Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Why does Brenton Tarrant not have his own page?

I appreciate it was the NZ PMs expressed wish that his name not be mentioned but this is scarcely a reason.

Other equally heinous terrorists like Timothy McVeigh, Mohammad Atta etc etc have pages of their own with considerable background to the individual's past, motivations and so on.

I find it peculiar that Tarrant does not given the scale and significance of this attack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaqueth (talk • contribs)

Tarrant's name is mentioned literally dozens of times, right from the start, so that's not it. I think people have figured that it is the attack which is significant, rather than the biography of an individual who is not otherwise notable. Any relevant motivations, etc, belong first in this article. The relevant guideline is probably WP:PERP, which says among other things, A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. I think the most recent discussion was at /Archive_12#RFC_-_Should_a_Brenton_Harrison_Tarrant_article_replace_the_redirect_to_this_page? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPCRIME we try to avoid creating articles on people only known for being involved in a criminal event, unless there is significant interest in that background and motiviation. There really isn't that much here for Tarrant given that it aligns right with white supremacism, so it pretty much self-explanatory. --Masem (t) 02:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

There are no absolute rules on this. For example, John Hinckley Jr. has an article but Adam Lanza does not. A separate BLP article would have to be significantly longer and different; it could not simply rehash material from another article. Brenton Tarrant probably doesn't have enough sourcing to support a full BLP article, per WP:PERP and WP:BLP1E.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree. More info would have to come out about Tarrant for an article about him to be worthwhile. The information we know about Tarrant is very much centered around the attacks and limited, meanwhile the information we know about the lives of other mass shooters is far more vast. It's likely that with time and more information is released about Tarrant that an article about Tarrant can be created. --Violetnights (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

A simple stub with two sentences would do, including categories and personal data. -- ΞΞ (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

An article that short would be rolled right back into this page as its not adding anything new. --Masem (t) 13:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

It is the practice of Damnatio memoriae, which is common in cases of domestic terrorism. Balupton (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

So maybe someone could mention him on the Damnatio_memoriae wikipage HardeeHar (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brenton_Harrison_Tarrant&redirect=no HardeeHar (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Tarrant DOB

Why is there no information on the internet about Tarrant's date of birth? It seems strange. Is there possibly censorship? Most other large mass shooter/terrorist perpetrators DOB information is widely available on the internet. Archmaid (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I can't speak to other websites, but we can only say what is reliably sourced by third parties. If you have a book or other reliable offline source we can use that. AIRcorn (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

No, there is not "possibly censorship". Per WP:ONUS, verifiability alone is not sufficient reason to include something in a Wikipedia article. Even if we have a reliable source, I oppose dates of birth and other basic biographical details for the perps in these articles, because the articles are not biographies of the perps. The article subject is the event, not the perp, and knowing the perp's DOB does not increase a reader's understanding of the article subject. The perp's age is sufficient. While some articles include DOB, others do not, and that has no bearing on this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

FYI, I could not find a single source, reliable or otherwise, that gives Tarrant's exact date of birth. This is a bit odd, but it is not key information for the article anyway.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

27 October 1990. Nurg (talk) 11:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, it is here which is a reliable source. The consensus still seems to be that it isn't needed as the article is about the shootings rather than a bio of Tarrant.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Maori

@Roger 8 Roger:

Regarding adding the Maori name

The purpose is to tell the reader that this is the Maori name of the commission (taken from the website of the commission). Even though almost all Maori speakers are also fluent in English, I feel it's still important to tell the reader that this is the name of commission in New Zealand's other official language. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The Maori name is never used except on official documents as required by law. Using it here on this English language wiki site has no relevance to anybody and is just there for the sake of being there. Thanks for your reply. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. Even though Irish is similarly used in the Republic of Ireland Irish names of government agencies are still put in Wikipedia articles about them. Same with New Zealand government agencies. Based on the official usage I still think the Maori names should be included. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the requirement is common usage rather than official status. I cannot speak for the editors at the Irish wiki sites. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The name of the article used on ENwiki for a department of the Republic of Ireland government would be the most name in English, but what I referred to is that if the agency has a separate name in Irish that's noted in the lead. Example: Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport The Irish name was there when the article was started WhisperToMe (talk) 05:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

But this is not an article about a governmental agency. AIRcorn (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

This [1] External Links comment seems to make it fairly clear than non-English names are to be avoided if at all possible. Outside of citations,[5] external links to English-language content are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia. I do not think that any customary use by editors on any WP article overrides the wiki policy rules, or even the WP guidelines. Too many of them have agendas to push. Anything to do with Ireland is likely to bring on all sorts of politically slanted wording. I am not saying that is necessarily the case here, but use of the Maori name seems without any merit, to a Royal Commission, as I think the guideline above confirm. Additionally, this article is about the shootings not the wider use of Maori names of official documents in NZ. In that sense it seems to be off topic. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

AFAICT, no one is suggesting we change the external link. The discussion is solely over what text to include in this article, rather than to change where the external link points to. Nil Einne (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2020

Ficboy (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I would like to add more information about Brenton Tarrant, the perpetrator of the Christchurch mosque shootings in New Zealand namely his inspirations such as Dylann Roof, Oswald Mosley, Luca Traini, Anton Lundin Pettersson, Alexandre Bissonnette and the People's Republic of China as well as the two main motivations such as Ebba Akerlund's death in the Stockholm truck attack in Sweden and a visit to France which includes a mention of the National Rally party, the poems "The Beginnings" by Rudyard Kipling, "Do not go gentle into that good night" by Dylan Thomas and "Invictus" by William Ernest Henley and the trolling references to Candace Owens of Turning Points USA, the Navy SEAL Copypasta and the video games Spyro and Fortnite all of this mentioned is explicitly stated in his manifesto The Great Replacement which I read for study related purposes and not an endorsement of the gunman's ideology.

 Not done. You need to state explicitly what changes you want made to the article. You should also be aware that the perpetrator's "manifesto" is not an acceptable source.-gadfium 03:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Previous consensus is not to go into great detail about the manifesto because a lot of it is shitposting. It is not something to be taken at face value.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Seprate article for Brenton Tarrant

Can somebody please create a separate article for Brenton Tarrant? Like can you make Brenton Tarrant and the perpetrator section into another article called Brenton Tarrant? Bear420 (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPCRIME we generally do NOT make separate articles for these people unless they were notable before the crime, or there has been significant study of the person as a result of their crime after the fact (like with Lee Harvey Oswald). Additionally, given that NZ's prime minister would not like attention drawn to the individual, there's a good reason not to separate out an article on him. --Masem (t) 03:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Please see the discussion earlier on this page, and in the archives.-gadfium 03:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Damnatio memoriae is not really an issue here. Tarrant would not have enough sourcing for a decent standalone article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

There is a separate article on Martin Bryant and other mass murderers, so Wikipedia should be consistent or be irrelevant...don't let politicians dictate how an encyclopedia presents information. Be it the NZ Prime Minister or the US President. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.90.232 (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

So if US government decide not to invite attention to Bin Laden, could we remove that article as well. What a joke!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A61:3B3D:3701:DD65:C03D:A615:3926 (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Its not a political issues. Simply that we generally don't make separate articles for the perpetrators of crimes unless they have been studied significantly, of which Bryant has but not Tarrant. --Masem (t) 13:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

You contradicted yourself -> Additionally, given that NZ's prime minister would not like attention drawn to the individual, there's a good reason not to separate out an article on him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A61:3B3D:3701:DD65:C03D:A615:3926 (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

See also

How is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halle_synagogue_shooting related to the subject? I do not see any connection between attack on a synagogue and that on a mosque, that too in entirely different continents. This should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A61:3B3D:3701:DD65:C03D:A615:3926 (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The Halle synagogue shooting was a far-right extremist attack. The suspect, Stephen Balliet, also live-streamed the attack, like Tarrant. "...Comparisons were drawn between the Christchurch mosque shootings, where the suspected shooter livestreamed his attacks on Facebook for nearly 17 minutes.[51] Like the perpetrator of those shootings, Balliet purportedly streamed the attack online with video and audio from his action camera on his helmet. The entire footage lasted about 35 minutes and was streamed to the gaming website Twitch." Violetnights (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

That's hell lot of a connection. How likely it is that someone looking for an encyclopaedia article relates different crimes according to whether it was streamed in internet or not? Pretty much every crime is committed by some extremists, so that would make the cut too. I strongly argue to remove the above link, which is nothing but an attempt to reduce the gravity of an attack which killed 50 Muslim worshippers by making some creepy comparisons. 62.216.209.193 (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

• Agree. This is not the place to link to other individual attacks. Keep it for more broad articles and lists. AIRcorn (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

As with the media reports, I believe that there was a likely copycat element in the Halle synagogue shooting. This is why that it is suitable as a see also.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I still feel this and the Bayonne mosque shooting are too specific for the see also. If there is a serious connection then they should be mentioned in the article body. If it is too tangential for that then it is the same for the see also. Otherwise it can start getting a bit discriminate. AIRcorn (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Shortening article

This article is starting to get pretty long, going at a ghastly 247 kB. Per WP:SIZERULE, I strongly think we should excise and/or split off some of the content. What does everyone else think? Love of Corey (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

While I agree it is getting a bit too long, the actual prose size (which is what matters) is only 55kb. AIRcorn (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh. How did you calculate that? Love of Corey (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I use Wikipedia:Prosesize script. You can activate it under your preferences and then gadgets. A link (page size) will show up on the left column at article pages. Its important because in many articles the references can take up a lot of bytes. AIRcorn (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The overall prose size is getting to be too long, but it is within guidelines.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Love of Corey (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Bolding Naeem Rashid's name

I disagree with having the name Naeem Rashid as the only bolded text in the article. At best, it is an odd choice that will not make sense to readers. It gives undue prominence to one victim. And at worst, since normally only the perpetrator's name is bolded (if any), it might suggest that he was the shooter. Nothing is gained by bolding Naeem Rashid's name. Surtsicna (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Naeem Rashid is a redirect here, so WP:R#ASTONISH provides that "It will often be appropriate to bold the redirected term". For the reasons you have given. perhaps it is better not to apply the bolding in this case. WWGB (talk) 02:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it is preferable not to bold the name. Naeem Rashid is not a synonym for the article title, or for the section linked to.-gadfium 04:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

If we follow WP:R#ASTONISH then Brenton Harrison Tarrant should be bolded too and has a much more legitimate case. Better to not bold anyone. AIRcorn (talk) 06:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

It’s obvious from WP:R#ASTONISH that Naeem Rashid's name should not be bolded. It doesn’t say that every redirect should be treated this way and acknowledges that it may not be appropriate to do so. The example given is where an alternate name of the article is given in the first sentence. Don’t bold “minor or insignificant” redirects. R#ASTONISH is a guideline not a policy. At the head of the page it says “It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense”. Common sense. DeCausa (talk) 07:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Per MOS:NOBOLD, I don't think it's really necessary to have this in boldface.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I will have to concur with Ianmacm's stance. Love of Corey (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Naming victims

Hi, sorry, not sure if this is a weird question, but it seems when there are mass-casualty killings, most articles include a list of the victims and their ages (see: Orlando nightclub shooting or the Quebec City mosque shooting) Is there a reason this wasn't included - or couldn't be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.102.101.49 (talk) 07:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Some do, some don't, for example 2017 Las Vegas shooting does not following a talk page consensus that it added little to the article and had problems with WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:BLP for the relatives. I've always come down on the side of not including full victim lists for mass shootings, but other people insist on having them. This has never been resolved despite various debates. For this article, it was previously discussed at Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings/Archive_10#A_"List_of_the_dead"_needs_to_be_added.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Picture of Tarrant?

Is a picture of Tarrant any useful? Was there ever a mugshot of him? Plus, he's literally the only dude who did the shooting, hence why I think it's worth adding a picture of him. That's just my opinion; if you disagree, feel free to make a response against my idea. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

This often comes down to an argument over WP:NFCC, because law enforcement mugshots are usually copyrighted unless stated otherwise. Also, images of perpetrators don't add much relevant information beyond showing what the person looks like. Dylann Roof has got a fair use mugshot, but since the consensus here is against a separate article for Tarrant, it isn't a pressing need, as there are plenty of news stories showing what he looks like.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I see. It seems Tarrant himself doesn't have enough of a notability besides the event itself, so yeah... he doesn't warrant a separate article and therefore doesn't warrant a mugshot image, gotcha. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 22:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

In New Zealand the Government requested that the media did not glorify the terrorist. The response was that mainstream media neither named him nor publicised his point of view. The result is that if Kiwis mention him at all they talk about 'That nutter from Christchurch'. I thought seriously about suggesting that his name be removed from this page. After all, we don't want to make him a hero. But this is an encyclopedia and so we must give his name. There is, however, no reason for posting a picture of him here. Such a picture would be offensive to most New Zealanders.OrewaTel (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2021

In the sentencing remarks it says: "More recently you purport to have disavowed the political and ideological views that you sought to use to justify your crimes. You now claim to have abandoned these ideas completely and that you no longer believe in the things that led you to commit these terrible crimes. You have described those beliefs to the pre-sentence report writer as “not real”, that you were at the time in a “poisoned emotional state” and “terribly unhappy”. You said you felt ostracised by society and that you wanted to damage society as an act of revenge."

I think this is very vital information that the page is missing. 2.109.225.128 (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a long quote and I'm not sure if it would add greatly to the article. As far as the court was concerned, Tarrant did it because he was a violent far right crackpot, and his attempts to backtrack on these beliefs are not notable. The judge also said "The ideological motivation for your attack is readily apparent from the people you sought to target and the document you distributed. On your weapons you wrote references to the Crusades and recent terror attacks, and marked them with various symbols, including those of the Nazi SS. Your extremist views and motivation were plain."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

This will become relevant if Tarrant uses this as an excuse to seek early release. If that happens and people think that the parole board decision is significant enough to be mentioned here then that quote may also be considered significant. Until that time (if it ever happens) this quote is neither relevant nor significant.OrewaTel (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Tarrant saying that he was unhappy and in emotional turmoil would be pretty thin grounds for an appeal or parole.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

"Police charged Brenton Harrison Tarrant a [white] 28-year-old Australian man": Is Harrison's whiteness relevant to this article?

I have opened this section to prevent an edit war. @Reaper1945: and @Ianmacm: have removed the word "white" from the description of Harrison. The last removal was subsequent to my recommendation that the topic be discussed on the Talk page. The term 'white' is used 13 times in the body text of the article. In most cases, the word is followed by the term 'supremacy' or 'supremacist(s)'. For example, Harrison is identified as a "white supremacist" in the lede. The two editors are welcome to present their arguments for why the use of the adjective "white" has "no point" and is "unnecessary" (quoted from revision edit summaries).Te Karere (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Te Karere (talk) 09:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Tarrant did not do it because he was white. He did it because he had picked up loopy far right and alt-right ideas from various places. Dylann Roof is not described as "a white man" for the same reason.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

While the end conclusion of the investigation shows that the motive was likely more far right than white supremacy, part of the initial reaction was related to the apparent racial facet involved (a white man shooting many Muslims), and so not mentioning the race in this context does seem odd. --Masem (t) 14:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Being muslim and being white are not mutually exclusive. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Having his race explicitly stated again when the ideology was already discussed in the beginning is redundant and unnecessary. It adds nothing new or important in terms of information for the article. Reaper1945 (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Redundancy here appears subjective. The Infobox identifies white supremacy as a motivation. Tarrant is identified as a white supremacist in the lede (I have added citations as these seem to have been missing; more are available if required). It is unclear how identification of Tarrant's whiteness is unnecessary. Can you please elaborate further? Te Karere (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Brenton's racial background is already evident, and the discussing of his "White supremacy" motives is established in the beginning of the article, adding on that he's a "28-year-old White Australian man" adds nothing novel to the article as a whole. What new information is established which hasn't already been established in previous sections of the article? Reaper1945 (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I cannot see anything subjective about this. Athough I am not suggesting it, by pushing the point it could been seen by some as having an anti-white agenda. Other labels could be, and are, attached to his twisted thinking, as listed in the infobox. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Reaper1945: It is not clear that Tarrant's racial background is "already evident". Unless all white supremacists are white??? (This may be a valid argument, but some citations might be helpful here.)

@Roger 8 Roger: I am unsure how identification of Tarrant's whiteness on a Wikipedia article might be "anti-white". Interestingly, Tarrant also believed in something called an "anti-white agenda". He describes Merkel as the "mother of all things anti-white and anti-germanic". Te Karere (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

A bit of common sense would lead one to assume that Brenton Tarrant, being from a nation which is reported as being majority White/European, as being a man of European ancestry and nothing else. Furthermore, the mentioning of "White supremacy" adds to the notion that Brenton Tarrant is most likely White without there being an explicit mention of his race. Similar to the article on the 9/11 hijackers, which doesn't explicitly state them as being "Arabs" or having "Middle Eastern origins", it states the nations from which they came from, such as Egypt or Saudi Arabia. Would it be unclear what Mohamed Atta's racial background is if it wasn't explicitly stated, even with his country of origin stated (Egypt), and his name which is commonly found in North Africa and the Middle East? Surely one could tell that Atta came from a Middle Eastern background, and wouldn't assume that he originated in Europe or East Asia. Reaper1945 (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• We should reflect the sources. They consider his race significant and connected it to his motivations, so we should mention it as well; if, as you imply, it is obvious, then it doesn't hurt anything to have it there, but it is clear from the sourcing that most coverage considered it important, so I don't think we can downplay it or leave it out. --Aquillion (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It does hurt if it is repeated excessively and unnecessarily. Although I am not disputing what the sources say, many of them are media stories printed shortly after the event. The quality of those sources should be taken into account as well, and although better than nothing some are far from ideal. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I've added a more recent academic source that emphasizes the importance of his race to understanding the context of the crime, as well as several higher-quality sources from earlier. Additionally, I'll point out that it isn't repeated excessively - this is the only place in the article where his race, as opposed to his ideology, is specifically stated. I don't think one word devoted to it in the body of the article is undue when many high-quality sources have noted it as important to understanding the context of what happened. --Aquillion (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The focus on his racial background adds nothing important to the article, and having his race randomly noted seems unnecessary. Reaper1945 (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

That decision is made based on the available sources, not our gut feelings. But I'll point out that in his manifesto, Tarrant described himself as an "ordinary white guy", ie. he himself indicated that his race was an important factor; and many sources have quoted this part of his manifesto as telling. --Aquillion (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

If I had written the article, I would not have added the word 'white'. It is an unnecessary adjective that puffs out the sentence. New Zealand newspapers didn't think it was significant. In fact no-one in New Zealand cares whether he was black, white or sky blue pink. But Wikipedia is an international publication and other countries seem to be fixated on racial minutia. If adding 'white' helps you sleep at night then put it in, it won't bother me.OrewaTel (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Perpetrator Motives

I have added several times "Christian terrorism" to the motives, but clearly have been vandalised and deleted by others. Even though it's very clear through the perpetrator trips to the Balkans, and especially his visits to the battlefields of wars between Christians and Muslims were very evident to his religious motives, as well as the soundtrack he was playing during his drive to the mosque, and the names and symbols on his rifle altogether indicte his religious motives. Bouaro G (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Unless independent reliable sources support "Christian terrorism", it doesn't belong in the article. Please read the policy on original research. Schazjmd (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

+1, people don't do these things because they are Christians or Muslims, they are extremist crackpots. The phrase you want to add is not one that the judge used when describing the motive.[2]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Well a lot of similar terrorist incidents that were perpetrated by Muslims were labelled directly as "Islamic terrorism". I can't understand why it's any different for Christianity. Any religion can be misused to motivate terror and murder. We only have to look for an evidence for a religious motive, and the evidence for a religious motive is there, it doesn't matter how the judge or the media describes it. Bouaro G (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

This argument has a long history at Christian Terrorism for my sanity I have not been there in a while, maybe they solved it. It can be easier to think of Wikipedia as an uncompassionate review of what reputable source have said, rather than the truth. I am sure many would argue with the above wording, but the general vibe is clear in Wikipedia's guidelines. It is predictable that Muslims will be treated differently to Christians on Wikipedia, however, two wrongs do not make a right. Call a Christian who is also a terrorist a Christian Terrorist is only advisable if that is the consensus of reliable references. Have a look at WP:SYN, " If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article." If you want to make a good argument against this WP:NOTSYNTH might be helpful. Dushan Jugum (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2021

Change the "Military music" Part on the "He also continued to play military music" In the Shootings section to "A remix version of a German paratroopers song called "Grün Ist Unser Fallschirm" Abrecujox (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Song by song account

I find that the constant reference to the music Tarrant was listening to during the attack breaks the narrative and is needlessly sycophantic for an encyclopaedia. We are not censored, however, an encyclopaedia should have a detachment in its prose. In the same way we do not have long quotes from the manifesto, a song by song recount of his play list is not needed (along with quotes from the songs out of context). I am interested in information a reader could gain from a song by song account that could not be conveyed by just what reliable sources have interpreted by the use of these songs eg performance art, trolling, political comment, etc. as yet I have found none. I would prefer one sentence at the start of the narrative explaining what he was listing to (and how we know) and the removal of the individual songs in the text. Dushan Jugum (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I have made the changes, not as dramatic as I thought, but it does read better. Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It certainly does! I would have done the same but, coming from NZ, I'm biassed. I find all these extra details about the murderer most offensive so since I cannot follow a neutral point of view I can't edit this page. (My preference would be to delete all biographical detail including the murderer's name. Why celebrate such a flawed, insignificant human?) OrewaTel (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Full disclosure... I am from New Zealand, however, I am not -knowingly- involved in a crusade to remove encyclopedic information from this page. I believe there was a period of time when everything was added to this page, the more the better and that's cool. Now, one and a half years on, we can put things in a format that is more cohesive. Dushan Jugum (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Although I'm biassed, I can recognise a neutral edit made by others and this edit is good. Nevertheless I am recusing myself from deleting information that could possibly be judged encyclopaedic. OrewaTel (talk) 06:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete two related incidents

I would like to remove these two incidents as they are, as far as we know, unrelated to the shootings:

On 20 May 2021, a 68-year-old woman appeared in the Christchurch District Court for verbally abusing a survivor and her relatives at the Farmers branch in Rangiora in December 2020. The defendant was alleged to have asked the survivor whether she was born in New Zealand and then suggested that she leave the country.

On 17 June 2021, national security advisor Cameron Bayly confirmed, during a conference about violent extremism and terrorism, that the New Zealand Police had foiled two mass shooting plots around the time of the 2019 attack. The first attack was uncovered a few weeks before the shootings, while the second was uncovered two weeks after. Dushan Jugum (talk) 11:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I have removed these events. Happy to talk if anyone disagrees. I really dislike the layout of these sections that deal with other related events (included video distribution etc). I find the information valuable in summary form, but the list of dates and nameless people is a problem. Particularly given the media does not seem to provide updates on people who are charged. I have been searching for a reliable tertiary source that summarises these events and there does not seem to be one? Dushan Jugum (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Glorifying the murderer

The name, Tarrant, is mentioned in many places in the article. This is offensive to most New Zealanders but this is an encyclopaedia and we have to accept offensive words when they are informative. In some places the term, the shooter, was substituted. This caused no confusion and it was completely defined. Now we have an editor who is determined to mention the shooter by name at every possible opportunity. Although we must declare the facts, we do not have to glorify a racist mass murderer. I would like to replace 20 or so times that the name 'Tarrant' is mentioned by 'the shooter'. There will still be enough references for people who want to find his name. Consensus please. OrewaTel (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

In the article about Adolf Hitler, could we remove the name 'Hitler' and replace it with 'the dictator of Germany'? There will be enough references for people who want to find his name. He was also a racist mass murderer, after all. Bkatcher (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Using the name of an offender is not glorification, it is encyclopedic and common practice in the English language. Wikipedia is not censored. WWGB (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

He is not special, unfortunately he is all too common around the world. Evil is banal and ubiquitous through history and Wikipedia. We do not go out of our way to offend, unfortunately it happens, as long as we are not trying to do so, I am ok with it. The clearest Wikipedia example for how we deal with this is the images of Muhammad, see the talk page. If someone is being silly however and we use his name more than normal, that is another conversation. I see no evidence for that in the edits from the last week or so. Dushan Jugum (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• WP:NOTCENSORED. Quite obviously, referring to Tarrant as "the shooter" at random points will lead the reader to wonder whether this is someone other than Tarrant. As I said in my edit summary, "Articles refer to people and things in straightforward ways, preferably by their names, not via confusing doubletalk." I take it we're done. EEng 04:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

  Oh dear, it's damnatio memoriae time again. There have been various articles about mass shootings where it was argued that the shooter's name should be erased from the history books, but Wikipedia is not censored.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

  It's weird. Trump's stupidity murdered hundreds of thousands of Americans but you don't see anyone suggesting that articles refer to him as "the moron". EEng 12:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• I don't understand why New Zealand decided to employ the Chief Censor of New Zealand, as if forgetting about things prevents them happening again. But this phenomenon is well covered in scholarly sources, some of it I wrote about in Christchurch_mosque_shootings#Media_response. More to the point, using his name isn't glorifying him, and our primary goal should be a summation of the reliable sources and the events, as Wikipedia's role is to provide knowledge. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

  To be clear, there's something to be said for the idea that if mass-media coverage of events like this avoid saying Tarrant Tarrant Tarrant Tarrant Tarrant all the time, it helps deny oxygen to crazy people's fantasies that they too can be famous. But an encyclopedia article is well removed from that. EEng 08:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

“Terrorism”

The perpetrator was a white male, therefor this should be classified as a lone-wolf loner attack by someone disaffected and mentally ill. Thanks.2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:DCBB:690F:7DCC:3941 (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

That statement is either 1. backed up by reliable sources, 2. sheer speculation or 3. original research. Cases 2 and 3 have no place here. If we are talking about case 1 then please cite the reliable sources. OrewaTel (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

This article's getting pretty long now

We're now over 500 references. I don't think I've ever seen that with an article about a mass shooting, or even most articles about terrorist attacks. I strongly suggest splitting some of the material out into a new article, and I'm open to suggestions. Love of Corey (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, the article text is now well over 100 kB, which leads to problems with WP:SIZERULE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no need to split it but it should be pruned. Well over 50% of the content is just meaningless puff. Whilst it is correctly cited, it doesn't contribute anything. To take just a couple of examples: Do we need a long list of people charged or convicted with distributing a video? Is there any point in mentioning the manifesto that was never read out? Why talk about YouTuber PewDiePie when he stated that he was sickened by the incident? Then you can cut out all the biographical detail. It almost seems as if editors are making this criminal into some sort of celebrity. OrewaTel (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

All of this material is encyclopedic and useful. The video distribution charges are pretty much unprecedented in New Zealand history; there is a lot of precedent for going in-depth into a murderer's manifesto (2011 Norway attacks and Anders Behring Breivik are great examples, while Ted Kaczynski's manifesto actually has its own article; the information on PewDiePie is only just a couple of sentences in the article; and there are other articles that go in-depth into a murderer's biographical detail. Love of Corey (talk) 04:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Whether the article is thinned out or cropped, I think something should be done to shorten it. This article is about the Christchurch mosque shootings so that should be the central theme. It is not about the killer, or the manifesto or the missed warning signs or any of the other important but not directly relevant topics. They of course must be dealt with here but only as is directly relevant: more detail can be put in their own articles. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I would like to start with the 'They are us' section. My first thought would be reducing it to a summary paragraph. The current information could be move to a new page on the film. I am happy to do the leg work, just after people thoughts. Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

So I changed my mind and will not be making a 'They are us Page' it seems that the film does not justify a page until filming starts and having a page 'They are us controversy' does not capture my imagination. I will do some copy-editing in the morning if the new section is still there. I just wanted to keep it as a one undo item, till people have had a look.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dushan Jugum (talk • contribs)

Thanks Dushan Jugum for trimming down the "They Are Us" section. That will help save space for the article. If the film does ever get produced, we can always use content from the older versions as the basis for that article. For now, I think the shorter version that you have written is better for this article. Andykatib 07:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it needs splitting, just cutting. It's very news-y. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

According to WP:SIZERULE, > 60 kB readable prose size "probably should be divided". > 50 kB "may need to be divided". This article's readable is 52 kB, so falls in the second category. Thank you to those who led by merging citations. It will improve readability. Further organisation is likely required. Te Karere (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

PEIS

Some recent changes to this article have caused it to hit WP:PEIS, so now the refs don't load. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Title

I suggest that the title should be changed in to "Christchurch mosque attacks". "Shooting" is too much general, the attacks had a terrorist background. Gianluigi02 (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Interesting as per November 2015 Paris attacks, 2016 Brussels bombings and September 11 attacks we can go either way? Reliable sources also seem to be split, after a brief search. Attack is more vague than shooting and more dramatic. I don't see what would be gained by a change. Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose, because all of the deaths and injuries were caused by gunfire. The title should not give the impression that it was a bomb attack or knife attack, because it wasn't.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Linwood Islamic centre

I have just noticed the image of the Linwood site has been removed. Any reason? I am very aware of the need to thin this article out but I think that image is of far more relevance to this article than some of the images still visible. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I have been trying to keep track of the changes but missed that one, I would prefer it to be there. Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Believe it was removed because, with the reconstruction, the image looks nothing like the place at the time, thus is misleading slightly. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The only difference is that the building at the front had been removed and a gate had been put at the start of the driveway, both explained in the wording beneath the photo to avoid misleading anyone. The Islamic centre building externally had not changed. A photo of the site, from the street, taken before the front building was removed, would have shown nothing of the Islamic building except the roof and a long fenced driveway. Seeing as this article is about killings at two sites, it does seem odd that an image of one of those sites is not used, while one of the other site is used. Thanks for your replies everyone. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if it's worth replicating the image of the mosque in the body, too. I know we don't usually do it, but I think it helps to have it next to the prose, for visualisation purposes. RN it's only in the infobox. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2021

The title of this page must be christchurch terrorism or terror attack at christchurch mosque. 103.134.124.23 (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Citations

This is cite overkill -- you're using six citations to verify Tarrant's age and birthplace -- and it doesn't even verify the given information! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, why does it matter what he says his views were? Is there scholarly analysis for this? If not, I don't see why it should be included. Ditto for Tarrant expressed his hopes to create a "gun conflict" in the United States over gun ownership, and he wrote that mass shootings could cause a civil war in the country over the Second Amendment. His manifesto contained like 70 pages of rubbish, much of which has probably been quoted in some RS among the flurry of coverage. It needn't be regurgitated here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

And more generally, can we please not start creeping in every little detail again? Like here: The arresting officers were rural-based police who were coincidentally in Christchurch to attend a training session on dealing with armed offenders. Surely this is not relevant. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

And this is after about 20% of the references have been removed and about as much trivial content. Dushan Jugum (talk) 11:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Why did you remove it? His skin colour does not matter

Keep my change Melledelle (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I find white rather reductive, but that is the way he is described by reliable sources and himself (see two references for sentence). Wikipedia also tries to save the world, by being trying to be neutral. Dushan Jugum (talk) 11:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

He's a white supremacist, of course it matters. This is not the first time you have done this and it is not the first time it has been reverted. You're welcome to your opinion, but if you continue to unilaterally remove all reference to race from articles, you are going to encounter problems. --Pokelova (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Being white does not cause a person to do violent things, being a white supremacist does.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

'Related arrests and incidents' Section

It is now 2 years and 8 months since the shootings. When another atrocity occurs (and alas one will) can it be usefully said to be related to these shootings even if the perpetrator claims that to be the case? We recently had a good faith addition of an attempted attack of a school in Sweden. This was reverted as not being directly relevant. (Thank you user:Roger8Roger) The question is whether anything can ever be added to this section in the future. OrewaTel (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that a lot of the existing material in this section has WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT problems. It isn't directly related to the shooting and could be pruned back.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Such sections should be for direct relationships explicitly stated by reliable sources (not claimed by perpetrators in reliable sources). And even then they could collectedly get a summary sentence. "Many academics (perpetrators) have claimed a relationship between ...."[1]... About 4 months ago I tried to find a reliable source that had collected them and failed, if the media don't care about this trivia why should we.Dushan Jugum (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Tours

The gun, that was used,has a number of slogans. The picture is correctly captioned, "Gun used in the shootings, marked up with text referencing extreme right-wing ideologies and previous terrorist attacks." The gun also contains, 'Tours 732' which is a reference to the Battle of Tours in 732. A recent edit claimed this was an anti-Muslim battle. Tours was a battle between nominally Christian and nominally Muslim armies but it was not a battle based on religion. Instead it was the Franks defending their land from an invading Umayyad army. It may be that the perpetrator thought Tours was a religious battle but that is not known and in any case we should not make up facts. OrewaTel (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

My bad, I should've just put 'historic battles between Christians and Muslims' to cover both Tours 732 (Franks v. Umayyads) and Vienna 1683 (Poland and HRE v. Ottoman Empire). (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 02:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Request to lock this page

I request the good people of Wikipedia to kindly lock this page to prevent vandalism from anti-Muslim bigots, such as this person[3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kool Nerd 123 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Columbine Massacre Copycat

Twice the category Columbine High School massacre copycat crimes has been added to this article and has been removed both times. The second time it was smuggled in as part of an edit that also removed blatant vandalism.

The two crimes are completely different. The only similarity is that both crimes were cowardly attacks using semi-automatic firearms against an unsuspecting group of people. This category should not be added unless there is actual evidence that it was indeed an attempt to copy the previous attack. OrewaTel (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

There are obvious WP:CATVER problems as the article doesn't say or cite anything about this. There is also a bigger problem with the entire Category:Columbine High School massacre copycat crimes because I suspect that a lot of these are relying on original research rather than what the sourcing says. Just because someone did something stupid doesn't mean that it was a Columbine copycat crime.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Article for perpetrator?

Should there be an article about the perpetrator of the attack? I know that there is a draft version. 12:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiddsig (talk • contribs)

No. He was a pathetic racist who only did one thing in his life that is noteworthy, namely he shot unarmed worshippers in a mosque. If anyone wants to find anything about him then it is here in this article. It is exceedingly unlikely that anyone would search for his information other than as the perpetrator of these shootings. OrewaTel (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

At this point, no. Nearly everything short of a few sentences of bio details are aspects that relate directly to the event and doesn't make sense to separate their coverage. If there is longer-term analysis of the motives/etc. then maybe there would reason but not at this point. --Masem (t) 02:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Support. If the shooting had occurred in the US, I have no doubts the scumbag would have an article, per Dylann Roof, James Holmes, Stephen Paddock, etc. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Counterexamples include Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook) and Nicolas Cruz (Stoneman Douglas shooter) and Esteban Santiago-Ruiz (Fort Lauderdale airport shooter). The determinant questions should be whether there is enough biographical coverage about the perpetrator's life independent of the event for a stand-alone article (in short a real biography) and whether the important parts of that biography won't fit in a balanced article about the event. It's case-by-case. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Whether the perpetrator not how pathetic or racist he is not a criterion for notability. More details on his background and personal history could help readers interested in understanding how he became radicalized. This could include his internet activities and the role of his travels in Europe. Babygrundo (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

If we want to pander to apologists who seek to find excuses for the inexcusable then we should put it in this article. A biographical article is justified only if the perpetrator is notable in his own right. The question is whether the perpetrator's internet surfing is notable. I think not. One thing that this discussion has provoked is that there are various biographical articles that should be deleted. Biographies of Americans who use their 2nd Amendment Rights to slaughter innocent people are not notable. OrewaTel (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Many mass murderers of this kind are attention-seekers who profess that they wish to become famous. We should focus on the notable event, not on the otherwise non-notable perpetrator. There is broad support for this approach. Acroterion (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Mention of attack in article of guns used by perpetrator.

I am currently in dispute about this subject at Talk:O.F. Mossberg & Sons expecting your input and opinion. Notbrev (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Literature section

I'm not sure if this is needed at all. This edit is problematic because the tone is unencyclopedic and reads like a plug for the book, even though this may be unintentional. A "Further reading" section which simply listed the books and their ISBNs would cover this. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Simply list the book in the FR section, unless other sources publish significant info from the book. WWGB (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Far right politics in Australia??

I don’t think this was far right politics in just Australia, rather Europe, USA and New Zealand as well 121.98.239.99 (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Certainly New Zealand, but the culprit is an Australian man who's travelled here and there before doing it in New Zealand. Far-right politics in New Zealand would certainly make sense to be there - not really about Europe and the US. Juxlos (talk) 09:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Linking

Should we make all "New Zealand Police" mentioned in the article into New Zealand Police ? Kiwiz1338 (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Usual rules would have just the first mention hyper-linked. No need to link every mention. OrewaTel (talk) 07:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

See overlinking Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Islamophobia

The Islamophobia Template has been added. This results in an intrusive infobox that interrupts reading of the article without adding any new information. It is arguable that Tarrant was a racist rather than an Islamophobe. The template was the subject of a deletion debate [4] which collapsed into 'No Consensus'. I prefer the article without this template. Should it be removed? OrewaTel (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I collapsed the template before I saw this talk page post. I have no objection to anyone removing it.-gadfium 20:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, remove it. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Removed as per consensus. OrewaTel (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Far right politics in Australia?

what exactly did far right politics in Australia have to do with the attack, i know that the perpetrator was Australian-born but i don't see any link from the attack to any politics in Australia Joshville (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Tarrant expressed some far right views while he was living in Australia, but a large amount of his extremist views were obtained from the Internet and his travels to other countries, some of which set off suspicion from the authorities. I agree that it is a bit simplistic to say "he did it because of far right politics in Australia".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The perp is rather more than just Australian-born. He is an Australian citizen. OrewaTel (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

White Genocide?

An attempt has been made to add White genocide conspiracy theory and The Great Replacement conspiracy theory to motives. The perpetrator was given ample opportunity to explain himself at his trial. Instead he chose not so to do. It is not for us to try to invent motives. Actually it might be better to simply remove all the motives and let the facts speak for themselves. However, some 'motives' are cited. Mind you the Washington Post reference was simply a journalist guessing that this atrocity was motivated for the same reason as a shooting in USA. (And the motive was the journo's interpretation of that shooting.) Unless the consensus is against me, I will delete the remaining uncited 'motive' as well as Ecofascism. OrewaTel (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

These are well sourced in the article. Why don't they belong in cats? I see nowhere that anyone here has invented any motives. And, I don't think what a mass murderer says in a trial means much. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

While I agree that great care needs to be taken with categories there is the title of the manifesto. Aircorn (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Detail added needs a source. A source does not require detail being added. Many sources are not RSSs anyway so we should avoid them. A lot of the media coverage is notable enough to warrant being used here. We don't know his motive so any motive in a source is guesswork. Unless that guesswork itself is notable we should not use it. That's how I see it. However, I agree the manifesto should be considered. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I tend to dislike attributing motives to a person who is bat shit crazy (pardon the scientific term) and wouldn't mind seeing that given less prominence. I do think the categories should exist. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Far Right Politics in Australia part 2

An editor has twice deleted the tag 'Far Right Politics in Australia'. This has been discussed here before but the result was inconclusive. Let us come to a definitive consensus.

Question: Should the tag 'Far Right Politics in Australia' apply to this article

Please answer this question and if you like give a reason. OrewaTel (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• Yes The perpetrator was born and lived in Australia and was radicalised there. OrewaTel (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
• Only weak support: As I said above, many of Tarrant's extremist views were picked up on his travels and from the internet. He had not been living in Australia for some time before the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
• No His being Australian and having far-right views does not connect with 'Far Right Politics in Australia'. You are creating a link that isn't there. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

It's fair to say that there is no real consensus to add this tag and so let's omit it. OrewaTel (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2023

I am requesting an edit on the events section second paragraph. I suggest editing "During the shooting, he continued to play "military music" from a portable speaker attached to a tactical vest he was wearing." to "During the shooting, he continued to play remixed version of "Grün Ist Unser Fallschirm" (Green is our parachute), a German paratrooper song from a portable speaker attached to a tactical vest he was wearing.

Source: I have been investigating the footage to see details about it, and I recognized the song that he played during the shooting is the same as the song that the German paratroopers used in WW2 (although I'am not sure if the song are still being used till this day). I will provide a link to the .MP3 file of the song

link:https://anonfiles.com/pei7O9d7za/Fallschirmj_ger_Remix_mp3

Sincerely. Thank you. Abrecujox (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done, this is an example of original research, identifying a song from remote video clips. The reports read that it wasn't just one single song, but a collection of miliary music so there's really no need to list the songs out. --Masem (t) 16:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2023

It is known that six victims were Palestinians. 63.249.60.52 (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Make a separate article about Brenton Tarrant

I think that we should make a separate article about Brenton Tarrant in the English Wikipedia, for several reasons:

• 1. Not all of the biography of Brenton that is written in the article about the shooting in the mosques in Christchurch was not written.
• 2. Brenton Tarrant is a rather dangerous criminal who killed 51 people in a mosque, and therefore, he is quite a popular person in New Zealand, so his significance is very high.
• 3. Articles about Brenton Tarrant on Wikipedia are written in Russian, French, German, Spanish and other languages, but not English.
• 4. It is strange that the English Wikipedia has an article about Dylan Roof, who killed 9 people, but there is no article about Brenton Tarrant, who has already killed 51 people. 91.227.190.123 (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings/Archive_14#Seprate_article_for_Brenton_Tarrant. Personally I don't think that there needs to be a separate article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Why not? 91.227.190.123 (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

A separate article article about Tarrant would have to be significantly longer and more detailed, it could not simply be a repeat of what is here. See WP:BLP1E.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

And what's the problem with creating it? 91.227.190.123 (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

His notability is limited. He is notable for only one thing and that is covered in this article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

No The perpetrator is not popular in New Zealand. Most people do not know his name; he is just that racist nutter who shot people in Christchurch. It is indeed strange that there is an article about Dylan Roof. I shall recommend that it be deleted. I wondered what could be said about this person so I looked up Brendan Tarrant on the French Wikipedia. The result: "L'article « Brendan Tarrant » n'existe pas sur ce wiki!" (The article 'Brendan Tarrant' does not exist on this wiki!) I got the same result on the German and Spanish wikipedias. I don't speak Russian so haven't checked that wikipedia. OrewaTel (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

You've got a typo there - his first name is Brenton. You can see the wikis with pages at the bottom of wikidata:Q62067238. When you compare the articles elsewhere with this article, you'll see that the content is already on this page. That's the main reason why we don't need another one. It's already been said, he is known for one thing, and that thing is what this page is about. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I have read the French Wikipedia Brenton Tarrant article. It simply says that he was born, supported the far right and committed murder. The German article is the same. Not notable. My knowledge of Spanish is not enough to examine the Spanish article in detail but it looks very similar. There is no Dutch article - it redirects to Christchurch murders. OrewaTel (talk) 04:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Other Wikis are irrelevant; please see WP:OTHERLANGS. DFlhb (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

That other Wikis exist (or don't exist) is not relevant but the content of the articles is relevant. If, for example, the French article contained new information then that would support writing an English article. OrewaTel (talk) 07:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe A. Dirk Moses's extremely comprehensive (and high-quality) paper could be used to make a longer article than the current section, if anyone's interested. Tarrant may be notable, since I don't believe he meets the third criteria of WP:BLP1E (though it merits further discussion, hopefully more policy-based than the discussion so far) DFlhb (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Factual error - "Victims" section

The "Victims" section states,

" Forty-four people were killed at the Al Noor Mosque and seven at the Linwood Islamic Centre "

The statement is a factual error. It confuses being killed with being fatally injured. They are two different things. Of the 51 people killed as a result of the 15 March attacks, one did not die on the day, but rather passed away some time later in hospital (a simple Internet search would provide citations to support this). I am not interested myself in correcting the statement in the "Victims" section, but someone ought to correct it. Zarenon (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Zarenon. I see your point and have changed the wording. I'm not too sure if it is much of an improvement though. I have also added a later reference. Many of the sources used should be changed - they were written very shortly after the event when it wasn't clear what had happened, and they are therefore possibly giving inaccurate detail. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Ta. Zarenon (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Extra Songs

A request was made to add a note about the perpetrator's taste in music. The requester has since deleted his request. This is the reply.

Now for the substance of your request. We need independent verification of new facts. Please provide a reference to a newspaper article or similar that states the song titles. Further the fact that some imbecile listened to music is not of itself encyclopaedic. We need a citation that gives the significance of these songs. OrewaTel (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2023

Remove the shooters name. Former NZ Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern claims that she will never say the shooters name, “the shooter will be nameless”. The shooter wanted infamy. He wanted to be known and feared upon. We as human beings must not tolerate. So please remove the shooters name from the article. Draspi (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done: Wikipedia is not censored and does not remove material that is widely available in reliable sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Draspi Sadly this is the big wide world. Not everything is nice, but we can't censor names because of a former PM's wishes. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Whilst we should not censor names, we don't have to glorify terrorists. The perpetrator is named 104 times in the article. Three times he was called by his full name. That is too many times. OrewaTel (talk) 03:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

We should use his name as often as it takes to write an encyclopedic quality article, no thought given to how much we like or dislike the guy. Ardern's comments are irrelevant. I have just had a look and saw that OrewaTel is correct. It does seem high to have 161 mentions of his name so I tried to thin it out a bit and saw what I think is the reason for the high count. Because so much of this article is written like a running commentary, there are usually two or three people is the narrative, which justifies using actual names rather than a pronoun (he/him), to avoid confusion. This limits the amount of thinning out we can do. I think using 'the shooter' comes across usually as artificial and should be avoided. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Glorify is a bit of a stretch. Maybe overused? But like Roger has said there is a limit to how much thinning out can be done before it starts to add unnecessary confusion. Looks like most stanzas start with his name and after that refer to him with pronouns. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 07:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Victims section - still not quite accurate

The "Victims" section of the article states: "Fifty-one people died from the attacks, either at the scene or shortly afterwards: 44 at the Al Noor Mosque and seven at the Linwood Islamic Centre." Although that section was changed by Roger 8 Roger to make it more accurate, I continue to think that it is not quite correct. Interested editors should review the article at this URL: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/christchurch-mosque-attacks-51st-victim-dies-after-surgery/FG6GG3ACC75KCLVHWB5S4A7LKE/. The article, which dates to 3 May 2019, notes that, "A Turkish man has become the 51st victim of the Christchurch terror attack after dying last night following surgery." Since the attack happened on 15 March, and its 51st victim passed away around 3 May, it seems misleading to say that its victims died "either at the scene or shortly afterwards": a significant amount of time passed before that final death, and the article ought to reflect that. Zarenon (talk) 08:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Point taken but I think 'shortly afterwards' still covers victim 51. The term is not time specific and depends on context as seen by the reader. Six weeks is shortly afterwards over the three and a half years that has now passed, for example. I also think if we try to make a special case out of victim 51 we are delving into the realm of pedantry. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, the article could say something like, "Fifty-one people died from the attacks, either at the scene or in the months that followed". I'm not seeing a reason for using reasonably specific language. Zarenon (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Let's see what others think. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy with the current wording. It's accurate and brief. OrewaTel (talk) 09:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

AR-15's he used

He used a Windham WW-15 & Ruger AR-557 Mkrser (talk) 05:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Ruger AR-556, as mentioned in Weaponry and Events. https://christchurchattack.royalcommission.nz/the-report/firearms-licensing/preparation-for-the-terrorist-attack/. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 07:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Brenton Tarrant

I have accepted the article on the shooter. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

This seems at odds with consensus at Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings/Archive_12#RFC - Should a Brenton Harrison Tarrant article replace the redirect to this page?. What "new information about him" has emerged to change this consensus? WWGB (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I doubt there is any basis for the new article. I can't see how Tarrant is notable aside from one event. Shouldn't someone nominate it for deletion? Zarenon (talk) 08:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree. The article was created despite consensus and contains no new information. So

Nomination of Brenton Tarrant for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brenton Tarrant is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenton Tarrant (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

OrewaTel (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Coroner's inquiry into the Christchurch mosque shootings

I will start work on a draft article about the Coroner's inquiry into the Christchurch mosque shootings. Think it is large enough to be spun off into another article. Andykatib (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Article has now been promoted to the main article space at Coroner's inquiry into the Christchurch mosque shootings. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Importance

Currently the importance is set to Mid and Low. I suggest that giving it mid-importance is over stating the issue. This is a simple shooting by a cowardly publicity hunting individual armed with semi-automatic weapons. The only points of interest are 1. This happened in New Zealand, a country that is normally free of these nutters and 2. The government reacted to remove these weapons from sale. Whilst from my point of view the first point is important, looking globally it is the second point that would be noticed by most people. Nevertheless neither of these points raise the importance above 'low'. Only in countries such as USA where mass shootings are a regular occurrence would restricting the sales of combat ordnance be regarded as anything other than normal. I would like to change the importance to low but I can live with the current rating.

The trouble is that an editor wants to change the importance to 'top'. I find this unacceptable but I would like to hear other points of view. OrewaTel (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@OrewaTel Importance is relevance to WikiProject topics, in this case WikiProject Crime not the "worldwide" importance, or discussing how important an event is OBJECTIVELY. It is for Wikipedia categorization. It's already rated as "top" for WikiProject New Zealand. Whether one accepts it or not this is one of the most geopolitically significant mass murders of our time. It had far reaching impacts on internet censorship, free speech, the view of the extreme far right, and internet radicalization. It has resulted in more copycat attacks than any mass killing since the Columbine school shooting, a topic deeply relevant to crime and criminology.

If this shooting is not "top" importance literally none are. There are dozens upon dozens of academic sources discussing this shooting in depth. Your personal feelings on the matter do not change this.

Edit: Maybe High is more appropriate but given the geopolitical relevance/christchurch call/all of that it's definitely higher than mid IMOPARAKANYAA (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

No objection to it being of high importance - but I don't think you should class the terrorist as being a serial killer. Looking at the terminology on the project task force page I think "spree killer" would be a more accurate description. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Daveosaurus The task force is for all of them. The problem is there's no frequently-used overarching term to apply to serial, mass, and spree killers, and the definitions are very confused. The way task force templates work we had to pick one term and serial killer is the most well known, but the task force applies to basically all multiple murderers. I'm tagging this article with the project because it's relevant to the task force, not because he's a "serial killer" specifically. (as you said he would either be classed as a spree killer or a mass murderer, typically, but the definitions are historically blurry)

I know it's confusing and we have had discussions over renaming the task force but there isn't really one good term. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I should just change the banner line to "Serial, mass, and spree killers". Maybe that would stop the arguments. Maybe. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Deadliest shooting in NZ history is NOT a "simple shooting"? Might be a regular occurrence in US, but not in NZ. Warrants at least High importance. WWGB (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

i disagree with this whole statement. I live in Australia and to hear that someone killed 51 people just next to my country is baffeling. Also, calling him "publicity hunting" is false. There's no evidence that support he did it for fame. I would consider this mid-importance now but a few years ago definitely high importance. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Locations?

I reverted an edit today by user:Elizzaflanagan221. One reflection, should it have stayed? There were two sites, so locations does seem better than location. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

look bro its not that big a deal. its 1 letter for god sakes Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The infobox template documentation states:

location – The physical place, perhaps a specific airplane or building (multiple targets are allowed, of course), including the city, where the attack occurred; including the country is preferred for cities; including the province or state is discouraged unless necessary or well-known:

Major, international cities: Tokyo is okay, but Tokyo, Japan is preferred unless it compromises stylistic appearance

so, while it should stay singular (both massacres happened in one city within a few minutes of each other) both mosques can be named. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't that apply only to the infobox? I had initially thought the location was Chch, hence singular, but I think of what happened more as two events with a connection, not one event in two parts. I also think this might, on the face of it, be the most unimportant discussion I have started, over an 's'. On that subject, Elizzaflanagan221, I think the s at the end of sakes is in the wrong place. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

lmao Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

the Location segment talks about both buildings which is why i believe the section should be renamed to Locations. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 12:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not a big issue. I would not revert an edit that changes Location to Locations but equally I wouldn't actually add the 's' myself. Whatever floats your boat.

On another matter. This article is written in New Zealand English consequently Americanisms such as Tokyo,Japan are deprecated. (What other Tokyo would you mean, for goodness's sake?) It is normal to refer to iconic cities without a country unless it would actually be ambiguous. When we do add the country we tend to use an adjectival phrase as in 'the Japanese city Tokyo'. OrewaTel (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

ok great it seems we've reached a consesus so imma just revert old mate rogers revert Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)