Jump to content

Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with the basic point that it was the media that pigeonholed the alleged shooter as a white supremacist. It isn't a phrase that the author of the manifesto used himself. According to White supremacy, "White supremacy or white supremacism is the racist belief that white people are superior to people of other races and therefore should be dominant over them. White supremacy has roots in scientific racism, and it often relies on pseudoscientific arguments." This is not an accurate summary of the arguments put forward in the manifesto. The author blathers on about the need for white people to be in the majority in their own countries, but does not say that non-white people are inherently inferior. This is more like extreme nationalism than racism.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No for all the obvious reasons - This is not overwhelmingly supported by the sources, and might unduly constitute whitewashing. Only white supremacists care making such distinctions. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 07:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    I seriously apologize. I didn't mean to accuse anyone of being white supremacist. I meant to say that White supremacists will vehemently rebrand themselves as "white nationalists", but in reality there's a not much distinction between the two. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 07:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Apology accepted and appreciated. I do recognize that white supremacists might call themselves white nationalists as some sort of excuse. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 07:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC).
Tarrant might be a 'white supremacist in disguise', but the fact is that he delivered a manifesto that is white nationalist to the max and pretty much in complete denial of white supremacism, and the manifesto is at the moment probably the most important source on establishing motives. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 07:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC).
The author of the manifesto seems to be a big fan of the Bosnian Serbs, while conveniently forgetting to mention that they committed the Srebrenica massacre. The article there gives the motive as "Anti-Bosniak sentiment, Greater Serbia, Islamophobia, Serbianisation" rather than "white supremacism". Extreme nationalism is often a thinly disguised version of racism, but the Bosnian Serbs were not classic pseudoscientific racists like the Nazis, who loved to used pseudoscientific theories to justify their ideas.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No A white nationalist "espouses the belief that white people are a race and seeks to develop and maintain a white national identity.... White nationalists generally avoid the term 'supremacy' because it has negative connotations." The Google News count for 'white supremacist christchurch shooting' is fluctuating, but was 12,300,000. The count for 'white nationalist christchurch shooting' was 7,730,000. Assessing what is 'traditionally highly respected media' can be highly subjective. Moreover, media is open to shifts in wording. For example, NYT has used 'white supremacy' and/or 'white supremacist' in the text of multiple stories about the shooting, e.g. here and here. Like interpretations made on this Talk page, both stories identify white supremacy in the manifesto. A shift in wording to 'white nationalist' would appear contradictory to WP:NPOV. Te Karere (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove both. He was neither a white supremacist nor a "white nationalist" (what's that BTW?). Many of those who he killed were also white, mind you. He was simply a terrorist. He also seems to have been motivated by religion. True, Christianity does not currently support violence, but this guy was inspired by historical attitude of Christianity towards Islam. Hence also his choice of the place of attack. — kashmīrī TALK 09:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Many of those who he killed were also white, mind you. Uh, do you have a source for this? ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know about "many", but this guy's both white and a White. Khaled Mustafa wasn't even bearded and Linda Armstrong didn't even have an "exotic" name. I'm sure there are more, if you look. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
You say "He also seems to have been motivated by religion". Which religion? In his manifesto he explicitly addresses the question of whether he is a Christian, to which he responds in the negative. Additionally, he has been linked with neopagan Odinist groups.[1]— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 13:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I think it can be said he was motivated by religion because he seems to have targeted Muslims. Bus stop (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as it is. Both wordings are widely used. However, the views by him are very close to neo-Nazi, which would be a "supremacist". My very best wishes (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Both with sources. There are many good reliable sources describing both in detail. To address the nom's argument, headlines should not ever be relied upon, and white nationalism and supremacy aren't mutually exclusive. That means that both should be included per WP:DUE, unless someone finds a source disputing one of them. wumbolo ^^^ 21:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep/No change. We follow the RS -- not the manifesto -- and use both terms. Per WP:PRIMARY. Summoned by bot. High-quality sources use both terms, sometimes in the same article (for example, NYT: [2]). Even if the manifesto wasn't designed to deceive (we wouldn't quote it to say he is a Navy Seal, etc.)[3], we would rely on high-quality, reliable secondary sources to analyze the manifesto, rather than override their assessment with our own reading of it. In this instance, doing analysis of the primary source is particularly fraught. Chris vLS (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Put another way, if the manifesto claimed that the author's views are "center-right", we would not have the encyclopedic voice describe him as center-right. Chris vLS (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Display both as much as they are used by sources -- clearly the NPOV way out of this. I do think Kashmiri has a point and if there are in fact any sources which discuss him instead as a sort of Christian or "European" supremacist rather than "white" these may also be worth mentioning too.--Calthinus (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep due to use of both in endless RS. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Follow the primary source The subject is the most authoritative source on their own views. If he denies being a "white supremacist" or identifies as a "white nationalist" then their claim holds more weight than secondary sources. However, if he is widely described as "white supremacist" by secondary sources, then obviously this should be stated in some format like "XXX identified himself as a YYY. Others describe him as X,[1] Y[2], Z,[3] ..." ILTP (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Both. Per Wumbolo and Calthinus. We don't get to pick one or the other when there's a conflict among sources. Neutrality 101. R2 (bleep) 22:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • White supremacist or both. Additional sources include here, here, here, here, here. Many of these discuss the centrality of white supremacy in depth, whereas the sources offered above only mention "white nationalism" in passing. --Aquillion (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Posting here merely to get a recent timestamp and defeat the archive bot. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Both are suitable. They are not mutually exclusive.Vision Insider (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Both: The Guardian and the BBC describe him as a "white supremacist" however the BBC also describes him as a "white nationalist". Apparently the suspect describes himself as an "ethno-nationalist eco-fascist" in the manifesto, but we're going on reliable sources, not documents from 8chan. SITH (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Facebook exists in its own twisted world, where once-familiar concepts like Friend, Status, Timeline, News and Poker now require cheat sheets. If we're going to trust any privately-owned behemoth as an authority on synonyms, it should be Thesaurus.com (judging from its "Google Ranking", anyway). It doesn't recognize white supremacy at all, but notes white supremacists are only equal to fanatics, anti-Semites, chauvinists, diehards, doctrinaires, sectarians, segregationists, black supremacists, Klanspeople, opinionated people (that's probably debatable), prejudiced people, sexist people and xenophobes. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose link with "Christianity", as was suggested above. Indifferent to usage of "white supremacist" and/or "white nationalist". The suspect in question has explicitly answered in the negative to the question of whether he was Christian, and has as well been linked with the neopagan Odinist movement.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 13:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Use white nationalist: white supremacism was associated with major phenomena, such as the slave trade and colonialism, which the shooter does not appear to promote. At least in his rhetoric the shooter doesn't seem to think of whites as supreme over anything, but rather, promotes a conspiracy scenario in which whites are at risk of being wiped out entirely. His beliefs actually have more in common with the anti-immigrant views that are the majority in several major countries at the moment than they do with those of the Confederates ... except, of course, the part about murdering people. Wnt (talk) 11:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Use white nationalist: He is opposed to immigration. There is no indication he believed whites are a "chosen people" or superior to other genetic groups. The media could be using the term "white supremacist", rather than "white nationalist", to avoid acknowledging his actions were in response to immigration. Nationalism brings up the subject of immigration. They may want to avoid a discussion, or a public vote, on mass immigration. This is something the SPLC, for example, has stated. Jeff1948a (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • white supremacist as has been noted, "nationalist" is just an euphermism.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. The shooter was an Aussie, but traveled to New Zealand to commit mass homicide. If so, how can he remotely be considered a "nationalist?" I presume he went there because until he committed his crime, military style, automatic weapons were considerably easier to obtain there. I think that "white nationalist" is a euphemism, as "patriot" often is, used to camouflage racist ideology. The mosques were likely targets of convenience where he could find victims of different colors and ethnicities. Activist (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to modify wording

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

Current wording A 28-year-old Australian man, described in media reports as a white supremacist and part of the alt-right, was arrested and charged with murder.
Proposed new wording A 28-year-old Australian man, variously described in media and press reports as a white supremacist or white nationalist and part of the alt-right, was arrested and charged with murder.
-Ad Orientem (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - hits two birds with one stone.Resnjari (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on wordiness. Is there a difference between media and press reports? Doesn't "or" and/or "and" already suggest "variously"? If we want both labels, just add one. As in "A 28-year-old Australian man, described in media reports as a white supremacist, white nationalist and part of the alt-right...". InedibleHulk (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
See Webster's Third, Unabridged, 2016.
press. Newspapers, periodicals, and often radio and television news broadcasting regarded as a group.
media. plural but sometimes singular in construction. A vehicle (as a radio or television program or a newspaper) used to carry advertising.
So media ≈ press + social media. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think we should bother repeating what "they" say on social media. Twitter will label a celebrity anything, from "monster" to "Mossad sleeper agent". Best to stay mainstream and "reliable". InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no membership for the Alt-Right or any agreement on their platform. They constantly argue about who can be considered part of the "movement". The media are so often political activists, who use their platforms to push their views. In this case they want to stigmatise all anti mass immigration groups by linking them to this incident. Perhaps it is better, and less verbose, just to describe him as a "A 28-year-old Australian man" and leave discussions about his motivations until further into the article. Jeff1948a (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Here's how the Alt-right article lead defines that term: The alt-right … is a … somewhat ill-defined … grouping of … far-right fringe hate groups.… Figures who are associated with the alt-right [include] Senior Advisor to the President Stephen Miller, Special Assistant to the President Julia Hahn, former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn… --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I think we should stop trying to put our own spin or OR onto this and stick to what the reliable sources are saying. They are variously using the terms "white supremacist" and "white nationalist." And most of them are labeling him as "alt right." Whether their reporting is accurate is not my concern. Our job is to repeat what is being said in reliable sources. That's it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

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

@SharabSalam: I totally oppose using "extreme" white nationalist as it carries the possibly unintended POV that some white nationalists are "moderate".--Calthinus (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@Calthinus: I do think that there are moderate White nationalists because every ideology has its extremist and moderate followers some who prefer using force to enforce their ideology into others and some who just hold and spread their ideology not by using force. If nationalists are always extremist then would that be a general rule for all nationalists? like any "X" nationalist is always an extremist, or is it just White nationalists who are always extremist?--SharabSalam (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
The 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.

Reason for choice of targets is excessive detail?

The author says he originally targeted Al Huda Mosque in Dunedin, but changed his mind after visiting Christchurch, seeing Ashburton Mosque that had been converted from a church, and because the the Christchurch mosques contained "more adults and a prior history of extremism".

My well-sourced edit was reverted by FreeKnowledgeCreator for being "excessive detail". Surely the attacker's reasoning for his choice of targets is important? ··gracefool 💬 02:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

There is also the problem of using the manifesto as a reliable source. While it may well have been written by the attacker, there are problems with doing this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  1. I didn't use the manifesto as a source, but news articles and a speech from the Prime Minister.
  2. As far as I know no-one has given any reason to doubt that the manifesto was in fact written by Tarrant; that the article says "allegedly" is misleading but there for legal ass-covering reasons.
  3. The questionable intent of the writer is irrelevant since we are only covering reports on what it says rather than interpreting or analysing it.
In any case FreeKnowledgeCreator has un-reverted in response to my objection. ··gracefool 💬 06:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

RFC - Should a Brenton Harrison Tarrant article replace the redirect to this page?

The consensus at this time is against a Brenton Harrison Tarrant article replacing the redirect to this page per WP:BLP1E because "the media articles discussing him tend to be in relation to the event for which he is notable" (as summarized by This is Paul). There is no prejudice against bolding creating a reliably sourced article in the future or discussing this further if there is new information about him.

Cunard (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Should there be a Brenton Harrison Tarrant article? He has been charged with 51 murders, 40 attempted murders, and engaging in a terrorist act, and there are currently nine Brenton Tarrant articles on the other language wikipedias - eg German de:Brenton_Tarrant. WP:NOTNOTABLE under "People notable for only one event" says "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. Brenton Harrison Tarrant currently redirects to Christchurch_mosque_shootings#Suspect. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk♥ 01:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

  • In response to a deleted comment, WP:NOTNOTABLE under "People notable for only one event" says "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role. When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King. On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example, Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination."♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk♥ 01:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Self-reverted comments didn't occur for our purposes, so there is no need to respond to them. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey

  • Not yet. We should give this some more time, since almost all reports are still about the incident rather than the person. It's too early for a stand-alone article. -The Gnome (talk) 11:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. There are enough RS that directly cover the subject. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. It's too early says "Generally speaking, the various notability criteria that guide editors in creating articles require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources." He is notable because "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event." (Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Crime_victims_and_perpetrators) ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk♥ 22:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The heading and the question in the first paragraph differ. I vote Yes To a redirect to this article, but Not yet to a stand-alone article for Brenton Tarrant. - I just don’t think he’s notable other than for this attack. It may be that more information comes to light during the trial or at a later date. 118.149.198.17 (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No. At least not at present anyway. It is the shootings that are notable rather than Tarrant himself, and the media articles discussing him tend to be in relation to the event for which he is notable. It is difficult to imagine what else a standalone article would include that couldn't be summarised in this one. I'm happy to revisit this should that change and new information about him become available. This is Paul (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No is slightly better than yes rn. As Tarrant is not notable for anything other than the shooting, having an article for him is rather redundant. As the time goes by Tarrant might become notable for other things as well. If that happens, a Brenton Tarrant article would be entirely justifiable. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No, per WP:BLPCRIME. Wait to write an article suggesting a person committed a crime until they are convicted of it. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Pointless Rfc (Summoned by bot) – The outcome of an Rfc about whether one should, or shouldn't, have a particular article does not trump a Notability discussion. Suggest you withdraw this Rfc, create a brief stub article, add all the good references you can muster, then nominate it yourself for deletion at WP:Afd as non-notable. Make your best case that it is notable, and see what happens. If it survives, you can then spend time creating a full article in confidence. If it fails, you haven't wasted much time. This Rfc is also a bit annoying, because you are taking up time from willing editors who want to help, and yet it achieves nothing. In my opinion, people participating here are wasting their time. Please exercise your right to withdraw the Rfc, and devote your time to creating a stub instead. Feel free to ping me to the Afd, if there is one. Good luck. Mathglot (talk) 07:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Eh. I agree that this RFC can't actually bar someone from creating the article, but it's useful as a way of gauging what the likely response to that article will be, and therefore whether it's worth the not-insignificant time and effort to create it. (Of course, finding truly amazing sourcing and otherwise addressing the issues people bring up here makes it more likely it will survive the inevitable AFD - another advantage to running an RFC first.) --Aquillion (talk) 09:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Sorry, have changed heading to "RFC - Should a Brenton Harrison Tarrant article replace the redirect to this page?"

Above comment added by ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥
  • Greetings. Changing a significant element of an RfC such as its title, when the discussion has alredy started, is not kosher. -The Gnome (talk)
Sorry - previous title was "RFC - Should Brenton Harrison Tarrant redirect to this page? ". Changed as had same meaning, but opposite answer to rfc.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk♥ 17:56, 14 July 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.

Copycat Crimes

There have already been three highly publicized shootings since Christchurch. Those being the Poway synagogue shooting the 2019 El Paso shooting and the Baerum mosque shooting. All three suspects have been inspired or have praised the actions of the gunman in this attack. This seems to be an ongoing copycat effect that I think is worth putting in the main article. The Poway shooting already has a mention and does briefly explain how that person praised the actions of this shooting. But now that we have three attacks all linked to the Christchurch attack, I think a copycat effect section would be logical for the article. In other words, it like Columbine all over again and I think that is important to an event of this nature. YatesTucker00090 (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Iron Guard symbol on weapon, add please

In the section: Suspect > Weapons > can someone add to the text mentioning the black sun and other symbols that he also had the romanian Iron Guard symbol on one rifle.85.225.97.154 (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

It would need to come from a reliable secondary source. The Iron Guard may be one of the umpteen far right symbols and memes that Tarrant allegedly used, but there is also the question of notability as there are so many.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi! Here are a few links: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/graffiti-found-after-fire-justice-center-anti-semitic-symbol-n991436 and https://www.hopenothate.org.uk/2019/03/15/new-zealand-mosque-shooter-know/ and https://eu.knoxnews.com/story/news/local/tennessee/2019/04/03/christchurch-shooter-used-racist-symbol-found-at-highland-center-fire-iron-guard/3347678002/ and https://balkaninsight.com/2017/08/15/romanian-fascism-inspires-us-white-nationalists-08-15-2017/ the last one is about this stuff. It is clearly shown in stills media published from the video too.85.225.97.154 (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
and here is one article featuring the image. https://heavy.com/news/2019/03/brenton-tarrant/ 85.225.97.154 (talk) 13:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Avoiding the word "Muslims"?

Brenton Tarrant has specifically said on his pastebin text that he was targetting muslim refugees. I am curious as to why we are playing hot-potato by using words such as "Mosque attendees" or "Mosque worshippers" etc. Fefil14 (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The word "Muslim" is in the text a couple dozen times. Perhaps you are trying to make another point? O3000 (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I believe this is reference to the infobox. As I stated in the edit summary when I added that phrasing, that phrasing is more in line with how the parameter is used at articles like 7 July 2005 London bombings (Public aboard London Underground trains and a bus in Central London), Manchester Arena bombing (Concert-goers), and Orlando nightclub shooting (Patrons of Pulse nightclub). TompaDompa (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2019

Would like to add the fact the shooter also targeted two people while driving away from the mosque, shooting a "lever action" firearm through his windshield wounding only one. The site I got this information on has the video of the shooting, and I would prefer that the Wikipedia page for this shooting does not have a reference linking the video. David T3212 (talk) 07:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions printed directly above your post: ...specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. Akld guy (talk) 08:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Per previous discussions, the article cannot include material which is sourced to an analysis of the video (type of gun used etc). There is a stage in the video where the alleged shooter fires out of the car window, but this would need a reliable secondary source.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC about info box accused = Brenton Harrison Tarrant

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus to include the name of the accused in the infobox, based on both numbers and strength of policy arguments. First, roughly half again as many editors favor inclusion as oppose. Second, the WP:BLPCRIME argument that many of those that oppose are trying to use isn't very applicable in this case. It says: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." That's about protecting the relatively unknown person, which would not be affected by leaving the name out of the infobox while going on in noticeable detail in the article lead and body. --GRuban (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

This article has a Infobox civilian attack template Template:Infobox_civilian_attack which has an info box with a space for the name of the accused. Brenton Harrison Tarrant has been charged with 51 murders, 40 attempted murders, and engaging in a terrorist act. Should he be included in the info box as the accused? It is currently empty. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk♥ 02:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey

  • Νο. Ι'm generally treating infoboxes without the assumption (held by many ) that "infoboxes are an abomination" but this is a typical case where infobox makers got things wrong. There should never have been a place for "accused" persons or of "sus[pected] perp[etrator]s" in the template. The article's main text can, of course, offer the reports of acceptable sources about suspects or arrested people and so on, but these are (or, rather, should be) given within the appropriate context of the respective investigation. Bringing this information up, front, and center in an infobox, in unquestioning isolation, is an indirect yet clear violation of our obligation to keep a neutral stance. Let's start working towards a remedy for this unfortunate state of affairs by not posting up names. -The Gnome (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No it's too simplistic and matter of fact in an info-box and needs the proper context and related info in the prose of the main text, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes If there must be an info box, it seems a simple matter of neutral fact. The authorities, and all reliable sources, seem certain he is accused, and will face trial.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk♥ 23:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes Infoboxes are a simple summary of what can be verified by multiple reliable sources so it is incomplete without the name. The only caveat is that this must refer to the accused rather than the perpetrator because Tarrant is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Info boxes are key/value pairs and this has inherent limitations but this is not the forum to discuss the limitations of presenting data in this format - we need to work with the template we are given. 118.149.198.17 (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. Name him in the infobox as the accused. This is a fact and does not imply guilt in any way. But naming (as accused) in the lead may carry too much weight, so I don't want him named there. Akld guy (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment: In the lead, context can be adequately provided, while in the infobox it cannot, by definition. Shouldn't then this be the other way around, i.e. have it in the lead, but not in the box? -The Gnome (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment: The lead is not the place for context. The lead is meant to be a summary of what follows, not a piece by piece analysis. Look around and you'll find leads that are so bloated they are articles in their own right and there's no need for the rest. Akld guy (talk) 07:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I still fail to see how a small summary in the lead section does not provide context, even at a minimum. The lead is, as you say, a summary. That's still far more preferable that an infobox with an unaccompanied bit of info. We should always follow WP:BLP about relatively unknown people and seriously consider not including material —in any article— that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. An out-of-context, stand-alone presentation in the infobox of the name of a person being accused trespasses into the territory WP:BLP warns us off. The template itself is in error and we should minimize its effects. -The Gnome (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
P.S. : I haven't suggested a "piece-by-piece" analysis in the lead. Αrguing that there are already articles with "bloated" leading sections is WP:OSE. -The Gnome (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes No real problems with this as long as it is "accused".--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No This guy is a nobody. Putting him in the infobox (or the lead) is promoting him as a somebody. If his name becomes a household word then it would be appropriate. I feel strongly that Wikipedia should not shape cultural perceptions, but present them as they are. Also to a degree "suspect" or "accused" without any context translate to most as "the guy we all know did it, but we are not saying it outright." Having the reader go to the body of the article to get the name presents an opportunity for context. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
"Promoting" is not reference to any wikipedia policy; as to what cultural perceptions "are", I see no citations and don't think this is verifiable either.--Calthinus (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I suppose WP:UNDUE would be the policy. Presenting this guy's name more prominently is saying "this is important, you should know it first". I feel that is "undue" and not neutral. However this seems to be very much a judgement call. There are cases where policy is clear cut and cases where it is up to the editors involved. In this case, determining what cultural perceptions are is a judgement call. Even if I found some source who said this guy's name is unimportant, it would just be that pundit's view. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes I prefer the word "Suspect", until proper sentencing per WP:BLPCRIME Loganmac (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is essential information for the event. Furthermore, "accused", while in line with WP:BLPCRIME is insufficient. Accused what? Perpetrator? Well that is what most readers would guess but there is no need to be weaselly about this ("accused" could also be a collaborator). Consider instead : "accused perpetrator". This does not state his guilt in wikivoice but still clearly states what his self-filmed role was -- the basis of a legal accusation to which he is a defendant, and will be handled in court. --Calthinus (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong no, per WP:BLPCRIME: we should not include material suggesting a person has committed a crime, nor been accused thereof, until they are duly convicted. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes BLPCRIME does not apply because the suspect's name has been all over the place in reliable sources. We don't need to wait for a conviction in these circumstances - the suspect is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. --Pudeo (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    • You appear to misunderstand what a Public figure is and have substituted your own definition that most nearly equates to “has been in all the papers.” Im assuming good faith but the way you laid this out could be seen as purposefully misleading, at the very least you are gravely mistaken about pretty basic wikipedia policy. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No (Summoned by bot) per WP:BLPCRIME. I agree with Horse Eye Jack above about the suspect being not a public figure. If being named in news coverage qualifies someone as public figure, BLPCRIME becomes meaningless because it wouldn't apply to any article (being covered in multiple independent reliable sources is part of the requirements for even having an article). It's meant to uphold the assumption of innocence with only limited exceptions, and I don't believe this is one. For similar reasons, I'm not convinced by anonymous editor above who says infoboxes are for obvious facts. There's no requirement that articles have infoboxes, let alone that every possible field be populated. WP:BLPCRIME says to err on the side of not including information, so we should err on not including it in the infobox because nothing compels us to include in the first place. Wug·a·po·des​ 05:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. His name has been published widely around the world. That makes Wikipedia look lame and timid not to publish it. WWGB (talk) 09:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: WP:FART says "just because a piece of trivial information was printed in a newspaper or gossip magazine, or on a website, there is no requirement for it to be included on Wikipedia" which is correct. Facing trial for one of the most serious mass shootings ever is a long way outside WP:FART territory. The article has to avoid problems with WP:ASTONISH, as I have said below.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Yeah, it's flippant and doesn't add much to the discussion. I've removed it from my rationales. As to your point, I would still way BLPCRIME over ASTONISH. I think respecting the moral and legal rights to privacy are worth delaying prominent naming; there's no deadline, and we can afford to wait until there is a conviction, even if readers are surprised accusations are not given prominence. Wug·a·po·des​ 12:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No - what's the rush? Wait for the outcome per WP:BLPCRIME. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No And pursuant to WP:BLP and per NZ law. The "Wikipedia is not censored and can therefore ignore common sense" argument is of nil value, as far as I can tell. As is the "well we know who did it, so why care about WP:BLP" argument. Neither should be given any weight at all in this RfC. We can add his name when it is proper under WP:BLP and not before. Collect (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. The subject is an involuntary public figure per 80000 results in Google News for "Brenton Tarrant" christchurch. The qualifier of 'accused' is acceptable. I frankly don't care about NZ law. This is a special circumstance, and passes the threshold of "seriously not consider" that WP:BLPCRIME requires. Tutelary (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. If were discussing the "perpetrator" field from the infobox template then this would be unwarranted; but the "accused" field is appropriate because the article already identifies the suspect in the lead as having been arrested and charged. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Policy seems to say that he is limited purpose or involuntary public figure" who cannot be defamed. [9]. says " this section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by [10]. :Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures says In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported. [11] says a person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk♥ 18:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

MOS:DONTTEASE says "Tabloid, magazine, and broadcast news leads may have "teasers" that intentionally omit some crucial details to entice readers to read or watch the full story. They may even "bury the lead" by hiding the most important facts. This style should never be used on Wikipedia."♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk♥ 15:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment (Summoned by bot): If a majority of reliable sources report this info, then it would not go against NPOV to include it in the infobox; in fact not doing so would fail to give the info proper WP:WEIGHT. It's debatable whether WP:BLPCRIME applies here, given that the suspect clearly sought notoriety for himself by livestreaming the attack. Whether Wikipedia should be helping the attacker achieve that notoriety is another thing to consider. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment: WP:ASTONISH is involved here. Some people have asked why Tarrant's name is hidden in a rather obscure way. Although WP:BLPCRIME still applies, the court did not prevent him from being named and his name has appeared widely in news media all over the world. Overall, it is OK to name him as long as it is made clear that he is the accused person facing trial. In Stoneman Douglas High School shooting Nikolas Cruz, is identified as the assailant in the lead and the infobox, although he yet to face trial.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:18, 20 July 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.

Political motivation?

"Described in media reports as a white supremacist and part of the alt-right".

Except that isn't clear.

He expresses a desire to "destabiliz[e] and polariz[e] Western society," "[turn] NATO once more into a united European army," and "create conflict between the two ideologies within the United States on the ownership of firearms."

On his political ideology, he says: "conservatism is corporatism in disguise, I want no part of it." "The nation with the closest political and social values to my own is the People's Republic of China." "Sir Oswald Mosley is the person from history closest to my own beliefs." (context: Oswald Mosley founded several authoritarian political parties in Great Britain, and ultimately strove for a unified Europe.) "Were/are you "right wing"? Depending on the definition, sure. Were/are you "left wing"? Depending on the definition, sure. Were/are you a socialist? Depending on the definition. Worker ownership of the means of production? It depends on who those workers are, their intents, who currently owns the means of production, their intents and who currently owns the state, and its intents. Were/are you a supporter of Donald Trump? As a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose? Sure. As a policy maker and leader? Dear god no." "Conservatism is dead. Thank god." "There is no Green future with never ending population growth, the ideal green world cannot exist in a World of 100 billion 50 billion or even 10 billion people." "Emotions rule over facts. ... Be creative, be expressive, be emotional and above all be passionate. These are the things that speak to people, connect people, drive people. Paint, write, sing, dance, recite poetry." "global free markets and the trade of goods is to be discouraged at all costs. An environmentally conscious and moral society will never be able to economically compete with a society based on ever increasing industrialization, urbanization, industrial output and population increase."

Seems to have a lot more in common with socialists and communists than anything, and the only supposed link to "white supremacy" is his vague answers to the "right wing" and "renewed white identity", the latter of which is a clearly politically motivated question.

It would seem more accurate to file this under "unknown" or "unclear" because this guy is all over the map, and the only common theme I'm seeing here is psychopathism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V0latyle (talk • contribs) 15:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

That you disagree with the wide array of cited reliable sources for the description of this as white supremacist terrorism is interesting, but of no relevance to Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
The manifesto is a load of alt-right/far-right rambling. People who do crackpot political things are rarely able to plead insanity successfully, with Anders Behring Breivik a good example. Psychiatrists disagreed about his exact mental state, but any sort of advanced planning shows that a person is aware of what they are doing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I myself, am fairly Right wing, so I hate to say this but if you read his whole manifesto, it's clear that he was indeed an ethno-nationalist, and that was the main reason for the attack. The user above me who talks about "a wide array of cited reliable sources," gives an annoying answer, "reliable sources" cited by wiki editors are normally far Left, but he HAPPENS to be right this time. The guy directly above me is also right, but for the wrong reasons. Killing Muslims does not mean that you are crazy, in the same way that Muslims killing us does not mean that they are crazy (because it says to do that in their holy book). In both cases it's a software problem, not a hardware problem (their ideas). You seem like a reasonable person, but I think you are wrong, OP, on this occasion. Bluexepnos (talk) 06:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
You won't change their minds. On Wikipedia the consensus is, "If it is racist, it is right wing" and then they pull references from echo-chamber media articles that all rewrite what each other are saying, and the editors say "Look, see, we referenced it". Then you look at the references closely and the authors are basically making opinion statements that don't support the facts. You are absolutely correct in the fact that this man was aligned politically with the left, and he was a racist. His very existence destroys the theory that only right wingers are racists (among others, including the Ohio shooter recently). But you'll be drowned out. Wikipedia's leftist editors like the ones above have effectively killed conservative editor viewpoints and now turn their attention to running off centrists like myself. Then they'll make statements like "I am impartial in my editing" when they aren't even remotely close to impartial. 2600:8804:80:2280:F49C:FC66:D888:7F2A (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
KW The term "part of the alt-right" is clearly a political opinion, has no basis in fact (AFAIK?), and has no business in Wikipedia. If you think otherwise, good luck finding a citation because one should be there on such a divisive issue.

Redundancy in the lead sentence

I think the redundancy in the lead sentence should somehow be avoided. Defining Christchurch mosque shootings as shootings in mosques in Christchurch is a bit goofy, akin to defining the black panther as a panther that is black. Freeknowledgecreator opposes my idea to make this redundancy a bit less jarring by identifying the mosques (instead of just saying "mosques" twice). Is there another way to avoid the repetition? Surtsicna (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

In my view the bolding of the title words in the first sentence of an event article such as this is important only for the few events that have acquired iconic, "household" names, such as September 11 attacks. This is not such an event. Thus my preferred solution is to eliminate those bolded words and begin the article with something like: "On 15 March 2019, two consecutive terrorist attacks occurred at mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, during Friday Prayer." This would eliminate first-sentence repetition for both "Christchurch" and "mosque". ―Mandruss ☎ 12:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree, Mandruss. That would be my preferred option too. I have learned, however, that Wikipedians love bolded words. In my experience, Wikipedians prefer boldface to good wording. See this failed attempt, for example. I am slowly giving up on fighting that windmill. Surtsicna (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
It all depends on who shows up, so there's some hope. I don't intend to get involved in a protracted debate. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Hate crimes against UK Muslims following the massacre

User:Roger 8 Roger Can you tell me what your problem is with acknowledging this fact in the entry? How is it "misrepresenting the source" to say the anti-Muslim hate crimes in Britain increased by nearly 600%? That's exactly what it says, starting from the title: https://inews.co.uk/news/anti-muslim-hate-crimes-rise-new-zealand-shootings-mosque-tell-mama-504978 — Rafe87 (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

If we unpack the hyperbole in that article, reports of hate crime, to one organisation, rose from 15 to 89. Were these claims investigated? Were the alleged victims being hypervigilant? I would prefer an encyclopedic entry to be more reliable and fact-checked. WWGB (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The headline says: Hate crimes against UK Muslims soar by 593% after New Zealand mosque shootings but the article says: Figures seen by the Guardian found that reports rose by 593 per cent in the week following the atrocities, with more recorded hate incidents in the last seven days than following the 2017 bombing of the Manchester Arena. A hate crime happening and a hate crime being reported are not the same thing. The article is saying what someone else (The Guardian) says it saw what other people said they saw, which is fourth or fifth hand information and not a secondary source. The article then compares Christchurch with Manchester, which is a separate matter again. I am not sure how much weight we should give to that news source, even if the information is worth adding to this wiki article, but if it is used then it should be re-worded to reflect what the source says. Thank you for not edit warring. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Also the guardian article also attribute the claim to MAMMA, basically one organisation is claiming this, its an opinion not a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Agree that Tell MAMA does not fit the bill for a secondary reliable source. Statistics from the police and actual prosecutions would be better here. To expand, a hate crime implies that a criminal offence has been committed. There is a risk that any incident that a person found untoward could be recorded as a "hate crime" but this is not the same thing as an incident that led to a prosecution and a conviction.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I mistakenly assumed the editor concerned was a newbie but he has over 3,000 edits behind him. He has been blocked for persistent disruptive editing and personal attacks. His talk page makes interesting reading. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Brenton Tarrant in the infobox

There was an RfC resolved to include Tarrant's name in the infobox. However, as the matter is before the courts, his name should be reported against "Accused" and not "Assailant". WWGB (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

WWGB, unlike the word perpetrator, assailant doesn't imply that the person is guilty. Accused implies that there is a doubt about the shooter's identity which is not true. The shooter identity has been confirmed to be Tarrant.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Completely wrong. WP:BLPCRIME provides that "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law." In the eyes of the law, he did nothing wrongful unless convicted (or insane). WWGB (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Why should I repeat the same thing? Assailant doesnt imply that he is guilty of the crime. Perpetrator does. Accused implies that it has not been confirmed that he is the shooter.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Good luck finding another editor who agrees with you. WWGB (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh ha ha, you are just out of arguments.
This is not rocket science. Its simple English. The word assailant doesn't imply that the person is guilty, he could be insane or something. The word perpetrator implies that someone is guilty of a crime. The word accused implies that the identity of the shooter has not been confirmed which is not true. The identity of the shooter has been confirmed and there is no doubt about it.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • In simple English, assailant is a synonym for attacker or aggressor. It's a loaded word. WP:BLPCRIME covers whether Wikipedia can state as a fact that the person in question did the deed, not just the criminality involved in the deed. This person can fairly be called the suspect, as the article currently names him. • Gene93k (talk) 06:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
    Gene93k, it has been confirmed that Tarrant is the attacker, period. There is no doubt about that. The only thing is whether he is guilty or not. If he is guilty then we will use the perpetrator parameter. It is not a "loaded term".-SharabSalam (talk) 06:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:BLPCRIME absolutely applies here. Media reports do not determine a person's guilt or innocence. Until a trial takes place, Tarrant is the accused, not the attacker, perpetrator, assailant etc. It's a pity that the article is protected over this. On a more general note, the infobox should include only simple and uncontroversial information. The current parameters for {{Infobox civilian attack}} are insufficient for complying with BLPCRIME.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Ianmacm, he is the attacker. All reliable sources say that. WP:BLPCRIME says that for relatively unknown people we should not suggest that the attacker committed a crime and we aren't. The word assailant doesnt suggest criminality at all. If he is convinced and he wasn't able to prove that he was insane or mentally crippled then we will put his name in the perpetrator parameter which is a different parameter and not the same parameter as the assailant parameter which again doesnt suggest crimial case but that it has been confirmed that he is the attacker.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Also we have an outcome of a lengthy RfC that says we should mention his name in the infobox.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I stand by the previous comment. Infobox civilian attack should include a field for "accused" or similar, but it doesn't. This leads to problems with BLPCRIME.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Actually, it does. See, for example, 2019 El Paso shooting. WWGB (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Ianmacm,
You appear to have a problem understanding what BLPCRIME says. Read the closing comment by GRuban

the WP:BLPCRIME argument that many of those that oppose are trying to use isn't very applicable in this case. It says: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." That's about protecting the relatively unknown person, which would not be affected by leaving the name out of the infobox while going on in noticeable detail in the article lead and body.

That means people who their names are relatively unknown to public not someone who his name is mentioned tons of times in the media and even the court names him.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I also note that GRuban determined there was "Consensus to include the name of the accused in the infobox". WWGB (talk) 09:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to WWGB for pointing out that Patrick Crusius is given as "accused" in the infobox of 2019 El Paso shooting. This is uncontroversial and the article here should do the same.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Ianmacm, As I said before that accused suggest that there is a doubt that Tarrant was the shooter. We have multiple sources that say Tarrant is the shooter. The only reason he would be not guilty is if he proved that he was insane or mentally crippled. Since this seems to be hard for you to understand think if Tarrant was proven not guilty because he was insane would we put his name in the accused parameter or the assailant parameter? The assailant word doesnt suggest any criminal case, it merely says the fact that the attacker is Tarrant. Something that is indisputable. He even shared a video of the attack.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
It is not "hard for me to understand" because my position on this issue is consistent across all mass shooting articles. The article should not say "x did it" before any trial has taken place. I'm well aware of the livestream video, but this doesn't alter the fact that Tarrant is yet to face trial.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
The terms assailant, attacker, even shooter, are all slightly loaded terms, implying intent. Intent implies sanity. That is why they should be avoided. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

So it seems that this has been discussed and everyone except SharabSalam agrees that we should say "accused" (someone who is accused of a crime but not yet tried in court) in the infobox rather than "assailant" (a person who attacks someone) which implies that the accused carried out this crime. However heinous the crime or strong the evidence, under New Zealand law everyone is presumed innocent until found guilty in court.

I did the edit but it was reverted, is there anything else to add to this discussion or can I reinstate the edit based on the consensus that has clearly been established here? 161.29.176.182 (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, the reversion was against consensus. "Accused" is correct until court decision or consensus determines otherwise. WWGB (talk) 10:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

"Hello, brother"

Re this edit: IP 185.175.33.150 is right about this. Despite numerous media reports saying that the shooter was greeted at the door of the Al Noor Mosque with the words "Hello, brother", the livestream video does not confirm this. He shoots through the entrance doorway and enters the building at around 6 minutes 45 seconds into the video, without any greeting or any words being spoken. The MSM reports are basically wrong here, which is always a problem.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Difficult one because people will be disinclined to review the primary source to confirm or deny this. Also, what about WP:NOTTRUTH? 161.29.176.182 (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Nobody is recommended to watch the video, but there are numerous reliable sources with the "Hello brother", eg here in The Guardian. This says "The 71-year-old was the fifth to be buried on Thursday. Six days earlier, he was the first to die when he held open the door of Masjid Al Noor on Deans Avenue in Christchurch and greeted a stranger with: “Hello, brother.”" Someone seems to have said this to the news media in good faith, but it cannot be confirmed by the livestream video. Nobody holds the door of the mosque open. The shooter walks in through the open front entrance, shooting as he goes. The words "Hello brother" are not spoken as he enters the building. Definitely a problem with WP:NOTTRUTH.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Security officials suspect he had come into contact with far-right organisations about two years before the shooting, while visiting European nations  [full citation needed].

Seeking comment on an edit to the following section: "Security officials suspect he had come into contact with far-right organisations about two years before the shooting, while visiting European nations"

This is politically loaded and only gives one source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/brenton-tarrant-new-zealand-attacker-far-right-europe-gunam-shooting-a8825611.html

The article in fact starts with this claim, but it is not actually supported in the text at all. There is no mention of which specifically security services have or have voiced this suspicion, or any direct claim pertaining to this

It seems very much like a misleading claim has been made, then supported with a citation that doesn't actually support it.

I vote that this claim should be deleted, pending a credible attribution to a specific agency or individual. --Willthewanderer (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The wording in the Independent article is "The man arrested over the murder of 49 people at mosques in New Zealand is believed to have met extreme right-wing groups during a visit to Europe two years ago, according to security sources." The wording is OK but rather vague and unspecific. It might be better to stick to people that Tarrant was proven to have met.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Aye, much better. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Singular terrorist act

Two stages, but of the same thing, per the one offense he was charged with and has now confirmed he committed. Still "shootings", but "an" act/attack/assault. Correct? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The article title "Christchurch mosque shootings" is based on the fact that the deaths occurred at two separate locations. I think it is important to make this clear.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm talking about the opening five words (and similar). Two acts of terrorism ("terrorist shooting attacks") would get two counts. There's only one. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
"Shootings" is still based on the fact that he shot ninety additional people after the first one. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
The opening words are "Two consecutive terrorist shooting attacks" which seems OK. Although the overall incident could be described as one event, the attacks took place at two different locations. 42 people died at the Al Noor Mosque, where the livestream video was broadcast and most of the media coverage was focused on this part of the attacks. The other deaths occurred at the Linwood Islamic Centre around fifteen minutes later..--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Not "could be described" as one event, has been determined by the court as one event. Fuck media coverage, by this point. We have a literal conviction to the contrary, based on a year's worth of official inquiry. It doesn't matter if you or I can argue why an alternative viewpoint seems OK anymore. But just for old time's sake, which terrorist attack do you believe prosecutors declined to charge Tarrant with, and why? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
It's obviously a single event committed by Tarrant, in the same way that the 2011 Norway attacks were a single atrocity committed by Breivik, although they consisted of a bomb attack in Oslo and a shooting in Utøya. It's an issue related to the article title.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with the title. It has everything do with saying there were two consecutive terrorist attacks while the same lead notes it counted as one concurrent terrorist act (comprising 51 murders and 40 attempts). Absolutely, positively, 100% does not compute. I cannot oversimplify the problem further. Take it or leave it! InedibleHulk (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what the problem is here. This BBC News article from today uses the phrase "Christchurch mosque shootings", which is exactly the same as the title of this article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Two consecutive terrorist attacks is the problem in the article. Forget about titles and guns. What does being charged with and accepting one count of engaging in a terrorist act suggest to you? If it's two anything, we can never agree this is easy. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I've made some fixes, maybe showing is more useful than tellling. Probably not. Had to try. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
InedibleHulk, they were two separated attacks, not one attack.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
They were two shooting attacks which occurred in the context of one terrorist attack. Being precise at the very start of the lead is important. It is more accurate to say "Two consecutive shootings occurred in a terrorist attack" than it is to say "Two consecutive terrorist shooting attacks occurred". Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
You accidentally contradicted yourself. There are two sites and two shootings therefore two attacks. As the U.N. itself says about one the sites "[t]he Mosque was the first site of two terrorist attacks that took place on 15 March 2019." (Emphasis is mine). [12]--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Since the crime is being assessed under NZ laws, they are calling it one overall terrorism act, not two. We should stick with that. --Masem (t) 03:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I did not contradict myself SharabSalam; perhaps you are misinterpreting what I wrote? The authorities charged and convicted the perpetrator with one act of terrorism. In the course of his terrorist attack, he carried out two consecutive mass shooting sprees. I looked at the United Nations news story you linked, but that's just a caption from a picture in a news release; it's not as if the United Nations has entered some kind of finding that this was two separate acts of terrorism. As InedibleHulk and Masem have pointed out, the only legal authority with jurisdiction in the matter is the Government of New Zealand. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
The act ≠ attack. There were two terrorist attacks as per what all reliable sources say.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
"All reliable sources" do not say this was two terrorist attacks. However, let's set that aside for a minute and take a look at your own contradictions. In this thread, you are arguing that it was two different terrorist attacks. Yet in the thread below, you are arguing that the lead should be changed from "Two consecutive terrorist shooting attacks occurred at mosques" to "Two consecutive shootings took place in mosques during a white supremacist terrorist attack". So in this thread you're arguing it's two terrorist attacks, and in the thread below you are arguing it's a single terrorist attack. Please explain the logic behind your contradictory requests. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't have to explain anything to you. Being charged with "terrorism act" doesn't mean there was one terrorist attacks and the other was not. The word act doesn't not equal attack. I don't know why you find it hard to understand my easy-to-comprehend logical explanation. All reliable sources and the New Zealand police said that the attacks were terrorist.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I've just exposed your prima facie contradictory positions here on the Talk Page, arguing in this thread that the lead should say two terrorist attacks not one while arguing in the other thread that the lead should say it's one terrorist attack not two. You say you don't have to explain that, but that just makes it obvious you're trapped in your own contradiction and can't find your way out of it. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
No you are just changing the goalpost of this argument. The word act ≠ attack. The police of New Zealand has called the shootings, terrorist attacks.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Of course the terrorist act was the attack. What else could it refer to? You're confused by the news' tendency to overuse the word "attack" when referring to anything offensive. Here, to avoid further ambiguity and confusion, we must use distinct words consistently. If you want "attacks" to mean "shootings", say "act" to describe the single terrorist attack. Or call the shootings the "acts" or "shootings", doesn't matter, as long as they're different. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
No, I think you are the one who is confused. Being charged with "terrorism act" doesn't mean that you have done only one terrorist attack. There were two terrorist attacks as all reliable and the New Zealand police have described the attacks as terrorist attacks. Also, "act" ≠ attack while shooting ≈ attack. I think you are now less confused?.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I know I'm right. In law, one count represents one alleged offense. Why do you feel he was charged with 51 murders and 40 attempted murders? Exact same system, exact same logic. Admit it instead of fighting back (if you can't resist, at least point directly to a source saying there were two terrorist attacks, because every source you pasted two sections down claims one). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

If I said someone is charged with terrorism act that doesn't mean I am saying he has made one terrorist attack. The term "terrorism act" in law means someone is practicing terrorism, which means he is a terrorist. If someone killed 10 people because of political or religious reasons, he will be guilty for 10 murders and terrorism act. If he killed 10 people and then after one week he killed another 10 people for political or religious reasons he will be guilty for 20 murders and terrorism act. However, he had made 2 terrorist attacks. No body gets charge for two "terrorism act", someone is charged with "terrorism act" whether he makes 1 or 11 terrorist attacks or even zero terrorist attack. The number of terrorist attacks is irrelevant, the attack is also irrelevant. The terrorism ideology is relevant.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

If somebody is accused of any number of any criminal act(s), they face that number of applicable charges. This idea that engaging in one or more terrorist acts is somehow different from a murderer practicing murder or a fraudster practing fraud comes from your own head. That ruins any chance at a fact-based argument, so we should stop. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings/Archive_12&oldid=1159448500"