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support This is common in attacks like these and should not be controversial. See 2008 Mumbai attacks and July 2016 Dhaka attack. 2402:3A80:CEB:2560:9277:2A1E:C330:929E (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support - from the news that is coming in, it looks like several nationalities were affected. Furthermore, there are precedents for these type of tables as mentioned by the user above. Another relevant article would be the 2013 Nanga Parbat massacre. - Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 19:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment how is such a table supposed to handle dual nationals? Presumably some of these unfortunate people are naturalised Kiwis? Listing by their state of origin seems a bit dubious to me. Maybe wait on this till we have a more complete picture. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird: The totals on the bottom row wouldn't need to be the sum of all other rows. Dual nationals could be included under both of their nations, perhaps with a footnote to clarify e.g. "One of the X nationals was also a citizen of Y". Neegzistuoja (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose scorecard Nationalities seem irrelevant when victims appear targeted for their belonging to a religion instead. And as mourning is not an international sport, there is little reason to rank participating nations by how many sympathy points they scored here. If there was, the eternal issue of whether injuries should count toward improving a team's standing (and by how much, relative to death) remains unsolved. Leave final tallies to games, in general, and relay in prose if ever necessary. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: Putting the nationalities in alphabetical order, instead of death/injured number, might be a good alternative. Dhio-270599 10:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose table. It's detrimental to the visual appeal and layout of the page by taking up way too much visual space. Use prose instead if it's necessary to include the information at all. I'll also note that it is at the time of my writing this woefully incomplete, with only 8 out of 49 deaths accounted for. The sourcing is also not up to snuff. TompaDompa (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Temporary oppose The data seems too incomplete to be reliable and the resultant table is potentially adding further pain to the families of the victims (I'm sure unintentionally). I don't have a strong opinion on the inclusion of the table per se. I'm mildly in favor of it in fact, as long as it has the correct information. Should wait until there are complete sources which provide detailed information about dual nationalities and then the individuals with dual nationality should be counted as New Zealanders. I have no dog in this fight. I was just reading the article and the table looked so outrageously wrong that I thought there must be a discussion over it in the talk page and I was right. Given that these people were killed because they were considered foreigners, counting them as foreigners despite the sources saying:

″but moved his family to New Zealand in the 1980s.″

″The couple moved to New Zealand 23 years ago"

″who moved to New Zealand from the United Arab Emirates in the 1990s″

...is pretty darn callous. When 49 people are murdered in NZ, even in a diverse community a good half are gonna be kiwis so a table that shows zero kiwis is first, wrong and second, hurtful given the reason for their murders. Hopefully sanity prevails here.Esmehwi (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support Sources are present for the information. Also, understanding who the victims are is important in terms of understanding this specific event. The location was not a location such as say a mall, but a specific attack on a target of a particular faith where only certain people go. So if we only say a mosque was attacked, this narrows our understanding if only this information is conveyed, as compared to elaborating on the particular target to understand that despite the specific target, multiple nationalities are involved. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

So maybe not as a table, but victims of multiple nationalities and elaborating this to a certain extent etc is important. But a table would be preferred for ease of understanding, providing the table isn't over simplistic. Maybe additional notes can be added in case further explanation is needed for certain deaths. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2019

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

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

Were the gunmen really "terrorists"?

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

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

a)We should follow mainstream media. If they are branding the gunmen as terrorists, we have to follow b)The shooting does create terror among Muslims and gunmen were trying to achieve a political aim (pure white Christian NZ/West).Cinadon36 (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

"'This can only be described as a terrorist attack' - PM Jacinda Ardern" We seem to be paraphrasing correctly. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

As Cinadon36 and others have said, it's not up to us to WP:OR whether or not his actions meet some definition of terrorism, but to go with what reliable sources say. I mean it's not like it's hard to find stuff in the "manifesto" where he specifically says it's by definition a terrorist attack, and talks of creating fear, but that's not for us to judge. As with all of these sort of things, it's full of contradictions like where he talks about how he doesn't want fame and will soon be forgotten since no one remembers all the other perpetrators but also compares himself to Nelson Mandela and talks about how he too will win a Nobel Peace Prize. Or where he acknowledges Australia is a European colony but then in in another breath says all "colonisers" are guilty and apparently deserving of death (which in the context, must include the children he killed many I suspect who were born in NZ). I've seen some suggesting there was some degree of trolling hence stuff like the kebab reference and the PewDiePie one (well in the video). So there are good reasons we don't engage in OR based on primary sources, let alone definitions from other articles. Nil Einne (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

But , NZ as in most countries, have legal definitions of what is terrorism that are determined by investigators and courts, and which if an act is deemed terrorism, set into play new rules and penalties. Secondary sources may call it a terrorist attack, but we really should wait for how the authorities in the investigation determine how they will treat it. --Masem (t) 14:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Well no, not really. Terrorism is one of those things which isn't simply a legal matter. If this act is widely considered a terrorist attack then this should be mentioned and the sidebar is relevant. We will also mention what any offenders are charged with and convicted of if or when that happens. By the same token Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior has the sidebar and is mentioned in Terrorism in New Zealand even though no one was ever charged with any offence relating to terrorism. This probably arises in part because even the government behind the attack seemed to agree it was a terrorist attack (albeit before they admitted their involvement), but again it's not for us to judge. Nil Einne (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

When used as it is now by secondary news sources, its effectively a label - its a subjective call based on only what they know has happened. We should not be factually treating it as terrorism until the approrpate gov't agencies have completed their investigation and confirm it is one. I am not saying this will not ultimately be defined as such, but WP cannot jump the gun here, even if the press are doing it already. --Masem (t) 14:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Except if you're talking about the legal standpoint, the government has very limited room to even decide whether something is an act of terrorism. Most of the stuff relating to terrorism that is under the purview of the government relates to terrorism financing or designating groups as terrorist entities. Otherwise, it's really up to the courts to decide. Ultimately the PM's statements are as good as any considering NZ law and norms. Nil Einne (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Even with that, we should not be rushing to call it as such until the motives of the attackers are clear and the investigation is completed. Terrorism is a very strong word, and at this stage, extremely persausive on how people see the incident, so we should still not be factually calling it that, but certainly can include attributes uses of the word. --Masem (t) 15:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

That's largely beside my point. I never commented on whether or not we should label it terrorism in wiki voice. I'm not even sure if anyone else in this discussion, apparently besides you did. Incidentally, why do you keep speaking about "the investigation" as if it's some end all. Do you actually have any real understanding of how things work in NZ? I have to admit, especially considering you mentioned some random male prime minister above, I have my doubts you have any real understanding of anything about NZ. Nil Einne (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Gov't agencies don't make the call on "terrorism" ... the act itself does. Do you think Stalin's Russia, North Korea, Nazi Germany would have defined some of their heinous acts in a legitimate way? Historians and journalists are the deciding factor.50.111.50.240 (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

There is absolutely no doubt that this was a terror attack and multiple sources describe it as such. There is really nothing to discuss here. BeŻet (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Terrorism is just one use of terror, they aren't synonyms. That's not to say sources don't call it terrorism as well, but don't conflate the two when determining whether one is a common descriptor. As for my personal opinion, I say wait for a guilty verdict before stating it as fact (attributing the apparent public consensus to a newspaper in the meanwhile). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I believe they were. I agree with mainstream media on this one. At least the shooter was, the others are TBD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.12.249.87 (talk • contribs)

@Masem and Nil Einne and others: Isn't this a question of WP:WEIGHT? Do we have any reliable sources that talk about the legal definitions of what is and is not terrorism? Is there any information of whether Tarrant will be charged with terrorism (in addition to murder) under New Zealand laws? If so, shouldn't we include these descriptions as a significant viewpoint? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

It fits every single definition of terrorism and was called that by the prime minister.  Nixinova  T  C  06:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the shooter also admitted it was considered a terrorist act in their manifesto. So even if we were giving credence to a mass murderer, it would be uncontroversial, according to the WP:RS and the subject themselves. Tutelary (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring: a call for good faith

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

I have already reported one editor for edit warring.[6] Bless sins (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Yep, I dropped out of contributing early on because my first attempts at cleanup were instantly reverted despite hours later those cleanups were justified as the page developed. Let the Wikipedia process work. No editor owns this page. Danbert8 (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

This is exactly why non good faith reversions are evil. They create angst and drive people away from improving Wikipedia. My solution has been to create a section below to keep track of people who make multiple reversions. Perhaps this strategy could be employed earlier in future.

Australian politician reaction

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

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

Nusent 16:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

No, it has no direct bearing on the attacks. It might be material to include on the politican's page, but there, consider RECENTISM to make sure the statements stick. --Masem (t) 16:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, that is a new thing I learned today. Recentism. Nusent 16:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Woah steady on there. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Wait for a few more opinions before responding. Let people discuss the point. The correct interpretation wins, not the popular vote per se.Mozzie (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

AgreeThis should be included because it is WP:NOTABLE Fraser Anning attacked the victims, he is a right wing politician and he is from the attackers country. That makes this more notable than a generic platitude.Mozzie (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Using this article about a serious attack to coatrack critical of a national politician is absolutely not appropriate, at least at this stage. If this ends up where, for some reason, Anning is forced to leave office or the like, that's a brief mention in a reactions section, but the brunt of the details would be at Anning's page. But if this is just a "Anning said something that was criticized by others", it has no bearing here. --Masem (t) 16:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

For the time being, it is WP:notable. It is in multiple reliable sources. If at some point in the future it proves to be irrelevant it can be removed. I note that there is no WP:COATRACK policy. What is coatrack?Mozzie (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mozzie: add the content to the politican's page, its definitely relevant there. Best.Resnjari (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Erdoğan reaction

Erdoğan's reaction seems to get a lot of coverage in mainstream media. Why not include it when there are those of Trump, Obama, Trudeau, Putin, May etc.? His comments also seems to have personal connections with the idea of Islamophobia. So I believe is much worth to add about him compared to other leaders. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The suspect had travelled to Turkey at the time of the "failed coup", and had been monitored by Turkish intelligence. The Turkish government is now reviewing the surveillance recordings and is composing a timeline of the suspects activities in Turkey. This is perhaps more notable than other countries, so Erdogan`s statements may hold more weight.126.163.115.170 (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@ImmortalWizard: Provide some sources? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Alright. I am not sure if these are reliable enough. I am not desperate for this to be added nor do I have any POV. I just wanted to bring it up for someone to add if necessary and appropriate only.

References

The question isn't whether it is fair to include Egdoran when others are included, it is who should be included full stop. I suppose the test for that is whether this is historically notable as opposed to notable in the days after the attack.Mozzie (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change The Al Noor gunman livestreamed 16 minutes of his activities to The Al Noor gunman livestreamed 16 minutes of his activities. The former wikilink points to a proprietary company, which is incorrect for this generic usage. 70.162.235.236 (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done TompaDompa (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2019

Changing from right wing attacks to more left wing attacks to keep it actually accurate the people who shot up the mosque were communist terrorist which happened to be leftist 96.52.118.93 (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: This is blatant POV pushing. Please read the sources. Bradv🍁 20:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that they were "communist terrorists". The attacker said he is a "racist" and an "eco-fascist". BeŻet (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2019

Please change Right-Wing Terror Attacks on the first line to Ethno-Nationalism, as on his manifesto, he states he doesn't associate himself with conservatism (on page 15) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5770516-The-Great-Replacement-New-Zealand-Shooter.html

He considers himself an ethno-nationalist. SriLankan99 (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

 Not done - plenty of sources state the shooting was a right-wing terror attack. BeŻet (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Moreover, ethno-nationalism is without a doubt a far right ideology. BeŻet (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Fairpoint.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019

Editing the "Reactions section" to include additional countries head of government, head of state and other leaders' responses

Bangladeshi prime minister Sheikh Hasina expressed 'her deep shock and condemned the shootings.'

Pakistani prime minister Imran Khan tweeted “Shocked and strongly condemn the Christchurch, New Zealand, terrorist attack on mosques. This reaffirms what we have always maintained: that terrorism does not have a religion. Prayers go to the victims and their families."

Singaporean prime minister Lee Hsien Loong commented, "Deeply shocked by the horrific terrorist attacks on two mosques in Christchurch...This heinous act is an attempt to spread fear and hatred, and create divisions within societies. We need to respond with unity, fortitude and resilience...Singapore stands in solidarity with the people of New Zealand to strongly condemn such vicious acts of terror." 203.11.225.5 (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Done. AIRcorn (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Reaction from New Zealand cricket

Should we add the reaction from the New Zealand cricket team as they reacted to these shootings with the third test officially being cancelled as of yesterday NZ Time as the test was going to be held near by at Hagley Oval. [7] [8] Not Homura (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

A canceled event seems more notable than a simple statement to me. Here is secondary source. Twitter alone is worthless here. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough there. Not Homura (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Style issue

I recently corrected the term "USA" to "United States" per WP:NOTUSA. This was reverted without comment here by Harizotoh9. Harizotoh9, please don't do this kind of thing. There is a perfectly clear guideline regarding this issue and your change disregards it for no reason. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Indonesians-Malaysians injured

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

• The Malaysian High Commission in Wellington has confirmed that two Malaysians were among the wounded. The Malaysian Foreign Ministry has condemned the Christchurch shootings and expressed support for the victims and families. Mujahid Yusof Rawa, a Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, has condemned the terror attacks and expressed condolences for the victims. Similar sentiments have been echoed by former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. Hope this gets added back into the article in some form. Andykatib 00:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Aftermath - The two bags at Britomart

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

That was a false alarm, so, no.  Nixinova  T  C  06:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Coordinated?

Should we use the word “coordinated” in the lead now that it seems there was only one shooter? 63.231.140.53 (talk) 23:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

No. I have removed. - Snori (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

'Second shooter, simultaneous attack'

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

I rephrased the section, adding a source too. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC).

Thanks Jürgen Eissink. Good pick up.Mozzie (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

User:8GAUGE, will you please explain why you keep adding information that says there were multiple attackers, while later information has shown otherwise? Jürgen Eissink (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC).

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

Writings on firearms

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

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

It can be added if you add a source that mentions this, and there are plenty, like: https://www.news.com.au/world/pacific/gunman-who-opened-fire-on-christchurch-mosque-addresses-attack-in-manifesto/news-story/70372a39f720697813607a9ec426a734. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC).

Ah, it seems that he scrawled both victims and fighters. The cited source I mentioned is already in the text, but I can't edit the article yet (new user). --Anoneedes (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Photo of him in suspects

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

NPCtom, Sounds great but who will upload his image to commons ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dog-pox-is-a-disease (talk • contribs) 18:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Probably best not to; he'd become the only person with a picture in the article which in my opinion is undue attention. Too many BLP issues with that at the moment. J947 ^(c), at 18:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

No. --denny vrandečić (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Second Person Charged

A second individual has been charged possibly in connection with the attacks. His name is Daniel John Burrough and he is 18 years old. The charge against him is for inciting racial hatred. However it’s not clear how (or if) he knew Tarrant. See [9]. 63.231.140.53 (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Added. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Should wait until we get more details before adding other suspects. AIRcorn (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Serbia Strong

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

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

I thought that was a Polandball-related meme. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It originates from eu4, iirc, and before that from a copypasta which you can find by googling 'yuo are worst turk'. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 19:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@HyperGaruda:@Iseult: Maybe the meme, but the sentence refers to a -phrase-, saying it has origins in Serbia. And that is false. Primarily based on common sense: the kebab is one of the most eaten meals in the country, so the idea that such a -serbian- meal is used to refer to smth. -non-serbian- is quite obscure (if u know a little bit of the culture). Secondly the author in the Radio Free Europe article doesn't give us any other sources other than his claim. And any google search contradicts him. --Ivan VA (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I was dubious of this statement originating with Serbs myself. Although I'm predominantly a Croat, my family comes from an area of Bosnia referred to as Republika Srpska (Serb Republic). The kebab is as widely eaten as Karađorđeva šnicla and ćevapi there. It'd be a bit like an Aussie railing against the Bunnings sausage. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: It is dubious. I'll try to check some slang dictionaries just to get rid of this RFE reference. --Ivan VA (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It appears to predate its use on eu4 and probably originated in the copypasta mentioned which is an English language anti-Turk rant referencing a Turkish/American parody of the pro-Serbian song. So its complicated.[10] Rmhermen (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Rmhermen:Well as u say. It's not a phrase coming from Serbia which spread globally as the sentence says. And secondly, the lyrics of the (war) song itself nowhere mentions ″kebab removals″. So the parody isn't extracted from the song either. If u wanna specify it, it would be double stereotyping (against the ″kebab eating people″, as well as an original (english-speaker) interpretation of the song/the context to which it refers to (the yugoslav wars)). --Ivan VA (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

This claim that Serbs practice this phrase is incredibly false, there is not recorded anywhere, and such claims unduly tarnish Serbs at this critical time. This needs to be removed immediately. User:Joeyjojo2000 —Preceding undated comment added 21:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Why does this "right-wing" killer disagree with conservatism and right-wing political policies?

You need to stop this WP:NOTFORUM WP:OR O3000 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just so editors are aware, this article is wildly inaccurate. Probably due to the wide range of things the murderer has talked about, but one trend is clear: he is totally against anything policy-wise on the right. No source has mentioned anything he says that would suggest he is "right-wing," except as a sensationalist headline labeling him so. Tycoon24 (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

24-hour clock?

Within the U.S., I'm fairly confident that those who know that 13:40 is 1:40 p.m. are in the minority. But even if they are a 75% majority, we're neglecting the other 25% (I'm also fairly confident that virtually every English-speaking reader knows what 1:40 p.m. means). Is there a case for using 24-hour clock times here? If it's that 13:40 is four characters shorter than 1:40 p.m., that's a terribly weak case. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:MOS says context matters. I'm fine with British spellings here. Not sure why we should argue with 24-hour clock. As far as Americans, the time is not close to any American time anyhow. But, I don't have a strong opinion. O3000 (talk) 02:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

the time is not close to any American time anyhow. True, but is it unuseful to give Americans (and readers around the world) a local New Zealand time all of them can understand? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I suppose we could say 1:40 in the afternoon, or 13:40 (1:40pm) O3000 (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. Aviators and those in the military tend to use the 24-hour clock (less commonly used) vs. 12-hour clock that a majority of civilians use. Tycoon24 (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Since this happened in New Zealand, we should write it the way it’d be written in New Zealand (whether that’s 1:40 PM or 13:40). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The New Zealand Herald uses am and pm. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

No consensus for Move to 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings

I don't see any discussion for moving the article to 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings. In the Move discussion above, only one person suggested it, and it was not seconded. The 2019 is not needed since there has only been this one mosques shootings in New Zealand. Abductive (reasoning) 09:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I left a note with Anthony[11] about this. We could probably just move it back. AIRcorn (talk) 09:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree that there was no consensus for the move. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Page has now been restored to Christchurch mosque shootings. WWGB (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. The preemptive disambiguation could be seen as being in bad taste. Surtsicna (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

"A symbol of renewed white identity"

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 [12], 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 73.12.249.87 (talk • contribs)

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 [[13]] and it was purged by our very impartial talk page lecturer Tycoon24 [[14]]. 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." [[15]. 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)

Are conspiracy theories always false?

The second sentence in the Manifesto subsection says: "The conspiracy theory [that is, Camus's Great Replacement theory] falsely claims that immigration...is deliberately designed...to 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)

Candace Owens reference

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2019

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.

---

Video

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.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.84.50 (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. 75.162.84.50 (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. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22one+angry+gamer%22 75.162.84.50 (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. 75.162.84.50 (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. 75.162.84.50 (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. 75.162.84.50 (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? 75.162.84.50 (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. 75.162.84.50 (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. 75.162.84.50 (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 75.162.84.50 (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. 75.162.84.50 (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)

I agree that excessive coverage of the drama surrounding the video is WP:UNDUE here, but the amount of coverage of the video itself demonstrates that perhaps ultimately the solution will be a separate article to discuss the video and the particular events surrounding it i.e. its production and content, its distribution, its classification as objectionable, attempts to halt its spread, etc. In such an article, the Kiwi Farms and Null's dialogue with the NZ Police would be appropriate. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 02:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

A sentence completely missing from the code?

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)

Is 'perpetrator' New Zealand English?

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.[16] 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).

Trump downplays terrorist attack

Washington Post is reporting that Trump said that white nationalist terrorism is not a problem. 71.218.98.55 (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The opinion of Donald Trump is not relevant to every subject. GMG^talk 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. 71.218.98.55 (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@71.218.98.55: Can you link the source? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

71.218.98.55 (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. 87.223.74.93 (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.50.111.50.240 (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, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The Washington Postis widely accepted as a reliable source by the Wikipedia community. This is all that matters. Wikipedia is NOT Conservapedia. 71.218.98.55 (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, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

That quote should be added then. Especially if multiple reliable sources report on it. 71.218.98.55 (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, 15 March 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, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

This article says that Trump downplayed the white nationalist terrorist attack in Christchurch. [This comment was added by: 71.218.98.55 (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, 16 March 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. GMG^talk 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 [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. I mean heck even Ardern was asked about it [25] [26]. 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 [27], 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)

• Here's a WSJ source: [28] wumbolo ^^^ 11:56, 18 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. https://www.vox.com/2018/8/10/17670992/study-white-americans-alt-right-racism-white-nationalists 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2019

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.[29] 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

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)