Talk:Al Noor Mosque, Christchurch/Archive 1

Archive 1

2013

Gross BLP violation and original research

In 2013 an Australian and a New Zealander, who were introduced to radical Islam at the Christchurch mosque were killed by a missile fired from an US drone in Yemen. Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs claims both individuals were of long-standing interest to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) due to their activities in Yemen linked to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), however, this was denied by the leadership of the mosque..Jingiby (talk) 09:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Many thanks, Jingby! I've gone ahead and expanded your contribution using Template:Cite news (Citation Style 1). --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Are there some objections to include the info above into the article? Jingiby (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC) No objections. It's relevant to the topic and noteworthy as it made the news. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Seems tenuous to me. Parents said their son said that unnamed people in a mosque were saying…. I don’t think third-hand oral evidence is an acceptable source for suggesting that the mosque was radicalizing Muslims. O3000 (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC) The info above providwes all sides statements, i.e. it is objective. Maybe is not politically correct, per some editors views, but can be balanced additonally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jingiby (talk • contribs) 14:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC) No idea what you mean by politically correct. I don't believe it is objective to include an extremely poorly sourced accusation followed by a denial. There is no actual evidence that the mosque was a terrorist training or recruitment center as suggested. O3000 (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Per 3000, this is really some poor verification for a contentious factoid. This fails WP:BLP miserably. Editors are inserting this because the neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer published a piece claiming the mosque was a terrorist training center implying the shooting is needed and conservative figures began picking it up and parroting it. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 19:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Content is determined by published information, not by editors' beliefs. (See WP:V.) Here's a third RS that supports the information that Havard's parents said he was introduced to radical Islam at the mosque. (Note that it was published in 2014, not 2019.) Can you try to find an RS that contradicts it? Thanks! --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC) But, they're all the same source. Parents said their son said that unnamed people in a mosque were saying. O3000 (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Better source here: https://books.google.it/books?id=Yu15DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA225 It's a book written in 2009 (not yesterday) by university professor Erich Kolig. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.163.57.203 (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Afraid that link isn't very useful. O3000 (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Per WP:SOURCE, we count the the three articles as three sources (not the two parents as two sources). This is policy. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Someone (anonymous) said that someone said that someone (anonymous) was saying. Sounds like a game of telephone. In the years since, has the NZ gov't shut down this supposed terrorist recruitment site? Has anyone else besides these unnamed people made this claim? Do we even have a quote from the parents, or their son?O3000 (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Happily, we're not trying to make a claim that Havard was introduced to radical Islam at the mosque. So we appear to have a consensus that the three reliable sources support only the claim that his parents said he was. (We're not saying anything about whether his parents were right!) --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC) 22:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC) (Per WP:NEWSORG, we can leave out the first of the three sources; it's just a summary of the second one.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC) I see no consensus for any inclusion. The first source simply points to the second source and therefore doesn’t count. The second source does not say that he was radicalized at the mosque. They say he was radicalized at some point and that he briefly worked for the mosque as part of community service that he had to perform. Only one source says his parents said he was radicalized at the mosque. It is a one sentence paragraph with no quotes, the parents are unnamed, and it’s double hearsay. This is incredibly week for anything related to WP:BLP, particularly given the extreme circumstances and accusations. O3000 (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC) So we have consensus that the first source doesn't count. And according to the second source, Havard's parents "told 7:30 he had encountered radical Islam after moving to New Zealand. Havard, known by his Muslim name Saleem Khattab, attended the Masjid An-Nur mosque in Christchurch in early 2011." We do need to modify the language accordingly. Happily, WP:BLP policy says nothing about "hearsay". So we can set that issue aside! --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC) The source does NOT say he was radicalized at the mosque. He worked there for a few months, apparently to satisfy court-ordered community service. It does say he attended a radical mosque in another country. Should we list every Christian Church the Oklahoma bomber visited? O3000 (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC) So we also have a consensus that this article should not say Havard was radicalized at the mosque. (Nor should it list every mosque he visited.) Per WP:OR policy we should summarize what the source says. And we should use that material in context. (In many cases, the immediately preceding or following sentence would count as context.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Simply speaking, there is no consensus for inclusion of anything along these lines. And please stop deleting the blank line in front of the reflist tag.O3000 (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC) See WP:CON: "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised." Can you give us a summary of your concerns about a statement like this: Havard told his parents that he first encountered radical Islam at the al-Noor mosque. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC) I have responded several times in detail and have no interest in circular arguments. You do not have consensus for this addition. Escalate if you wish. O3000 (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC) OK, just state your most important concern again. That takes a lot less effort than escalating! --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC) In addition to these 2 above of NZ Herald and Stuff Magazine, here is a 3rd source supporting the Al Noor connection, from News Hub: *https://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/christchurch-mosque-linked-to-alqaida-suspect-2014060417 The parents of an Australian killed alongside Jones say their son was taught radical Islam in Christchurch, where he also met Mr Jones. Mr Havard's parents say it's at the mosque he met fellow convert Mr Jones, who was known at Muslim Bin John This sounds like important information to include. Wikipedia should report the facts: the parents said Havard met Jones at the mosque and was radicalized there, while the mosque disagrees with Havard's parents. There is no need to say that the parents are right or the mosque is right. We may never know who is right and wrong, but we do know the statements came from both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oranginger (talk • contribs) 13:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Many thanks, Orangeginger! I've gone ahead and expanded your contribution using Template:Cite news (Citation Style 1). --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC) The "Stuff" article is currenlty available on their website. http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-east/10310496/A-Kiwi-lads-death-by-drone All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC). These sources do not all say that he was radicalized at the mosque. Why haven't any of the numerous top quality reliable sources that we use for verifying highly negative material mentioning this? O3000 (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Good question! Ask a few of those sources, and if you get an answer, post it here. Meanwhile, let's just follow the relevant WP policies, like WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:OR. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC) 00:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC) This is a major story worldwide. The NYT, Guardian, BBC, WaPo, etc are not shy about including well sourced, relevant info. I can find no major RS reporting this. I still believe this fails WP:BLP completely, as well as being iffy on WP:V and WP:OR doesn't apply. O3000 (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC) We consider the reliability of the sources, the weighting required, and what the sources actually say. There is way too much incorrect or suspect information on wikipedia that is there because editors fail to interpret or use (or both) the sources correctly. From reading the above comments, it does appear that some editors might be trying to push an agenda by raking muck where muck may not exist. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC) O3000: Thanks for acknowledging this point. Neither you nor I found that ABC story; Jingiby did! Australian Broadcasting Corp. is Australia's leading public broadcaster. And I suspect that no one here is going to call Australia a "minor" country! --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Roger 8 Roger: May I ask, which editors? --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC) First, I don't know what point you think I acknowledged. ABC states the opposite of what folks here have been trying to add – a narrative pushed by StormFront, a famous neo-Nazi site. After a massive murder-spree, some folks are trying to cast aspersions on the victims. I am not casting aspersions here. But, may I ask why folks want such added here? O3000 (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Didn't you graciously acknowledge the point that you yourself found no major RS reporting this? --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Roger 8 Roger: The weighting policy just applies to "viewpoints". And two reliable mainstream sources have published their undisputed view that Australian Federal Police … documents show Mr Havard and Mr Nin John were of long-standing interest to the AFP due to their assessed activities in Yemen liked to al-Qaida. Some editors may dispute that view; but we consider just its prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors. Moreover, the related WP:BALASP policy advises that Discussion of isolated events … about a subject may be … disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Harvard's radicalization wasn't recent; it wasn't a single isolated "event"; and it isn't in the news. And it was significant enough to be investigated by federal police and then reported by mainstream RS internationally. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Firstly, that's OR. Secondly, we should not report an investigation that resulted in no results. In fact, was the word "investigation" even used? People and organizations are reported all the time for all kinds of reasons. We don't say thing like this if no results are reported. Truly gross violation of WP:BLP that shouldn't even be on a talk page. O3000 (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC) References

2013

Gross BLP violation and original research

In 2013 an Australian and a New Zealander, who were introduced to radical Islam at the Christchurch mosque were killed by a missile fired from an US drone in Yemen. Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs claims both individuals were of long-standing interest to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) due to their activities in Yemen linked to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), however, this was denied by the leadership of the mosque..Jingiby (talk) 09:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Many thanks, Jingby! I've gone ahead and expanded your contribution using Template:Cite news (Citation Style 1). --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Are there some objections to include the info above into the article? Jingiby (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC) No objections. It's relevant to the topic and noteworthy as it made the news. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Seems tenuous to me. Parents said their son said that unnamed people in a mosque were saying…. I don’t think third-hand oral evidence is an acceptable source for suggesting that the mosque was radicalizing Muslims. O3000 (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC) The info above providwes all sides statements, i.e. it is objective. Maybe is not politically correct, per some editors views, but can be balanced additonally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jingiby (talk • contribs) 14:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC) No idea what you mean by politically correct. I don't believe it is objective to include an extremely poorly sourced accusation followed by a denial. There is no actual evidence that the mosque was a terrorist training or recruitment center as suggested. O3000 (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Per 3000, this is really some poor verification for a contentious factoid. This fails WP:BLP miserably. Editors are inserting this because the neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer published a piece claiming the mosque was a terrorist training center implying the shooting is needed and conservative figures began picking it up and parroting it. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 19:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Content is determined by published information, not by editors' beliefs. (See WP:V.) Here's a third RS that supports the information that Havard's parents said he was introduced to radical Islam at the mosque. (Note that it was published in 2014, not 2019.) Can you try to find an RS that contradicts it? Thanks! --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC) But, they're all the same source. Parents said their son said that unnamed people in a mosque were saying. O3000 (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Better source here: https://books.google.it/books?id=Yu15DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA225 It's a book written in 2009 (not yesterday) by university professor Erich Kolig. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.163.57.203 (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Afraid that link isn't very useful. O3000 (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Per WP:SOURCE, we count the the three articles as three sources (not the two parents as two sources). This is policy. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Someone (anonymous) said that someone said that someone (anonymous) was saying. Sounds like a game of telephone. In the years since, has the NZ gov't shut down this supposed terrorist recruitment site? Has anyone else besides these unnamed people made this claim? Do we even have a quote from the parents, or their son?O3000 (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Happily, we're not trying to make a claim that Havard was introduced to radical Islam at the mosque. So we appear to have a consensus that the three reliable sources support only the claim that his parents said he was. (We're not saying anything about whether his parents were right!) --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC) 22:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC) (Per WP:NEWSORG, we can leave out the first of the three sources; it's just a summary of the second one.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC) I see no consensus for any inclusion. The first source simply points to the second source and therefore doesn’t count. The second source does not say that he was radicalized at the mosque. They say he was radicalized at some point and that he briefly worked for the mosque as part of community service that he had to perform. Only one source says his parents said he was radicalized at the mosque. It is a one sentence paragraph with no quotes, the parents are unnamed, and it’s double hearsay. This is incredibly week for anything related to WP:BLP, particularly given the extreme circumstances and accusations. O3000 (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC) So we have consensus that the first source doesn't count. And according to the second source, Havard's parents "told 7:30 he had encountered radical Islam after moving to New Zealand. Havard, known by his Muslim name Saleem Khattab, attended the Masjid An-Nur mosque in Christchurch in early 2011." We do need to modify the language accordingly. Happily, WP:BLP policy says nothing about "hearsay". So we can set that issue aside! --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC) The source does NOT say he was radicalized at the mosque. He worked there for a few months, apparently to satisfy court-ordered community service. It does say he attended a radical mosque in another country. Should we list every Christian Church the Oklahoma bomber visited? O3000 (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC) So we also have a consensus that this article should not say Havard was radicalized at the mosque. (Nor should it list every mosque he visited.) Per WP:OR policy we should summarize what the source says. And we should use that material in context. (In many cases, the immediately preceding or following sentence would count as context.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Simply speaking, there is no consensus for inclusion of anything along these lines. And please stop deleting the blank line in front of the reflist tag.O3000 (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC) See WP:CON: "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised." Can you give us a summary of your concerns about a statement like this: Havard told his parents that he first encountered radical Islam at the al-Noor mosque. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC) I have responded several times in detail and have no interest in circular arguments. You do not have consensus for this addition. Escalate if you wish. O3000 (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC) OK, just state your most important concern again. That takes a lot less effort than escalating! --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC) In addition to these 2 above of NZ Herald and Stuff Magazine, here is a 3rd source supporting the Al Noor connection, from News Hub: *https://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/christchurch-mosque-linked-to-alqaida-suspect-2014060417 The parents of an Australian killed alongside Jones say their son was taught radical Islam in Christchurch, where he also met Mr Jones. Mr Havard's parents say it's at the mosque he met fellow convert Mr Jones, who was known at Muslim Bin John This sounds like important information to include. Wikipedia should report the facts: the parents said Havard met Jones at the mosque and was radicalized there, while the mosque disagrees with Havard's parents. There is no need to say that the parents are right or the mosque is right. We may never know who is right and wrong, but we do know the statements came from both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oranginger (talk • contribs) 13:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Many thanks, Orangeginger! I've gone ahead and expanded your contribution using Template:Cite news (Citation Style 1). --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC) The "Stuff" article is currenlty available on their website. http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-east/10310496/A-Kiwi-lads-death-by-drone All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC). These sources do not all say that he was radicalized at the mosque. Why haven't any of the numerous top quality reliable sources that we use for verifying highly negative material mentioning this? O3000 (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Good question! Ask a few of those sources, and if you get an answer, post it here. Meanwhile, let's just follow the relevant WP policies, like WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:OR. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC) 00:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC) This is a major story worldwide. The NYT, Guardian, BBC, WaPo, etc are not shy about including well sourced, relevant info. I can find no major RS reporting this. I still believe this fails WP:BLP completely, as well as being iffy on WP:V and WP:OR doesn't apply. O3000 (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC) We consider the reliability of the sources, the weighting required, and what the sources actually say. There is way too much incorrect or suspect information on wikipedia that is there because editors fail to interpret or use (or both) the sources correctly. From reading the above comments, it does appear that some editors might be trying to push an agenda by raking muck where muck may not exist. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC) O3000: Thanks for acknowledging this point. Neither you nor I found that ABC story; Jingiby did! Australian Broadcasting Corp. is Australia's leading public broadcaster. And I suspect that no one here is going to call Australia a "minor" country! --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Roger 8 Roger: May I ask, which editors? --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC) First, I don't know what point you think I acknowledged. ABC states the opposite of what folks here have been trying to add – a narrative pushed by StormFront, a famous neo-Nazi site. After a massive murder-spree, some folks are trying to cast aspersions on the victims. I am not casting aspersions here. But, may I ask why folks want such added here? O3000 (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Didn't you graciously acknowledge the point that you yourself found no major RS reporting this? --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Roger 8 Roger: The weighting policy just applies to "viewpoints". And two reliable mainstream sources have published their undisputed view that Australian Federal Police … documents show Mr Havard and Mr Nin John were of long-standing interest to the AFP due to their assessed activities in Yemen liked to al-Qaida. Some editors may dispute that view; but we consider just its prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors. Moreover, the related WP:BALASP policy advises that Discussion of isolated events … about a subject may be … disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Harvard's radicalization wasn't recent; it wasn't a single isolated "event"; and it isn't in the news. And it was significant enough to be investigated by federal police and then reported by mainstream RS internationally. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Firstly, that's OR. Secondly, we should not report an investigation that resulted in no results. In fact, was the word "investigation" even used? People and organizations are reported all the time for all kinds of reasons. We don't say thing like this if no results are reported. Truly gross violation of WP:BLP that shouldn't even be on a talk page. O3000 (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC) References

Scope of this page

Since this Mosque was involved in the 2019 Christchurch mosque attacks it has become somewhat notable. Details of the attack itself should be kept to the mosque attack page. However, this page can contain general details about the mosque such as its history.Mozzie (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

2013

Gross BLP violation and original research

In 2013 an Australian and a New Zealander, who were introduced to radical Islam at the Christchurch mosque were killed by a missile fired from an US drone in Yemen. Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs claims both individuals were of long-standing interest to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) due to their activities in Yemen linked to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), however, this was denied by the leadership of the mosque..Jingiby (talk) 09:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Many thanks, Jingby! I've gone ahead and expanded your contribution using Template:Cite news (Citation Style 1). --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Are there some objections to include the info above into the article? Jingiby (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC) No objections. It's relevant to the topic and noteworthy as it made the news. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Seems tenuous to me. Parents said their son said that unnamed people in a mosque were saying…. I don’t think third-hand oral evidence is an acceptable source for suggesting that the mosque was radicalizing Muslims. O3000 (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC) The info above providwes all sides statements, i.e. it is objective. Maybe is not politically correct, per some editors views, but can be balanced additonally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jingiby (talk • contribs) 14:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC) No idea what you mean by politically correct. I don't believe it is objective to include an extremely poorly sourced accusation followed by a denial. There is no actual evidence that the mosque was a terrorist training or recruitment center as suggested. O3000 (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Per 3000, this is really some poor verification for a contentious factoid. This fails WP:BLP miserably. Editors are inserting this because the neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer published a piece claiming the mosque was a terrorist training center implying the shooting is needed and conservative figures began picking it up and parroting it. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 19:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Content is determined by published information, not by editors' beliefs. (See WP:V.) Here's a third RS that supports the information that Havard's parents said he was introduced to radical Islam at the mosque. (Note that it was published in 2014, not 2019.) Can you try to find an RS that contradicts it? Thanks! --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC) But, they're all the same source. Parents said their son said that unnamed people in a mosque were saying. O3000 (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Better source here: https://books.google.it/books?id=Yu15DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA225 It's a book written in 2009 (not yesterday) by university professor Erich Kolig. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.163.57.203 (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Afraid that link isn't very useful. O3000 (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Per WP:SOURCE, we count the the three articles as three sources (not the two parents as two sources). This is policy. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Someone (anonymous) said that someone said that someone (anonymous) was saying. Sounds like a game of telephone. In the years since, has the NZ gov't shut down this supposed terrorist recruitment site? Has anyone else besides these unnamed people made this claim? Do we even have a quote from the parents, or their son?O3000 (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Happily, we're not trying to make a claim that Havard was introduced to radical Islam at the mosque. So we appear to have a consensus that the three reliable sources support only the claim that his parents said he was. (We're not saying anything about whether his parents were right!) --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC) 22:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC) (Per WP:NEWSORG, we can leave out the first of the three sources; it's just a summary of the second one.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC) I see no consensus for any inclusion. The first source simply points to the second source and therefore doesn’t count. The second source does not say that he was radicalized at the mosque. They say he was radicalized at some point and that he briefly worked for the mosque as part of community service that he had to perform. Only one source says his parents said he was radicalized at the mosque. It is a one sentence paragraph with no quotes, the parents are unnamed, and it’s double hearsay. This is incredibly week for anything related to WP:BLP, particularly given the extreme circumstances and accusations. O3000 (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC) So we have consensus that the first source doesn't count. And according to the second source, Havard's parents "told 7:30 he had encountered radical Islam after moving to New Zealand. Havard, known by his Muslim name Saleem Khattab, attended the Masjid An-Nur mosque in Christchurch in early 2011." We do need to modify the language accordingly. Happily, WP:BLP policy says nothing about "hearsay". So we can set that issue aside! --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC) The source does NOT say he was radicalized at the mosque. He worked there for a few months, apparently to satisfy court-ordered community service. It does say he attended a radical mosque in another country. Should we list every Christian Church the Oklahoma bomber visited? O3000 (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC) So we also have a consensus that this article should not say Havard was radicalized at the mosque. (Nor should it list every mosque he visited.) Per WP:OR policy we should summarize what the source says. And we should use that material in context. (In many cases, the immediately preceding or following sentence would count as context.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Simply speaking, there is no consensus for inclusion of anything along these lines. And please stop deleting the blank line in front of the reflist tag.O3000 (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC) See WP:CON: "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised." Can you give us a summary of your concerns about a statement like this: Havard told his parents that he first encountered radical Islam at the al-Noor mosque. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC) I have responded several times in detail and have no interest in circular arguments. You do not have consensus for this addition. Escalate if you wish. O3000 (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC) OK, just state your most important concern again. That takes a lot less effort than escalating! --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC) In addition to these 2 above of NZ Herald and Stuff Magazine, here is a 3rd source supporting the Al Noor connection, from News Hub: *https://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/christchurch-mosque-linked-to-alqaida-suspect-2014060417 The parents of an Australian killed alongside Jones say their son was taught radical Islam in Christchurch, where he also met Mr Jones. Mr Havard's parents say it's at the mosque he met fellow convert Mr Jones, who was known at Muslim Bin John This sounds like important information to include. Wikipedia should report the facts: the parents said Havard met Jones at the mosque and was radicalized there, while the mosque disagrees with Havard's parents. There is no need to say that the parents are right or the mosque is right. We may never know who is right and wrong, but we do know the statements came from both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oranginger (talk • contribs) 13:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC) striking comment by confirmed sockpuppeteer User:Tyciol --Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC) Many thanks, Oranginger! I've gone ahead and expanded your contribution using Template:Cite news (Citation Style 1). --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC) The "Stuff" article is currenlty available on their website. http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-east/10310496/A-Kiwi-lads-death-by-drone All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC). These sources do not all say that he was radicalized at the mosque. Why haven't any of the numerous top quality reliable sources that we use for verifying highly negative material mentioning this? O3000 (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Good question! Ask a few of those sources, and if you get an answer, post it here. Meanwhile, let's just follow the relevant WP policies, like WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:OR. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC) 00:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC) This is a major story worldwide. The NYT, Guardian, BBC, WaPo, etc are not shy about including well sourced, relevant info. I can find no major RS reporting this. I still believe this fails WP:BLP completely, as well as being iffy on WP:V and WP:OR doesn't apply. O3000 (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC) We consider the reliability of the sources, the weighting required, and what the sources actually say. There is way too much incorrect or suspect information on wikipedia that is there because editors fail to interpret or use (or both) the sources correctly. From reading the above comments, it does appear that some editors might be trying to push an agenda by raking muck where muck may not exist. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC) O3000: Thanks for acknowledging this point. Neither you nor I found that ABC story; Jingiby did! Australian Broadcasting Corp. is Australia's leading public broadcaster. And I suspect that no one here is going to call Australia a "minor" country! --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Roger 8 Roger: May I ask, which editors? --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC) First, I don't know what point you think I acknowledged. ABC states the opposite of what folks here have been trying to add – a narrative pushed by StormFront, a famous neo-Nazi site. After a massive murder-spree, some folks are trying to cast aspersions on the victims. I am not casting aspersions here. But, may I ask why folks want such added here? O3000 (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Didn't you graciously acknowledge the point that you yourself found no major RS reporting this? --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Roger 8 Roger: The weighting policy just applies to "viewpoints". And two reliable mainstream sources have published their undisputed view that Australian Federal Police … documents show Mr Havard and Mr Nin John were of long-standing interest to the AFP due to their assessed activities in Yemen liked to al-Qaida. Some editors may dispute that view; but we consider just its prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors. Moreover, the related WP:BALASP policy advises that Discussion of isolated events … about a subject may be … disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Harvard's radicalization wasn't recent; it wasn't a single isolated "event"; and it isn't in the news. And it was significant enough to be investigated by federal police and then reported by mainstream RS internationally. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Firstly, that's OR. Secondly, we should not report an investigation that resulted in no results. In fact, was the word "investigation" even used? People and organizations are reported all the time for all kinds of reasons. We don't say thing like this if no results are reported. Truly gross violation of WP:BLP that shouldn't even be on a talk page. O3000 (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC) References

BLP policy applies to the living, not the dead

See WP:BLP, under § "Recently Dead or Probably Dead" (WP:BDP).

This policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died.

Three reliable mainstream sources say Havard's dead. "Christopher Havard died in November last year in a US drone strike on a convoy of cars in eastern Yemen." "Jones was killed alongside Australian Christopher Havard." "Christopher Havard was killed alongside Mr Jones by a US drone in Yemen last year." --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC) 00:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• It is a gross violation of BLP against people working at this Mosque. In-text verification for this is extremely poor, and consensus is not in your favor. You need to quit this lawyering. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 00:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• The leader of the mosque and the other members who have been accused, without evidence, of supporting terrorist acts are still alive and could become further victims. By luck or providence, they are still alive at this moment. Of course BLP applies. O3000 (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion has been supported by Jingiby, Oranginger, Finnusertop, 94.163.57.203, Rich Farmbrough, and Dervorguilla. It has been opposed by O3000, Tsumikiria, and Roger 8 Roger. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

References

BLP policy applies to small groups, not large ones

See WP:BLP, under § "Legal Persons and Groups" (WP:BLPGROUP).

This policy does not normally apply to material about . . . entities regarded as legal persons. . . . The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups . . . must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group.

A statement about a long-dead person (Havard) isn't a statement about a large organization or building (al-Noor mosque). --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC) 03:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 03:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The STICK nutshell says, "If the debate has died, don't revive it." It ought to be obvious that this debate is very much alive.

Except that someone keeps trying to hide Jingiby's, Oranginger's, Finnusertop's, Rich Farmbrough's, and my comments - which support a growing consensus to add.

The WP:DIS behavioral guideline (which you've now indirectly cited) warns that a disruptive editor may get blocked for a while. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

You obviously don't read consensus. Counting tallies on editors isn't how Wikipedia debates works. On top of that Oranginger and the IP are SPAs coming from nowhere with this article being the IP's only edit. BLP violations on talk pages must be procedurally folded. Allegations from parents are laughably insufficient - no courts or law enforcement have ruled that the Mosque is directly responsible - and inserting this would be a blatant WP:UNDUE WP:SYNTH. And BLP protections obviously apply - the Mosque isn't a large enterprise and this obviously contentious "radicalized a terrorist" accusation directly negatively affects the life safety of people related to the mosque - it may incite another shooting. We must be extremely careful as we're dealing with people's lives. Also, fair warning, Dervorguilla, you have made 29 posts in this page within last 30 hours. This is construable bludgeoning and POV pushing. If you want to continue, then use dispute resolution or RfC properly. Otherwise, please stop. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 05:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

"The Mosque isn't a large enterprise"? Please read the citation I added to the article lead and then advise us whether this unsupported statement could (justifiably) outrage some of the 3000+ people it serves. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

"Serving 3,000+ people" isn't the same as "hiring 3,000+ people". Try again. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 06:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed it isn't. Please reread O3000's comment. "The leader of the mosque and the other members who have been accused … are still alive.… Of course BLP applies." (Emphasis added.) He can explain this policy interpretation better than I. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Was the leader of the mosque or other living members actually accused of anything? I thought the parents had just said that Jones radicalized him there, not anybody else. -Oranginger Mar19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oranginger (talk • contribs) 19:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Unhide the discussion please, we were posting reports from 2014, not writing novels from 2019. -Oranginger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oranginger (talk • contribs) 04:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Halal dispute

We should document the Halal dispute that took place c. 2003, it pertains largely to MAC, but the organisation and the mosque are for many purposes the same entity. This it seems, fed into other disputes, including the local Muslim community preventing an attempted take-over by a radical group.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC).

By same entity do you mean that Muslim Association of Canterbury should redirect here? Does this association include any other mosques? Or is ANMC the primary mosque which runs the association? -Oranginger, Mar 19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oranginger (talk • contribs) 19:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

most southern til 99

The history say:

Built over 1984–1985, Al Noor Mosque was the world's most southern mosque until 1999.

The source https://www.salatomatic.com/spc/Riccarton/Masjid-An-Nur/XFXXBFR6Gk says:

During 1984-85 the South Island's first mosque, Masjid An-Nur or Mosque of Light, was constructed in Riccarton. It was the world's southern-most mosque until 1999

Is "Masjid An-Nur" one of the names this is called?

" (Arabic: مسجد النور‎‎, Masjid Al Noor) " is what the introduction says.

"Nur" and "Noor" are similar but I do not understand if "An" and "Al" are the same in Arabic. -Oranginger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oranginger (talk • contribs) 19:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

If I remember rightly, a mosque opened in Dunedin in 1999. Schwede66 19:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Masjid is Arabic for mosque and nur appears to be an alternative transliteration from the Arabic. Unsure about "An". This could be an alternative spelling, or an error on the part of the author. I have no doubt about the identity of the mosque in the source, however (it's Al Noor Mosque).--Hazhk (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Take a look at the oddly lettered signage:

MASJiD An-NUR

Canterbury Islamic Centre

Source: Canterbury Migrants Centre. --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Is it possible there is a mistake in مسجد النور ? Do we have a source for the Arabic? Perhaps "al" instead of "an" is derived from 1 character being off? -Very interesting color scheme with sign. I don't really understand it. Lowercase Us and lowercase Ns are basically a 180 degree rotation of each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oranginger (talk • contribs) 16:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

It appears that some of the letters fell off the sign. I wouldn't read anything into it. --Hazhk (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Daryl Jones Radicalisation

I would like this to be added to the page:

Between 2008 and 2012, radicalised and Australian man moved between Sydney, Christchurch, and Iraq attending Al-Noor Mosque known to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) at the time as a hotbed of extremism and training. 174.0.51.43 (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The "hotbed" was is another country and making that claim on this talk page is a biographies of living people violation. O3000 (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

So the hotbed was definitely Al-Noor Mosque - that's pretty clear from the article. I've since removed the person's name (who is dead, not living). I recognise that I'm not an expert editors - but, it seems like you're unfairly opposed to this information being listed here. 174.0.51.43 (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, what reliable source says anything like that? Show exactly where this exists. O3000 (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

We're opposed to disinformation being listed here. It's clear from the article that the "hotbed" was Lakemba, not al-Noor. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Sunni Islam

A minor point: Could someone please find a citation for this affiliation? I have searched (including in Erich Kolig's works on Google Books), but have been unsuccessful. I did not want to put in a template for shallow reasons: it ruined the look of the Infobox. Te Karere (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Salatomatic cited now. Nurg (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Transliterations of building name

Arabic: مسجد النور is best transliterated as Masjid al-Noor, Masjid al-Nour, or Masjid al-Nur. All three forms are correct. (The first is the most familiar to English-speaking readers.) See Chicago Manual of Style, 17th ed.

11.79 The Arabic definite article. … Chicago recommends joining the Arabic definite article, al, to a noun with a hyphen. al-Islam; al-Nafud; Bahr al-Safi; al-Qaeda

11.80 Arabic capitalization. … Note that al, like the, is capitalized only at the beginning of a sentence or a title. Abd al-Rahman al-Jabarti

So why does the building signage read “MASJiD An-NUR”? Chicago explains it: "In speech the sound of the [letter] “l” in al is assimilated into the sounds d, n, … and z. Where rendering the sound of the Arabic is important (for example, when transliterating poetry), the assimilations are often shown. an-Nafud". Also, "the Arabic alphabet does not distinguish between capital and lowercase letter forms".

I haven't found the building's legal (Commonwealth-English) name yet, but “Al Noor Mosque” is obviously OK for now. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Based on your sign image at https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5704d4808259b5e516e04c66/t/57cfa00ee58c6242311c1e67/1473224743688/ I think it would be nice if we could represent their name the way they choose to...

مسجد النور
MASJiD An-NUR
Canterbury Islamic
Centre

I tried to center it but that seems to interfere with doing the green background, I'm not sure why. Does it seem about right? I'm not sure how to perfectly emulate the colors on the sign. Could we include this somewhere on the page out of respect? -Oranginer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oranginger (talk • contribs) 16:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Or you could just ask the Mosques task force and WikiProject New Zealand whether one of their members would be willing to photograph the mosque from that perspective. (You could post a copy of your image to graphically illustrate your concern.)

PS: At the end of each post, you should add your signature by typing: " --~~~~" Thanks! --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Yo. Just coming by to drop this article most have overlooked, members of the Mosque are on record as rejecting Daryl Jones and his brother, Nathan Jones, as radical and deviant. They were chastised by members of the mosque and by all accounts, never came back:

http://stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/10317612/Suspected-terrorists-brother-rebuked?fbclid=IwAR0UqgcdJFmWGLZ1Gi5JXIx4Fhh7-HiaRs5nz9Zow4bnu2yyUssNzdGmoWI

Dorkrex (talk) 02:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)dorkrex

Daryl had never gone to the mosque at all. ("The mosque can't remember Mr Jones." Newshub, "Christchurch Mosque Linked".) Nathan did - and he came back, more than once. ("After the incident ... [Nathan] Jones rarely visited the mosque." The Press, "Suspected Terrorist's Brother.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

2014

This sentence would (concisely) describe how the mosque had been represented in the local and Australian press:

In 2014, the New Zealand and Australian press reported an accusation allegation that an Australian man had in early 2011 learned about radical Islam at the mosque.

References

Under the WP:BALASP policy, we ought to mention the news reports but limit their treatment to no more than 25-35 words or so. I don't know whether this particular phrasing makes the best use of that (hypothetical) quota, however. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 07:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 00:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC) 02:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC) 06:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

This suggests that the mosque had something to do with this (if it happened at all), as opposed to some person(s) at the mosque. And, where's the connection to this incident? O3000 (talk) 12:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I think Der is right that we should report this, but O is right that it is too vague. The report was specifically from the mom/stepdad and they were specific in that it was from 1 specific person (the guy he was killed with) who he met there. To not specify that could wrongly imply that it might be others at the mosque, when no reports have specified that. There is basically 2 key parts:

• "Mosque leaders confirmed Havard stayed there and studied in 2011" (Stuff)
• say their son was taught radical Islam in Christchurch, where he also met Mr Jones"

Since mosque leaders confirmed he stayed/studied there, I think it would be okay to print that. Leaders did not deny that Havard met Jones. I think the most reasonable explanation is that they mean their leaders (imams) did not teach radical islam. Jones was clearly never an imam there, so he does not represent the place, but the parents' statement indicates that they believe Jones met/recruited Havard at/around the mosque, one would assume as a fellow attendant and not as any kind of official there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oranginger (talk • contribs) 16:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Note Oranginger, who has made many comments here, has been blocked as a sock. O3000 (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Like any other unproved accusations on any other BLP page, it's better off leaving it out per WP:UNDUE. There is no way it can be explained (seemingly) neutrally without it being accompanied by a paragraph describing all opposing claims. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@O3000: The passage makes the claim that in year 2014, in Australia and New Zealand, there were mainstream press reports of an accusation that in year 2011 someone had learned about radical Islam at the mosque. What this may reasonably suggest is that some persons living in Australia in 2014 may have read or heard about reports of that accusation. (Did one or more of those persons take those reports to heart? The article doesn't address that question.)

To a normal interested reader, the passage doesn't really suggest anything about the current (year 2019) leadership.

In 2019, the mosque did become the location of a sensational shooting incident. Some normal readers may (justifiably) ask, why did it become the location of that incident? Was it because this mosque's current leadership was somehow different from most other mosques' current leadership?

This passage may or may not suggest otherwise. (Perhaps this depends on the reader.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I think you've explained exactly why this doesn't belong here. The only reason to include it is that readers may make a connection. A connection with zero evidence. And that's on top of the fact it is something parents said their son said that some unknown person(s) said. And, the sources don't even agree on what the parents said. If, in fact, he was introduced to radical Islam at the mosque while he was working there for three months under court ordered community service; how do we know it simply wasn't one of many people visiting with whom he just had a chat with at some point. This is incredibly tenuous for a claim that will suggest in the minds of many a terrorist connection at this mosque. O3000 (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tsumikiria: This content makes the claim that the stated accusations were reported in the local mainstream press. I've found nothing to suggest that the accusations weren't reported. I know of nothing in any RS that would oppose the claim that they were reported.

This passage, as drafted, would amount to just one-seventh (14.8%) of the article's total body content, as calculated by substantive character count. (152 ÷ 1028 = 0.148.) That may fall within well within the WP:BALASP section of the WP:UNDUE policy.

The WP:BLPGROUP section of the WP:BLP policy has been been discussed above and can be further discussed there if need be.

May I propose as a compromise that we omit part or all of the three ref quotes? --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 21:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Accusation against whom? How can we even consider including an accusation when we don't know who is being accused and what the accusation is? What does introduced mean? And only one source used that word. This is the definition of vague. O3000 (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I do need to substitute a term like "allegation" for the term "accusation". In this context, allegation just means a party's statement of a factual matter as being true or provable, without its having yet been proved. (Black's Law Dictionary.)

The term introduce, as used in the refquote, most likely means to bring to a knowledge of or into intellectual acquaintance with something <introduce readers to the poet’s works>. (Merriam-Webster Unabridged.)

The definitions of vague are given in the guidelines on words that may introduce bias and expressions that lack precision. Which section are you referring to? --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The sources appear to state that the only "source" of the allegation is the person's parents; there is no evidence that this claim was taken seriously by anyone, nor is there evidence that the mosque or any of the people who ran the mosque were investigated by police or intelligence authorities; there are zero follow-up stories which suggests that there was no veracity to the claims whatsoever. Absent such evidence of any substantive truth to the claim, there's no reason to include this unsupported non-expert speculative claim made once and then forgotten. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Good point. We need to add another RS or two as evidence that the international mainstream press took this "non-expert" allegation seriously enough to report it.

In 2014 the New Zealand and Australian press reported an allegation that in 2011 an Australian man had learned about was taught was introduced to radical Islam at the mosque. Imam Hisham el-Zeiny denied the allegation. He told Radio New Zealand and said he had not heard any radical people anyone talking radical views there. He told ABC News that many Muslims are angry about US drone strikes in Yemen and that the mosque's leadership is "spending most of [its] time trying to lessen the effect." University of Otago professor Richard Jackson said it was "far-fetched" to think that Havard learned about radical Islam in Christchurch. He said such allegations would "fuel Islamophobia" in New Zealand.

There may be more. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC) 19:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC) 19:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC) 01:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC) 06:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC) 06:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC) 16:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC) 17:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC) 22:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC) 00:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

...allegation that in 2011 an Australian man had learned about radical Islam.... "Allegation" isn't even correct. Unless there is a new law or rule against learning about something. O3000 (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing myself. I'm rewording that sentence to make it clearer. Also abridging the Newshub refquote. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

How many sources say he was taught anything at the mosque? He worked there for three months. Should we add to the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia that some people have learned about radical Islam, or pipe bombs, poisons, etc. from reading Wikipedia? Sorry, but that this is coming up years later with completely different people, it appears like an attempt to justify terrorism. O3000 (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

At least three reliable mainstream sources say his parents made an allegation that he was taught radical Islam there. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't believe that is true. I've looked several times. Either they are duplicate sources or they say different things. I'm tired of looking at the same claims over and over and finding them to be lacking. Indeed, if any source used that quoted text, I would question their reliability. The only source that makes such a bold quote that I have seen is the famous neo-Nazi, white-supremacist site stormfront. O3000 (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

(←)

• ABC News, "Australian Not Radicalised, Says Preacher"

suggestions [he] was radicalised

mother and step-father told 7.30 [he] had encountered radical Islam

prime minister acknowledged some people are being radicalised

• Stuff, "Kiwi Lad's Death"

parents said he was introduced to radical Islam

leaders denied radical teaching took place

• Newshub, "Christchurch Mosque Linked"

parents say [he] was taught radical Islam

parents say [he] told them he was first taught radical Islam

mosque denies teaching radical Islam

Three mainstream sources say his parents said he was introduced to radical Islam there or was taught radical Islam there. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC) 01:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Learning about radical islam and being inspired to murder 50 muslims are not connected. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I concur. So, let's move on. Here are two interesting questions that some visitors may ask themselves upon reading this material: Why did the shooter select as his target a mosque whose leadership has for five years or more been spending most of [its] time trying to lessen the [radicalizing] effect of US drone strikes – not amplify it? Had he been inspired by the Joneses' widely reported allegation (which concerned matters that would have taken place long before)?

Per OR, we can let those visitors reach their own conclusions about whether the shooter may finally judge himself to have been – by his own standards – not a champion, but a fool. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

We haven't the slightest idea why, and should not be adding material with zero evidence that it is relevant suggesting it is. It's like the phrase "just saying". This phrase is used to excuse all manner of offensive material and nonexistent connections. Like, "that Pizza joint logo sure looks like a pedophilia symbol -- just sayin'". No, we should not be adding a possible event based on third-hand info, with different people from years back to push the readers into an incorrect assumption that maybe the mass murderer was protecting us from some greater evil. O3000 (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I concur. As Roger 8 Roger points out, the events are not connected. So, let's move on. --Dervorguilla (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

In 2014 the New Zealand and Australian press reported an allegation that in 2011 an Australian man was introduced to radical Islam at the mosque. Its imam, Hisham el-Zeiny, denied the allegation and said he had not heard anyone talking radical views there. The president of the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand said that mosque officials had told a member of a Salafi group not to promote his views there. He El-Zeiny told ABC News that many Muslims are angry about US drone strikes in Yemen and that the mosque's leadership is "spending most of [its] time trying to lessen the effect." University of Otago professor Richard Jackson said it was "far-fetched" to think that the man had learned about radical Islam in Christchurch. He said such allegations would "fuel Islamophobia" in New Zealand. Victoria University professor Paul Morris said such allegations ought to get "raised and addressed".

References

Same text as before, minus the editing markup. Comments welcome. Added a sentence to the Jackson refquote and changed 'Havard' to 'the man'. Trimmed two refquotes. 'Imam' -> 'The imam' (per a NewsNow story, “Christchurch Mosque Denies Radicalising Yemen Drone Victims,” which says he was still imam in 2014. Added sentence about Ghani's statement. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC) 00:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC) 01:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC) 04:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC) 18:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC) 02:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC) 02:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC) 02:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC) 03:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The link added by Dorkrex (talk · contribs) in the sections above and below this appears relevant. Suspected terrorist's brother rebuked I think it would be appropriate to incorporate this link in any coverage of the allegation.-gadfium 05:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Dorkrex's claim failed verification. --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC) 01:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC) 06:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

See Dorkrex's comments of

• 02:28, 23 March 2019
• 02:31, 23 March 2019

and my reply of

• 04:01, 23 March 2019

--Dervorguilla (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Added: 'The president of the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand said that mosque officials had told a member of a Salafi group not to promote his views there'; and incorporated that link. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC) 04:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

In ref quote 1 (Schwartz), removed own text 'an Australian man killed in Yemen was radicalised at a Christchurch mosque.' --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC) 02:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Added Victoria University professor Paul Morris said such allegations ought to get "raised and addressed"; changed refquote accordingly. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Addressing allegations of radicalism

Here's the proposed addition. Proposed location: a new graf (¶ 3) under a new subsection heading ('§§ 1984–2017') in § History. No graf heading.

In 2014 the New Zealand and Australian press reported an allegation that in 2011 an Australian man, Christopher Havard, was introduced to radical Islam at the mosque. Its imam, Hisham el-Zeiny, denied the allegation claims and said he had not heard anyone talking expressing radical views there. The president of the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand said that mosque officials had told a member of a Salafi group not to promote his views there. El-Zeiny told stated to ABC News that many Muslims are were angry about US drone strikes in Yemen and that the mosque's leadership is "spending most of [its] time trying to lessen the effect." University of Otago professor Richard Jackson said it was "far-fetched" to think that the man Havard had learned about radical Islam in Christchurch. He said added that such allegations would "fuel Islamophobia" in New Zealand. Victoria University professor Paul Morris said such allegations ought to get "raised and addressed".

References

Further changes or objections welcome. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC) 18:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC) 18:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC) 18:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC) 18:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC) 19:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC) 07:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC) 19:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC) 20:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC) 00:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC) 00:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC) 03:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC) 03:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support but also want further mention that it's the man's parents who made the allegation. This is a significant event for the mosque, resulting in reliable sources covering the matter. starship.paint ~ KO 08:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC) ☑
• Support in essence. Would just change the wording of "...Hisham el-Zeiny, denied the allegation and said he had not heard anyone talking radical views there." Maybe replace "talking" with "expressing"? If "talking" is in fact, an actual verbatim quote of what the imam said, then we should put it in quotes. It's a very awkward construction. 202.155.85.18 (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC) ☑

• Definitely replace "talking" with "expressing". starship.paint ~ KO 09:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC) ☑

• Comment I think the header should be modified. You should specify the name of the individual killed, and the allegation seems to have been made by his parents, which should also be pointed out. Unless there's been widespread allegations, which going by your own follow-up lines there doesn't seem to be, the header title puts too much undueweight on "allegations of radicalism". DA1 (talk) 09:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC) ☑ in part

One policy, PUBLICFIGURE, does give as one example: “… was alleged to have had the affair”. (Not “… was alleged by John Doe to have had the affair”.) Both are OK; the first is more concise. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Also you should actually elaborate the line where you quoted "fuel Islamophobia" (Jackson), which states '"Just because they were attending a mosque at the time, doesn't mean the mosque was connected" and feared such claims would "fuel Islamophobia" in New Zealand, adding "It would be very sad if that mosque was to be tarnished with that."' A separate quote by El Zeiny addressing the incident: "The thing is how did he get down there? Probably through the internet. They go through the internet and they can easily be drawn into those sites with radical views and go there." All these are crucial explanations that shouldn't be excluded. DA1 (talk) 09:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, let's mention the name of the man who was killed. To avoid ambiguity. starship.paint ~ KO 09:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC) ☑

• Oppose I suggest this: In 2014, the ABC reported a claim that radical islam was being taught at the mosque. There was no evidence to support this claim, which was denied By writing anything more we would be slanting the reader towards giving credence to the claim. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

None of these 6 sources say there was no evidence to support it. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I have not been following the sources in detail, but do they need to prove there is no evidence? The starting point is that there is no evidence, to be proven otherwise by the supply of suitable sourced evidence - innocent until proven guilty? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not for us to determine the veracity of the claims made, or to try and weigh the evidence that backs them. We just need to reflect what was reported in media coverage of this mosque. The claims were made, and they were reported in media coverage. In terms of how widely this mosque was ever the subject of media coverage before the 2019 shooting, this was probably the broadest it ever had. There's no reason we ought to be downplaying media coverage simply because we don't trust readers to appropriately weigh the evidence of claims made therein. 202.155.85.18 (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Just as an adjunct to the above: remember that wikipedia is not the truth. 202.155.85.18 (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Being reported by a source is not the only requirement for inclusion here. See weight and synth for two examples where other factors are considered. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to spot the WP:SYNTH policy vio. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Dervorguilla: - I agree with the rationale of Roger 8 Roger. What I propose be written is In 2014 the New Zealand and Australian press reported an allegation that in 2011 an Australian man, Christopher Havard, was introduced to radical Islam at the mosque. The allegation was made by Havard's mother and stepfather, and no further substantiation to that allegation was given in those press reports. Its inam... starship.paint ~ KO 03:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

We ought to consider whether Havard's real father would have concerns about seeing himself mentioned in Wikipedia. The BLP policy says: "Such material … must adhere strictly to all applicable laws.… We must get the article right." --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC) 04:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Dervorguilla: - it's likely his stepfather, since his stepfather doesn't have the surname Havard and is explicitly identified by ABC News. Thank you for your careful attention on this matter. Edited my comment above. starship.paint ~ KO 03:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
• @Dervorguilla: - I'm adding the sentence I proposed above. starship.paint ~ KO 06:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Allegations, claims, or suggestions?

"A preacher has denied suggestions...." ABC News.

"Parents said ..., claims vehemently denied by leaders." The Press, 2014.

"Leaders vehemently denied the allegations, many were disturbed by the claims.... El Zeiny was concerned that people could take the claims.... Community wanted to protest against the claims.... Such claims would fuel.... Morris said allegations of radicalism...." The Press, 2015.

"allegations": 2; "claims": 5; "suggestions": 1. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Substituting denied the claims for denied the allegation per WP:IMPARTIAL policy; sources describe them as "allegation" 2 times, "claims" 5 times. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Okay, denied the claims. starship.paint ~ KO 03:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Father or stepfather? Or omit?

Sunday Star-Times, Newshub, and The Press describe Dowrick as Havard's father ("parent").

ABC News describes him as his "stepfather".

El-Zeiny (interview, Checkpoint) doesn't describe the Dowricks; he just describes the claims. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Added hidden text "<!-- omit "parents’"; cf. Schwartz ... -->". --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

It's likely his stepfather, since his stepfather doesn't have the surname Havard and is explicitly identified by ABC News. starship.paint ~ KO 03:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2019

Members of the NZ Muslim community and this mosque in particular *specifically* rebuked Daryl Jones and his radical beliefs and essentially kicked him out of the mosque in July 2014:

http://stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/10317612/Suspected-terrorists-brother-rebuked

Seems an important fact to add in lieu of people trying to justify the shooting after the fact. Dorkrex (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

Failed verification (obvious discrepancy). --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC) 05:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Daryl never visited the mosque; this specific person is his brother Nathan; Nathan was promoting Salafism, not violence; and he did visit the mosque again (more than once). But here's a full citation, which you're welcome to add.

References

Also, please read Matthewson (reference 5):

Richard Jackson, of the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at Otago University, ... feared such claims would "fuel Islamophobia" in New Zealand.... Victoria University Professor Paul Morris ... said allegations of radicalism … creates an opportunity for these issues to be raised and addressed.

The allegations did get raised in New Zealand, by at least four mainstream sources. They got addressed there too, by academic experts. And in hindsight, it looks like they didn't "fuel Islamophobia" there.

The allegations also got raised in Australia, while the shooter was living there. In hindsight, it looks like they may not have gotten addressed well enough.

Here's how that Australian Broadcasting Corp. (ABC News) story addresses them: Mr El Zeiny says the mosque was not a place of radical teaching. "We are spending most of our time trying to lessen the effect of what the Americans are doing."... "The Americans are radicalising people."

The passage in § 2014 addresses those allegations at greater length. It may thereby help quench Islamophobia; indeed, the professors' (Jackson's and Morris's) statements seem like grounds for adding it forthwith. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't mention Havard's parents

It looks like Mr. Dowrick may be Mr. Havard's stepparent, not his parent.

"Havard’s mother Bronwyn Dowrick and step-father Neill Dowrick told 7.30 their troubled son had turned his life around after converting to Islam in Townsville in 2008…."

Dominique Schwartz, "Australian Killed in Yemen Drone Strike Not Radicalised in New Zealand, Says Muslim Preacher," ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), 4 June 2014

The WP:BLP living-persons policy says: "We must get the article right." The WP:HIDDEN guideline says: "If there is a reference which is known to be wrong, it may be appropriate to let other editors know about the error to prevent a likely re-insertion of the error." This can be done by adding hidden text. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

ABC News, Havard’s mother ... and step-father … told 7.30 their troubled son had…. (4 June 2014)

Newshub, The parents … say their son was taught…. (4 June 2014)

Sunday Star-Times, Australian Christopher Havard, whose parents said…. (27 July 2014)}}

The Press, Havard’s parents said…. (28 July 2014)

The Press, Havard’s parents told Australia’s ABC news last week [sic]…. (3 December 2015)

ABC News, REPORTER: What do you want from the Australian Government? NEILL DOWRICK, STEPFATHER (June, 2014): The truth. MOTHER: The truth. (9 June 2015)

I'm adding some hidden text asking editors not to insert either term. "<!-- omit "parents’"; cf. Schwartz, ABC News ("stepfather and mother") -->" --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Consolidated "controversies" section

I just felt like being WP:BOLD and went ahead and made my edit. Feel free to re-edit or roll back, just make sure to talk to me and/or talk in here.

I consolidated the management and radicalisation controversies into a single section. In doing so, I removed--

the alleged radical's name (maybe relevant to news, but irrelevant to the mosque), and

the two profs' opposing statements about radical Islam (two lengthy section on one person at the mosque disrupts the article's balance).

I preserved all the original inline citations, so readers can still find the information above from the sources.

I moved the new "controversies" section after the "terror attacks" section due to balance and lower importance. --Nemoschool (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)