Jump to content

Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019

Change “The suspect livestreamed one of the attacks on Facebook Live.” in the intro to “The suspect livestreamed the first attack on Facebook Live.” No reason to be ambiguous here. 2600:1000:B00C:E75F:19DD:5F81:A08:9D3E (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Danski454 (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Trip

Video begins with car parked in a carpark on Leslie Hills Dr. He drives to the first mosque on Deans ave via Mandeville st, Blenheim Rd. After leaving the first mosque the shooter sets the next destination on his GPS navigator. Drives down Deans ave, Harper Ave. Video ends with the car driving down Bealey Ave which is on route to the Linwood mosque. The vehicle from the video is later stopped by police on Brougham St and the suspect apprehended. He is the only person in the vehicle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.32.124.131 (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The video is forbidden to be linked per BLP, most of us have seen it and downloaded it, your description is OR - why did you post this?50.111.50.240 (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Several New Zealand newsmedia as well as middle-eastern newsmedia contractors have already broadcasted the "trip" route, perhaps your suggestion of original research (OR) is not correct.126.163.115.170 (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, while it would be better if people do their own searches for sources, in reality a lot of the key stuff in the video etc has already been covered. So as with an earlier issue, while the OP may technically be engaging in OR, we don't need to e.g. BBC [1]. That doesn't of course mean this is sufficiently sources and relevant to include. Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Terrorist or Criminal Attack

A part of world calling attacker a "Shooter" not terrorist because the attacker was not a Muslim and the attack was on Muslims community. On the other hand if attacker would have been a Muslim everyone would had declare it as terrorist attack. Being on a responsible platform we Wikipedians should deal this part of article with morality and declare this attack as terrorist attack only. Sumit Singh T 04:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

As for the title of the article, this had been discussed above. To quote Juxlos: "See September 11 attacks, Surabaya bombings, Orlando nightclub shooting. Descriptor has never had "terrorist" in it (the title, ed.).". As for the description, the first sentence in the article is: "The Christchurch mosque shootings were two white supremacist coordinated terrorist attacks at Al Noor Mosque and the Linwood Islamic Centre in Christchurch, New Zealand, during Friday prayers on 15 March 2019." Dhio-270599 04:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Odinism

One source states that Tarrant's social media account had "paganism and Odin worship":

https://www.theunitedwest.org/2019/03/15/on-the-new-zealand-massacre/

This source states that he said that if he dies, he will "go to Valhalla"

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/world/gunman-opens-fire-in-christchurch-mosque-ng-6f6ce5dc9db6cde5edf5ae778b6da368

SmokerOfCinnamon (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators should protect this page for a few hours - only admins edit

Administrators should protect this page for a few hours - Only admins to edit. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Or ECP at least. Juxlos (talk) 08:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose, no rationale given. Articles are not preemptively protected. If there is edit warring between registered editors or vandalism, then it will be fully protected. Rob3512 chat? what I did 08:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
REASON: For editors pushing matter to the lead from secondary sources that only have a video from the terrorist as a primary source. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I still stand by the reason, but I take back what I said related to full protection needed. Not needed. Issues seem to be sorting out. Thanks DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
So why is it semi-protected now? Addition of poorly sourced material or something, according to the log. Yeah, right! How is it that whenever an article such as this comes along there's always a mad scramble to get it protected for no valid reason? Anyone would think that some people here don't like IPs and new editors; surely not. Silas Stoat (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Silas Stoat, so you are saying it shouldn't be semi-protected? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Silas Stoat My comment was written sometime back and a lot has happened since then. I understand better now the WP:Pre-empt and WP:Censor is rare here on Wikipedia even in such occasions and there are other ways to handle what I was trying to point out. I didn't mean this in an offensive way and I didn't mean it even as a censor, just that I wanted people to be cautious before pushing things in the lead. I am also a new editor in terms of all this and know now that full protection is not required in all this. Maybe just semi protection as per the discretion of the Wikipedia community. Regards DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@DiplomatTesterMan:. No problem. Thanks for your response. As far as I know, pre-emptive protecting is not allowed unless there are exceptional circumstances - there don't appear to be any such circumstances here. What I've noticed is that whenever fast-moving articles such as this are created there's almost always a knee-jerk response to get it protected, usually semi-protected. The reason for protection is usually given as 'unconstructive editing' or 'addition of unsourced content'. Essentially they are content disputes that can be controlled by other means, but due to the inherent hatred of IP editors within the wider Wikipedia community, the opportunity is invariably taken to protect these articles and therefore disqualify IP editors from contributing. It's well known that fast moving articles pertaining to current events act as excellent recruiters of new editors. Well, they would if they were not knee-jerk-protected, so often they don't. There's no real need to protect this article, as the log demonstrates. Silas Stoat (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Worshipper fired two shots - dubious

"a local Muslim worshipper had chased the fleeing attacker and fired two shots" at Linwood. Sure it was reported early on, but it seems dubious to me now. I suspect it is confusion with the young guy who wrestled a firearm away from an attacker and, despite giving chase, could not find the trigger. Is there any recent confirmation of a worshipper firing two shots? Nurg (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

New Zealand ISPs blocking websites

There have been reports that New Zealand ISPs have been blocking access to websites that have refused or ignored requests to remove the Facebook livestream footage. I think this would be an important addition to the Aftermath section, which currently talks about social media sites working to scrub the footage.

I'm having some trouble finding good enough sources for this, and I don't think any ISPs have officially announced the bans. This has also made finding an exhaustive list of banned sites difficult. The best I could find was a tweet https://twitter.com/simonmoutter/status/1106418640167952385 from Simon Moutter, managing director of Spark, an NZ based ISP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.102.117 (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Although I have saved the video for study, other places where it had been posted and removed have all stated that it was removed due to violating existing policy. May sound like semantics, but there is a difference.50.111.50.240 (talk) 06:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I have found a source (fro NZ Herald) and included that in the aftermath section. This along with Sky TV NZ pulling Sky News Au after it showed the video. --Masem (t) 14:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Islamophobia

Many people in New Zealand and around the world are connecting this act to Islamophobia or anti-Muslim hatred. For example, this Haaretz article covers many in the Muslim world making such statements. The New York Times says

Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said, in reacting to the attack, "We must stand against Islamophobia and all hate." A Muslim Australian leader also attributed this to Islamophobia. As did Mehreen Faruqi, an Australian senator.VR talk 13:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Just because a term was briefly mentioned in an article or a tweet does not mean that it is the main motive of the attack. As the sources state, the motive is more leaning toward white supremacy and anti immigration, thus if we were to insert a template, it should pertain to anti-immigration. Musicfan122 (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
There's no reason we can't include both links to Islamophobia and White supremacy.VR talk
Adding Islamophobia at the very least to the "See also" section is very appropriate. It is bizarre to it being removed from there.Bless sins (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
It seems unnecessary to me. It's already in the article as it should be. There's no point having it in the WP:see also. Likewise for right-wing terrorism and list of massacres in NZ so I've removed them too [2]. Probably Islam in NZ should be incorporated into the article too, but I've left it until someone does. Nil Einne (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
List of Islamophobic incidents is something that is hard to incorporate into the article.VR talk 06:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
It's possible it could be. But anyway ultimately given the state of the article development, it's probably not that important to find a way to incorporate every relevant see also at the moment. I mean list of massacres in NZ was incorporated but then removed at some stage. I guess the main point is there's actually a good reason why some relevant stuff isn't in the 'see also' and may be removed namely it's already in the article. Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
From what I read of the manifesto, the motivations were racist, but mostly authoritarian. He stated he doesn't hate Jews, Muslims, etc. Only when they come to "white" countries. And anti-immigration is usually an authoritarian sentiment with sprinkles of racism. He's a self-admitted "eco-fascist" and his political views were that of the People's Republic of China, although that last part might be a joke.
I agree with the above. He wanted countries worldwide to be comprised of their own ethnicity. Not even sure xenophobic is an accurate word, but it is closer to anti-muslim or islamophobic. What he hated was immigration; he was a populist, fascist, and an authoritarian but he wasnt afraid of muslims, or hate jews, or any other race, he just wants immigrants to stop coming to NZ. I'm honestly quite surprised he didnt say "Skyrim is for the Nords" with how many other memes he mentioned, because that phrase sums up his beliefs as outlined in the manifesto quite aptly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.12.249.87 (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Why no mention that ...

Please take this discources to 4chan. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Two al-queda jihadi's killed in US drone strikes are specifically stated to have been radicalized here by a reliable source. https://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/christchurch-mosque-linked-to-alqaida-suspect-2014060417

...this was a terrorist recruitment center? Why is this talk being undone? 120.28.235.138 (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

(ec versus censorship) The main problem with putting that here is that you have to show a connection. For example if the killer said he was attacking the mosque for that reason, or for any other reason the sources covering the massacre mentioned it, then it would be relevant here. Otherwise it can only be included at Al Noor Mosque. There's also a problem that another source gives another name: [3] which says "Masjid An-Nur mosque" and also argues against the radicalization being there. You might also see an argument about how distinctive the news is, since the U.S. has droned so many people by now that it's hard to picture a big city like Christchurch being left out, but I think that should fail. Bottom line: you have to learn how to crawl before you can walk. An-Nur (disambiguation) gives an Al Noor Mosque in Saudi Arabia as a synonym, but you ought to document if the one in Christchurch has other names, and what the variation in names means. See if you can expand other framing information about that article - what is the mosque known for, what is its philosophy? Then you can see how this and other controversies you'll probably find fit into it. But I think you will end up finding that this is a rather minor, salacious detail -- and only for the mosque article. Wnt (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
terrorist recruitment center is sourced to The Daily Stormer and doesn't belong anywhere. O3000 (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
It is certainly over the top rhetoric, but a mosque is not a person, so despite the tastelessness of it, BLP doesn't apply. It is true that a swallow does not make a summer and two people do not make a terrorist recruitment center, even if that much happened. I don't think redaction is appropriate but if you must redact, redact those three words in the title only. Wnt (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


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

Mosque leaders confirmed Havard stayed there and studied in 2011, but denied radical teaching took place. But a man who attended a converts' weekend at the mosque 10 years ago said a visiting speaker from Indonesia talked about violent jihad and plenty shared his views. "Most of the men were angry with the moral weakness of New Zealand. I would say they were radical."" https://web.archive.org/web/20140727140346/www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-east/10310496/A-Kiwi-lads-death-by-drone 120.28.235.138 (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The shooter's manifesto specifically states he targeted mosques that radicalized/recruited jihadi's. Its pretty relevant and provides a fair balance to all these claims that he was just a nazi. 120.28.235.138 (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
So, your evidence that the mosque was a terrorist recruitment center, which you have stated outright in a heading, is a manifesto written by a suspect in the killing of 49 Muslims? O3000 (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

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

So here you have the shooter stating in his manifesto that he selected mosques for that reason, and you have the publications about those mosques confirming his suspicion. 120.28.235.138 (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

You shouldn't respond to a closed discussion, but I will answer you here: while it might be true he wrote that in a large manifesto, it would be undue weight to include it if this facet is not covered by reliable sources. We have to distill a 76 page document to major points and to avoid OR of what's most important, we're following what reliable sources say about it, rather than use our (Editors) own determination. Now I have just looked for RSes that might cover this part, but have found nothing. That's not saying the manifesto never said it (disclaimer: I have not read it), but the lack of attention to that part should be reflected here by its lack of inclusion. If RSes do cover it, then we can add it as one of the attacker's claim. --Masem (t) 20:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
This defeats the very meaning of "reliable" that the shooters own published manifesto, which is deliberately censored by the large media outlets, should be ignored in favor of commentary provided by same media outlets -- Its Orwellian 120.28.235.138 (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

remove his name

Don't give him the notoriety that he wants. Remove his name from the article entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.254.209 (talk) 04:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

→His name is newsworthy.108.52.21.34 (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED, sadly.  Nixinova  T  C  06:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
This is a factual encyclopedic article. Withholding information for the purpose of achieving some specified agenda is clearly at odds with the purpose of an encyclopedic article. Please don't make such blatantly silly requests. PaganPanzer (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Reference to PewDiePie

This is not just a simple pop culture reference. Pewdiepie is a "introductory drug", a gateway to further alt-right radicalization and recruitment. We should probably wait for more sources to verify, but this should not be ignored and omitted. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The perp said he wanted to create division within the west so the "right would rise again" or some other Nazi crap. I don't think this information is relevant.  Nixinova  T  C  04:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
"I don't think this information is relevant." I'm sorry to be blunt, but the relevance of the shooter screaming "subscribe to Pewdiepie!" should be obvious. If you claim you don't understand it, well, given that you prominently advertise your interest in youtube, gaming, and internet culture, and you created the article Pewdiepie vs T-series, I frankly have to question your objectivity in this matter. You have skin in the game, and I think it's influencing your interpretation.
The general relevance of internet culture to this incident is inarguable; the shooter's manifesto was written almost entirely in memes and chan-speak, he posted about the shooting ahead of time on 8chan, and was clearly motivated by conspiracy theories pushed on that platform, and he livestreamed it. And while the mechanisms of right-wing radicalization online are a subject of ongoing study, the throughline from "edgy memes" to actual bigotry is already pretty clear. And you must admit that, even if you think it was "blown out of proportion" or "taken out of context," Felix has at least been adjacent to a lot of controversy, involving a lot of things he's said and done that seem to make the alt-right think he's one of them (totally irrespective of whether or not he is).
I don't have the time to add the info myself right now, and the article is going to be a mess for a few days anyways. But you are wrong about this. And I genuinely hope that you reflect on why your reaction was to say it wasn't relevant, and what that might say about your personal biases, and how those biases can affect you as an editor. People writing about things they love is the backbone of this and every other wiki. But when you care about something, that's when being objective is the hardest. And also when it's the most important. ScreamingRobot (talk) 07:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
This! Even if Felix is not a white supremacist, he consciously or unconsciously help the spread of the ideology with his "edgy humor". 36.65.223.28 (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The shooter said he was inspired by Spyro the Dragon, so I hope this gets a mention too. 37.228.252.194 (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree, the article should at least mention that the perp mentioned Pewdiepie's name. 36.65.223.28 (talk) 07:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It is definitely relevant as "subscribe to pewdiepie" is one of very few things the shooter said right before opening fire. However, the word 'screaming' is inaccurate. He spoke it at normal volume and it was directed at his livestream viewers rather than his victims.Wikiditm (talk) 08:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Removed the claim as it is not corroborated from multiple reliable sources. Nizil (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I agree that PewDiePie is an introductory drug, as reported by sources [4], to deradicalization and helping victims of terrorism. Definitely should not be ignored as it is a WP:DUE reaction reported by many sources. wumbolo ^^^ 10:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose on WP:BLP grounds. I think it'd be prudent to wait until we have a reputable third party making the same claim. Melmann (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree. Wait until there has been time for third parties to analyze this. At this point, opinions on PewDiePie's involvement in this is entirely WP:OR and WP:POV  DiscantX 10:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose It seems very speculative at this time. Let's wait for more thorough, informed and thoughtful analysis and stick to key facts for the immediate future.Mozzie (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • A posting on Bellingcat [5] (I'm honestly not sure how their editorial process works, but I respect the site) argues that Pewdiepie and similar references were what the writer calls "shitposting", i.e. deliberately misleading or provocative. The "gateway drug" model proposed above is a somewhat plausible hypothesis (right-wing culture -> right-wing ideology -> racism -> murder), but another plausible hypothesis is that one-sided class warfare -> depression -> overdoses and suicides -> ways to put a bright face on a suicide -> choosing some "cause" to use for an excuse. No doubt you can propose more such models. We should mention all the references like Pewdiepie because we exist to transmit the information, but we should be careful not to imply any given interpretation of what they mean apart from what we can source. Wnt (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the too-quick to label media is accurate calling him right-wing. He is a self-described communist. And no, assertions that conservatives equal bigotry inaccurate. Bigotry has no political boundaries. Tycoon24 (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

No, the media is perfectly accurate in this instance. It was obviously a far-right attack. In any case, WP:RS applies - if reliable sources agree it was a far-right attack, that is what we call it. Editors personally disagreeing with the sources counts for nothing. There is zero reason to think the attacker was serious in calling himself a communist. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Based on Wikipedia policies, which assume all media must always be accurate and therefore are reliable, you are correct to assume that -- after all, some media headlines label him as right-wing. But in real life that doesn't make it so. Time will tell. But the evidence is contrary to what some in the media are reporting. Tycoon24 (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Also, assuming some things he says are "a joke" or "not serious," while assuming other things he says are true is quite frankly a weird way to consider what's true and what's not. You're basically using your own opinion to assume what he says is true or a joke. Tycoon24 (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

People are quoting from the original manifesto - primary source

People are quoting from the original manifesto which is primary source even if the secondary source they are placed in does not use the words. Why is everyone pushing it to be in the lead so soon? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Because it's key to the event and understanding it? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Bastun A few hours down the line it is easier to understand this. I had written my statement a long time back. Regards DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Bastun, "Why is everyone pushing it to be in the lead so soon?" Please note the kind of content that was in the lead when I wrote my comment, and the kind of content in the lead now. This is just an observation and no means an argument. The lead has gone back and forth considerably these past hours. That is why I had my initial hesitations and posted this comment here. But now that there has been more time passage, I am ok with how the page has developed and the analysis being made on the talk page. I didn't mean this in an offensive way or anything. Just as a caution at the time and as a question which I wasn't being able to understand fully at the time. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Reactions section 2

The following were removed from the reactions section by User:Aircorn (→‎Reactions: No reason to single out the USA or UK). Should they be there?

Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Theresa May and the Malaysian Foreign Ministry have condemned the shootings and expressed support for the victims and families.
President of the United States Donald Trump tweeted, "My warmest sympathy and best wishes goes out to the people of New Zealand after the horrible massacre in the Mosques. 49 innocent people have so senselessly died, with so many more seriously injured. The U.S. stands by New Zealand for anything we can do. God bless all!". In the initial moments after the attack, Trump posted a link to Breitbart the far-right news site, which featured a news feed about the attacks. After several hours, the attack was deleted.

I suspect they will ultimately evolve, but they will just keep getting added in anyway?Mozzie (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Reaction sections that primarily consist of "Leader X of country Y offered their condolances" are useless to include; they clutter up too many of these types of articles, when a single sentence, like "World leaders, including, X, Y, and Z, offered their condolances". Specific reactions that involve actual "actions" like providing investigative assistance, relief or funds to support those affected, etc. are what should be documented indivudally. --Masem (t) 14:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree, but they will just keep popping up. Theresa May's already has. It is just easier to leave them there for the time being and they will get cleaned up in a few days.Mozzie (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
At most they will be moved to an independent article that may or may not be deleted later. Undue is a real concern and the reactions of the world should not dominate the reactions of the country involved. Yes people will continue to add them, because it is easy to copypaste a quote and some editors like their country to be mentioned when these things happen. Maybe we can get some consensus here now, or should we just create International reactions to the Christchurch mosque shootings and be done with it. AIRcorn (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Maybe put a comment at the start of the section, something along the lines of READ THIS BEFORE ADDING REACTIONS. We can put it in a big border of hash tags or asterisks or something.Mozzie (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Once the other article is created (if we go that route) this is probably best. AIRcorn (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh, the point is that we use the comment to keep the reactions section small so that the content never needs to go to another article. Who needs an article on reactions? Mozzie (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I've added a recentism tag and made a very ugly prominent hidden comment in the section. Hopefully that works. Crosses fingers. Mozzie (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
And the tag keeps getting removed. Sigh.Mozzie (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
It's easy to get soundbites from English-speaking leaders on the EN WP. Then someone will come along and say, what about the leaders who speak French, or German, or Spanish, etc? They get added. Soon it becomes a quote-fest of everyone who makes a tweet about it, and the article gets bogged down with said quotes. Leave it for now, then spin it out to its own article. Although, past form shows these are now being deleted at AfD. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Exactly - if the bulk of reactions are just words of condolences, that's not really encyclopedic. Of course all world leaders are going to come out to talk about how bad the incident was, so this type of coverage is routine. A single sentence can coverage the bulk of these, it does not at all need to be a separate article at this point. --Masem (t) 15:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Example I added the following: Fraser Anning, a far right wing Australian politician released a widely criticised press release claiming that the attacks highlighted the "growing fear over an increasing Muslim presence" in Australian and New Zealand communities. this is notable because it is a right wing politician attacking the victims and he is from the apparent attacker's home country. Yet it was reverted. In the spirit of WP:STATUSQUO would someone else be so kind as to reinstate it.Mozzie (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a perennial problem. Personally, I think summary statements would be better. "Condolences and condemnations of the attack were offered by many world leaders, such as ..." EvergreenFir (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

That was me. I've seen it used and used it myself before successfully. TompaDompa (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
You have my thanks. AIRcorn (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Who was the first hero?

I see a bunch of articles about the hero who finally ended the attack by tackling the gunman and taking his shotgun. [6] But in the video at Bestgore there is a first hero at the first mosque who tried to tackle the shooter within the first 30 seconds, and I think managed to actually touch the gun before being killed. But that seems buried under the search hits for the one who succeeded. Does anyone remember seeing a coverage about this part? Wnt (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

We just need to wait for reliable sources to report this. Wikipedia isn't a breaking news source, so no need to be hasty.Mozzie (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
There was not first hero (according to the video at 7:00, I am not allowed to post the link) that guy was just trying to run for his life but he was pushed by the terrorist which was mistaken as an attempt to grab his weapon. Dog-pox-is-a-disease (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Why are we discussing results of WP:OR? Iseult Δx parlez moi 19:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Note at least one source which I linked above, Newsweek, has already mentioned this. As I said, I think we need more sources before we mention it in our article, but we should be clear that most of the stuff is in reliable sources Wnt's ignoring of existing discussions not withstanding. Nil Einne (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The term Turkofagos is wrong

Turkofagos was the popular nickname of Greek revolutionary Nikitaras during the Greek war of independence, The western media is wrong saying it was used to describe Greek militias generally. SJCAmerican (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Comparing death toll to Featherston 1943

The deadliest attack in New Zealand was the 1943 riot at Featherston prisoner of war camp, which killed 48 Japanese prisoners and one New Zealander soldier (49 total). Since the death toll for the mosque shootings is at 49, is it fair to say that they are the deadliest attack in New Zealand history? Neegzistuoja (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Neegzistuoja: As much as I'm concerned about that, we should be cautious of WP:OR indications, and wait until a source says so - just an advice. (ps: the comparisons to Raurimu and Aramoana massacres in the article are also sourced) Dhio-270599 20:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The actions of multiple guards at Featherston to suppress a riot under conditions of war were not unlawful killings, so the comparison is not really appropriate in any case. Nonetheless, if the sources make it, it should be reported. Wnt (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Terrorism categories

The categories identifying the attack as terrorism should be restored. The New Zealand government is now clear that the attack was terrorism. This isn't a BLP issue, as including the categories doesn't imply that any particular individual is guilty of terrorism. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not their call, though. It's the up to the courts. Just like it isn't up to anyone abut the courts to decide whether a killing is murder or, say, manslaughter. I also noted that someone added it back with reference to some kind of talk page consensus that I frankly have a hard time seeing. TompaDompa (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
It 's not court's call though. It's secondary sources who will decide whether it was an act of terrorism or not. Cinadon36 (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
"Terrorism" in most countries' laws has specific definitions that creates certain recourse as to actions policy/officials can take, and increases penalties that those committing the act can be sentenced to. Secondary sources may call the attack terrorism, but it is something that investigation officials and courts need to declare. So we can't go by secondary sources in this case. We can quote, for example, the PM's statement, but he's not in a position to be determining the long-term application of the word. --Masem (t) 14:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
"He"? Are you referring to the Australian PM or something? While the attacker may have been Australian born, and probably an Australian citizen, it seems of limited relevance. If you are referring to some other PM (Malaysian?), it seems even less relevant. Nil Einne (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
No, it is not the courts who decide, regardless of the laws that state may have. Secondary sources, historians and journalists, look at the circumstances and make the call - which they have. Universally, this is being reported as a terrorist attack. 50.111.50.240 (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Motive - is the attack connected to the far right?

This recent edit by Oktayey needs to be reverted. The edit summary used states, "Updated motive; not connected with the far right". The claim that the attack was "not connected with the far right" is simply untrue. Numerous sources have identified the attacker as far-right. The claim that the motive was "Alt-right extremism" is uncited. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Then why not revert it yourself (with an explanation in the edit summary)? Ross Finlayson (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:3RR. This is the same reason why I didn't revert the irritating reversion of a (correct) WP:MOS change by Harizotoh9, as noted above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for heeding by 3RR. FreeKnowledgeCreator. Maybe say that up front that you are seeking consensus. On the subject of the matter, I Agree the reliable sources indicate that this is connected with the far right. I have updated the heading to indicate this. Mozzie (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Does the notion of an alt-right even exist in New Zealand? That article's lead strongly suggests it doesn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The alleged perpetrator is not a New Zealander. Akld guy (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Didn't mean to imply he was. Only that the term may mean absolutely nothing when projected onto a New Zealand event. Can Australians be alt-right? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
This edit by Oktayey is more POV-pushing, claiming without evidence that the attack is due to the "alt-right". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I removed it, pending a source. Didn't replace it with anything, though. And didn't remove the other two unsourced claims, for whatever reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment from IP

The two sources that are currently referenced to support the shooter calling himself "communist" do not contain the word "communist" in their texts.

The Unsigned comment above was added by 99.14.151.89. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Moreover I believe he stated he used to identify as a communist in the past but not currently. BeŻet (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Misleading reference to Fortnite

The quote given in the article is: He also mentioned that Fortnite "trained him to be a killer." I think that this is not accurate, because the whole quote is obviously in a mocking fashion and should not be taken literally, which could easily be missed if you read the article's excerpt.

2600:6C46:4A00:549:BA:9725:2D36:2B93 (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

He also cited Candace Owens as his biggest influence, which also seems to be sarcastic (Owens is black). 63.231.140.53 (talk) 23:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Sarcasm is hard to pin down in text, and different things are obvious to different readers. Have any published analysts noted whether he meant it? Without that, any of us can as easily assume anything anyone ever says is just kidding, and that could get messy in a hurry. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
You're essentially using your own opinion to determine what he says is a sarcastic and what he says is real. You can't pick and choose facts. Tycoon24 (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
But I'm patient and will wait to find a source that references his take on Fortnite. Tycoon24 (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The whole quote is "Yes, Spyro the dragon 3 taught me ethno-nationalism. Fortnite trained me to be a killer and to floss on the corpses of my enemies. No." in response to the question of if video games inspired him. It's sarcastic for multiple reasons, most notably that nobody would "floss on the corpses" of their enemies in any situation. Also, at the end he clarifies "no." which is pretty cut and dry. 2600:6C46:4A00:549:BA:9725:2D36:2B93 (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that "no" is pretty damn clear (and I mean that). Leave it out, especially just the misleading snippet version. Candace Owens is not so black and white. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
This is an example of why primary sources are so important. Yes, we must be careful to use primary sources carefully ... but many of the secondary sources not merely are careless, but are out to push an agenda. Wnt (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
The best part is I'm patient and will wait for other sources to cite these facts. You guys make me laugh.. just because you don't like to hear these things doesn't make them not true. Your opinion is not fact. What is said, as a matter of fact, is the only truth. Tycoon24 (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
The Associated Press matter-of-factly writes "a classic trolling move", "seemingly sarcastically", and "ironic mockery". Any of those true enough for you? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

3RR, edit warring and good faith

After major incidents, Wikipedia pages often evolve quickly. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that it can produce an encyclopedic article immediately after events happen. However these articles also attract uncivil behaviour such as multiple reverts, and edit warring. The following principles apply:

  • Contributions should generally be notable (WP:NOTE). They should use reliable sources (WP:RS) and should be in neutral tone and weighted properly in an article (WP:NPOV). However Wikipedia is also a work in progress (WP:WIP). New and rapidly evolving articles will not be perfect, and as editors we should be comfortable with this, so avoid speedy reverts of new content. Keep improving the article and soon it will reach a high quality.
  • As per WP:REVERT: Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits. The Wikipedia edit warring policy forbids repetitive reverting.
  • If you see a good-faith edit which you feel does not improve the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of reverting it. Similarly, if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor.
  • Edit summaries, always a good practice, are particularly important when reverting. Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion. Try to remain available for dialogue, especially in the half-day or so after reverting.

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See WP:NOT3RR for exemptions.

List of user reverts

The following users is a list of users who have reverted changes on this article. You should warn editors on their talk page if they have been listed here. If a user makes three revisions of good faith edits in a 24 hour period, they should be warned on their talk page (see [[Wikipedia:Edit_warring#What_to_do_if_you_see_edit-warring_behavior|what to do if you see edit warring. Users who continue to edit war, refuse to work collaboratively or heed the information given to them, or do not move on to appropriate dispute resolution can be reported at WP:AN/EW.

User:Aircorn

Addition by RookerBowman

RookerBowman is edit warring to include the following material in the section on the manifesto: "He supports return of racial segregation in the United States. The manifesto ends with neo-Nazi symbols above two images." The main problem I see is with the last part of that. We don't need to describe the attacker's manifesto in such minute detail that we discuss precisely where he used a given kind of symbol or precisely how many images he used. The exact location of a symbol in a manifesto does not matter and the exact number of "images" used also does not matter. This is a good case where WP:PROPORTION applies. As for it showing that the attacker might be a neo-Nazi, the article already notes above that he used neo-Nazi symbols: "He was described in media reports as a 28-year-old Australian white supremacist who used neo-Nazi symbols" (I added that myself). RookerBowman, could you please stop edit warring to insert unneeded trivia into the article? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

It shows he is a possible neo-Nazi or a sympathizer. RookerBowman (talk) 10:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

RookerBowman, I just politely explained to you that your addition is not necessary to show that he is a possible neo-Nazi. The article already stated clearly before your addition that he used neo-Nazi symbols. So, no, we do not need a minute discussion of his manifesto containing such details as exactly where a symbol was used or how many "images" were included at any point. Again, please stop repeatedly inserting unneeded trivia. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Video

A reminder: don't post links to the video anywhere on Wikipedia. Editors who disregard this warning may be blocked: BLP applies in the strongest terms, and that's only a start. Acroterion (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Would this apply to the manifesto too, or does this depend on discussions above? Iseult Δx parlez moi 19:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Precedents exist for things like the manifesto, as distasteful as it may be, but the video is clearly out of bounds. Acroterion (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Wouldn't the manifesto technically fall under a BLP violation, though, considering that government sources have released no names and that reliable sources have him as a suspect, and thus BLPCRIME would apply? Iseult Δx parlez moi 19:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I suppose it could, I've not been following that part of the event. Acroterion (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:BLPCRIME explicitly refers to reporting crimes about people who are not well known. The people who committed these acts are suddenly, or very soon will be suddenly well known. Therefore these matters can be published given sufficient reliable sources. The issue with media is pretty much one of copyright as I understand it.Mozzie (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree, but not quite. Per WP:COPYLINK, there should be no links to copyright violations. However, if a reliable source has the video and is not a copyright violation, it should be included as an external link as it is discussed in dozens of other RSes. As per WP:NOTCENSORED, stuff should not be removed because it is seen as "offensive", and editors who edit war to remove such content may be blocked too. Per WP:BLPEL, it is alright to include controversial links to reliable sources. wumbolo ^^^ 19:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
A video of identifiable people being killed falls under BLP, completely apart from considerations of copyright. Any link to anything along those lines should be the outcome of a broad community discussion. Acroterion (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Such a video would not exist. Faces are usually blurred. wumbolo ^^^ 20:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOTCENSORED content should not be given preferential treatment just because it is available. Rivselis (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I said very clearly that I would support an external link to the video. That does not violate WP:SHOCK because the reader knows what's behind it. The video is very relevant here and highly cited by reliable sources. wumbolo ^^^ 21:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Numerous secondary sources will exist that will be just as relevant and reliable without the chance of students/minors accessing graphic video of people being killed from a link on wikipedia.Rivselis (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a content disclaimer so concerns like "think of the kids" are irrelevant. If this stuff is inappropriate, what about the child porn (e.g. at Virgin Killer)? Further, Wikipedia has a responsibility of being WP:NOTCENSORED, as opposed to the Reddit thought-police which banned /r/watchpeopledie a few hours ago [9]. wumbolo ^^^ 21:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
How can WP:BLP possibly preclude a video of an identifiable person being killed? The policy specifically refers to living people. 139.194.67.236 (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

BLP also specifically includes "recently deceased" people. ansh666 23:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

BLP prohibits false or unsourced information about living people, not factual information. Invoking it here is a red herring. The situation with copyright violation is more debatable. Yes, you can argue that a site hosting the video might be violating the killer's precious copyright, and that would surely, by Wikipedia policy, be a Bad Thing; after all, the copyright system exists to reward creators for their creativity and ingenuity. But I think traditional and even non-traditional news organizations could make a persuasive case for a broad Fair Use exception based on the newsworthiness of their content, and Wikipedians do not have to judge whether a non-pirate site's copyright lawyers are giving them the right advice or not.
The tone of moral panic in this severely disappoints me. On a philosophical level, Wikipedians should know that freedom of inquiry is precious. On a practical level, watching the video is useful. We see that (no matter what the guy above says) a hero went to grab the gun about 25 seconds after he walked into the first building, and came within half a second of succeeding. Yet we also see that by that point most of the people had already been shot down. I can say for certain that I had no appreciation for how fast a mass shooting could be, nor did I really believe that everyone would fall to the ground right away. This has many implications for policy positions, like the American notion of arming teachers. Can someone make the decision to shoot and abstract a gun from a locked case and prepare it to fire before it is too late? It is our calling to hoard information and look deeply into things; let's not be ashamed of it. Wnt (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
It is our calling to hoard information and look deeply into things - no, that's definitely not true, especially the second part of it. As an encyclopedia, we are here to report what secondary sources say, not to create analysis of our own. ansh666 01:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
We are not supposed to impose our analysis of primary sources, but we are here to facilitate the reader to make his own analysis. The video remains online as the headline item at Bestgore, which should be easy to find, so at the moment I won't defy the above ultimatum over the hypothetical violation of the murderer's precious copyright. I would like to see a more mainstream link for the video - it is really not particularly gory to watch, it's instructive, it does nothing to diminish the humanity of the people killed, but rather, conveys the shock of a nearly instantaneous attack, the humanity of their emotions and responses, and even how close someone came to stopping the massacre and saving everyone who had been wounded and at the second mosque. On Bestgore you'll find the comments much more appalling to view than the video. Wnt (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Reactions section

Yet another "Reactions" section where primary sources are used to create a Quotefarm of politicians mouthing platitudes. The only thing that could make it worse is if some flagicons were added. This unencyclopedic material should be removed. Abductive (reasoning) 05:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I can understand where you are coming from, but responses are not limited to just politicians. - Josephua (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The best way to handle this I have seen is to use a blanket statement like politicians from around the world have condemned the attacks and then create a note listing them. The reactions arre all pretty much the same and this reduces the undue nature these sections inevitably create. AIRcorn (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. The reactions section contains comments by Jacinda Ardern the New Zealand primeminister, Patsy Reddy the Governor General who is head of state in New Zealand and Scott Morrison, the current Australian primeminister. These are relevant because its the New Zealand leadership and also the Australian leadership (one of the perpetrators was an Australian), not random or other people.Resnjari (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
If the reactions are kept to curated prose, not indiscriminate lists, we will be fortunate. Abductive (reasoning) 11:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
If anyone wants to input the reactions from the Muslim world, this might be a good list Dhio-270599 12:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
At least the excessive use of flags hasn't started yet. AIRcorn (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Remember that wikipedia is a work in progress. It doesn't have to be perfect. Let the Quote farm happen for now and edit it later. A bit of extra time will give some perspective on what to keep.Mozzie (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The reactions are not all the same and there has been significant coverage of what countries have said regarding the shooting. This definitely deserves mention. This is standard practice on wikipedia with respect to terrorism-related articles.Bless sins (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The reactions section should be removed. It turns the article into a soapbox for politicians and celebrities expressing outcry. We get it. We’re all upset and saddened. But do select quotes from people editors like or dislike really belong? Tycoon24 (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. We all know everyone hates it. Should we start including ourselves? PewDiePie's reaction is a bit of an exception for me, though, as the bastard who did this literally shouted him out for whatever reason. Alex of Canada (talk) 13:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
This is a time honored tradition. Mass tragedy, bloated reactions section, and then when everyone's had their fun we can move most of it to Wikiquote where it belongs once the dust settles. GMGtalk 13:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I disagree - the responses from world leaders and organisations can be interesting to compare and contrast and give political context - but unless it's a large list like Death_and_state_funeral_of_Kim_Jong-il#Reactions perhaps leave off the flagicons for now | 🔬🚆 |   Telo | TP   | 14:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

A concern on motives

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2019

Edit to clarify streaming sources. Was first streamed on live4.io [6] then moved to facebook live

Addition of the music played during the attacks (over the attackers car speakers during the recorded live4.io video) "Kocayine - SERBIA STRONG!" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIcxqVRLEWI) "The British Grenadiers - Fife and Drum" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGrxHO-B2TY) "Grün ist Ünser (Fallschirm Remix)" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KZCiWizEkw) "Crazy World of Arthur Brown - Fire " (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLG1ys2CGcI) "Manuel - Gas Gas Gas" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atuFSv2bLa8)

Addition of car driven as some sort of Subaru 70.169.187.70 (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The video is a bit complicated. LIVE4 GoPro is an Apple/Android app that allows login with a Facebook account, then shows the videos on Facebook.[10] As far as I can see, Live4.io does not host or stream the videos itself on its website.[11]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/zealand-mosque-attacks-scourge-white-supremacy-190315090752857.html
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States
  4. ^ https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/03/15/how-the-christchurch-shooter-played-the-worlds-media/
  5. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/15/world/asia/new-zealand-shooting-brenton-tarrant.html
  6. ^ "NO VIOLENCE". live4.io. LIVE4. Retrieved 18 March 2019.

Fraser egging

I think we should mention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Anning_egg_incident here, he was a senator.

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

See also section

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

There ya go

https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/website-kiwi-farms-refuses-to-surrender-data-linked-to-accused-christchurch-terrorist-brendan-tarrant/news-story/46d3c925ef84b24dde6194c42b3c2241 75.162.84.50 (talk) 09:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

There's another. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12214017 75.162.84.50 (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Media traps

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

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

Those do not look like reliable sources. --Masem (t) 01:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Seven News and The West Australian are unambiguously reliable sources. The Seven News clip is hosted on funnyjunk, but the source is Seven News. It may be found hosted elsewhere, but they've almost certainly burned it from their official channels. Handschuh-talk to me 01:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Neither of these sources appear to be reliable. 97.118.129.179 (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Is there any such thing as an unambiguously reliable source? Sardaka (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
(EC) To clarify, while Seven News and The West Australian are generally reliable sources, neither of those sources say "In fact, several media outlets did report that the shooter claimed to be a navy seal with over 300 confirmed kills, taking the meme at face value." or anything equivalent. What is being proposed is WP:OR. We require reliable sources which actually note this happened not editor interpretation's of sources where it did happen. This may be fairly simple OR, but it's still OR. Nil Einne (talk) 07:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
That's a pretty broad interpretation of what constitutes OR. Saying "media reports said x", and then citing media reports that say x, rather than a media report that says "media reports said x" seems to be a bit of a hair split to me. Handschuh-talk to me 07:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Here's the thing. Did you want to tell readers that "according to some reports, the shooter claimed to be Navy Seal with over 300 confirmed kill"? If yes then this probably isn't OR, although I question if it's relevant to report. If you wanted to report that media reports took a meme at face value, then yes of course you need RS that note this happened. This is not a "pretty broad interpretation", it's a fundamental part of the policy hence why the WP:SYN section. Nil Einne (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Upon reflection, I agree. If/when some meta-news outlet(s) take Seven News to task over this, I'll consider bringing this back up. Handschuh-talk to me 08:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

(EC) In fact, at the moment we don't even have a source which says the 300 confirmed kill thing was a meme although I suspect probably one could be found. (To be clearly, I'm not referring to a source which talks about the copypasta Navy Seal in general. Instead one which mentions that the manifesto included the copypasta meme where the killer claimed to be a former Navy Seal with over 300 confirmed kills.)

Anyway even when sources are found, to highlight why OR is a bad idea, how do you know that the media reports of the 300 confirmed kills in the manifesto are based on the Navy Seal meme? It seems awfully coincidental but could it be there is something else where the killer seriously implied they were a Navy Seal with over 300 confirmed kills? Without a source you can't exclude that possibility except by original interpretation of the WP:Primary source.

If there is actually a source which notes that no where in the manifesto the killer seriously claim to be a Navy Seal with over 300 confirmed kills, although they do include some variant of the copypasta meme which includes such a reference, then we finally at least have actual sources demonstrating that.

I'd personally still argue that it's OR to connect this to the media reports having taken the copypasta meme at face value but OTOH, I don't think it's worth us worrying about. I find it very unlikely that a RS could be found which goes so far as to note this about the manifesto without it also mentioning that the reason they are noting this is because other reports seem to have taken the meme at face value rather than recognising it for what it was.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

(EC, @Nil Einne 08:00) I acknowledge that, but sometimes in cases like this I think: who are we fooling? Why do we restrain ourselves to being mere digesters? What is encyclopedic about that? Maybe sometime in the future Wikipedia might introduce a status like 'verified autonomous logician' for users whp are able and trusted to make synthetic edits. We waste a lot of knowledge, in a time of increasing information and fading RS on societal issues. But I don't see how we could implement anything of the kind at the moment, so I'm only daydreaming here. But knowledge should be core to an encyclopedia and we are clearly wasting something on that point. I mean, Wikipedia would block Pierre Bayle indefinite on his first day. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2019

First of all I want to pass my deepest condolences to the victims and their families. Regarding my request, I noticed, reading the page, that the songs played in the video are all cited but one that is a remix of a German military song called "Grün ist unser Fallschirm" that played when Tarrant was inside the mosque while shooting. Since the other songs present in the video are cited I think that also this song should be cited. 78.12.47.42 (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

This needs a reliable source, which seems to be lacking at the moment. "Grün ist unser Fallschirm" ("Green is our Parachute") is a German military song and seems to have been chosen for maximum troll effect, like all of the other music in the video.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

This article needs MUCH more about the people in the mosques

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

Except, victim lists tend to fail WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, barring if any of these people had some type of role in trying to stop the shooter. --Masem (t) 14:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
At some point when all of the victims are named, someone is going to add all of them to the article. Personally I would oppose this per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:BLPNAME for the victims' relatives, but experience at other articles suggests that some users will insist on the full list.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I happen to disagree with WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:BLPNAME. But my unsuccessful attempts to argue against them — for example, that articles about military actions should include the names of of U.S. troops killed in them — suggests that this policy has become rather firmly embedded in WP practice. PRRfan (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
How is WP:NOTMEMORIAL firmly embedded in practice? WP:NOTMEMORIAL is literally about article creation. It is not about content. And how could it be said to be firmly embedded in practice when 90% of articles that could contain a victim list, do contain a victim list? You refer to "articles about military actions". We do not include victim lists when the number of victims is too large. Bus stop (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually not really. NPOV talks about making sure to give appropriate weight to significant viewpoints, and the like, and certainly not to omit major viewpoints from authoritative RSes. It does not say anything about weight of various facts, and that's where WP:NOT takes over instead. We're summarizing the event, and going into any more significant details about the victims , outside those that were already notable, is not summarizing. Their individual identities is indiscriminate information in the context of the larger picture around this event. --Masem (t) 22:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, then what is the justification for including victim lists in Stoneman Douglas High School shooting and Pittsburgh synagogue shooting? A problem is that we all think we are smarter than we really are. We don't write Wikipedia articles. Sources write Wikipedia articles. Do sources list victims? Then we list victims. We march in lockstep with sources unless a good reason can be presented for us to break rank with sources. Bus stop (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
This is yet another rehash of the argument "we must go along with what the sources say". The news media will name all of the victims, Wikipedia does not have to because it is an encyclopedia, not a news source. There was a clear consensus at 2017 Las Vegas shooting not to list all of the victims, because it would have been a list providing no real insight into the shooting. But WP:OTHERCONTENT exists, and there are articles where some people insisted on a full list.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
The 2017 Las Vegas shooting article is one article. How does it establish consensus? Consensus is established by many more than one article. Of hundreds of articles examined (more than 200), 90% of articles that could contain a victim list, do contain a victim list. I examined those 200 plus articles. I compiled a list here. Bus stop (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Gas Gas Gas is irrelevant in the article

Gas Gas Gas by Italian musician was the song which gunman played after his attack，he drove on the road in a fast speed while this song was playing according to the infamous livestream.This song should not be listed in the article because this is nothing to do with gunman's motivation of shootings.Patricklo0615 (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

See the discussion below, on 'Song Fire'. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

Part of Terrorism in New Zealand or else

I 'd suggest that we change the phrase "Part of Terrorism in New Zealand". Surely, it is a true sentence, but the phrase would be more meaningful if it were "Part of White Supremacist Terrorism" or Islamophobia or something similar. The reason is that the attack has been linked to Alt-Right, supremacists, racism (the rise of them- links at the article). Cinadon36 (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

It's a generic terrorism template. It's fine.  Nixinova  T  C  19:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Time of the Linwood attack?

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

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

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

You have there a source that is written in the first half day after the beginning of the shooting, when things were not cleared up. The source isn't very precise about the times too. There were initially reports of several shooters: it's like you are now saying "there seems to be no consensus on the number of attackers", based on an old source, while we are now three days further in time and have more information. Don't stick to one old article. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC).
That is a very good point, PRRfan. Based on my "original" research, both times are inaccurate and it was probably about half-way between the two reported times. Maybe a well researched timeline will eventually be published by a genuinely reliable source. As the person who added the 1:55 time to the article, I am happy now for you to alter that. Note in the info I removed in that edit, that Deutsche Welle had previously said 2:40, which they have since changed, without any acknowledgement (that I can see) that they edited their article. Nurg (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Jürgen Eissink, although the Stuff article was indeed written several days after the DW one, it attributes the time to one witness who gives an approximate time. This is not terribly convincing, or at least no more so than the DW piece, which at least evinces an attempt to bring various resources to bear on the question. Until we have a more definitive timeline, I propose to write "...continued at the Linwood Islamic Centre some minutes later; various sources give 1:55 and 2:10 p.m." with cites attached to each time. Sound good? PRRfan (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
No, it doesn't sound good to me. While I don't get the fixation of some editors on the exact time frame (I proposed to remove the completely useless detailed time from the lede, but to no avail), it's easy to deduce from (1) the first attack started at 1.40, (2) that attack lasted 6 minutes, (3) the ride to the next site is appr. 4 miles/6 km, (4) Tarrant at some points drove like the madman he is, that (conclusion) it did not take him 24 minutes to drive 4 miles. But if you want to maintain your point, I strongly suggest you get some better sources, but please don't feel the need to ping me again, because I think I have been clear and I'm not the head editor here. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC).
I'd love to have better sources. I looked; couldn't find any. I'm not at all dedicated to having an exact time in the lead. But I do think it necessary to do our best to establish a time at least in the Attacks/Linwood section. To that end, it would be useful to know your source for the 6-minute duration of the Al Noor attack. PRRfan (talk) 03:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, I've seen the video, but that doesn't count, so let me Google for you. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC).
Hey, while you're Googling, perhaps you could add that to the article? Just a thought. PRRfan (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Are you even serious? Jürgen Eissink (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC).
I have re-added the 6-minute duration (which was deleted without explanation) with a source - a BBC article. Nurg (talk) 10:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Six minutes between the two sites is not possible. Even taking the quickest route, which is not the shortest, and driving like a madman, including through red lights, it would have taken a minimum of 10-15 minutes, and more likely 15-20, especially at that time of day. Media sources feed off each other so wrong info gets repeated. Until things settle down more and more detail becomes available, an estimate of the timeline is all that we can have. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so "...continued at the Linwood Islamic Centre some minutes later; various sources give 1:55 and 2:10 p.m." with cites attached to each time? PRRfan (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Roger 8 Roger: who said "six minutes between the two sites"? And 20 minutes for a 4 mile drive? He wasn't on a bike or a wheelchair, you know, but by car. Your mathematics seem terrible, but maybe you can elaborate. Sources give about 9 minutes for the drive (1.46 to 1.55), which is an average of about 26 mph or 40 kmh – given that he no doubt sometimes drove faster than that, nine minutes is not unlikely. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC).
Not sure what sources you're relying on which give you 9 minutes but Google Maps which at least in Auckland tends to be fairly accurate gives about 11 minutes for a normal drive but this is in the middle of the night. It's quite like it would take longer when he was driving since it was in the middle of the day. (I'm lazy to check and the realtime nature of Google may mean it's already been affected anyway.) 40 km/h average is likely fairly high, remember he was in the middle of the city at a busy time. And so sure he may have been driving faster then 40 km/h at times he would have been slower at other times like when he needed to stop or slow down for lights or because he was blocked. It will also depend on what route he took, I've seen BBC and others have mapped the part shown in the video, it didn't look that unusual but I don't know the area. If he really drove like a madman, then I could perhaps imagine it taking 9 minutes if he got lucky, but 6 minutes does seem implausible. (Lundy murders anyone?) I'm surprised he would risk drawing so much attention to himself, especially since I would have thought he'd want to avoid getting noticed before he was ready. But then again, according to various comments I've seen he was taking potshots out of the car so I guess maybe he didn't care about attracting attention. But that's also another point, if he was taking potshots out of the car this would also seem to slow him down. Also when you're getting to that level, you have to consider precise timings including parking, walking etc. I have no idea why we're talking about OR anyway. If the sources aren't yet clear on the timeline then the best solution is to wait, not OR. There's no harm in either indicating the uncertainty or just excluding the info until it's unclear. Nil Einne (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Again: nobody said 6 minutes for the drive. Sigh. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC).
[15] See here for an example of such a map. BTW, it strikes me that 1:40 and 1:55 and many of the other times here seem to be fairly round times. In other words, trying to analyse time frames so precisely likely makes no sense. The stuff probably didn't happen exactly around then more likely ~ +/- 5 minutes. In reality probably +/- 10 minutes or more considering what Roger 8 Roger noted below namely that at this stage a lot of it is probably just from eye witness reports etc. (Although I guess the exact time the live stream started is possibly public so stuff in it could potentially be more precise. But I haven't seen any source which has done so perhaps in part because it seems unnecessary and distasteful.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Looking at our article, I guess the 1:40 is likely fairly precise maybe 1 minute off at most considering the timing of the first emergency phone call can't have been that far off the attack. The other times still seem far more uncertain. Nil Einne (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
(after EC) Yes. Was just about to say you are assuming a lot, "in reality probably +/- 10 minutes etc." It's not so hard to do the maths. He posted on Twitter and 8chan virtually a moment before he started streaming. Then on 8chan you can see people react (all timestamped); from the video it was exactly clear how long it took to get to Al Noor (arrival +/- 1:40), how long he was there (about 6 minutes, so departure around 1:46); first alert phone calls around 1:43, if I recollect well; when the gunman is on the road again for a couple of minutes, you can hear police sirens pass him, etc. He indeed did not care about attracting attention, shooting, horning, shouting, overtaking. I don't mean to say we should add this to the article – I'd rather have the times taken away from the lede – but people here are merely assuming this and that, using no evidence whatsoever. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC).
(EC/modified before anyone responded) Reading the above discussion more carefully, I think the 6 minutes issue arouse due to confusion. It sounds like Nurg is referring to the attack on the first mosque lasting roughly 6 minutes which is supported by this source [16] which also has a more detailed timeline apparently mostly taken from the video. (But it still doesn't try to tie it to whenever the live stream started.) I'm not sure if anyone was ever seriously suggesting it only took 6 minutes to go between the 2 locations. Per that source, clarified here [17] he was detained 36 minutes after the beginning of the first attack. (Our article says 36 minutes after the first emergency call which is what some other sources say and was only ~1 minute later so mostly a moot point.) While OR, this suggests anything involving the attacker after ~14:16 is unlikely. While 14:10 for the start of the second attack may be possible, it's probably a little late. Nil Einne (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
For those interested, here is a route map, from Al Noor to Linwood to arrest. The distance from Al Noor to Linwood is approx. the same as the distance from the latter to the point of arrest. Do your math, if you please. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

The Stuff source says "Alabi said he heard a voice outside the mosque at about 1.55pm". That is OR (the person's guess) merely being passed on by Stuff. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/111425523/gunman-stopped-on-way-to-third-attack--police-commissioner-mike-bush New report] 20 March says arrest took place 21 minutes after first 111 call. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC).

References

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

Problems with Brenton Tarrant's Infobox

There are three possible problems that I can see with Brenton Tarrant's infobox as currently exists in the article.

1) Template:Infobox criminal is "generally reserved for convicted criminals" per its page. Tarrant may be a warranted exception; I'm not sure.

2) His age is listed as 28 or 29 in the infobox. His age has been described as 28 in the article. He might have turned 29 in the past few days, but I think the article and infobox should be in agreement.

3) His occupation has been described as "personal trainer" in the infobox. In the article, he has been described as working as a personal trainer for two years between 2009 and 2011. I think that this is too far back in time, for too short a duration, to justify listing it as his occupation.

— Ruyter (talk • edits) 08:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes. For eight years he travelled the world and must have had revenue from somewhere. It has been said that he profited from bitconnect but they were only operational from 2016 to 2018. If we want to avoid that people with this mindset keep emerging, we must be more alert to dubious lifestyles. We can all speculate but that will cause deletion. 8 years travelling the world and not having to work - I would have loved that!. 2001:8003:AC60:1400:45ED:6812:4AA6:2CCF (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I think that the infobox is largely redundant at the moment, because it ends up repeating things that could and should be said in plain text in the article. It could be removed without a great loss. What do others think?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you, too. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Why not just address the discrepancies? Can we not determine age and occupation or omit that which is "too far back in time, for too short a duration, to justify listing it as his occupation"? Or just use the language in the Infobox "had worked as a personal trainer". Doing so retains the usefulness of an Infobox but does not mislead the reader into thinking this occupation was more substantial than it was. I've made this edit. Bus stop (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Per my comment below I agree the infobox does not add anything to the article at this stage. AIRcorn (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Removed for now. AIRcorn (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I was just about to remove it when Aircorn did.  Nixinova  T  C  19:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Minor additions to Video / Gun Laws / Government Response

No removals, only additions

Section: Video People redistributing the video could face 14 years in jail or a $10,000 fine. [1]

Section: Gun Laws In 2018 it was reported that of the 1.5 million registered firearms in New Zealand, 15,000 were semi automatic weapons. [2]

Section: Government response PM Jacinda Ardern has vowed to never speak the terrorists name in an effort to prevent him gaining notoreity. [3] Melblair (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I have added the link of the video penalty - we had a line already about it, but I just expanded on it for the max potential penalty. I have not added 2 or 3, I don't know if those are appropriate. --Masem (t) 05:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Webb-Liddall, A. (2019). "Chief Censor bans Christchurch shooting video, distributors could face jail". Newshub. Retrieved 2019-03-19.
  2. ^ Manch, T. (2018). "NZ's battle over semi-automatics: Police frustrated by the law, firearm owners frustrated by police". Stuff. Retrieved 2018-08-05.
  3. ^ "Jacinda Ardern: I will never say name of Christchurch terror accused". NewstalkZB. 2019. Retrieved 2019-03-19.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings/Archive_2&oldid=1136611670"