Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Terrorist attacks

I am disgusted I need to bring this here. But after being reverted for “POV” I believe it is necessary to ask: should this terrorist attack be described as terrorism in the lead? Countless RS describe it as such: [1][2][3][4]. More can be provided if necessary.White Siddiqah (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't take a side as to whether this attack is technically "terrorism" or not. I understand "terrorism" as being committed by organized groups, not by lone wolves. This is more akin to the 2017 Las Vegas shooting though it had a more political motive. Also, so far he has been charged only with murder, not under anti-terrorism legislation. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne2: there literally is an article called Lone wolf (terrorism). That is total WP:OR to state a terrorist must belong to an organized group to be considered a terrorist. Following RS is not “taking a side”.White Siddiqah (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne2:, White Siddiqah is absolutely correct that we need to follow reliable sources that identify the attack as terrorism and that your opinion that, "I understand "terrorism" as being committed by organized groups, not by lone wolves", is irrelevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

So why is the 2017 Las Vegas Shooting not described as "terrorism" in the lead of that article? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

That is an irrelevant and argumentative response. That's a different article, about a different event. If you have some concern about that article, discuss it at its talk page. Here we discuss the Christchurch mosque shootings. Again, White Siddiqah is correct that reliable sources identify them as terrorism, and that the article needs to do so also. The article has categories identifying the event as terrorism and it is inconsistent for the lead not to describe it as terrorism also. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

It is a relevant comparison and it establishes wikipedia precedent. Mass shootings by lone wolves are generally not described as "terrorism", which is an emotive and generally unhelpful word. Doesn't mean it's not horrific, just that it's in a different category. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

No. There is no "precedent" here because that was a different event entirely, with no relevance to how the Christchurch mosque shootings should be described. The motive in the Las Vegas case remains unknown. In this case there is a clear political motive, as established by reliable sources. There is no comparison, then, and your comments are obscurantist. Your dislike for the word "terrorism" is again irrelevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne2: The Las Vegas shooting had no known political motive. The Christchurch shootings clearly had political motives. Whether or not a mass shooting is terrorism depends on the motive (if it’s known), not how many shooters there were. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It shouldn't be referred to as terrorism, or murder, at all until and unless the perpetrator is convicted of those specific crimes. Doing so would be a WP:BLPCRIME violation (as well as potentially libellous). I believe "mass shooting" or "spree killing" should be fine, however. TompaDompa (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense. There are multiple sources clearly identifying it as terrorism. The fact that a specific individual has not as yet been convicted for the attacks is irrelevant and doesn't mean we cannot describe them as terrorism, as that doesn't imply that he is guilty of them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Except that if an individual is convicted of murder for the attacks but found not guilty of terrorist crimes, describing the attacks as terrorism does indeed imply guilt thereof. TompaDompa (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

He has not been convicted of anything yet so your comment makes no sense. Identifying the attacks as terrorism does not imply that he is guilty of them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It does imply that terrorist crimes were committed, and a person has been charged with murder. TompaDompa (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not see your point. Of course "terrorist crimes were committed", as witness multiple reliable sources describing the attacks that way. There is no problem with the article stating in so many words that a terrorist crime was committed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I favour a strict interpretation and enforcement of WP:BLPCRIME. TompaDompa (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The issue isn't that there is disagreement, but that you haven't explained your position in a way that makes sense or might convince anyone. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME has nothing to do with this whatsoever. FreeKnowledgeCreator, well said--thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

There are basically no reliable sources that do not classify this as a terrorist attack ("lone wolf" version). It is absurd to invoke meaningless legalisms about "convicted of those specific crimes" in order to override WP:COMMON; and misleading remarks about "potentially libelous" are skirting WP:LEGAL territory. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I would like to note that WP:LEGAL explicitly says A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. TompaDompa (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Since when the conviction matters? To the best of my knowledge, the majority of perpetrators of terrorist attacks have never been charged or convicted. You can't prosecute the dead. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC: "Terrorism" in the lead

The consensus is that the 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings should be described as "terrorism" in the lead.

Cunard (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

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

---

Should the 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings be described as "terrorism" in the lead? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• No, per WP:BLPCRIME. A living person has been charged with murder for the shootings. Nobody has been convicted of terrorist crimes in connection with the shootings, and it would therefore be a WP:BLPCRIME violation as well as potentially libellous to state in WP:WikiVoice that it was terrorism, since that would necessitate that terrorist crimes have been committed. TompaDompa (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:CRIME. BLPCRIME does not relate here. Further, the suspect is described as a suspect and the article does not assert his guilt.~ Anotheranothername (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I remember the discussion relating to the Murder of Jo Cox before the trial concluded. It was noted then that the killing could not be referred to as a murder prior to a conviction, since that would constitute a presupposition of guilt. For the same reason, "terrorism" was avoided. The issue then was sub judice, but WP:BLPCRIME follows the same principles. I'd also like to note that sub judice also applies when it comes to New Zealand. TompaDompa (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: Several editors have now explained to you that 1.) describing this event as "terrorism" is well-sourced and 2.) describing the event as terrorism does not constitute a presumption of guilt. The suspect is described as a suspect throughout. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe the sourcing was ever in dispute, and we always have the option of using WP:INTEXT attribution, per WP:LABEL. TompaDompa (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yes because we follow reliable sources, not what we personally dislike. Describing an incident as terror, murder, etc. does not imply the guilt of whoever is involved.White Siddiqah (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • White Siddiqah, please don't throw in IDONTLIKEIT--it's the most abused word salad on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Yes as per multiple reliable sources describing the attacks as terrorism. There is no BLP issue here and the attempt to claim that there is is contrived. Describing the attacks as terrorism does not imply that the suspect accused is guilty; he is noted as a suspect only in the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Yes per above and per multiple reliable sources. I found some that explicitly use "terrorism" since it seemed somebody wanted to split hairs about "terror attack" and "terrorist attack" somewhere earlier on this talk page.Anotheranothername (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Not yet. The lead should be a summary of the rest of the article. There is very little in the rest of the article about it being terrorism. Work on the rest of the article and only then come back about including it in the lead. To remove "mass shooting" and replace it with "terrorist attacks" (as White Siddiqah did) is not appropriate, IMO, and I support that edit being reverted. Nurg (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nurg: Can you please explain what content you imagine should be added to the article in order to justify "terrorist" being used in the lead? I believe the policy you are citing is WP:LEAD but that says the following: "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." It is a basic fact that this was a terrorist attack and has been described as such by RS. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

So far there is one short quote from a political leader. Is there anything more substantial that can be added? Are there sources that discuss the terrorism interpretation of the incident? (Or is it just a label that is applied without further analysis?) Nurg (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nurg: can you explain what you mean by "the terrorism interpretation of the incident"? ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I just threw out a suggestion in response to your question. Is there anything more substantial about terrorism that can be added to the body of the article? And in response to other comments, the question is not about whether it is terrorism, or whether reliable sources call it terrorism. The question is whether it should be described as "terrorism" in the lead. Nurg (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

That is the correct question—not whether it is terrorism or not but whether we should call it terrorism in our own voice. Bus stop (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I guess this is a conflict between WP:RS (reliable sources call it terrorism) and WP:CRIME which says that we shouldn't preempt criminal findings.Mozzie (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. It was a terrorist attack of the type 'mass shooting'. The PM, Ardern, called it a terrorist attack, so that it is probably the end to the discussion. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC).
• Yes duh--we don't need a conviction, we need reliable sources. Contrary to TompaDompa's somewhat inadequate assertions, BLPCRIMES has nothing to do with this. A comparison with some other shootings, like the one in Las Vegas, goes awry very quickly since this person, according to his "manifesto", had an explicitly political goal. That's not to say that Las Vegas can't be considered a terrorist act (I believe that it was), but that's a different matter. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Terrorism "is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people; or fear to achieve a religious or political aim", so the 2017 Las Vegas shooting would not be a terrorist attack because, concerning that incident, there is no known religious or political aim. Bus stop (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• You are mistaken. See a source which explains it. The Las Vegas shooter was a terrorist per US law ("According to Nevada state law, an "act of terrorism" is described as follows: "Any act that involves the use of violence intended to cause great bodily harm or death to the general population.") and also per WP policies (he was described as a terrorist in a lot of RS). He was not officially linked to international terrorist groups, despite to the claim by ISIS, but this is a different matter. My very best wishes (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• That source, the BBC, provides good advice: "As such, we should not change the word 'terrorist' when quoting someone else, but we should avoid using it ourselves." If we want to follow that advice we should not use the word "terrorist" in Wikipedia's voice in the lede of this article. Bus stop (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• That is incidentally in agreement with what Wikipedia's WP:Manual of Style says, see WP:LABEL: Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. TompaDompa (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• I would say that even if the term is widely used, we should err on the safe side and avoid using it in our own voice. But we can quote sources using the term. Bus stop (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• No. This is BBC policy. Only first part of the BBC quotation describes WP policy on this: "we should not change the word 'terrorist' when quoting someone else". Yes, we just say what sources say. "There is no agreed consensus on what constitutes a terrorist or terrorist act". It does not matter. There are numerous books specifically about terrorism. My very best wishes (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• A source that qoutes PM Ardern, who 'officially' deemed it a terrorist attack, would be particularly suitable, I think. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC).

• Yes. This is classic terrorism attack, as follows from the "manifesto" by the perpetrator and many other factual details, and the attack has been defined as such in multiple RS. Of course there are different Definitions of terrorism, but it does not change anything. My very best wishes (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• No until the investigation concludes that the purpose of the attack was terrorism-based. NZ has legal laws related to terrorism, so no matter what RSes say, they are not authoritative here to call the attack terrorism. There's elements of this guy doing it "for the lulz" given all the connection to internet culture. Let the investigation/trial finish an see how its called then. --Masem (t) 02:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • But we can quote reliable sources designating the act as terrorism. Bus stop (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Masem:,@Bus stop: the New Zealand Police Commissioner has stated that this is classified as a "terrorist event". It's at 0:37 of the video found here. Would you consider the head of New Zealand police "authoritative"? ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

They are treating the investigation as if it was a terrorist event as to expedite certain matters, and better protect the public safety, but they still need to conclude the investigation and make a determination. So while the police authoritative , they haven't said affirmatively that the attack was absolutely a terrorist attack. --Masem (t) 02:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: so to be clear, your position is that the attack should not be directly described as a "terrorist attack" until the investigation is concluded? ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

(Further: I am unable to read the minds of the New Zealand police, but I imagine they are describing the attack as a terrorist attack because it is a terrorist attack under New Zealand law: "an act that "is carried out for the purpose of advancing an ideological, political, or religious cause". ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It is not quite that simple. This is unprecedented so there is talk that it will tried as multiple murders as opposed to a terrorist incident. Basically, we have experience and precedent when it comes to murder, but not so much in terrorism. See this article for a better explanation. It is still not know what they will go for. AIRcorn (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

So on one hand we have the New Zealand Prime Minister, the New Zealand Police Commissioner, and extensive RS describing it as a terrorist attack. On the other hand, we have the fact that the suspect has not yet been charged with terrorism. I'm going to try to write something that makes it clear the PM and Police Commissioner (i.e. authoritative sources) have described it as a terrorist attack. I do understand the concerns about wikivoice. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 04:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Except that as I mentioned before, that isn't how things work in NZ anyway. It's fairly unlikely the police investigation is going to conclude on way or the other whether "purpose of the attack was terrorism-based" since that's simply not how things work in NZ. Nil Einne (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, but in quotes Notable figures and sources have labelled this terrorism. Per WP:OR, it is not our place to judge the suspect's intent based on the manifesto, so I think it is incorrect to say "his manifesto makes it look like it's not terrorism" or vice versa. What we can say is that notable sources call this terrorism, and this fact is a notable aspect of the event due to its relation to political motivations. Leugen9001 (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Something like Leugen9001 says. Use quotes, or say "has been described as terrorist" or whatever. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Would this be acceptable in the lead: "Jacinda Ardern, the prime minister of New Zealand, described it as a terrorist attack." Nurg (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

No and this question has already been resolved. This question was comprehensively dealt with in the Move Request from just two days ago, which was on the very same topic and was quickly closed under the snowball clause. The basic reason for the decline is that we do not use the descriptor 'terrorist' in the title of any comparable incidents. See Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings/Archive_1#Requested_move_15_March_2019. (And I know this talk page is very busy but it's also my opinion that that move request should not have been archived so quickly). Oska (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Oska: That discussion is about the title of the page, not the lead. People say that the 9/11 page title does not contain the word "terrorist", but the lead absolutely does. I don't see the relevance. Omitting "terrorist" from the page title is fine but we are discussing the lead here. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Apologies. I obviously didn't read closely enough. I've struck out my comment. Oska (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. Even if the defendant was innocent, the subject of some remarkable frame-up job, somebody still committed a massacre with clear religious motivation. If this isn't terrorism, what is? Wnt (talk) 06:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Yes The manifesto makes it clear that the shootings had a political motive and plenty of reliable sources are calling it terrorism. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - Every reliable source on a google search describes it as a terrorist attack. New Zealand PM described it as a terrorist attack.Myopia123 (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Yes Most reliable sources describe this incident as a terrorist event or a mass shooting based on political motivation which is by definition a terrorist attack.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, religious/political factor has been so widely reported in multiple RS that we can consider it fairly certain. Thus the incident bears all hallmarks of a terrorist attack. Avoiding this term at this stage would amount to WP:CENSOR. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, extensive coverage and no reason to doubt it. WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply, both because the suspect is only described as a suspect (meaning that responsibility is not attributed to him) and because the coverage is so overwhelming and clear. Note that despite the heavy coverage we are already omitting the suspect's name from the lead, which I think is sufficient in an extremely high-profile case like this; beyond that, the purpose of WP:BLP is to protect people from harm - when coverage is already overwhelming and clear, there is no real possibility that a Wikipedia article could harm them further. --Aquillion (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Suggested wording regarding "terrorist" in the lead

@Oska:, @Masem:, @Bus stop:, @Aircorn: and others, please check my suggested rewording for the lead below: Current:

The Christchurch mosque shootings were two consecutive terrorist mass shootings at Al Noor Mosque and the Linwood Islamic Centre in Christchurch, New Zealand, during Friday prayers on 15 March 2019. The attack resulted in 50 people killed and at least 50 others injured. The suspected perpetrator was arrested and charged with murder. The first attack was live streamed on Facebook Live..

Proposed:

The Christchurch mosque shootings were two consecutive mass shootings at Al Noor Mosque and the Linwood Islamic Centre in Christchurch, New Zealand, during Friday prayers on 15 March 2019. The attack resulted in 50 people killed and at least 50 others injured. The suspected perpetrator was arrested and charged with murder. New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and New Zealand Police Commissioner Mike Bush described the shootings as a terrorist attack. The first attack was live streamed on Facebook Live.

References

~ Anotheranothername (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

That would be fine by me, but I think we need to get consensus from the RFC first. AIRcorn (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Approve of the proposed wording and similar wordings where we are careful to detail when and by whom it was described as a terrorist attack (quoting those with most relevance e.g. the PM and police commissioner as in the above text). I think we should avoid directly describing it as a terrorist attack ourselves. Definitions (and scope) of terrorism are still argued about so we should avoid making the interpretation ourselves. Oska (talk) 05:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

There's something that is nitpicking at me but I can't see what it is, but otherwise I'm fine with the proposed text. There is no reason to use attribution to describe the working assumption this was terrorism-related, just avoid the factual statement in WP's voice. --Masem (t) 06:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with the inclusion of Bush's description until it is added to the body of the article. I don't agree that it is a "basic fact" that can be included in the lead but not the body. Nurg (talk) 06:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Anotheranothername: I was going to add this to the body, but can't find it in the citations you have given. Can you point out to me where Bush has said it was a terrorist attack. AIRcorn (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Aircorn: My bad, he said it was a "terrorist event." He says it at 0:37 of this video here after referring to the press conference where the PM directly called it an attack. Jacinda says the attack "can only be described as a terrorist attack" at 0:49 of this video. If a (Guardian) youtube video is iffy as a source it would be nice if someone else found a better one. I apologize for conflating the two like this and if people object to the "event/attack" thing I'd be happy to make some changes to the proposed wording in order to get it right. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay I didn't go through the video. Distinguishing between Event/Attack is probably only relevant if we quote them, so the above wording is still fine. I prefer written sources, but if we use the video it is probably best to make that clear in the reference.

I’d change “The attack resulted in 50 people killed...” to “The attack led/lead to the death of 50 people...” (I’m not sure whether led or lead is correct). Otherwise, it looks good. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

You're right, that's been bugging me this whole time as well. Good suggestion. Anyway, will wait for the end of the RfC. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The past tense of "lead" is "led". There is a word "lead" pronounced like "led", but it refers to a chemical element with symbol Pb. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The attack(s) neither resulted in people killed nor led to their deaths; both are weasel wordings; rather, the attack(s) killed people. The lead's current language is best: "The attacks killed 50 people and injured at least 50." But I don't think this RfC is about the precise wording of that sentence, and a consensus for the proposed language shouldn't immunize it against WP:BOLD copy edits that don't change its meaning. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. Disagree with proposed change. I think that there is consensus that this was a terrorist attack. Suggesting that the term has only been used by two officials amounts to improper relativisation. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Kashmiri I happen to agree, actually. Yesterday there appeared to be some editors who were opposed to "terrorism" in wikivoice no matter what so I suggested this compromise. But the lead actually looks a lot better now... ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2019

Please change the word suspect to terrorist. 89.147.0.199 (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Not found guilty (yet) EvergreenFir (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Worst

‘It is the worst mass shooting in modern New Zealand history.’ Is this language, “worst” OK? Would “It is the mass shooting with the most amount of casualties in modern New Zealand history.” be better? Iokerapid (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Don't really care whether "worst" is ok or not, but "most amount of casualties" is awkward and adds unnecessary wordage. Shorten it to just "most casualties". Mr rnddude (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

If you don't like "worst" then replace with "deadliest", not the unwieldy suggestion above. Statements in the lead should be succinct. WWGB (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've done this now. Ross Finlayson (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. The phrasing that I added came from Terrorism in New Zealand § Christchurch mosque shootings. —Hugh (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Is "It is the deadliest mass shooting in modern New Zealand history" (or similar) in the CNN reference given, I can not find it? (Dushan Jugum (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC))

See under heading "Death toll rises to 50",[5] it reports "the biggest massacre in New Zealand's modern history". WWGB (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)).

Ardern visits Christchurch / interfaith gatherings across the nation on March 17

I'm too tired and unfocussed now to add it myself, but maybe someone could add a section on gatherings and tributes on Sunday, including a haka to honour the victims. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC).

Video

I added a video report that I think is informative, sincere, consoling and appropriate. Please discuss if you disagree.

I also uploaded a video of the moment of arrest of Tarrant, but I think at the moment I would not add it to the article – thoughts? Jürgen Eissink (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC).

On second thought, I did add the video of the arrest, because people want to see this, I think. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC).

@Jürgen Eissink: Where do you see this Creative Commons license you talk about? It would seem strange that the news channel got hold of a cellphone video, carefully censored it to the point of near uselessness, then licensed their creation for general use. Wnt (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Strange as it might seem to you, the license is right there on the YouTube source. I don't really get what you are trying to say, Wnt. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC).

(EC) It's in the description. It's not particularly 'strange' since from what I can tell it's the default licence that channel uses for all their Youtube uploads. However that channel does not appear to be in any way associated with TVNZ since it has no tick and the description seems to be copied from wikipedia [6]. The official One News channel is here [7]. Even if it were the official One News channel, since there's no evidence TVNZ is the copyright holder of the original video I think we'd need evidence they actually had permission from the copyright holder (or the copyright had been transferred to them) to licence it in that way. Nil Einne (talk) 04:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It's been "flickrwashed", or in this case "youtube washed". There is no likelihood that the owner of the cell phone footage allowed the network to release it under a CC license. It's a copyright violation to include. --Masem (t) 05:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Christchurch Mosque Shooting -- Flowers at the cordon.webm is extreamly unencyclopedic and without context seems to be part of Wikipedia. 'Stay strong'? also his tone is fine, but is not neutral it is is sympathetic, hushed and respectful. As one long quote it is also out of place, would we cut and past a whole newspaper article the same way. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)).

• I don't think it is less encyclopedic than the video and the photograph of Ardern. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC).

• Great we agree. I will delete the news report and I will not complain if you wish to delete the other.(Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)).

"Self-described" or "Media-described" White Supremacist ?

Does this BBC article has any merit in saying the shooter is a "self-described" white supremacist?

Right now the wikipedia page only says the shooter is a "media-described " white supremacist. Should we add the "self-describe" part into the article?--Aceus0shrifter (talk) 08:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

References

See the RfC Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings#RfC:_Change_"white_supremacist"_to_"white_nationalist" above. It is largely the media that decided that the author of the manifesto was a white supremacist. It isn't how he chooses to describe himself in the manifesto.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2019

Tarrant recorded his beliefs in a 74-page manifesto titled "The Great Replacement", Dimness (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

This is already mentioned in the article. There is a bit of a problem here, because the Times source here says that Tarrant allegedly posted the manifesto online. There is some WP:BLPCRIME here, even if it looks likely that he did post the manifesto. However, I don't object to saying that the document is 73 or 74 pages long and called The Great Replacement, because this is clearly stated in reliable sourcing. The sources can't make up their minds whether it is 73 or 74 pages long.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

How many died in hospital

The number of how many died is hospital is 2 NOT 1 Aubreywak (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Evidence? WWGB (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Move section about the gunman down?

Referring to the copious discussions about whether or how to refer to the killer, I have a suggestion. Is there any reason why we cannot move all of the details about him (including his name, IMO, although I note arguments for having it in the lead at some point), his motives, manifesto, etc. - the whole section - to below the Aftermath section? Then the info is there for those who want it, but more prominence is given to the atrocity, the victims, and the bits which show that the best of humanity has been evoked by the actions of one who intended to damage such impulses towards unity and fellow feeling. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

No. As the instigator of the attack, he is more notable than the victims. The article also follows a roughly chronological order. WWGB (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Link to Manifesto

Did we link the manifesto. I think it's important for wikipedia readers to have a direct link to it so they can read for themselves. CheersBaldr The Brave (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It contains information inciting killing of certain people. It may well fail WP:ELNO number 3 (I am not sure on the US laws around this, but I know it is illegal in other countries). AIRcorn (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I haven't personally read his manifesto, but as for U.S. law, the Supreme Court has held that the "government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is 'directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.' The government cannot "prohibited the mere advocacy of violence". Brandenburg v. Ohio. I doubt that any written material is likely of producing imminent lawless action, so his manifesto is likely protected speech under the U.S. 1st Amendment. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

As there are direct links to the Breivik manifesto here: Anders_Behring_Breivik#cite_note-202 and here: 2011_Norway_attacks#cite_note-manifesto1-31 on English Wikipedia, I can't see why it should be any different in this case Crusier (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Remove all those names he dropped in his manifesto

If we must describe what is in the manifesto (which in a sense makes us complicit in his trolling), I STRONGLY object to naming all the living people he cited in it. For God's sake, we devote most of a paragraph to naming them all! I think we should remove them all and summarize in a sentence or so - "In his rambling manifesto he named numerous living people as inspirations" or something along those lines. We have nothing except the word of a psycho murderer to link their names to this assault. Per BLP we need multiple reliable sources to include negative or controversial material about a living person; we have nothing close to that. IMO it is a BLP violation to list all these people here. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

What she said. O3000 (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Ditto. Being "named in a manifesto" does not reach the level of any meaningful connection. I could use the NY phone directory if someone wrote their "manifesto" on its pages - being mentioned where there is no actual nexus between two persons is absurd. Collect (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not in disagreement with the above, but I do want to point out that in considering how the manifesto may just be a "shitpost" (stuff I added this morning), that RSes do mention PewDiePie and Cadance Owens regularly on this point, not so much putting any blame on them but that the manifesto may be designed to target these people by their critics for the blame game. As long as we're iterating that point by RSes, those two names should be kept. (And should Owens state something similar to PewDiePie that must be included). I do think the names help only to broadly categorize whom the attacker was praising but we can do that without the names, I think. --Masem (t) 16:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The author of the manifesto showed a shrewd understanding of the world of alt-right memes and trolling, and some MSM sources fell into this well known trap. Wikipedia should be made of sterner stuff, and make clear that the manifesto is intended to troll. This leads to WP:BLP problems for the living persons named in it. They probably should not be named, or if they are mentioned, there needs to be context explaining the trolling mentality.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with IanMa above, the entire point of the manifestio was to troll and can possibly lead to WP:BLP issues on the people who are named in it.TheMesquito^buzz 17:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Reliable Source coverage: in Google searching the only name I found repeatedly mentioned by mainstream sources was Trump's, and most of that coverage was about the White House reaction to it. Mentions of Oswald Moseley were not in mainstream sources. Mentions of Candace Owens were mostly in articles saying her name might have been included to troll journalists. We claim to follow Reliable Sources, but in this section we are way out ahead of them. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I am drafting a proposed redo of the paragraph, which I will propose here shortly. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Due to the agreements above, and the urgency of dealing with BLP issues, I am going to go ahead and replace that paragraph with one that does not name any persons. We can continue to discuss and tweak here. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. I wanted to remove the Pew-de-pie reference too, but it had been so widely reported by Reliable Sources I felt I had to leave it in. I did remove the name of the channel's owner. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Good move. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Everything else is fine but I disagree that we need to remove PDP's real name. That's his online alias, not really a channel name, and his is clearly public figure with a well known, long-established link between real name and online alias. Importantly we have his statement that distances himself from the attack, which is a necessity for BLP purposes; The others haven't spoken out yet about their inclusion so I agree removal there is appropriate to avoid implication (even though as worded by the press, they are clearly not trying to implicate any of these other BLPs) --Masem (t) 19:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

RE PDP: All of the sources used his real name, and he replied personally. If someone wants to restore his name that would be OK with me. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I've readded his name, but that's the only name that should be added at this point. --Masem (t) 20:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Imo we mention names if reliable sources provide a reason why they are relevant. It should not be wikipedia editors making the decision.--Calthinus (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Calthinus: my thoughts exactly. Cinadon36 (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Calthinus. If he baited the worlds press and they took the bait, then it is notable. If a section of the press describes it as ~bait then we can give it context. Using the manifesto as a primary source is going to lead to original research or quoting harmful nonsenses at length. Reporting the secondary interpretation of it is what we are here for. Use the names on a case by case, based on RS. Don't mind-quite like the changes made to the section though, just want the door left open. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)).

"the manifesto is intended to troll", "the entire point of the manifestio was to troll" – this is completely ignoring that the manifesto was for the large part a lot more than that, namely an exposition of his worldview and his radical solutions to make the world – in his view – a better place. Do you think the court will ignore the manifesto 'because it is only trolling'? You let yourself being carried away if you really want to maintain that "the manifesto is only trolling". You might as well say the whole shooting was trolling and therefore should be ignored. Get a grip. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC).

By the way, the manifesto opens with Do not go gentle into that good night. I wouldn't call that trolling. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC).

At least when I added it, I carefully made the point that it is a possibly raised by journalists that this is trolling. We will not know if it is or not until the investigation is over, but there's also more than enough press coverage of this idea of it being a trolling action to not include at this point. This is why this point is also after all the serious threats or statements made about manifesto. --Masem (t) 20:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

In my point here I don't care in itself whether the manifesto should be elaborated extensively in this article, and it should and probably will get it's own page, but I react on the arguments you and others give. It keeps puzzling me how people here think they are able to interpret RS but refuse to even read the words of the suspect on which they spent days of their life to write an article on. If you would have only looked at the manifesto, you would know that the trolling might indeed very well be an element of the style of minor parts of it, but instead you get stuck in the trolling narrative of some RS editors and journalists, many of whom are not equipped at all to reflect on the broadness of an issue like this and are for a large part only parroting, if not confusing memes and motives in a powerless attempt to deduce meaning themselves. You, like many others, mix up the trolling parts of the manifesto with it's actual content. Maybe the trolling parts were deliberate attempts to gain extra attention (as if the massacre itself would not be enough of a statement), maybe (I'd say: likely) they were just a reflection of his mindset, but either way it's nothing but pretext to the content of the manifesto, and downplaying the importance of the manifesto for the attacker's motives is at least silly. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC).

That's the whole issue of original research. We as WP editors cannot seem to show any expertise on the manifesto - we can read what it has but we can't make any conclusions on our own. We have to turn to RSes. And that's where right now it seems most RSes are going past anything "serious" about the manifesto and compare it closer to a shitpost because its all over the place. Now, I am sure there are scholars and other analysts out there reading the manifesto and trying to develop a psychological profile, or try it to anything else, etc. That will take time. They are doing what we cannot. --Masem (t) 21:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

WP editors can make conclusions of their own, they just can not add their own conclusion directly to an article. We can show expertise and share opinion on Talk pages. Every editor makes considerations based on own conclusions. Editors can debate about which sources are more to the point than others on a certain subject, and different existing views can be addressed in the article. RS should not be taken at face value, especially in an epoch where they have failed the public time and again. It's not a crime to be critical, and for an editor that likes to take on major issue's it should not be a difficult task to ascertain from the primary source that to shelve the source as mere trolling is, if not malicious, a sad (self) deception. In a way, I think, partially the trolling is the message, and the message should not be ignored. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC).

There are sources that specifically discuss the idea that the manifesto was intended to troll and which go into depth on which parts of it are particularly likely to be trolling vs. accurately reflecting the writer's views. We should rely on those. For instance, see this one on Owens vs. Breivik or Trump. We can't decide which parts are worth paying attention to ourselves, and we definitely shouldn't try to analyze the manifesto ourselves, but we can and should use the analysis produced by reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 06:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, of course, but it helps if any editor that wants to edit the manifesto section has at least a basic understanding of its composition and content. I'm afraid some are too terrified to even look at the document and yet think they can value what RS say about it. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 06:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

P.S. In retrospect I can't believe that we included, even for a minute, the names of people he said should be assassinated. What were we thinking? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• The answer to that question is most likely just: "Oh, well here's a thing that's not on the Wikipedia article. Let me just add that in." This is one of the reasons why we can't behave like automatons when editing. Scrutinize your sources, cross-check with other sources, consider if the addition is useful, helpful, necessary. These are vital editorial processes that go above and beyond "well it appears in RSes". Mr rnddude (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I think there's some common sense here. People that were named are all public figures, and those names were being pulled from reliable sources. So it seems reasonable (not that it necessarily is). Add that while there's active attempts to pull the video, there's little being done that I've seen about the spread of the manifesto. If it were the case that the authorities wanted the document kept a secret and some reliable press source leaked all those names, that would be definitely a reason to keep the names out. --Masem (t) 20:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    • We should not have included, ever, names of people he wanted assassinated. Also, a lot of the names are listed with the intent to troll -- and it is specifically RS that say so (example: Candace Owens) so we have RS arguments for exclusion. In other cases -- Breivik, Trump, etc -- this does not apply as that is not the tone sources have taken. It's really pretty simple and not unethical.--Calthinus (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• If name of person X was mentioned in the "manifesto" and was discussed in multiple RS in relation to the shootings (including "manifesto"), this must be actually included per WP:NPOV. It does not matter who these people are. For example, Breivik definitely qualify. My very best wishes (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

You may be right about Breivik. Our article mentioned him only in passing, as one of many terrorists that he approved of (along with the likes of Dylan Root). However, Reliable Sources are making a much bigger deal out of a connection or inspiration between this attack and Breivik. Examples: Foreign Policy and the Norway Local. And the Sydney Morning Herald reports that the manifesto claims he had been in "brief" contact with Breivik; so does WaPo. I think we need to add a sentence about him. I'll do it. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'd oppose blanket removals, though we definitely shouldn't include any names that are just mentioned in his manifesto and nowhere else or which are mentioned only in passing in the sources, with no context to provide or evaluate relevance. When there has been substantial secondary coverage discussing a name in relation to his manifesto, we should consider covering it via that (with an emphasis on what that coverage has said.) In cases where the name has been mentioned but the context in reliable sources is dubious or skeptical (eg. Owens) we should decide on a case-by-case basis depending on the level of coverage, whether it's sustained in the long term, how focused it is on that aspect and so on. --Aquillion (talk) 06:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Why is everyone saying this guy is trolling? Is that for us to judge? Anything anyone writes could be serious or non-serious. As for what to repeat from the manifesto: stuff which the media has highlighted, I guess? If there are parts that were not focused on by reporters then they aren't important. -Oranginger, March 18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oranginger (talk • contribs) 03:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Several reliable sources specifically said that believe him to be trolling, so it's important for us to take that into account and be cautious about eg. aspects that most sources are dismissive of, like Owens. That said, the sources also tend to emphasize that certain parts are trolling, while others are taken more seriously (or have connections to the topic that are citable to places other than his manifesto.) Also, there is a point where even if he's trolling, we might have to cover that trolling (eg. if it eventually turns out that there's an overwhelming volume of sustained coverage on his mention of Owens, which most sources describe as trolling or trying to target her.) But we should show some caution with those aspects. --Aquillion (talk) 06:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Its not too bad as it is now. I do feel it gives too much weight to Pewdiepie and that could be trimmed though. AIRcorn (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, especially since Pewdiepie was not mentioned in the manifesto. Editor Masem construed, or extracted, an example out of an article that does not give that example directly; when I tried to correct he would not let me. The text doesn't even need an example, but one could from RS also get examples from inside the manifesto. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

If anywhere it fits best back in reactions. The last two sentences could be combined and reworded to still explain the possible consequences. AIRcorn (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Overall, however, I agree with BLP concerns here and made an edit to fix a similar problem on page about Breivik [8]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Complete list of victims

Can we have a complete list of all the victims of the murderer? The murderer has a full section detailing his name life and bio, while the victims remain anonymous. History should erase the name of the murderer but the victims should be remembered. We can use this list as a guide: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/16/asia/new-zealand-mosque-shooting-victims/index.html

Including their name, age and background should be a nice tribute to the innocent victims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.134.28.204 (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

These lists have become a major point of contention at each new mass killing article. Usually there is no consensus to include one, so someone starts an RfC on the question, and sometimes the RfC also fails to reach consensus. Per WP:ONUS, all disputed content is omitted unless there is a consensus to include it. I am opposed to such lists for various reasons that can be briefly summarized as (1) lists of names add nothing to reader understanding of the event and are not encyclopedic, and (2) naming random victims infringes on their privacy and that of their families, which does not become unimportant when they are killed. We have no way of knowing that the dead would care to be "remembered" in this Wikipedia article. I am less strongly opposed to lists that provide descriptive information but omit names, but some of the same arguments against also apply to them.
Your comments about the victims should be remembered and a nice tribute to the innocent victims are inconsistent with Wikipedia principles; Wikipedia articles are not memorials, and we don't let emotion determine our content. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a "tribute" site. Does adding the names improving the readers understanding of the article topic? All pointed out above, just worth repeating. --Malerooster (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a tribute, being on a page is not an honour. Perhaps this idea should be taken to the 9/11 page or the one on the bombing of tokyo. I do not think such lists will improve the pages use as an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a memorial and we should have very similar rules for a mass shooting as any other page.(Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)).

• No, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. We don't include the names of victims in articles purely to memorialize them or to attempt parity with the coverage of the killer. (I would be skeptical of the idea that being mentioned in an article is automatically a good thing anyway.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Without being a complete list, I'd like to see more information than the age ranging from 2 to 71. Men/Women and more specifics about the age, for example? Other than minimum one 2-year-old and minimum one 71-year-old it doesn't tell us much about the other 48. -Oranginger, Marc h18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oranginger (talk • contribs) 03:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

BBC published a list of victims today: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47593693, although NZ authorities said also today they have only identified 12 victims so far: https://www.afp.com/en/news/3954/nz-returns-first-shooting-dead-after-delay-angers-families-doc-1es9m95. (. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

This article should include a complete list of victim names just like 90% of similar articles. WP:MEMORIAL is not applicable. It is a policy which concerns the initiation of new articles on the subject of deceased individuals who do not meet notability requirements. WP:MEMORIAL says "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." The victim names in this article constitute content. At WP:NOTEWORTHY we find "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". And "The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it." (I added the bolding.) Just as we would not remove the victim names from articles such as Stoneman Douglas High School shooting and Pittsburgh synagogue shooting we should not omit information on the identities of the victims in this incident. We exist to provide information, not to deliberately omit information. Those who are unhappy with the wording at WP:MEMORIAL should endeavor to change the wording at WP:MEMORIAL rather than blithely running roughshod over what it actually says. Listing names and ages does not constitute memorialization. It is informational in the context of this article. Bus stop (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

We exist to provide information, not to deliberately omit information. WP:ONUS: "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article." Thus, we "deliberately omit information" all the time; in fact that's half of what we do. Why, just yesterday I deliberately omitted about a dozen things in various articles. Please don't pretend we are violating some Wikipedia fundamental by omitting these lists. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:MEMORIAL does and has always applied to all article content, like everything on WP:NOT, and this fact is entirely-uncontroversial; it has been explained to you at length on numerous occasions, and your efforts to convince people otherwise have consistently fallen flat. The section you are referring to refers to the specific notability guidelines that fall under that that guideline, not to WP:NOT, which specifically says it applies to all article content. If you want to challenge that, you should try to change the wording of WP:NOT, rather than repeatedly encouraging people to ignore or violate WP:MEMORIAL. --Aquillion (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that's really a moot issue. Wikipedia Pillar 5 says, "The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording...". The spirit behind omitting memorial victims lists is exactly the same as that behind excluding memorial articles. I've yet to see an explanation—let alone a convincing explanation—let alone a community consensus for said explanation—for why the principle should apply to one but not the other; all I see is people spouting their interpretations of a written rule. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

We are writing an article about the killing of 50 people. In such an article the names of the people killed constitute relevant information. Relevant information for whom? Not for the editors such as you or I. But for the benefit of readers. Including the names of the victims benefits some readers. Omitting the names of the deceased only makes the article less useful to some readers. Bus stop (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

You can say something is relevant, but your argument will not convince many others unless you can say—convincingly—how it's relevant, how it benefits some readers. In the end, it's how many others you can convince that matters. You are far short of convincing me. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

(EC) Outside of demongraphics, the only people that will be impacted by the list of non-notable victims are friends and family; the bulk of the world others sees them as 50 people killed by this guy (with so far, one notable athlete killed among them). It may seem cold and heartless but 1) it is not our place to provide that type of memorial, and 2) the full list of victims, particularly from a 1st world countries like NZ, will be readily published in other media. A demographic breakdown (age, genders, nationalities, and in this case religion) define the group better than 50 random names. --Masem (t) 18:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

"Outside of demongraphics, the only people that will be impacted by the list of non-notable victims are friends and family" That is totally incorrect. "it is not our place to provide that type of memorial" That is totally incorrect. It is our practice in 90% of such articles to contain victim lists. "A demographic breakdown (age, genders, nationalities, and in this case religion) define the group better than 50 random names." The names are the names, whatever they may be. In the context of this article the names of the people killed are entirely relevant. I would be in favor of including considerable background information, such as that which is provided to us by various good quality sources. We are an encyclopedia, not a parochial organ of Britain and America. Some of the individuals killed were born in Afghanistan. I contend that is relevant information for inclusion in this article, along with at least the name and age of every individual. You are arbitrarily deciding that relevant information should be omitted. Doing so would only make the article weaker and less useful to a broad swathe of people. Bus stop (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

It is our practice in 90% of such articles to contain victim lists. Please stop touting that 90% number as if it's meaningful. A majority of that is not the result of close scrutiny of the question, since it happened before this became a controversial issue at Wikipedia. Much of it involved little or no discussion at all. Far more meaningful is what has happened more recently, and that includes the Stoneman Douglas—which closed as "no consensus" and resulted in inclusion of a list only because the list had been edit-warred into the article prior to the start of the RfC, in violation of policy—and Aurora, Illinois, which is soon to close with a consensus to omit a list. Even if that older stuff had resulted from close scrutiny, consensus can change. While there have been recent consensuses to include a list, that number is far below 90%, and it hardly constitutes an overall community consensus for the lists. When the issue has been taken to the community in community venues, there has never been a consensus to include or omit the lists, even as a mere default; rather, if there was any consensus it was that this needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In other words, the precedent argument has consistently failed at community level. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

In addition to Mandruss' above statement, I will still contend that if any victim was not notable before the event and had no significant role in trying to deter the event (as was the case of some of the teachers at Sandy Hook), the name is meaningless to nearly the entire world save for the victim's family and friends. If you don't know the "John Q Smith" that was a victor, how does their name help? On the other hand, knowing how age, gender, nationality, etc. break down does give some weight to the victims as a group. It does not disrespect the victims as a whole but puts who has died in a context that has more meaning for the rest of the world than just names. --Masem (t) 20:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is primarily your effort to keep victim lists out of articles, Mandruss. You more than anyone else can be seen spearheading an effort to omit victim lists from articles. Near the top of this section you say "These lists have become a major point of contention at each new mass killing article." That is primarily because you are making them a point of contention. Not an article has gone by of a "mass killing" event at which you are not to be found trying to bring about the omission of a victim list. I am not doing that. Do you not see that I do not weigh in before you? You are not the master of article writing. Nor am I. But I refuse to stand by idly while you try to impose your will, in your little pet area of article-writing. Omitting the names of the deceased would not be for the benefit of the reader. The reader only encounters an article that is deficient in relevant and expected information. It is a contrivance to argue that a list of 50 names in this article is irrelevant. Furthermore I have never created a victim list or added to a victim list. I simply support their inclusion. I don't initiate arguments favoring their inclusion. You seem to think that you have the answer to this. And you are not content to stand on the sidelines and let the article develop as it may, vis-a-vis victim lists, by relatively uninvolved editors. 90% of articles contain victim lists because this is relevant information in such articles. These are not articles that take overviews of such incidents—articles such as Mass shooting, Workplace violence, etc. The articles we are discussing treat material of specific incidents. Wikipedia should be a resource on such incidents. Please don't weaken these articles by arguing for the removal of relevant information. Bus stop (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

You can count me in on trying to get such lists removed for the reasons stated over and over. O3000 (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

It is primarily your effort to keep victim lists out of articles, Mandruss. If I've convinced more editors than you have, good for me, but I believe most editors' positions are already established when they arrive at this kind of discussion. But thanks for showing that you have no respect for the consensus process, you do far more to defeat your position than I do. I'm off to do something more useful for awhile, have a nice day. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I also oppose a list inside the article, but would it not be possible to create Category:Lists of victims of mass shootings and the like? The article could link to such a list. Compare f.i. List of victims of the Babi Yar massacre. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

The Babi Yar massacre comprised 33,771 deaths. There are practical concerns differentiating 33,771 deaths from 50 deaths as concerns article construction. Bus stop (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "no respect for the consensus process" The process has long ago established a semblance of consensus. 90% of articles contain victim lists. Wouldn't that constitute a semblance of consensus? Bus stop (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Masem—how can you on the one hand say that it constitutes memorialization and on the other hand say that it disrespects people? Aren't these two concepts almost mutually exclusive? Bus stop (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

As a casual user of Wikipedia I was surprised to find a long technical discussion on this issue instead of some more substantial information about the victims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a04:ae04:c806:2b00:7936:4b60:b17:93d8 (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

As always (when there are fewer than 100), I'm down for a list of names, ages and hometowns. Just to let readers know who died in this story about real people dying. Hobbies, aspirations, jobs, relatives and interests belong on their respective Facebook pages and (somewhat) in newspaper sidebar stories. If MEMORIAL applies to content regarding a notable Wikipedia subject by any stretch of the imagination, it'd only be because of stuff like that. Wait for the entire list to be publicized first, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Background

I have finally added a short background section following the discussion at Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings/Archive 3#Comparison to previous shootings. AIRcorn (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

song "Fire"

"When the gunman returned to the car, the song "Fire" by The Crazy World of Arthur Brown, was playing.[40] The video streaming stopped as the gunman was driving along Bealey Avenue"

-Red marquis (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

But we are not blaming rock and roll and we are not drawing causation out of meaningless correlation. We are providing the reader with information about the event that transpired.

The source says "When the gunman returned to his car after the shooting, the song “Fire” by English rock band “The Crazy World of Arthur Brown” can be heard blasting from the speakers. The singer bellows, “I am the god of hellfire!” as the man, a 28-year-old Australian, drives away."[9] Bus stop (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, how is that relevant detail? Unless it is being suggested the song had something to do with the shooter's motivations. I'd accept its inclusion if the shooter himself said the song definitely inspired him. Since there is no such connection, it is irrelevant detail that should be excised. -Red marquis (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we are permitted to tell the reader what transpired in an event. We provide information. That is our raison d'être. Bus stop (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

It is a trivial detail, like the make of the car, or the like. Yes, its documentable, but it is indiscriminate information, at least at this point. --Masem (t) 14:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Then please feel free to remove the "make of the car". Bus stop (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Red marquis—you write "Removing irrelevant detail again." You don't get to determine what is relevant. Bus stop (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Red Marquis here. We're an encyclopedia, summarizing important and relevant information. We are not a police report providing every detail. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

These days, people choose their playlists. It is not random radioplay. The importance I won't judge, but personality-wise it is relevant. While the make of the car also echoes personal taste (bearing in mind that it might not have been his), large purchases such as that more closely echo financial status, which can be derived independently if it is deemed important. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Besides, we are just reporters. Reporters of what? Reporters of what reliable sources say. We should not be exercising editorial "judgement" that has the effect of depriving readers of relevant information. Many "irrelevant" details become iconic markers for an event. It is ludicrous that at this early stage, editors are already arguing for what to omit from an article. Shouldn't we gather our material together and then perhaps weed some of it out in the weeks to come? Bus stop (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

No. That's ridiculuous. Random IPs apparently sure the perp was listening to his own Spotify playlist, rather than a random song (on a streaming service, or even *gasp!* the car radio?! WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE applies. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Remove song (and car if you want), as the above post shows the inclusion of this kind of data implies we are making a link that is unfounded outside of pop psychology (right or wrong). This is a trait of tabloid journalism. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)).

"pop psychology"? Please tell me where you see any pop psychology? Bus stop (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but you're incorrect. We should indeed exercise some judgement on what information is relevant per WP:NOTEVERYTHING policy. We as editors do indeed need to determine what merits inclusion while looking to sources for guidance. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Well，the Gas Gas Gas should also be removed according to your standard.It is just an eurobeat style anime song played while gunman fled the scene which is nothing to do with gunman's motivation.What did you think of it？ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.136.41.61 (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Quick quote from the lyrics of Fire (Arthur Brown song): "I am the god of hellfire! And I bring you Fire, I'll take you to burn Fire, I'll take you to learn I'll see you burn... Fire, to destroy all you've done Fire, to end all you've become I'll feel you burn." This blares out from the car's audio system after the shooting at the Al Noor Mosque. This is the work of serious troll and sick fuck. The text doesn't really do it justice.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Who is a "serious troll"? I'm not sure what you're saying. Bus stop (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

We've been through this already. Every piece of music in the live streamed video has been chosen carefully for maximum trolling effect. I'm sure that the shooter put a great deal of thought into the music that would be played during the video. This isn't a random playlist off a disc, it has all been planned. Fire (Arthur Brown song) is a regrettably good choice, because it is so disturbing when it is used in the video.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I still don't know what you are saying. Are you calling the suspect a "troll"? I thought a troll was an obnoxious Internet presence. I'm just trying to reconcile the label (troll) with the action taken (killing people). Bus stop (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying that the alleged shooter is a troll. The entire manifesto is a mixture of trolling and shitposting (fortunately the MSM now seems to have realized this after some early lapses). The same is true of the music in the video. I am reminded of Luka Magnotta, who played the New Order song "True Faith" during the Lin Jun murder video. This wasn't a random choice either, people pointed out that it was used in American Psycho (film). Unless you have actually watched the live stream video, it is hard to explain how sick and disturbing its use of music is. It is a key part of the video, and has been chosen carefully in advance.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

OR learned me (not sure if any RS picked it up) that he in fact had a bluetooth speaker hooked to his gear. The music was audible during his rampage outside the car also, be it supressed by gunshots most of the time, and probably by loss of signal inside the mosque. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

The only RS that references a portable speaker is The Wall Street Journal (WSJ 17 March 2019 / cached mirror): "The shooting stopped suddenly, and Mr. Faysal said he could hear the attacker reloading directly outside the door. He also heard military music coming from what he believes was a portable speaker carried by the shooter. He prayed for the man not to enter." The speaker can be seen on one of the photographs that Tarrant uploaded to Twitter. I mention this all to answer suggestions that the music was perhaps incidental and irrelevant to his motives – his equipment suggests otherwise. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC).

Even if he had a speaker, this doesn't conclusively demonstrate that the music was chosen for the audience let alone that it was trolling. It could be the only thoughts he had when choosing to have the speaker and music were either himself or alternatively some nasty idea of how it would affect his victims. And for the latter, while it may have affected one of them, this doesn't really tell us how significant it was overall compared to every other horrible thing the shooter did. It also doesn't mean by itself he spent much time on any, it could easily be a spur of the moment thing that he's forgotten he even did. It's not like it's difficult to get a bluetooth speaker in NZ. It may be when combined with other things about what he did, said including his song choices, etc, as well as the responses of others, reasonable conclusions could be made and significance of at least some of it established. But that's why we require reliable secondary sources and not editor OR from watching the horrific video. As a similar example, when I read several reports that the shooter used a strobe light, I wondered if it was significant and remarked we should keep an eye on sources covering it. But although some sources have mentioned it (I linked to them when I made my first comment), so far it doesn't seem like it's been widely covered, so potentially it's not significant. It seems easily possible the attack was so overwhelming and unexpected that in the end it would have made no difference. Nil Einne (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

We are permitted to describe the incident. If reliable sources take note of an aspect of the incident, we are permitted to inform the reader of that particular aspect of this lengthy incident. You are writing "this doesn't conclusively demonstrate that the music was chosen for the audience". It doesn't matter. The experience is the same whether the "choice of music" was random or a real "choice". But a source has to demonstrate for us that they think this point is worth taking note of. A source tells us "When the gunman returned to his car after the shooting, the song “Fire” by English rock band “The Crazy World of Arthur Brown” can be heard blasting from the speakers. The singer bellows, “I am the god of hellfire!” as the man, a 28-year-old Australian, drives away."[10] I don't think inclusion of this fact is meant to provide insight into the suspect's motives. Inclusion of this is meant to describe what people saw watching the live-stream. And the music may have been heard by those on the street within earshot of the suspect's vehicle. But this is not clear to me based on the one source. Bus stop (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

BUTTING in for a second. 1) Ian - please tone down your language - you are too good of an Admin for that. :-) 2) I'm a dinosaur who was still in England when "Fire" was out - Arthur Brown was a nut. For his television appearance performing this song (and concert appearances) he wore a helmet with parrafin on top which was flaming. HIS intention of that song was just another part of being bizarre ... taken out of context of the times and the LP jacket and so on, it may be sinister if one is missing the humor. This psychopath interpreted it in whatever way that was going on in his hate-filled heart - what should be considered for relevance is, does this use of an entirely harmless song insult the memory of Brown, vs. its use by this mass-murderer. HammerFilmFan (on location elsewhere ... )

• Many reliable sources have described the use of the song. [11][12][13] Some even specifically quote the God of Hellfire lyrics.[14][15][16] It is the sources who judged this information to be relevant. Furthermore Arthur Brown reacted with sadness to this event, and cancelled a performance as a result.[17]. starship.paint ~ KO 02:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Remove Suspects Name

The New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, has asked that the suspect's name be forgotten and erased entirely from history. I feel that this would only be possible with Wikipedia's support with the removal of his name/details from the page. Instead just refer to him as "The Suspect" or if he is found guilty, "The Murderer". This goes towards ensuring that he has no legacy, and that in 50 years time no one remembers his name or who he was. Instead we need to remember his victims for their lives.

If this was to be approved by Wikipedia, It would be supported greatly by the people of New Zealand.

--Dunners 1080 (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

This is known as damnatio memoriae and the police chief said something similar after the Umpqua Community College shooting in 2015. Unfortunately, it didn't prevent further mass shootings in the United States. No amount of damnatio memoriae is going to bring back the victims of the Christchurch shooting, and there is a legitimate public interest in knowing the alleged shooter's name and background. WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NOTCENSORED both apply here. It would also be somewhat futile not to mention the name of the alleged shooter, as it is legally available in the NZ news media.[18]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Removing it is out of the question per WP:NOTCENSORED. But how about minimizing it, maybe use his name the first time per subsection? Then 'he' instead of his name when possible. starship.paint ~ KO 11:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Forget the white bear? Jürgen Eissink (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

Was he saying this "officially" or "rhetorically"? There have been cases where there has been legal orders to block names even though press usually outside a country gets access to them, and that's where this might be something to consider on WP. But if he was asking rhetorically, then that's inactionable for WP. --Masem (t) 14:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Tarrant's court-appointed lawyer made no application for bail or name suppression. [19]. I don't suppose that he would have been granted bail anyway, but judges sometimes prevent the identification of the accused pending a trial. In this case, there would have been problems with name suppression, because it would have appeared widely in the foreign media and on the Internet whether the NZ courts liked it or not. Jacinda Ardern said "He sought many things from his act of terror but one was notoriety, that is why you will never hear me mention his name. He is a terrorist. He is a criminal. He is an extremist. But he will, when I speak, be nameless. And to others, I implore you: speak the names of those who were lost rather than the name of the man who took them. He may have sought notoriety but we, in New Zealand, will give nothing – not even his name."[20] This is a request rather than a legally binding ruling. I don't think that simply naming the gunman is a problem, and removing names like Adam Lanza and Lee Harvey Oswald from Wikipedia would not be very helpful. What is unacceptable is glorifying the shooter in Christchurch. There are now numerous very poor taste memes doing this online, and this is the real problem area.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Then I read that as rhetorically and while a very valid point (seeking attention, similar to trolling), it still remains unactionable for WP. --Masem (t) 15:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

We could invoke WP:BLPCRIME to remove his name, at least temporarily, if we want (it has already been mentioned before). In fact we could get a consensus here to remove his name for no other reason than we have a consensus as almost everything is built on concensus. I don't think either of these things are likely or even advisable. We could more feasibly remove the infobox (it adds nothing as is) and not bold the name though. AIRcorn (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I think your suggestion ("...remove the infobox (it adds nothing as is) and not bold the name…") would satisfy all needs of Wikipedia and would give the murderer not the satisfaction. I strongly support your suggestion. --JonValkenberg (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Bolding is needed since his name redirects here (as it should), and he is a primary subject of the article. For the same reason I'd lean toward keeping the infobox (but that's no biggie since really the only thing it adds that isn't in the section is his criminal charge). We're already giving his name less attention than usual by not including it in the article opening. ··gracefool 💬 21:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

It should be in the article lede; it's standard practice for all articles. The reason for the advocacy against this is political, which contradicts our NPOV policy. While consistency is not absolutely important, it's a good thing to be consistent from article to article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Bolding is not needed. Nothing is needed. It is generally accepted and probably should stay, but it is not needed per se. Consistency within an article is important, but consistency from article to article is not really important at all. In many cases it pigeon holes us into a certain way of presenting information when there are differences between said articles or even worse leads to lame wars on spelling and formatting. FWIW I have supported having the name in the lead from the beginning, I just don't like the "we must do it this way arguments". Guidelines are just guidelines for a reason. AIRcorn (talk) 07:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, there is no reason to bold the name. It's not like there's readability issues here we're trying to account for. TarkusAB^talk 14:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Removing the suspect's name is a ridiculous idea. Wikipedia exists for the purpose of providing information that readers are searching for. That's also the reason we bold redirected terms, so readers can quickly find and identify the information they are looking for. The suspect will likely eventually have his own article at some point, just like Dylan Roof and Anders Breivik do, as I suspect he is already well on the way to becoming an infamous terrorist. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The Candace Owens Line

The line stating that Canace Owens is a major inspiration should definitely also mention that this is one of many cases of sarcasm and irony present in his manifesto. Leaving things ambigious like in this instance will lead to people being blamed that have nowt to do with any of this, the same way that people are already blaming video game Fortnite even though his reference to this in his manifesto was obviously sarcastic. Same old with Owens, who by the likes of the perp is seen as a laughably weak conservative, not even to mention her skin colours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.213.112.75 (talk) 08:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

This article in The Atlantic is interesting. It says that the manifesto was "designed to troll" which is a common feature of 8chan, 4chan and similar sites. Quote from the Atlantic article: "Together, the posts suggest that every aspect of the shootings was designed to gain maximum attention online, in part by baiting the media." I agree that some of the things said in the manifesto should be taken with a large pinch of salt because they look like routine message board trolling. Some of the MSM sources haven't picked up on this. As the saying goes, This is Bait.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

With that Atlantic article as well as a National Review article, I expanded a paragraph on the Manifesto about trolling, and brought up the PewDiePie reaction into that as it is related to what these articles are saying. There's more than enough sources that talk of this being shitposting rather than a serious document. --Masem (t) 15:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Very obvious throwaway reference that the author probably got off on. Not notable.--Calthinus (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a fair bit of shitposting in the manifesto, but I think we should be very careful about disregarding it entirely. Most of it seems very serious to me, with common use of sarcasm and the occasional meme/giant troll. Bernabean (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Notability of manifesto and political motivation

How notable is the manifesto? I added information about the manifesto to the lead per WP:LEAD to parallel the article body. @Denny: undid the edit, stating that the manifesto is not notable.

One problem with saying that the manifesto is not notable is that the suspect's motivations clearly are notable. Stating facts about the manifesto is a way to allow the reader to draw conclusions about the motivations in a neutral way that bypasses debates over whether eco-fascism is left or right w ing.

Thus, I think we need to work together to resolve two problems. First, the narrow problem: is the manifesto itself notable enough to be in the lead? Second, the broad problem: how do we neutrally cover the suspect's motivations while not wading into WP:OR territory? Leugen9001 (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

For your second problem, I would simply make liberal use of terms such as "self-described", "in his own words", etc... when needed. There is no OR going on if the article states something like "The shooter is a self-described ...". For the first problem, I believe it's worth a mention. It seems to me his entire goal was to radicalize the anglosphere and his manifesto was more prominent in this goal then the movie was.

We can use the 10 year test and simply look at Ted Kaczynski's WP article -- his manifesto is mentioned in the 2nd paragraph lead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.12.249.87 (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The manifesto can be mentioned in the lead but I think it would be inappropriate to quote it, I understand some people prefer primary sources but I think we should abide by WP:RS and use secondary analysis rather than giving the killer space in Wikipedia to explain his murderous acts. People who want to read the manifesto can find it online somewhere, Wikipedia shouldn't use it as a source. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Full text of Breivik manifestio was used as reference in those articles, though: Anders_Behring_Breivik#cite_note-202 & 2011_Norway_attacks#cite_note-manifesto1-31 Crusier (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Space to explain his reasoning is also space for others to criticize it for themselves.Bernabean (talk) 04:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The 10 year test is great - here is one of the attacks by the Unabomber: American Airlines Flight 444 - there is no mention of the Manifesto, nor is the Unabomber mentioned by name. So, yes, I totally agree, let's do it like this.

And yet I originally learned about the manifesto from the WP Ted Kaczynski article. Possibly you can't compare a situation which involved multiple related crimes at different times to a single massive crime? - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, no - we use any self-description only if there are reliable secondary sources providing such. We do not using the Manifesto itself as a source.

The manifesto is not notable, and whether we can understand the motivations of the suspects from it has to be established first. Considering that it was written by a suspected mass murderer, it is not necessarily to be considered a good source for Wikipedia. Who knows? Maybe his motivations were that he was impotent, or that he couldn't find a job, or that he had a troubled youth, or whatever. What he writes is not for us to be interpreted, but for relevant experts. Once they have published their findings, we can summarize them in the article and provide references.

I will not read the manifesto. I don't have the necessary expertise and background to read something written by a mass murderer, to interpret it, and put it into the right context. That's for others to do. So, no, the manifesto is not notable enough to be featured in the , and the extended exegesis of it in the article needs to be severely shortened. --denny vrandečić (talk) 03:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't that make everything published by RS refutable until reliable criminal experts have analyzed it appropriately? Journalists likely do not have the necessary expertise or background; why are you so willing to take their word? Bernabean (talk) 04:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I actually support Denny's huge cut to the manifesto section here although I doubt it will last long. I agree that it had gotten way too specific/exegetical (even though I had been improving the wording etc of that section for the last few hours). The view of including only major details about the contents of the manifesto will keep more and more details from creeping in that don't necessarily belong on this page (manifesto's reference to trump, to child sex abuse by Muslims in the UK, blah blah) and also possibly stop future bickering about the suspect's political views.~ Anotheranothername (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Multiple sources established why he only attacked Muslims just fyi. It wasn't just anti-immigration, it was revenge as well as their higher birth rate than any other group. So that will be necessary. RookerBowman (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The section on the manifesto shouldn't be longer than the section on the victims, otherwise I don't think that due weight is given to the importance of these two facets of this tragic event. --denny vrandečić (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• This is an ideologically motivated crime. Therefore, describing the "manifesto" per multiple RS is very important. Removing it from the lead and from the body of the page I think is unacceptable. This is something published by multiple RS, and no, we do not use the writings by the suspect directly as a source. My very best wishes (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no requirement to make any section longer or shorter, please don't make up such weird claims. It That is irrelevant. As long as his ideology and motivations are covered in a short para, that is succinct. RookerBowman (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've made it very short now, just two paragraphs. RookerBowman (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Here is version prior to your unilateral removal. I agree, this could be made shorter, but not that much. You removed a lot of important details covered in multiple RS. That is what defines notability. My very best wishes (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Rooker.

My very best wishes, Notability is not Wikipedia's only policy. There is also the requirement to not give undue weight. I removed almost 16,000 characters, and the result was still longer than the section on victims. Unless someone argues convincingly that the manifesto of a mass murderer, who will likely turn out to not be the most psychological stable person, deserves so much weight compared to fifty innocent victims, I think that my edit was for the better. Wikipedia does not have to be a platform for the exegesis of the mind of a mass murderer. --denny vrandečić (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I already expanded the Victims section because it needed more details about the missing people. Now it's longer than manifesto. RookerBowman (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Rooker. Let's keep it this way.

To also make it very explicit: I am thankful for anyone who put energy into creating the text that I deleted, I understand that a lot of energy went into this, and that a lot of people were trying to improve Wikipedia by working on these 16,000 characters in 100s of edits. I nevertheless think that we are breaching Wikipedia's policy here by having this overlong section. I understand that it must be frustrating to see the results of your work be suddenly removed. I suggest to step back for a moment, and consider the wider picture. I hope you will find that it was indeed giving undue weight to an aspect of this tragic event. --denny vrandečić (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The manifesto has been covered a lot. I already cut out what I could. There is nothing undue anymore. Cutting his ideology and especially his motivations for attack cannot be done. Please stop making up reasons to hide why he attacked Muslims. The man is sound, his manifesto is actually very clever. Nothing else I will say. RookerBowman (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree on your assessment that someone who decided to murder innocent people is "sound" or "clever". --denny vrandečić (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

People have many motivation to kill. Some killers are intelligent. Just read this https://www.bellingcat.com/news/rest-of-world/2019/03/15/shitposting-inspirational-terrorism-and-the-christchurch-mosque-massacre/ RookerBowman (talk) 05:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Though some comments are distractions, his hatred of immigrants, fascism and sympathy to the far-right is true. RookerBowman (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the sources agree on that, and thus that should be mentioned. Let's agree to disagree on the question how sound the murderer is and move on, it doesn't have an effect on the rest of the work. --denny vrandečić (talk) 05:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with my very best wishes. This is a very ideologically motivated crime, and deserves to have the manifesto's content looked at under a critical eye as determined in the reliable sources. I felt that the way that the article mentioned the manifeso was more than adequate in that respect. The current section glosses over a lot of what was said in said manifesto, without citing and debunking with specific examples, and simply looks and reads sloppy, glosses over some of the deeper meaning that was presented in the writing, among other things. Tutelary (talk) 05:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Strongly oppose removal this is a crime that could not have happened without the extensive ideology that the manifesto (in a roundabout way) demonstrates. Cutting out a lot of the details here, be they his interpretation of European/Muslim history or Euro/Muslim current events or his views on modern Western politics, is sabotaging the reader's attempts to understand what happened. This is not (only) an NPOV issue, this is a basic quality issue.--Calthinus (talk) 05:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree but that section is ripe for coatracking. I think it looks better now than it did last night (KST). The article is about the attack, not the manifesto. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I also strongly oppose removing content about the manifesto, some editors may make the case that its undue and about the actual shooting. However when a separate page on the gunman himself is created, as with Anders' page the guy had motivations and there will be a section on the manifesto. Certain right wing ideologies like white supremacism and Balkan ethno-nationalisms played their part in his radicalisation.Resnjari (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• The section is prone to abuse by inclusion of random details, but that is no reason to abuse it yourself by cutting relevant information. The test here is not "notability", which doesn't apply to individual details of an article; the test is relevancy. What Tarrant thinks of Donald Trump is almost surely irrelevant but some other aspects of his thinking may not be, if they help explain what put him at the door of the mosque with a bunch of guns. Wnt (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The coverage by reliable sources, notability and relevance of the manifesto is sufficient enough that it should be mentioned in the article. I don’t particularly care whether or not it’s in the lead. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Mentioned? Sure, I totally agree. But an exegesis several thousands of characters long? That's giving too much weight to those words. That's giving undue weight to the manifesto. --denny vrandečić (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Since there is no total consensus on the removal of the large section, I made a recap that I think is reasonable ánd significant. I hope this is a welcomed compromise. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 08:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC).

Jürgen Eissink It's a good size, but may I ask what made you omit the part about Trump? That is surely as notable (due to Trump's notability) as the manifesto's namechecking of various mass murderers. This is why I favoured the heavily trimmed manifesto section in the first place.~ Anotheranothername (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Anotheranothername, I don't know which heavily trimmed manifesto section you mean, but I agree that might be added, so feel free to do so, as far as I'm concerned. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC).

Added. It's the same sentence and position/context from the larger manifesto section. I honestly think it is a good size and hits the basic points without being like... fetishistic about all the stuff in the manifesto. Hope this version will stick.~ Anotheranothername (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not bad. I don't think we have to say US president Trump though, we are not introducing the others as "mass-murderer Anders Behring Breivik" etc. It also seems a bit redundant to say " refers to U.S. President Donald Trump" as well as "writing that he is a supporter of Trump" in the same sentence. Thats getting a bit nit picky though. AIRcorn (talk) 09:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course we should include Brevik and whoever else was inspiration for the shooter - according to him and how described in RS. My very best wishes (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this reply for me? i never said anything about not including Brevik. AIRcorn (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I am tragically too busy (I will keep trying to find time) to keep track of who did what here but there are a number of things I find problematic with the current version. Denny I am very sympathetic to your view of not turning this page into a platform for Tarrant's twisted manifesto but that does not mean we don't report on it -- it means we report what extensive secondary sources like these [[21]] [[22]] say. I don't necessarily want to go back to the old version, we can work from this one. His relation to the internet is significant, and is noted, but insufficienttly. That he mentioned Trump as a source of hope, a symbol of "renewed" white identity blablabla is significant -- without hope, he would have thought he was throwing away his life for nothing (EDIT: I see that this has now been re-included, thanks). His connections to far-right movements in parts of Europe like especially Serbia are also significant (his whole idea of some sort of pan-European Christian "nation" smacks of the Ottoman millet) -- as RS can show his views were not only home grown radicalization but also significantly "Balkan-grown" . These things and many more (I will be back with more sources, hopefully when I get a moment) have been purged from the page and that is unfortunate.--Calthinus (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Here's a lot of sourcing for how his ideology was "Balkan-grown" (via the Internet... and also his visits to the region [as confirmed by Bulgarian intelligence] [[23]]) [[24]] hr.n1info.com/English/NEWS/a377784/Bosnia-s-ambassador-Christchurch-shooter-inspired-by-Serbian-nationalist-songs.html [[25]] (this one among other things also notes the Balkanization of Breivik whose own manifesto also has "Serbia", "Kosovo", "Bosnia" and "Albania" each appearing hundreds of times in the manifesto -- together over a thousand -- more than some common verbs). Indeed he was ["entranced with former Ottoman sites" as this RS demonstrates]. --Calthinus (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Excellent points! According to one of RS above "In a 74-page manifesto that he posted on social media, Tarrant said he was a white supremacist who was out to avenge attacks in Europe perpetrated by Muslims." And this is not just something "he said". This is something he actually did, and something supported by these investigations of his travel and international connections. All of that does belong to page. The manifesto is only a part of that, but an important part. Historically, such writings were significant ( Said Sergey Nechayev: "A revolutionary is a doomed man. He has no private interests, no affairs, sentiments, ties, property nor even a name of his own... Heart and soul, not merely by word but by deed, he has severed every link with the social order and with the entire civilized world; with the laws, good manners, conventions, and morality of that world. He is its merciless enemy and continues to inhabit it with only one purpose – to destroy it.") My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Except that the RS is utterly wrong stating "Tarrant said he was a white supremacist" – he simply did not say that. The word 'supremacy' or 'superior' is not in the manifesto. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC).

It is not just about the notability. And it is not about censoring this information. Wikipedia is not a government, therefore removing information from Wikipedia does not constitute censoring, unless it is the government censoring it. I am sure there is a sufficient number of forums that discuss the manifesto in as much detail as anyone would desire. Wikipedia is not a place for that. We offer the sum of all knowledge. For interpreting such works as the manifesto, there are researchers, and I am sure we will get good reliable sources on that within a year or two. Then we can cite these and summarize their findings. But describing in detail the manifesto of a mass murderer, using his own words as a primary source, when one or two sentences would suffice, that is not for Wikipedia.

We saw one edit that tried to add more information about the victims. It was immediately removed. Because not encyclopedic. What makes the life of innocent victims less relevant than the writings of a mass murderer? I see that the article still puts an undue weight on the murderer and his writing. I suggest that we further trim the amount of text on the assailant, and in extension, on his words. We don't discuss the crazy ideas of every delusional murderer in detail in most other murder cases, why should we do it here? Do we want to tell people: "Listen, in order for your ideas to be heard, you need to kill 50 people." Is that the message we want to send? --denny vrandečić (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• You can not remove a lot of relevant sourced information like that just by saying: "hey, this is not encyclopedic". You must explain why this sourced information was not encyclopedic. And no, a significant amount of sourced information about victims and perpetrator(s) is encyclopedic, including why he did it and how exactly the terrorist act has been planned. My very best wishes (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Denny While from the bottom of my heart I would not argue that the views or general info about the victims is not important, the fact is that as the sole reason they were killed was existing as Muslims, it will not tell readers much about the event itself. The motives of the killer, on the other hand, are a central aspect of the crime, especially in this case where we have an ideologically motivated mass murder. In what sort of ideological massacre is the ideology behind it more important to understanding it, than the innocent victims whose individual lives meant nothing to their killers? --Calthinus (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Calthinus, I think when the article on the gunmen himself is created (its bound to happen in coming weeks or months) a more detailed section on the manifesto will be apt there, like as in Anders Behring Breivik's article on him which is separate from the shooting he did.Resnjari (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Resnjari It's still better to have here a three or so sentence blurb mentioning at least some of the "Balkan" factors rather than only the fact that a meme-ified song played (many people who know of said song aren't even aware of its origins or meaning, it's just a funny military oaf playing an accordion to many who don't even know what the Balkans are). --Calthinus (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Calthinus, i agree wholeheartedly with that. But many editors thought that a trim down was needed and excluded those Balkan factors of the manifesto that were previously in the article. When they were in the article those Balkan factors kept either getting removed or targeted and i lost count of how many times i had to address that when it happened (most of those edits did not even have edit summaries). From observation the article is being edited at a fast pace so admins might not be keeping track of all edits.Resnjari (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Alas there is consensus which can be attained here. My very best wishes would you agree with a 2 or 3 sentence or so Balkan addition in the section? --Calthinus (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, certainly, but this is not really about the manifesto. See the previous paragraph about the perpetrator. My very best wishes (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Eh, are you negotiating edit space here? A contribution should be considered by it's content and quality, not it's amount of bytes. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC).

This really needs a focused RFC as the discussion here is all over the place. AIRcorn (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Aircorn: RfCs are more organized but also a much greater waste of time. More efficient are incremental mutually agreed upon compromises on individual points when you are dealing with something that is actually a collection of other statements -- not the best topic for an RfC as you'd end up with votes like "Oppose including sentence 1 and 2, include 3, exclude4, include 5-7...".--Calthinus (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The best advantage of an rfc is they are a lot more binding. Here you may get a group of editors coming to an agreement, but then someone else will come along and change it and you are back to square one. Having an RFC to point to is a much stronger consensus to maintain. I would suggest that ideally two most likely options are developed and then a simple RFC is devised asking editors to choose which they think fits best. AIRcorn (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I would argue that multiple incremental mutually agreed upon compromises on individual points would take at least as long. Especially since in many cases they would be dependent, e.g. "Oppose including sentences 1 and 2 unless this modified version of sentence 3 is included." Few sentences stand in isolation. I would argue that there is no efficient way to do this as long as we write by committee. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I do think that having something on the Balkans is needed. He was clearly influenced by certain nationalisms of the region. And it was a motivation with his whole "Remove Kebab" thing and the many names of historical figures from over there. Most readers at the moment don't really understand the Balkan factor so a 2 or 3 sentences would go a long way to addressing it like "the gunman was influenced by so and so nationalism after having made trips to so and so countries etc" or something like that based on RS.Resnjari (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose to removing content from manifesto. The content that was stated in this edit should be restored. I already commented my thoughts, but I did want to make it unambiguous where I stand. Tutelary (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)