Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Comparison to previous shootings

As a rule items in the intro should summarise more details found in the body. This is not currently the case with our current paragraph: "The shootings were the deadliest act of violence in New Zealand since the 1943 Featherston prisoner of war camp riot...". I suggest that we might create a section "==Previous shootings in New Zealand==", and limit the intro paragraph to "The shootings are the deadliest criminal acts in New Zealand history". Thoughts? This event is significantly different than the others, so including them in the intro is not really justified. - Snori (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like your main concern is the principle that the intro should summarise more details found in the body. That is not adequate reason to create content below the lead that would otherwise be undue. I.e, the body should drive the lead, not the other way around. So, is it due below the lead? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it is a legitimate question that a reader would have - "have there been comparable events before in NZ?". But honestly, as I note, there really isn't any comparable event, so yes, I'd be happy to trim from the intro *and* leave out of the body. - Snori (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The shootings were the deadliest act of violence in New Zealand since the 1943 Featherston prisoner of war camp riot where forty-nine people were killed. They are the first mass shootings in New Zealand since the 1997 Raurimu massacre as well as the deadliest criminal acts in New Zealand history, surpassing the 1990 Aramoana massacre.

References

Adding here so it doesn't get lost. I think a bit of background covering Islam in New Zealand, perceived safety of the country, rise of far-right ideals, Christchurch's current situation and our vulnerability as a target would make a good section beyond just "Previous shootings". I might work on something tonight. AIRcorn (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with those others who've said trimming it may be fine, but we probably should include something. And preferable this will include a link to the list of massacres in the article body rather than the see also. While for us Kiwis, and anyone else familiar with NZ, we're surely aware there hasn't been anything remotely in NZ before. For others they may not be. Aircorn's plan is a good idea, I also feel the article needs some minor coverage hence my comment above about incorporating the link to Islam in NZ. Nil Einne (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

"deadliest criminal act" is not in the reference given, I like the trim, but saying the few larger massacres were not criminal is a big call that does not need to be made.(Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)).

Ecofascism?

The article currently says that the shooter talked about eco-fascism and global warming in his manifesto. Be that as it may, what does it have to do with this article? If the perpetrator went on an incoherent rant, will we include all of it here? I suggest we keep only the parts of the manifesto that are relevant to this shooting.VR _talk 06:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Eco-fascism is one of the labels the shooter actually identifies with. Contrast this with terms like conservative which he emphatically rejects or right\left-wing or socialist which he considers dependent on definition. 人族 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Can't help noticing the very large and probably undue weight now being given in the article to what amounts to a call for further acts of mass murder by mass murderers. I realise there's always a libertarian streak in Wikipedia that wants to expose every last thing about these events and a similar, related streak, that wants to glorify them and use WP as a platform for spreading what right now is being actively blocked in much of social media - but is turning the article into a propaganda base for these maniacs really the best we can do? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, lets summarise his views in the POV of third party observers, not in his own POV.VR _talk 16:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The Video Copyright

Who owns the copyright over the video, if victim faces are to be blurred? Shooter's family? NZ government? Can we sample some iconic catchphrases like "subscribe to PewDiePie"?

NikitaSadkov (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It is presently the shooter's copyright. That will probably be lost upon whatever conviction he has but then will fall to the state (NZ). So no, we cannot include samples of the video at all. --Masem (t) 16:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Why do you believe he will lose copyright? Trade (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

We can include fair use clips of coyrighted works. Why do you think we "cannot include samples of the video at all", User:Masem? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Well true, we could, but it would be extremely distasteful to include them in the first point, and authorities are asking people not to share the videos, which we should also abide by. --Masem (t) 16:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Isn't the government's intellectual property automatically public domain?

Only in the US and maybe a small number of other countries. Also I should clarify even in the US, it's only the federal government and it's, only stuff the federal government creates. It does not apply to copyright transferred to the federal government. Nil Einne (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Where does the conviction thing mentioned earlier come about? Are you suggesting a instrument forfeiture order will be used? I wasn't aware that even covered copyright but I guess copyright may be intangible personal property so perhaps it does although I admit I haven't heard of it being used in that way before but I don't pay that much attention. But that's an interesting point especially in light of the above discussion, since it seems to me it's questionable if the video was really "used to commit, or to facilitate the commission of" if the offender is just charged with murder and attempted murder. If the offender is charged with committing a terrorist act, then I guess it probably would. If they're charged with some cybercrime offence, then maybe it is, but I doubt it will meet the 5 year minimum threshold. (Well I'm assuming it's based solely on the offence that the video was used or facilitated the commission of.) But then again, I wonder if the government could confiscate without a conviction using the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009. Nil Einne (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Media has to be hosted on wikimedia, and to be hosted there it has to be free of copyright. I've been down this road over far ore trivial things. I can't see it being hosted.Mozzie (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Eh? AFAIK, there's nothing stopping videos being hosted on en.wikipedia, the same we do with images. It's generally better to host them on commons if they meet commons requirements, but it's fine to host them here if they don't but meet out requirements. E.g. content copyrighted in the country of origin but not the US, or content allowed under NFCC. To be fair, there must be very few videos which are allowed under the NFCC since in most cases a small number of frame captures would probably be enough but still..... In this particularly case, I'm very doubtful that even frame captures would be allowed. What can they possibly convey that can't be adequetly conveyed with text? Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe my understanding of this is a bit out of date. Can anyone say if non Wikimedia media is allowed on Wikipedia? Can we include YouTube videos in articles?Mozzie (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

As indicated above, content on Wikimedia Commons must be free in both the US and the country of origin. The English Wikipedia accepts files that are free only in the US and it accepts fair use files in a very limited number of cases. See also Wikipedia:Non-free content. The vast majority of Youtube videos will qualify neither for upload to Commons nor for local upload on the English Wikipedia. GMG^talk 17:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

(EC) Well it can't be 'out of date' since commons postdated en.wikipedia and content under fair use (or other acceptable content) was never completely forbidden on en.wikipedia. I'm confused what you mean by "non wikimedia media", but it's trivial to find a NFCC content since for better of worse, it's a fundamental part of en.wikipedia. E.g. File:Just_Dance_cover.png. I don't know what you mean by "include YouTube videos". Content will need to be uploaded to en.wikipedia or commons and will need to comply with the policies for each. For commons, the basic relevant requirement is that it's under a suitable licence, or is in the public domain in the US and the country of origin. For en.wikipedia, it either needs to be under a suitable licence (although in that case it's generally preferable to upload to commons), in the public domain in the US (if it's 'also' in the public domain in the country of origin then again commons is likely a better choice), or it meets out NFCC including having a fair use rationale. As I already mentioned, the number of videos for which this will apply is very small. Actually if you're talking about whole videos copied from elsewhere it's probably zero since even if there is some compelling reason why the video is needed, it probably doesn't apply to the entire video but instead only a short portion of it. Note that because NFCC is so difficult for people to understand, it's probably not worth thinking about unless you're already fairly experienced with our copyright norms. And since cases where content is public domain in the US but not the country of origin are also so rare, it's probably fine to simply think that you should probably only be uploading content to commons. In other words, it's not that it's forbidden to upload content here, it's just that there's no reason to since you should only be uploading content which can also go on commons unless you really understand what you're doing. Nil Einne (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

We could host YouTube content on Wikipedia, but we might as well just link directly to a picture of a black page or a gray screen with three dots to save time. Wnt (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

One other thing to add: maybe in the future a still or short segment of the video may be appropriate but it would have to satisfy NFCC. This means the image should be iconic of the attack or significant in the investigation. Appropriate uses of such non-free would be the Columbine High School massacre (that video replayed extensively on news that made it iconic to the incident) or the Boston Marathon bombing (the security video shot of the brothers on their way to plant the bombs). But in here, it will be a matter of time - maybe days, weeks, or more. Right this moment, it would be inappropriate. --Masem (t) 18:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Any video posted should take special notice of WP:SHOCK, especially given the expectation of readers that they will find suitably encyclopedic material on Wikipedia. Rivselis (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

THat's why I mention the time element. The Columbine image would definitely be shocking, but it is clearly part of the historical record of the event. Nothing I've seen yet has that for this attack, but that could changes, but we need to wait for time to understand that. --Masem (t) 20:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

If there's an iconic image or frame from the video that most of the reliable sources utilize in their coverage, I do agree with including that. Even if the video was in the public domain (it's not), I believe it would be poor form to include the entire video. Tutelary (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Dylann Roof

It may be because it's a local story where I live but this article and maybe others lists a connection to Dylann Roof.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Perpetrator name

Should we add the number of people that were Captured that were in connection with the attack? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FultzXD (talk • contribs) 08:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Is it usual to name the perpetrator? They seem to be out for glory. Why hand them that? --denny vrandečić (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. We should note the facts, when they are reliably sourced. But, as always, we should do so with a neutral POV. Ross Finlayson (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Usually the perp is named when charges are laid so I'm unsure whether to keep it here.  Nixinova  T  C  03:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The name of the perpetrator is obviously relevant factual information about the incident. If a crime is committed, it is relevant who did it. It should be included. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

As of now, keep it in the article but not in the infobox. - Josephua (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

And not in the lead, IMO.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, many articles about shootings mention the perpetrator in the lead. To avoid an edit war, I moderated the tone. I hope you approve of this. - Josephua (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

That is why the article states before your edit that Tarrant was one of the perpetrators. - Josephua (talk) 04:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

He is just one shooter of several and this is early. There are IEDs for crying out loud. Why should we give this one guy such a prominent place in this article. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Because he is the only shooter that was confirmed by the police. If more names are revealed, they will go in the lead as well. - Josephua (talk) 04:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

If you want to add the name, do so with a reliable source. I'll remove unsourced claims. --denny vrandečić (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Sourced here: https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/live-gunman-named-four-arrested-christchurch-mosque-attacks-leave-significant-number-fatalities - Josephua (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Denny, the name in the lead was sourced. - Josephua (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Now it is sourced. It wasn't when I removed it, at least not obviously enough.

Still: Can we remove the name from the lead? There's a whole section on the perpetrators later, isn't that sufficient glorifying? --denny vrandečić (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not consider mentioning that someone has committed a crime a way of "glorifying" that person. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it is when he is the only one mentioned in the lead. There is more than one person involved. Mention in the body only. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

He is the only named perpetrator at the moment, others can be added as information is revealed. The perpetrators are very important parts of this event, as they caused the event in question. Newaccountfortalkpage (talk) 06:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Leave in the lead. The lead summarises the article and the people involved in the attack are going to be a large part of the article. AIRcorn (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Making famous? Popularizing? Spreading the word? Giving a platform? Helping the perpetrator reaching a larger audience?

What information need is being fulfilled by giving the name in the lead? How is this relevant knowledge? Look, I'm not saying here put the name away entirely - although I wouldn't be opposed to that, but I understand why this would be a difficult position to take in Wikipedia - but I am saying that it seems sufficient to name the name in the appropriate section. --denny vrandečić (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Because it lets us know who perpetrated the shooting. Look at the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Orlando nightclub shooting, and Virginia Tech shooting, all of them mentioning the shooter in the lead. This is not meant to glorify the shooter but to inform readers who did it, and this article should reflect that. - Josephua (talk) 06:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this, removal of information based on personal feelings is not helpful to the integrity of Wikipedia as a source of information.Newaccountfortalkpage (talk) 06:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newaccountfortalkpage (talk • contribs)

You are right. This should be resolved through policy. We shouldn't name shooters in the lead if there is a more detailed section coming anyway, but this requires a community decision, outside of the context of a single article. --denny vrandečić (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The lead sumarises the article, so if their is a more detailed section then it is even more justification to mention it in the lead. AIRcorn (talk) 06:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree their names can be included in the lead with more detail later.Mozzie (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

In accordance with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons we should take care not to recklessly defame anyone lest they be innocent. Having said that it is entirely appropriate to include their names given suitable sources. Censoring their names to avoid giving them attention is not a consideration.Mozzie (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Why does the article say two shooters? No source on that. All indications point to a single shooter. Change the article.

This is Wikipedia. You can change it. No. You should change it (if you think it would improve Wikipedia). Mozzie (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree Brenton Tarrant appears in an anti-doping ruling. cant confirm atm if its the same guy. The shooter is reported to have worked as a personal trainer so the occupation and name fit. https://www.asada.gov.au/news/rugby-league-athlete-receives-sanction-3 Verify references (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

If you can't confirm it, don't risk defamation on Wikipedia's part by saying it.Mozzie (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

actually the question wasnt really an agree or disagree question so im not sure if i agree. I mean, yes we should post the name now that a reputable source has identified the attacker. Verify references (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, it is completely inappropriate to remove the name from the info box. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Horrific but maybe should be mentioned?

According to stuff I've seen (e.g. [1] warning detailed description of the video), the video shows the shooter shooting the bodies on the ground multiple times, even going outside and reloading or getting a new gun perhaps in part so they can do this. I assume to try an ensure there was no chance of survival and no one was hiding among the bodies. This is sort of mention in this news.com.au source [2]. Can anyone find a better source? While one the one hand, this almost seems like an unnecessary gratuitous detail; on the other hand, it seems to speak to the shooter's intentions and also may be a factor in the casualty figures.

On a related note, there's also been reports based on an interview that in the Linwood attack, someone was able to wrestle the gun off the shooter. He escaped and while I haven't seen reports of what happened after, he did apparently have multiple guns in his casecar so this may not have stopped him. But it seems possible this helped reduce the casualty count there as people were able to run away. Still too early IMO, but may be worth keeping an eye on. [3]

According to stuff I've seen, someone also attempted to tackle the shooter in the Al Noor mosque but unfortunately didn't quite make it. I've seen this mentioned in at least one okay source [4], again maybe something to keep an eye on.

Possibly always going to be too minor to mention? but apparently the shooter also had some sort of strobe light attached to their gun at least at the beginning. (I think was mentioned here [5].) From what I've seen suggested, in the video the it doesn't seem to be that bad, but of course video tends to be a very bad way to judge how bright something actually is.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC) 15:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure how much weight we should give these first-hand accounts now. There is usually a lot of confusion from eyewitnesses. I am sure in due time, once reports are corroborated we will get a clearer picture of how events unfolded. AIRcorn (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, only one of them is a first hand account. All the rest are based on the video, not first hand accounts. Sadly I'm not sure anyone survived to give first hand accounts of the rest. We obviously need more RS to comment, but if they agree with these interpretations of the video, then I think they're worth considering. (I think we need more comment on the significance of the strobe light too before we add it.) And for the 1/4 that is based on a first hand account, when I said 'worth keeping an eye on' I meant 'see if it's corroborated and accepted'. Independent corroboration is likely to come for the first and last in time I suspect, although I'm not convinced we need to wait for that if the multiple sources agree with the interpretation of the video. Nil Einne (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

With the death of the SMH story we only had Post Millenial source for the strobe light bit which I suspect may not be an RS. But found one now [6] so all of these are covered in RS although I think we need more sourcing. Nil Einne (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

We can do this tastefully...Mozzie (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

PewDiePie in the Reactions Section

Do we really want to know what some guy called PewDiePie has to say about this? I acknowledge his YouTube channel was mentioned by the attacker, but it seems incongruous to have his views alongside those of world leaders. I moved mention of him and his YouTube stuff to another section. Surely that's enough. We don't include the views of, for example, the Christchurch police chief in the Reactions section, so why this YouTuber? Silas Stoat (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The fact he was called out makes him much more relevant to the situation than random world leaders offering condolences. Without this, the article suggests PDP may have been complicit in the attack. --Masem (t) 18:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

AKAIK he is the most popular youtuber of all time, with an audience larger than probably many prime time television shows. GMG^talk 18:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

From where was he called out? His views are of no consequence whatsoever. He speaks for no one, unlike the world leaders. By all means put some text in somewhere to state that he had nothing to do with it - maybe even quote him - but not in a section that's obviously designed for the reactions of world leaders and the like. As for him being the most popular YouTuber of all time - until today I'd never heard of him - and I don't live a sheltered life! Silas Stoat (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

[7] GMG^talk 18:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Just wondering, did you waste your own time putting that puerile shite together? Silas Stoat (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

[8] GMG^talk 19:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

If that's aimed at me, you're wasting your time again. I'm not even going to click on the link. Grow up! Silas Stoat (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

That's a bit hostile, and certainly not WP:AGF. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 19:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

As per this reference [9] He is the most popular independent youtuber and is often in trouble for his 'ironic'racism. Under WP:NOTE and WP:NPOV he shouldn't be given undue prominence in the article, but a few lines are appropriate. Perhaps his text should include some additional details on his ironic/casual racism.Mozzie (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay guys, a bit of silliness going on here from all of us, nothing too dramatic, but why has some randomer (must be an admin I guess), come in and removed the edit history for the above comments and over 20 more edits? Silas Stoat (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• The deletions are unrelated to this thread Silas Stoat. Somebody posted material either copyrighted or disruptive (it's relating to a video link, so the reasoning could be either). As a result any version of this page that contained the link had to be suppressed. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, understood. Thanks for that. Silas Stoat (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• • <ec>It was me, it wasn't random. See my note at the bottom of the page - no links to the video. .Acroterion (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It looks frankly bizarre to have world leaders abbreviated into one paragraph, and then PewDiePie gets his own paragraph.--Calthinus (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

It's an unusual situation because of being called out with having no other role in it. I definitely don't think we need his full quote, just at least the part far distancing himself. --Masem (t) 01:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: actually not unusual given the number of people he cited. Do we also have to include Candace Owen's response (which did happen on Twitter)? Or Donald Trump's where he said white supremacists were a "small group of people here"? The page appears to be suspended on a slope with no friction but that is not how the laws of physics or symmetrical treatment on Wikipedia work...--Calthinus (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The mention of the attacker calling out PDP's name is across the media. This directly affects his person, and he quickly distanced himself from any involvement. On the other hand, neither Owen or Trump or others were not affected at all by the attack in a direct manner. Mind you, I would have no problem moving PDP's response elsewhere that would be appropriate - maybe aftermath? - for what reasons you say, just that we absolutely need to include it from a BLP aspect. --Masem (t) 01:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Was just about to add (edit conflict) -- a better idea might be to mention this in the suspect's own section, like (in the aftermath of the shooting, PewDiePie expressed his disgust... etc.--Calthinus (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2019

It should be included that President Trump also described the incident as a terror attack, for the sake of impartiality.

Source: https://www.cnn.com/asia/live-news/new-zealand-christchurch-shooting-intl/index.html

just maybe say in the sentence which says that the NZ pm did it, "as well as US President Donald Trump" PoliticalPhilosopher(91939) (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

A better source might be needed as this is a "live news" page (might change quickly over time). BeŻet (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Trump matters on American news and these shootings (temporarily) matter on American news, but Donald Trump does not matter to these shootings. That aside, Arden said "terrorist attack", not "terror attacks". Those are different statements. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please gain consensus for this proposed edit. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019

Add to Reactions section:

During the Pakistan Super League knockout fixture, Peshawar Zalmi and Islamabad United took the field sporting black armbands following a minute of silence that was observed at National Stadium, Karachi to mark the terror attack. 58.27.134.33 (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: No indication this is a notable reaction EvergreenFir (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Video sound? (eta: the PM's response video)

Small refactor of title to make clear this is not the attack video --Masem (t) 20:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Is the sound on the video screwed up for anyone else? It works fine if I view the file on Commons, but the audio is completely gone if I view it locally. GMG^talk 16:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

This is not relevant here. This page is for discussing the Wikipedia article only. Ross Finlayson (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The video is in the article. GMG^talk 18:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

It shouldn't be. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe the OP is referring to the video of the NZ PM making a statement on the crime - as far as I can tell, it plays fine within the article - in Firefox, anyway.HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I...really didn't think I needed a boat load of context when I'm talking about the difference between viewing a file locally and viewing it on Commons. Apparently Chrome has Wikipedia muted by default? Anyway, not an issue with the file or the preview it seems. GMG^talk 19:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Chrome has an option to automute autoplaying videos (eg like in the "popup" window when you click). Check that. I would also recommend further help at WP:VPT otherwise. --Masem (t) 20:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Alt-right category

Is it necessary? I'm not trying to slander anyone, but is it necessary at all? SmokerOfCinnamon (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

alt-right is American centric term. He isn't alt-right. Anti-capitalist, enviro fascist, racist seems to be his "ideology" but people seem to want to box him into the various groups they oppose. ConstantPlancks (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Anti-capitalist is somewhat of alt-right idea, as groups like Identity Evropa and the Traditionalist Worker Party were both anti-capitalist. Yet again though, both are/were American organizations. My apologies if you (or others) thought that my edits did not seem that constructive. SmokerOfCinnamon (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

So we began to take a Nazi at his word? He chose those labels to deliberately sow division and while concealing the nature of his intentions - a white supremacist/neo-Nazi. Categories and bottom panels are meant to be broadly construed, and his online communications are clearly in the category. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 18:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

References and content to consider for inclusion in article

Please consider this for inclusion in the article, as per what the headlines say. -

1. In New Zealand gunman’s manifesto: Invaders from India, and enemies in the East (SOURCE: 16 March 2019, NDTV)
2. New Zealand Gunman's Manifesto Called Indians, Others "Invaders" (SOURCE: 16 March 2019, The Indian Express)

DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Why doesn't it say "right wing" anymore?

I thought wikipedia wasn't censored? Why are we pretending like multiple reliable sources haven't called the terrorists "right wing"? 71.218.98.55 (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

From which part of the article was this deleted? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Background

I think it's important to have a general background paragraph about muslim community in Christchurch to understand better what happended there. On Googlebooks there are some useful books written some years ago:

• Erich Kolig; Malcolm Voyce (2016). Muslim Integration: Pluralism and Multiculturalism in New Zealand and Australia. Lexington Books. p. 122. ISBN 9781498543545.
• Erich Kolig (2009). New Zealand's Muslims and Multiculturalism. BRILL. p. 225-230.

--Holapaco77 (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The cited source doesn't really seem to support any claim that this mosque was in any way actually linked to "radicalizing" anyone; anonymous uncited "suggestions" don't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I just pointed out that at the moment we know all about this crime, but nothing about the muslim community of Christchurch. Just write a short paragraph about. --Holapaco77 (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Such unverified information violates WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE, as well as WP:BLP. Inserting hate-filled falsehoods from Daily Stormer that the mosque had somehow radicalized people is a brazen attempt to justify the shooting. You still haven't answered what source you read gave you the impulse to include it in the article. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tsumikira: Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I didn't use anything from Daily Stormer. I just suggest to read two books published many years ago that talk about integration and multiculturalism in New Zeland. Then, personally I think that nothing can justify the killing of innocent people. Never. --Holapaco77 (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Holapaco77 - it may be appropriate to include some background context as you mention, but not all the info you previously copied from Al Noor Mosque, Christchurch. Nurg (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nurg: ok, don't copy. Just start write something about muslim community of Christchurch. When the mosque was founded? How many muslims are in Christchurch? I red that muslim community, expecially South-Asian muslims, is very well integrated with the society of Christchurch and they increased the economy of the city. Do you think is ok to write this? --Holapaco77 (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2019

Change heading to Christchurch Terrorist attack. As it certainly was not just a "shooting" . Megfalconer (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: It was already decided that the page title should not describe the attack as terrorist. Check this current discussion about how to word the lead. (You can find a link to the discussion of the page title there.) ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Direct link to previous discussion (move request) on renaming the article:

Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings/Archive_1#Requested_move_15_March_2019

Oska (talk) 06:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat template

In this edit a template was added to the article based on what was said in the edit summary to be an "assumption". To me, this looks like a lesser violation of WP:NLT more than anything, so I took it out. What do you think? Wnt (talk) 06:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The template is not a legal threat, but nor is it strictly necessary. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Deadliest attacks in New Zealand?

Is this one of the deadliest attacks in New Zealand? If not, the deadliest? The article should state something. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

My own feeling is that these sorts of statements are tasteless and could be seen as encouraging perpetrators to "go for a new record", as disgusting as such a motivation would be. Wikipedia has a List of massacres in New Zealand article; readers can make their own comparisons there on numbers of fatalities etc. Oska (talk) 06:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Oska. Also this is a little complex and will quickly lead to original research. If you must, then see what secondary sources are calling it, the media love this kind of hyperbole? (Dushan Jugum (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)).

We already have a link under "See also" to List of massacres in New Zealand. As you'll quickly see if you look there, we've not had anything comparable in intent, so there's no point in adding any sort of comment in the article itself. - Snori (talk) 06:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I was not aware there was such a competition. WWGB (talk) 06:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Even if it is, let's wait for a WP:RS to say so before adding it. Melmann (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Crime or murder?

He has been charged (but not convicted) of one murder. Should the article be categorised under "crimes" or "murders". Do we have to wait for a conviction? If so, can it still be categorised as a crime? Hugo999 (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

It is completely obvious he did commit mass murder, we don't need to wait until the courts confirm that. He literally livestreamed it. So yes a murder category is okay.  Nixinova  T  C  22:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree on WP:BLPCRIME grounds. Murder is a specific crime. Nobody has been found guilty thereof yet. TompaDompa (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't confuse what some court decides versus what history will call this - that's up to responsible historians, journalists, etc. The fact that he committed mass-murder is beyond any speculation. 50.111.50.240 (talk) 09:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019

Brenton Harrison Tarrant, a 28-year-old Australian, is suspected of carrying out the attack. He was arrested on Brougham Street after the attacks.[30] Mobile phone footage showed his car had been rammed against the curb by police before his arrest at gunpoint by two officers.[31] He appeared in the Christchurch District Court on 16 March, where he was charged with murder and remained in custody. During his court appearance, he smirked at the media and made an OK gesture. The case was transferred to the High Court, with his next appearance scheduled for 5 April 2019 24.244.23.216 (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 09:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Terrorist connection claims

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

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

(ec versus censorship) The main problem with putting that here is that you have to show a connection. For example if the killer said he was attacking the mosque for that reason, or for any other reason the sources covering the massacre mentioned it, then it would be relevant here. Otherwise it can only be included at Al Noor Mosque. There's also a problem that another source gives another name: [10] which says "Masjid An-Nur mosque" and also argues against the radicalization being there. You might also see an argument about how distinctive the news is, since the U.S. has droned so many people by now that it's hard to picture a big city like Christchurch being left out, but I think that should fail. Bottom line: you have to learn how to crawl before you can walk. An-Nur (disambiguation) gives an Al Noor Mosque in Saudi Arabia as a synonym, but you ought to document if the one in Christchurch has other names, and what the variation in names means. See if you can expand other framing information about that article - what is the mosque known for, what is its philosophy? Then you can see how this and other controversies you'll probably find fit into it. But I think you will end up finding that this is a rather minor, salacious detail -- and only for the mosque article. Wnt (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

terrorist recruitment center is sourced to The Daily Stormer and doesn't belong anywhere. O3000 (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

It is certainly over the top rhetoric, but a mosque is not a person, so despite the tastelessness of it, BLP doesn't apply. It is true that a swallow does not make a summer and two people do not make a terrorist recruitment center, even if that much happened. I don't think redaction is appropriate but if you must redact, redact those three words in the title only. Wnt (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I redacted not only because there is zero evidence, but because the source was The Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi site. O3000 (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

"Jones was killed alongside Australian Christopher Havard, whose parents said he was introduced to radical Islam at the Al-Noor mosque in Christchurch.

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

The shooter's manifesto specifically states he targeted mosques that radicalized/recruited jihadi's. Its pretty relevant and provides a fair balance to all these claims that he was just a nazi. 120.28.235.138 (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

So, your evidence that the mosque was a terrorist recruitment center, which you have stated outright in a heading, is a manifesto written by a suspect in the killing of 49 Muslims? O3000 (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

|}

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

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

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

Here the part of the manifesto is mentioned by an RSS that explains the target of the attack was due to its history of extremism

https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/police-confirm-dunedin-property-linked-terror-attack 120.28.231.52 (talk) 10:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Why the terrorist used guns ? Can this be added

I just went through his 74 page manifesto and he states that he wants balkanization in the United States, can this be added ? Look at the following from his Manifesto

• Why did you choose to use fire arms?
• I could have chosen any weapons or means. A TATP filled rental van. Household flour, a method of dispersion and an ignition source.A ball peen hammer and a wooden shield. Gas,fire,vehicular attacks,plane attacks,any means were available.I had the will and I had the resources.

This conflict over the 2ndamendment and the attempt ed removal of firearms rights will ultimately result in a civil war that will eventually balkanize the US along political,cultural and,most importantly,racial-lines. This balkanization of the US will not only result in the racial separation of the people within the United States ensuring the future of the White race on the North American continent,but also ensuring the death of the “melting pot” pipe dream. Further more this balkanization will also reduce the USA’s ability toproject power globally ,and thereby ensure that never again can such a situation as the US involvement in Kosovo ever occur again(where US/NATO forces fought beside muslims and slaughtered Christian Europeans attempting to remove these Islamic occupiers from Europe). The-dodo-bird (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Nothing should be added directly from his manifesto, unless RS point it out on the first place. Cinadon36 (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Cinadon36, there are some reliable sources please take a look, I think it's notable that he used guns just because he wants he wants balkanization in the States.

1 https://nypost.com/2019/03/15/suspected-new-zealand-mosque-shooter-hoped-to-spark-civil-war-in-us/
2 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6812653/Christchurch-shooter-supported-Trump-launched-attack-spark-civil-war-U-S-manifesto-says.html
3 https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/3/15/18267163/new-zealand-shooting-christchurch-white-nationalism-racism-language
4 https://www.telegraf.rs/english/3042010-i-will-balkanize-the-us-and-ensure-that-nato-isnt-on-muslim-side-like-it-is-on-kosovo-the-terrorist-murdered-49-people-and-he-announced-vengeance-for-the-death-of-thousands-of-christians
5 https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/03/15/when-the-president-inspires-violence/
6 https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article227843934.html

Who are the other people involved?

The wikipage says "On the day of the attacks, authorities stated that four suspects were arrested, one of whom was released that day. Also on that day, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern initially stated that three suspects were connected to the shooting, and the last person arrested was not connected. New Zealand intelligence officials had told the Prime Minister that there was no information indicating more suspects were involved other than those four already arrested" What happen to them? Who are them? if they are involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigre-samolaco (talk • contribs) 11:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

They were released because they were not involved; their names were not published. Fin. WWGB (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes the next paragraph explains what happened with the other people arrested or see here [11]. As WWGB has said, there's almost no chance the police will release the names of these people in relation to the attack. Nil Einne (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Did Brenton Harrison Tarrant act alone in both locations? If the other three people were not involved, is there anyone else part of the crime yet to be arrested? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigre-samolaco (talk • contribs) 12:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• @FloridaArmy: - you trimmed the info which was relevant to Tigre-samolaco's second question above. Still think it shouldn't be there? starship.paint ~ KO 13:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  To be fair, the trimming happened after the question above so even the original wording doesn't seem to have been clear to Tigre-samolaco. Either that or Tigre-samolaco didn't read it despite it being suggested to them. Nil Einne (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)