Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

RfC about keeping suspect's/suspects' name in lead

Result: Not passed; click here for discussions and closing comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Should the lead section have the suspect's/suspects'perpetrator's/perpetrators' name? - Josephua (talk) 06:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Question amended .... Unless anyone has proof that all the people arrested/questioned/charged or named are guilty .... they are suspects. WP:BLP applies on talk pages as well as articles. The apparent level of proof at this stage has no bearing on that. Pincrete (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Support - Keeping the perpetrator's name in the lead section 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) 06:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC) I still can't believe this RfC is not over yet. :/ - Josephua (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC) Support - Also there will be more names as other people who were involved in carrying out the shootings have been arrested but their names are not released yet.Resnjari (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose too soon, let give it a few hours to make sure its the accepted perpetrators(s) Gnangarra 06:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC) we dont want to creating a circular source by outlets getting the name from us Gnangarra 06:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose as per WP:SUSPECT "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.". 202.155.85.18 (talk) 06:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose undue in the lead at this time. The mention in the body is enough at this time until their names are ubiquitous in RS. If it is going to happen anyway, why not wait until we are sure. Wikipedia is not news and there is no deadline.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC) If we are not sure then it shouldn't be in the body. The lead is not a special place that has higher verifiability criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 07:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Agree with this. If it is not suitable for the body of the article, it is not suitable for the lead. In fact, anything not included in the body shouldn't be included in the lead, period. "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article..." MOS:LEADREL There are a few exceptions, but this isn't one. DiscantX 11:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC) This whole RFC has got quite confused. When it started the name was comfortably in the body and there were arguments over whether or not it should be in the lead as well (see #Perpetrator name). It was removed from the body early on in the RFC and the discussion has now morphed onto whether the name should be mentioned at all. Some of the early !votes (including mine) were based on it being in the body. This could be interesting as since it is an RFC it will be open for at least 30 days and then could take who knows how long for someone to close it. BLP requires us to keep the name/s out until consensus is reached so it will be at least a month before we can mention them even if this closes in support. Since the question has changed to suspects we can't even mention their names as suspects unitil this closes. If it closes as oppose (which is looking likely at this stage) then we will have to either start a new RFC or wait for a conviction (which fits in with a lot of the !votes anyway). AIRcorn (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Support This rfc is about mentioning the perpetrators in the lead, not whether or not they should be mentioned at all. They are a major part of the incident and should be mentioned in both the lead and the body when confirmed. AIRcorn (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Comment The question is - "Should the lead section have the perpetrator's/perpetrators' name?"... Yes, provided that the lead comprehensively covers other aspects of the incident too. And if they are in the lead it implies they are in the main body. In the case of this attack yes, it should go in the lead. But the victims also need to be mentioned, why were they targeted, a random location, specific target etc if sources are there for the same? But in certain cases though, not this article, this will have to be tackled on a case to case basis and this cannot be an all inclusive concept. Careful consideration though is needed in terms of timeliness for this kind of information so as not to spread misinformation even more, even if it can be reverted. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose – undue in the lead at this time, but fine elsewhere. Later, if convicted, the names could go in the lead. Akld guy (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Wait (24 hours or so) We should wait and see how mainstream media are covering the subject. Most prob. he will get significant coverage.Cinadon36 (talk) 07:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose per the Wikipedia policy at WP:BLPCRIME, they should not be named in the article at all unless convicted. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Support the lead should make it clear that they are suspects/not convicted. DeFacto I strongly disagree with your interpretation of WP:BLPCRIME. The article states: This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. Since the suspects are being, and will undoubtedly be covered extensively in the media, they will become well known (and well known specifically for these attacks). This section aims to prevent people from posting information about incomplete criminal proceedings that are not related to a person's notability. For example if a sports person was charged with some random crime, it would be inappropriate and potentially defamation to include that information until convicted.Mozzie (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose per WP:BLPCRIME. Nobody has been convicted of anything yet. This can be revisited later, after the trial. TompaDompa (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC) WP:BLPCRIME does not apply here per Common Reason. It is not a matter of dispute whether Brenton Tarrant[1] committed part of the shootings. Cinadon36 (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC) @Cinadon36: what do you mean by "Common Reason", I would have thought that as a Wikipedia policy, WP:BLPCRIME applies to all articles. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC) WP:BLPCRIME excludes those under the purview of WP:WELLKNOWN. BLPCRIME was developed to shield subjects from one-off allegations of crimes, over a single or two surces, appearing in bios of quite borderline-notable subjects. It was not meant to be used as a weapon to prevent mentioning the name of the terrorist, over these type of cases. Do a GSearch for the subject and look at the amount of reliable aources which have covered him. ∯WBGconverse 10:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC) @Winged Blades of Godric: are they a "public figure"? Have they been convicted wrt this incident? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC) What restrains you from performing a GSearch about Turrant and discovering the plethora of RSes that cover him? Conviction has not got anything to do with WELLKNOWN. ∯WBGconverse 10:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC) @Winged Blades of Godric: WP:WELLKNOWN implies a public figure. Are you saying that the suspect here was a public figure (despite not having a Wikipedia article about him) before this incident took place? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC) It doesn't matter that they weren't WP:WELLKNOWN before the attack. They are and will be well known now. WP:BLPCRIME is designed to protect people from being defamed by references to criminal proceedings that are unrelated to their notability.Mozzie (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Even if we go down the BLPCRIME route it says For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material (bolding added). It is a strong recommendation not to include information, but not a strict requirement. If anything falls outside that recommendation this is it. AIRcorn (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC) @Aircorn: we would have to provide a convincing rationale as to why this suspect in this article is a special case, over and above others in similar circumstances, deserving exemption from a strong recommendation in a BLP policy. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC) 12/24 hours will answer this just wait... we need to be sure we aren't being the source as in the Sydney shootings where newspapers were quoting Wikipedia on detail - then we cited them as facts. Gnangarra 10:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC) You do realise it could take a year to get a conviction (see 2011 Norway attacks). Incidently we didn't wait too long to post Anders Breivik's name.[2] AIRcorn (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC) He live streamed it. There is no doubt who he is and what he did. His name is already splashed over every newspaper covering the event, which is every newspaper. This is an unprecedented incident in New Zealand and probably one of the worst such attacks anywhere. I would be interested in what you think is enough? As it is we almost never wait for convictions before naming the offenders inthese types of articles, so it is not a "special case". AIRcorn (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose Too soon. Wait until the story unfolds. There have been no convictions, and Wikipedia is not the place to analyze primary sources. Even news sources at this point are either regurgitating each other, or making best guesses off of what little is available. At best a mention that there has been an accused without the name would be appropriate.  DiscantX 10:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose, the only way that would make sense is if the perp already had a Wikipedia article. Abductive (reasoning) 11:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Support. Are you people completely mad? An encyclopedia is supposed to navigate the sources, not conceal everything about the case including the name of the person in all the papers!!! I am very seriously considering putting this article to AfD for being too pathetic to live. Wnt (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC) I can understand your frustration, but that would be pretty WP:POINTy. Benjamin (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose This may be a case where we should ignore WP:BLPCRIME, but I don't think we should be hasty in doing so. These people do not fit WP:WELLKNOWN, because nobody had ever heard of them until today. We can just say "the police have arrested suspects" and leave at that until more sources are available. There's no rush to get this information out there; this is an encyclopedia, not a repository of breaking news. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Edit to be clear, I oppose having the name in the article at all for the time being under the same reasoning. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC) More sources? [3] AIRcorn (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Yes there are sources, but at this point they know little more than we do. Take one of the top links from your search result. [4]. It consists of a very rushed interview with a former coworker and an obituary no doubt found online. The article url contains "christchurch-shooting-brenton-tarrant-what-we-know" (emphasis mine) and the title is "Christchurch shooting attacker Brenton Tarrant was a personal trainer in Grafton," which suggests the title was changed after the article was written. The news is doing what it does best: Scraping together what it can as fast as it can in order to be the first to get the scoop. My point is these sources are not necessarily reliable as of now, and Wikipedia does not need to be the first to get the scoop.  DiscantX 12:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC) This makes no sense, the "scoop" has already gone. We write based on sources so there is no way we can have a scoop anyway, we are not wikinews. We never know more than reliable sources unless we are talking about editors conducting original research. No one is suggesting that. What are we actually waiting for. A conviction? That could take a while. Police to offically release the name of the suspect? According to BLPCRIME they still can't be named here. It seems strange for us, especially as an encyclopaedia, to go out of our way to hide a name that every other newspaper (including all the reliable ones) is using. AIRcorn (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose Printing names too soon can be damaging entirely to those otherwise un-notable persons, and is directly covered under WP:BLPCRIME as well as under laws in the country where the events took place. And we can not forget Richard Jewell etc. Damage to others is a serious possibility, all too often, and many nations therefore forbid publication of those names. https://qz.com/1493781/google-may-break-nz-laws-by-publishing-name-of-grace-millanes-killer/ for example. Collect (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC) @Collect: This is a reasonable concern. However, the RFC is not about a moratorium of minutes to days; it says nothing about a termination date. Moreover, the news coverage of this suspect's name (the first at least, but by now surely the others also) is already so thorough that he passes WP:WELLKNOWN. Even if all the papers are wrong, we would have an entire paragraph, possibly an entire section, about how the real shooter had misled police and "trolled" the public in order to frame an innocent man, and if that happened we should continue to add things about how the coverage had affected that innocent man's life going forward. Wnt (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Nope. NZ laws are clear, and the Jewell case is clear. Naming suspects is against policy unless the person is notable otherwise at the very least. Once the person actually stands trial - then is when this could be reconsidered. Your thought that this is a permanent ban on names is incorrect - both by policy and in practice on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC) The claims that he should not be named under WP:BLPCRIME are clearly wrong. Yet, you make a very good point. What are peoples thoughts about the relevance of NZ laws regarding not naming suspects? If NZ papers are naming him (idk) then surely it is ok for Wikipedia to do so.Mozzie (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC) NZ bars the naming by media. Period. The suspects are not notable under Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Collect (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC) I neither know nor care what NZ law says, as Wikipedia is in the U.S. With Europe poised to pass utterly awful legislation [5] that interferes with all sorts of news, I expect Wikipedia should get a lot more unapologetic about being very strictly an American national project. Wnt (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose Definitely inapt when people have not even been charged yet. If/when charged with specific crimes the situation might change, but it is certainly too soom at present. What would it add to anyone's understanding of the event? Pincrete (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC) ps everyone should be aware that these people are suspects as present (not perps - regardless of the seeming level of proof). BLP applies on talk pages as well. Pincrete (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC) don't indulge in these hazy posturings indicating at some violation of BLP policies over the t/p.... ∯WBGconverse 16:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Support, unless there's a good reason to be uncertain about it. Benjamin (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Support there is a credible source and it is described in the article as being stated by that source. WP:BLPCRIME states that you should consider it. WP:BLPCRIME does not prohibit it. the purpose is to avoid perpetrating contempt of court whereby you may influence the outcome of a case. this is publicly available information from a credible news source already in the public domain. we are not performing a criminal investigation on our own initiative. The name is relevant simply because the NZ police commissioner is withholding information in press conferences. he refuses to state whether or not they have identified the shooter which would cause alarm to the public. There may be other suspects but as of yet we only have information about the guy who actually shot a bunch of people. Verify references (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC) The name is plastered over the page now I'm way too tired from fighting over this page. If someone else can figure out a way of keeping the suspects name off the page until we get some consensus on whether we cal legally include it, I congratulate you.Mozzie (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC) I removed it and asked for an edit filter at WP:ANI. I can't think of anything else that we can do. AIRcorn (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC) The cat is out of the bag. there are five reliable references from 4 different news sources, some international. I could understand if they didnt also have pictures of his face from the livestream immediately before he continued to shoot people. I don't think there's any chance of smearing an innocent person's name in this instance. Verify references (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC) That certainly appears to be the case.Mozzie (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose; RSs at this point are restricted to some form of official speculation, and it can't hurt to wait for official government press releases. Iseult Δx parlez moi 19:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose in order to reduce exposure of the suspects. --denny vrandečić (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose per BLPCRIME; this suspect is not WELLKNOWN (he wasn't before today), and there's a long list of terrorist attacks where the media reported the wrong suspect's name. NOTNEWS means we don't need to name the suspect on the day of the attack. Leviv ich 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Comment The judge didn't grant name suppression.[6] Does this change anyones mind? AIRcorn (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC) I give up. No response at ANI and everytime I look back it is added again.[7] I actually think the name should be in the article so the opposes can enforce BLP and the current consensus from now on. AIRcorn (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC) It was I who made that edit you mentioned. I was unaware of this RfC (this Talk page is enormous) and I felt (and feel) that the name should be mentioned, also because there seems no reluctance at all to name the suspect in the major news outlets, and the court appareance today has confirmed suspect's identity. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC). I think there are good practical reasons for including his name. The debate on keeping his name out of the lead and keeping it out is taking up a lot of people's efforts. If we let it stay, this whole debate is over.Mozzie (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose What's the damn hurry? Wait a week or so. O3000 (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC) Support There are claims here that NZ bans publication of suspects' names. I don't know exactly when this is true, but this time the name of the charged guy is all over the NZ press. For example, each of the four top dailies (according to List_of_print_media_in_New_Zealand) has published it repeatedly, as has the government-owned TV channel [8]. There is no reason to suppress it here, provided of course that he is described as a suspect and not as the perpetrator. He must not be named as guilty until a court decides it. Zerotalk 02:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC) NZ has stringent name suppression laws to maintain integrity of court cases and avoid undue distress (e.g. the man charged with the death of Grace Millane in December 2018 has still not been named). In this case name suppression has been applied to the man Tarrant has been currently charged with murdering, but not to Tarrant himself ([9]). U-Mos (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict)Support As long as not worded to assume guilt prior to a conviction (which it currently is not), his arrest and charge is appropriate lead information. His name is widely reported, and a judge has ruled that it does not need to be suppressed. U-Mos (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose in the lead: unneeded; the name is not material at this point. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose as it is recommended not to publicise names of suspected perpetrators unless the person has been convicted in court. I understand the magnitude of this tragic event, but we must be mindful of BLP concerns.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC) Wait - Until the legal process has officially confirmed the names of the perpetrators, then put it in. I understand people's concerns about giving the person 'credit' but including it is encyclopaedic, also WP:NOTCENSORED. | 🔬🚆 |   Telo | TP   | 14:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose in the lead: Regardless of what the consensus is on BLPCRIME, the perpetrators' names shouldn't be in the lead. Making the name unnecessarily prominent plays into the perpetrator's desire for fame, and increases the likelihood of copycat crimes. There is plenty of research backing this argument . Keep the shooters' name less visible, and let the lead focus on the victims and other facts. That's not suppressing the facts, it's just not turning a murderer into a celebrity.Lijil (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC) Comment As per MOS:LEAD "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Tarrant is a major part of this article, and therefore should be part of a summary of it.Mozzie (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose I do support mentioning the name somewhere, but not in the lede. SportingFlyer T·C 04:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Support. For comparison, see for instance Orlando nightclub shooting and Pittsburgh synagogue shooting – why should this case be treated differently? Jürgen Eissink (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC). Support - a basic detail about the case, very relevant to understanding it, and something it would be wrong to exclude. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Support The WP:LEAD is supposed to summarize the main points of the article. One of the main points about the article is the subject's name. Otherwise, it's a central fact to this article. Tutelary (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Comment The current iteration, where Tarrant is discussed euphemistically as "the suspect" in the lead before being named below, is unavoidably daft and the very worst faux-compromise scenario. If he's not to be named in the lead, then that means information about him isn't deemed material enough to be fronted and so should be left entirely to the "Suspect" section. U-Mos (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC) Support. The perpetrator is a material part of the incident and not mentioning it in the lead section would be WP:UNDUE. feminist (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC) It does not matter. The important thing is that the body of the article contain this information. Whether the name of the suspect is in the lede or not is of relatively little significance. Bus stop (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC) Support. We aren't trying to guide public opinion. We are trying to write an article. Is the suspect an important part of the article? If the answer is "yes", then the course of direction is straightforward—include the suspect's name in the lede. Bus stop (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC) Support. Obviously the situation now is drastically different from literally the day of the shooting, which was when this RFC started. The suspect has been widely named by all sorts of reliable sources, has appeared in court, and has been denied a publication ban on his name. There is more than enough in the body (per MOS:LEDE and mirroring general coverage/relevance to have the name in the lede. Also, in this case, WP:BLPCRIME does not apply to the suspect, given that his actions instantly made him a public figure whose notability derives from this criminal act. BLPCRIME is meant to protect those who are genuinely relatively unknown. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC) IAR Oppose - Leading is not the Wikipedia way, but I'll say it anyway. The names of the suspects/perpetrators are immaterial. We do not need to name them at any point in the article or in time. A recent example of a step forward in this regard was the editorial consensus to refrain from creating an article for the Stoneman Douglas shooter. They don't need memorials, indeed we should refrain from memorializing them. Some of you are almost certainly familiar with the study that found that the media has a role to play in the uptick in mass shootings. The more attention they receive, the more like-minded narcissists will emulate them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia project and not the mass media, but it is by far the most viewed and easily accessible one in the world. It has an impact. So I'll propose an impossible counter-proposal expunge from the article completely. It's a set of syllables that conveys only one meaning: we made this person famous, and you can be famous too. pre-emptively, it is pointless to cite policy or guideline here. This is an WP:IAR proposal. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC) I would say that sometimes memorialization and providing good quality information overlap, as I think the two overlap when considering the inclusion or omission of the names of both suspect(s) and victim(s). They are one and the same, only varying slightly by the choice of words that we use. We can't rule out providing good quality information on the basis that such information is one-and-the-same as memorialization. There are no easy answers. We are writing about an event that many of us understandably don't want to speak about. But I think that only means that we must write dispassionately. These people have names. Therefore I feel that it is unavoidable that those names be included. As for whether the suspect's name should be in the lede, I think that is an unimportant question. I think it would be fine to leave the suspect's name out of the lede. Bus stop (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose If Wikipedia is not a memorial, why memorialise literally the person who needs it least? Times are changing, and so the site should, too. It has been recognised that notoriety contributes to the problem of further attacks. Think of it like this: If it turns out that having the perpetrator's name on Wikipedia increases the chances of another terrorist attack - by any amount, large or small - is it worth doing it? Vision Insider (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose And if the decision is made to put his name in the lead at least don't give him his own wikipedia page with his picture and a stats box. (This sickens me every time I visit it: Stephen Paddock.) We might as well print up mass shooter trading cards and send them to all terrorist groups. AndyBloch (talk) 06:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC) Your reason for opposing an article for himself is because it sickens you? Terrible people get articles all the time. Should we remove the articles for Hitler or Stalin? Alex of Canada (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC) More succinctly, AndyBloch, your argument has no basis in Wikipedia content policy. !Voting is not about personal feelings. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC) Mandruss, although I did add what seems like a personal feeling in a parenthetical about another page, my vote here was not based on personal feelings. But even if it was, I don't think it was out of line with Wikipedia's values, which trump any rule or policy you can cite: "With initiative and experimentation, we iterate our way toward making the world a better place, an excellent place." Is the way that terrorists are covered in wikipedia "making the world a better place," or does it encourage more terrorists? My view (call it a personal feeling if you want) is that many of wikipedia's articles about terrorists are not making the world a better place, because of some editors' excessive adherence to wikipedia's guidelines and policies, trumping its values. When terrorists commit murder because they crave media attention for their views or for themselves, wikipedia should not aid their goals or encourage copycats by unnecessarily increasing attention to them. Otherwise Wikipedia is allowing itself to be used for the worst kind of advocacy and propaganda. AndyBloch (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC) I propose that we trash all Wikipedia policy and just go by our personal interpretations of the Five Pillars, which trump any rule or policy anybody can cite. Think of all the time to be saved! ―Mandruss ☎ 05:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC) How about an actual argument? AndyBloch (talk) 05:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC) I concur that notoriety is part of the aims of terrorists. I don't think that the previous policy Wikipedia has adhered to, which normalises making a fuss over shooters, has in hindsight been a good idea. First and foremost, Wikipedia is for everyone. If we assist terrorists by drawing attention to them in a way that they are relying on to perpetuate their tactics, then we are not allowing Wikipedia to be for everyone, but to be complicit in aiding terrorists. This isn't an exaggeration: terrorists and mass-shooters want the fame. We are aiding their evil causes to help in that.Vision Insider (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC) Yes, lead section must include name of the perpetrator. Doing otherwise would be just ridiculous. As of today, there is no any doubts who that perpetrator was. My very best wishes (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose for now if there is no confirmation of who did it, though if there is it should probably be put in, per WP:NOTCENSORED. Additionally, for those opposing because of New Zealand laws, I don't think those apply to Wikipedia because its servers are in the US and therefore covered by US laws. SemiHypercube 12:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC) Support Whether or not the person is ultimately acquitted, they have become notable through their connection with this case. The purpose of the policy of not naming suspects is to respect their privacy. But extensive reporting of the suspect's name has made that moot. TFD (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose - generally seems not assured a lead spot, and in this specific case seems not to have become a famous name or for the name to figure prominently in coverage. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC) Support - Shouldn't even be up for discussion, really. Shooters/suspects in all similar attacks are in the lead. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC) Support. BLPCRIME really isn't an issue when the alleged perp's name is so widely reported (internationally, since the attack) and the alleged perp receives such in-depth coverage. The cat is out of the bag, and it is quite clear we should be naming him in the lede. We also should probably have an article - as exists on frwiki, dewiki, and 5 others. Icewhiz (talk) 08:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC) Oppose: Per WP:BLPCRIME (that indicates any mention in the lead or article is improper), WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not news. Otr500 (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC) WP:NOTMEMORIAL is irrelevant. It is concerned, as its name suggests, with stating that Wikipedia is not a place to establish memorials. Mentioning the name of a criminal suspect in an article is not a memorial and not something WP:NOTMEMORIAL was designed to prevent. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not news is equally irrelevant. The suspect's name obviously is of enduring interest in relation to the case. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC) Support - I'm all for journalistic integrity, but he is currently the suspect. Unlike most probably all of you, I watched the video personally of the attack. It is him. The kind of ambiguity that exists whether he is guilty is not whether he actually did it (he did, you'd be deluded to disagree), but whether he is culpable for the attacks (due to mental illness, for example). And, as you may see from other pages with legally insane perpetrators, they have no expectation of hiding their name in the lead. It is simply censorship that it hasn't been included already. - Shane1261994 (talk) 07:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC) Oppose: not needed at this point. ----K.e.coffman (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC) Comments Wikipedia:WELLKNOWN redirects to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Public figures and is not relevant. Trying to assert the person is a "public figure" by virtue of mention in sources does not make it so. While appearing innocent (Should the lead section have the suspect's/suspects name?) it is in affect asking, "Should the lead section have the suspect's/suspects name" against current broad community consensus? This RfC is seeking to gain consensus to over-ride existing policy which would then propagate changing policy by virtue of ignoring it. If it is to be that easy then an RFC on every instance would be sufficient to effect an over-ride and we should do away with all policies and guidelines. Of course, if we do that there will be no consistency only local consensus, and projects would dictate. I would suggest an RFC at WP:BLP so as to remove any suggestion of back-door politics. Short of that I cannot imagine how ignoring policy would improve the article. Failure to advance the name of a suspect does not diminish the article, follows that Wikipedia not to be a vehicle to advance sensationalism, terrorism, or possibly copy-cat's, protects privacy, and doesn't promote victimization. Comments that Wikipedia servers are in the US so laws of different countries don't apply could prove to be a slippery slope. This is the English version of Wikipedia and although we strive to copy all other Wikipedia's here, countries that predominantly speak English would seem to be part of this encyclopedia, regardless of location. "English is the predominant language in New Zealand, spoken by 96.1% of the population", so should we have a "New Zealand English Wikipedia" and maybe a "British English Wikipedia"? I would think the slippery slope of "if it isn't in the US it isn't relevant" should be avoided. Because the "cat may have been let out of the bag" does not mean Wikipedia should jump on the band wagon. Otr500 (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC) As evidenced by this RfC we are seriously considering not including the material. WP:BLPCRIME says "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." I hardly think that seriously considering equates to not including. I think we have discretion. In this instance the name of the suspect is widely reported. I don't perceive any gain for any party involved in omitting widely reported information. Perhaps you can present the argument, in practical terms, for omitting the name of the suspect. You mention "back-door politics". There has not been any suggestion of "back-door politics". The question is whether the suspect's name should be in the lede. This is related to whether the suspect's name should be in the body of the article. Is it your argument that the suspect's name should not be in the article? Bus stop (talk) 04:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC) BLPCRIME does not prohibit, merely require that we consider. Furthermore, in the partcicular case (as with most suspected mass murderers of a certain caliber) the suspect is probably also WELLKNOWN. The suspect certainly did not have an expectation of privacy given his manifesto, Facebook livestream, etc - it seems his actions intended to convey a message. BLPCRIME is intended for suspects in cases that receive much less coverage, and in particular situation in which suspects are named when they are suspects and not when proceeding against them close without a convinction. In this case, in the unlikely (the suspect seems to have admitted?) case of an acquittal, we will surely have coverage - and lots of it.Icewhiz (talk) 04:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Types of gun used

Re this edit: please don't add the make and model of the guns unless it is sourced to the official investigation. There are numerous "experts" who claim to have identified the exact make and model of the guns by looking at the livestream video, but these identifications could easily turn out to be wrong. Wait and see here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

That information may not officially become available until during or even after a trial, so we shouldn't add it until then. This is Paul (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

And even if it does become known, it may not be critical (the type of weapon rather than the brand has more weight to understand the brutality of this event). --Masem (t) 18:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Legal proceedings

This is prompted in part by the above discussion thread, as well as one or two other things I've seen recently. I'm wondering if we should add the {{Sub judice}} template to this article's talk page because of the ongoing legal procedings. New Zealand law is heavily based on English law, and remains similar in many respects, one of them being the rule of Sub judice. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The sub judice template was mainly designed for use with UK court cases where a person can get into serious trouble if they reveal information that a judge has banned the media from reporting.[10] Since this incident involves NZ law, I'm not sure how far this would apply.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I've just discovered we have a {{Sub judice and Contempt New Zealand}} template, so I guess it depends on whether there are any restrictions placed on what can be reported about the case. I know it's been an issue in the past with UK stuff, and although I've raised the matter I think this should ultimately be a matter for NZers to decide on. This is Paul (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

To me it sounds like a disclaimer or a legal threat more than anything. Without a clear source saying that online volunteers are genuinely subject to prosecution for talking about this case, which everyone else in the world is doing, I think it is inappropriate. Note that Wikipedia is not news -- per WP:NOTNEWS etc. -- it is not a producer of original thought or reporting. It is only an online encyclopedia which our members are keeping up to date, and to put a sign saying we think "sub judice" applies to them like press could conceivably put them in more legal risk, not less. Without a real reason I say stick to WP:NLT and leave it out. Wnt (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm down for respecting the judge's wishes to not depict Tarrant's face, obligated or not. In other articles, fair points supporting inclusion were made, but those same points don't really work in light of the court order; it'd just seem like fighting uphill to glorify him (regardless of true intent). Has any other general type of info been hushed? We won't know the details of what the mainstream press doesn't report, of course, and have no business relaying them from shady online corners. I think we're probably "safe" if we just follow reliable sources, as usual. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I note that the template is in use at Talk:Death of Grace Millane, and have added it here. It can't hurt to show it as a precaution. Akld guy (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:NODISCLAIMERS opposes this, and I still have heard no one even claim to have seriously researched whether unpaid forum participants are subject to "sub judice" when rehashing world news stories. Wnt (talk) 11:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Removed information about the manifesto

Looking at the article, I see that the fact that the author of the manifesto denies being a Nazi has been removed. I don't know when it was removed, or who did it, but I think that there is no justification for it. It conveys a distorted impression of the manifesto to mention its use of neo-nazi symbols and then neglect to mention that the author denies actually being a Nazi. I'm going to restore the information, and I would urge that it not be removed without a clear consensus and prior discussion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

That sentence has been there for a long time, so I agree in that sense anyway. But denying being a Nazi is a bit vague really. Yes, he's not a 1939 National Socialist. So what. So I suppose I see the rationale tor removing it too. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

We need to describe the manifesto in a scrupulously accurate manner. If we mention that it uses Nazi symbols but fail to add that the author denies being a Nazi, then that implies to our readers that he sees himself as a Nazi, despite the fact that he actually doesn't. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed for restoration of denial of being a Nazi. starship.paint ~ KO 08:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Our article says that the killer played "Serbia Strong" and cited Radovan Karadžić -- whereas the original Nazis derided Serbians as "Untermenschen" as described at Anti-Slavic sentiment, and they killed a lot of Slavs during their brief history. This is therefore not a trivial distinction. "White nationalism" implies the belief in a "white" race that does not consistently exist. Wnt (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

"Nazi" is probably the wrong term to use here. Something like "neo-nazi", "crypto-nazi", "nazi sympathizer" or "fascist" would probably be more accurate. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

We're not here to discuss our personal views of this guy, just how to describe his actions (and the manifesto) accurately. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not discussing my personal views about him, but he is objectively not a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party from the 1930s and 40s. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

He is actually a neo-Nazi which want to showcase New Zealand when in a terror attack based on the views, especially Muslims. Sheldybett (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

neo-Nazi. noun, often attributive. A member of a group espousing the beliefs of the Nazis. Webster's Third, Unabridged, s.v. "neo-Nazi"

Nazi. noun. 1. A member of the former National Socialist German Workers’ party founded on fascist principles in 1919…. Webster's Third, Unabridged, s.v. "Nazi"

Nazi Party: Definition, Meaning, History & Facts. … Political party of the mass movement known as National Socialism.… In 1920 … Hitler … formulated a 25-point program that became the permanent basis for the party. Encyclopedia Britannica, s.v. "Nazi Party" --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The Bosnian Serb Army, of whom the author of the manifesto seems to have been a big fan, were not Nazis either. Even so, it did not stop them from killing Muslims. The author of the manifesto does not seem to be a big fan of Hitler and his political system, but he is a far right figure driven by race hatred.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

If he denies it BLP means we must mention that.Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The gunman's ideology is a jumble that intersects between white supremacy and white nationalism. As it was mentioned above, one thing though on Serbs and Nazi ideology. It is true that Hitler and the ideology of Nazism as he defined it had hatred toward Slavs with one of those groups being the Serbs. But modern Neo-Nazi like ideology in many areas of contemporary Europe differs from the old variant in some ways and has found a home among fringe communities in Slavic countries such as Serbia (i.e see: Serbian Action) etc.Resnjari (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Of course we should report his denial. Readers can decide for themselves how to interpret it. It's not up to us to suppress it because we don't think it is accurate. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

It is entirely irrelevant how the shooter describes himself. What is relevant is how reliable sources describe him. I am sure the manifesto says a lot of things, and I'm not particularly interested in them (there are plenty of thoughts by actually relevant and smart people I'd rather read than those of a murderer).

I'll remove the statement that he allegedly writes that he's not a Nazi, and also remove the statement about the Nazi symbols. --denny vrandečić (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

How the shooter describes himself politically is as at least as relevant as anything in his manifesto. If you say that "It is entirely irrelevant how the shooter describes himself", you might just as well say that the manifesto itself is irrelevant and should not be mentioned at all. What you are not "particularly interested" in is irrelevant since the purpose of the article is not to please you personally, no more than its purpose is to please me. Furthermore, the statement about his denying being a Nazi in the manifesto comes from a secondary source discussing the manifesto, not the manifesto itself. The edits you are proposing ("I'll remove the statement that he allegedly writes that he's not a Nazi, and also remove the statement about the Nazi symbols") are inappropriate and would remove crucial information. I will revert them if you make them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree, the manifesto is irrelevant. I think it is entirely sufficient to have a single sentence about its existence, and that's it. Besides the initial reporting on it, I don't see any further reporting on it - it doesn't pass the test of time.

Once there are academic resources dealing with it, we can summarize those. But we shouldn't be repeating primary sources nor secondary sources who just repeat the primary source uncritically. --denny vrandečić (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

But you are right that it is indeed entirely irrelevant what I have interest in and what not. I give you that. --denny vrandečić (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The manifesto is obviously relevant. Your personal belief that it isn't is what should actually be considered irrelevant. The Christchurch mosque shootings are a major event that will continue to be discussed for a long time. They will doubtless be reevaluated and reanalyzed during that time, and almost certainly that will include new discussions of the manifesto. It is thus quite clearly false to say that the manifesto "doesn't pass the test of time". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Uhm, I already agreed with you that my personal believes are irrelevant. So, if the manifesto is as important as you claim, it should be easy to offer any relevant sources discussing it recently, besides the original flurry of unreflected publications? We should add that discussion to the article to establish the relevance of the manifesto. For me, and that is irrelevant, I am just saying it so you don't have to repeat it as well, the manifesto is a primary source, and besides that just the manic ramblings of a mass murderer which should be evaluated by the appropriate criminologists and psychologists. --denny vrandečić (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

You write "if the manifesto is as important as you claim, it should be easy to offer any relevant sources discussing it recently, besides the original flurry of unreflected publications". You are making an empty distinction. Everything written in relation to the attacks is recent because they happened so very recently. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

It's two and a half weeks since the murders. Anything from the last week? --denny vrandečić (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Why would there be? The manifesto has been available since the beginning. The manifesto obviously is not being expanded. There’s nothing new to analyse. The news has already analysed the manifesto earlier. You won’t get much more from the news, the next round of analysis would probably be scholarly, and that won’t be so quick. starship.paint ~ KO 11:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

User "denny vrandečić" wrote "the manifesto is a primary source, and besides that just the manic ramblings of a mass murderer which should be evaluated by the appropriate criminologists and psychologists." Bretton Tarrant outlines his motivations and plans quite clearly in his manifesto. It is very interesting material for people who want to understand what caused him to stage this attack. Jeff1948a (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, people do publish stuff about things that don't get expanded over time, because they actually matter. But here we are another week, and no one gives a thought to the manifesto. I do think that the section on the manifesto is far too long. We should summarize the relevant parts, and get rid of the rest. --denny vrandečić (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Why do we need 5kb on the weapons?

We currently have several thousand characters about the weapons and the scribbles the shooter me on them. This should not be the fully annotated guide to the weapons. This is by far too much detail on a single detail of the whole event, and gives the weapons far too much weight.

Can someone explain why such a huge amount of text is warranted for the weapons? That's undue weight on that. --denny vrandečić (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Please wait for agreement before removing any material on this subject. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

If there are no sufficient arguments to keep it I will remove it as per undue weight. There is currently more text in the article on the weapons than on the victims. --denny vrandečić (talk) 03:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Consider consigning all that to a footnote. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree that it's undue weight, not to mention in bad taste, even as a footnote. We don't need a lot of detail about his "manifesto" or the scribblings on his weapons. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Guys, the vast majority of the stuff IS in a footnote. It’s disingenuous to not mention that. It already has less weight. Mentioning historical battles isn’t bad taste. Nobody will read it unless they click “#11 Notes” in the table of contents, or the reference called [note 1], or if they somehow scrolled past the entire body of the article without going straight to the bottom. In the first two scenarios they clearly wanted to read the notes, in the last scenario they may have read the entire article already. starship.paint ~ KO 11:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose to any removal of that content. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Those "scribblings" were made part of the shooting on the weapons the gunman used to shoot worshipers at the mosque. There is multiple articles about the how the gunman was inspired by Serbian and other Balkan nationalisms, especially parts that had to do with anti-Muslim sentiment. The gunman did not act out of a void and its relevant for a reader to understand the wider context. Wikipedia is about informing readers, not limiting knowledge on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds. As @Starship.paint notes, the content about the weapons is already in a footnote.Resnjari (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

It is unusually long for a footnote and the text of the article already says that the alleged shooter was fascinated by the Bosnian Serbs. Both of the Notes go off into laundry list format, with the other note listing condolences in a way that is non-notable. Per past discussions, a long list does not add much of value.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

If were going to claim laundry list and laundry list that, then this article would be very small indeed because the reactions by world leaders would also have to go and so on, as some proposed in previous threads. The information about the guns informs the reader. The gunman wrote those names on his weapons and made it a prominent feature in the shooting. He viewed those figures as an inspiration. Some of those figures are in Serb nationalism, others from other Balkan and European nationalisms. In the days that followed the shooting that information on the gun was prominent in media reports about the event. My preference would be to have that content inside the article and not as a footnote. But a footnote is fine.Resnjari (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I removed the detailed footnotes on everything on the weapon (as discussed, this was undue weight). There were no specific arguments given why such a detailed list is warranted, after more than a week of discussion. --denny vrandečić (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Denny, i think you missed it. The thread had not died down. No consensus for removal of cited content.Resnjari (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I did not miss it. I don't expect consensus on such a topic - I haven't seen any arguments for actually keeping the detailed annotations on the weapons. You have stated your opposition, and I acknowledge it, but you don't provide arguments on why such a detailed list is not a violation of proportionality.

Also, stop adding the link to the manifesto. There is agreement on not having that. --denny vrandečić (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Denny I removed the link [11]. I gave you arguments for the other content. Its there above in the comments. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not sufficient. Do not edit war.Resnjari (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Where exactly it was agreed that link to the manifesto should not be here? There is link to Breivik manifesto in the article about 2011 Norway attacks - here - 2011_Norway_attacks#cite_note-manifesto1-31 Crusier (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

EDIT: If you are talking about this old discussion - Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings/Archive_4#We_should_NOT_post_any_links_to_the_Manifesto then I can't see any consensus there bout that. Crusier (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Crusier, Denny made unilaterial removals, not to mention that he surpassed 3rr in reverts.Resnjari (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Additional reasons. The gunman refereed had written "remove kebab" on one of his weapons, significant as he referred to himself as a "kebab removalist" etc and played the Serb song "Serbia Strong/Remove Kebab", all anti-Muslim references used by white supremacists. Readers have a right to know what alphabets the gunman used on his guns, and what those names where or of whom. I have not seen any attempt by you to even propose suggestion apart from deletion. Your solution is the complete and utter removal of sourced content.Resnjari (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the link. Your argument is that we should let the reader learn about the motivation of the suspect. The article does that - it states clearly that the suspect was inspired by nationalism and other attackers. There is no further insight to be gained by comprehensively annotating every single word on the weapon. This gives undue weight to the weapons. --denny vrandečić (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Short of having a separate article for the manifesto, which there is no consensus to do, there is no need to mention everything in it. It is important to summarize the key points of the manifesto, such as the alleged shooter's fascination with the Bosnian Serbs and Remove Kebab. However, the footnote contains excessive detail that does not add much to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

ianmacm wait, what? The removal is not about the manifesto. It about what was written on his weapons. For example the gunman had written "remove kebab", a slogan used by white supremacists that implies ethnic cleansing of Muslims on his weapon. He also scrawled other white supremacist symbols on the weapons and highlighted figures from Balkan nationalisms and other European nationalisms. Removing all that implies that somehow that was divorced from the actual event of the shooting. If its shrinking the section, thats different, but why remove all of it?Resnjari (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

"Remove kebab" is important, but the enormous list of the other references isn't, per WP:DUE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

ianmacm hold on, its not just the "remove kebab" bit, that section also contained a sentence on white supremacist symbolism on his weapons. About the names, i am not fussed, however in place of that a sentence or two needs to be in the article that the gunman had scrawled the names of figures from Balkan/other European nationalisms and significant battles between Muslims and Christians. This is notable and absolutely not WP:UNDUE. All i see in this thread is lets do away with the whole thing.Resnjari (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I also fail to see why these sentences The guns and magazines used were covered in white writing naming historical events, people, and motifs related to historical conflicts, wars, and battles between Muslims and European Christians, as well as the names of recent Islamic terrorist attack victims and the names of far-right attackers such as Josué Estébanez and Luca Traini. have singled out these names as notable and need to stay in the article, but remove the rest? This thread did not seem to discuss that before a delete the whole thing was decided as the way to go.Resnjari (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a great fan of footnotes at the best of times. Usually it is better to integrate the material into the main body of the article to show that it is noteworthy and important. The footnote had a huge list of rather minor references on the weapons that had not received major media coverage, leading to problems with WP:DUE. It would be better to summarize this information rather than listing it in full.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

As you say, the article does state that these scrawlings are there, and that they refer to battles, nationalistic ideas, etc. That's all there. All I removed was the detailed list that annotated all of these scrawlings. I do not know why the two names have been singled out - I am fine for them to be removed as well, thanks. --denny vrandečić (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion is, let's make sure that everything that is important is summarized and in the article. If there is anything in that footnote that you think is crucial for the article, we should resurrect it in the main text, and put it in the appropriate context. Furthermore, we should check what else in the article is not following due weight. I agree with you that there is considerable space for improvement. --denny vrandečić (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Denny "summarized" does not mean the complete removal of information that is relevant. Also another thing, the gunman used the word "Turkofagos", which also carries similar meanings to "Remove Kebab", but is an old term. Kind of significant considering what the gunman was doing on the day. The current sentence or two in the article minimises almost into obscurity the details about the weapons. As i said i am not fussed about the names, but the remove kebab bit, even the Turkofagos and the bit elaborating about the white sumpremacy symbolism should go back into the article and that if where not going to have names, its important that the sentence about figures scrawled on the weapons states that's its figures from Serbian nationalism and other Balkan/European nationalisms. Still until that is hashed out you should revert yourself as this thread is ongoing.Resnjari (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand. What does the term "Turkofagos" add to the understanding of the subject at hand, which is not covered by the sentence "were covered in white writing naming historical events, people, and motifs related to historical conflicts, wars, and battles between Muslims and European Christians"?

Maybe it would help to combine the sections "Weapons" and "Manifesto", because some of the topics you mention are covered in the following section, with references to the Serbian nationalists, etc. How does this sound? In a sense, the scribblings on the weapons are just an extension of the manifesto. --denny vrandečić (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Denny, the sentence should be split and partially expanded and elaborated upon. Also the both manifesto and his weapons are linked but not the same. The manifesto was his documented ideas. His weapons were the tool he used to carry out his ideas and he marked those with names and phrases that the manifesto did not use. Conflating the two would confuse it for readers, the same way now you state your confused. Condensing and summarizing to the point of nothing results in that. At the very least these sentences should be reincorporated into the article or elements or part of them with a few adjustments. Apart from the Latin alphabet, writings on the weaponry were in the Cyrillic, Armenian and Georgian alphabets. The markings included references to... the Fourteen Words and "Turkofagos" (Turk eater), a term used by Greeks during the Greek War of Independence. The anti-Muslim phrase "Remove Kebab", a slogan originating from Serbia that spread globally and is used by white supremacists, was shown on one of the weapons. On his pack was a Black Sun patch, and two dog tags: one with a Celtic cross, and one with a Slavic swastika design. Definatly the Remove Kebab one needs to come back in whole considering that the shooter made it a big thing during what happened. The others as well as the current sentence mentioned nothing about what alphabet the gunman used on his weapons or that he had white supremacist symbols scrawled on them.Resnjari (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Shall we escalate the questions whether we should have a link to the video, to the manifesto, and have thousands of characters on annotating the scribblings on the weapons and on the content of the manifesto? --denny vrandečić (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Denny, don't make this a strawman argument. No one said that the video should be uploaded and it would be utterly gross. The discussion is about details relating to the shooting as given through reputable media. Your whole deletion was inappropriate and should be reverted until something is worked out in the talkpage. What is now currently left in the article is insufficient on this aspect relating to the weapons. To much was removed.Resnjari (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

As i said before, there is little qualms about the names and battles, but if they go then a sentence or two in the article would need to make sure it covers what they were (in reference to the Balkan nationalisms thing, in particular Serbian nationalism). That's separate to the "Remove Kebab", and white supremacist bits as well.Resnjari (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Huh? I never said anything about an upload of the video being discussed. But as you can see a few sections below on this page, the argument for linking the video is being made. I want to make sure that any such decision has sufficient eyeballs to it, and was wondering what a good place to escalate this is. Regarding the topic at hand, yes, please add these parts to the text. I certainly don't claim that the current text is perfect. Feel free to add the parts you consider essential, and then we can keep iterating. Ideally remove less essential things at the same time.

I still think that merging the weapons and manifesto sections would make sense, in particular if both are going to discuss the self-proclaimed motivation of the suspect. When I have more time, I might have a go. --denny vrandečić (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you even reading your own comments? You just wrote in your previous comment Shall we escalate the questions whether we should have a link to the video [12]. Your basically equating my comments here about this issue as being being one short about discussing the uploading of the video which it is not. On merging the manifesto and weapons part i oppose it. They are two different things. The manifesto was complied prior to the event and was the ideological basis, the weapons were used during the event itself and contain written elements not in the manifesto. The article has already been slimmed down too much.Resnjari (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

There's a difference between uploading the video and linking to the video. Just as you, I oppose both, but I don't think I talked about uploading it, as you repeatedly claim I had.

And I think having a link to the video is similar to having a link to the manifesto, which is being discussed in this section, although not by you, for which I am thankful.

I agree that there is no need to slim down the article. That's not my goal. My goal is to ensure that we don't give undue weight to the inane words and scribblings of a mass murderer. It is not on us as Wikipedians to interpret and deduce the motivation of the suspect from his own words, that's up to actual experts in that area. And once the criminologists and psychologists have done their work and published their results, then it is up to us to summarize their findings.

I wouldn't consider a mass murderer to be a reliable and trusted source directly. I think that this judgement is in line with Wikipedia policies. --denny vrandečić (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I understand where your coming from, but to completely omit details that have been reported by many reputable media outlets and journalists does a disservice to our readers. Anyway i readded [13] some important refs that were removed and a sentence or two elaborating on the weapons without being overbloated, as per my comments previous above. I hope this resolves issues. Take a look Denny. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I think this is much better then the situation before. It also makes the important pieces much more visible, and doesn't drown it out in a sea of details. Thanks you for your contribution! --denny vrandečić (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Video

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

---

Is there any reason why a link to the video can't be put in the article? The media lies about things all the time. Perhaps people would like to see the source video for themselves. This is valid news as video footage of various shootings have been shown on the news stations before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.147.211.210 (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on coverage in reliable secondary sources and most of the sources that are hosting the video aren't. There is also the problem that some jurisdictions have said that links to the video are illegal, although Wikipedia is hosted under US law. Watching the video with a view to producing original research interpretations of it will not produce anything that can be added to the article. And it is very disturbing to watch. Wikipedia usually avoids this type of material, for example it does not show videos of beheadings or suicide bombings so that readers "can make up their own minds". If you want to find this type of material, you will have to search for it yourself.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Because it is illegal to distribute the video. Michael14375 (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• We can and should put a link to the video in the article. New Zealand law has no role here. However, we do have an issue that we need a reliably hosted video - obviously some sites like Encyclopedia Dramatica, even if they have downloadable versions available, would be well within their remit to tamper with it for purposes of trolling, while some others, like Bestgore, are likely to draw flack because of their unusual news focus and some of their comments exceptionally break BLP, etc. That said, it turns out that someone did upload two downloadable copies of the full video to archive.org a week ago, which ought to be usable here. Wnt (talk) 11:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

"Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate." (WP:GRATUITOUS). WWGB (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The policy you cite is about images and quotes. It doesn't even talk about citations for research, because it was written at a saner time. But in reference to images it quotes other policy that the only reason for including any image in any article is "to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter". It should be obvious that citing the video for direct research will do that. If you don't watch the video it is hard to understand just how quickly a large group of people can be attacked and killed. All the boyish fantasies you might ever have had about barricading the door and ripping apart the desks and arming the resistance with table legs to rush the gunman ... collapse the moment you see that one guy can go down the hall at a fast walk and leave nothing but death behind, in about 25 seconds. Wnt (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

If New Zealand law does not affect this version of Wikipedia and it is not illegal in the US, I think we should put the video here. - ❄️Steve ^talk? 14:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

But do warn New Zealanders that the video is illegal to watch. And, put it on the Bad image list so that vandals cannot use it to vandalize. - ❄️Steve ^talk? 14:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose because "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate." This video doesn't add anything to the article that can't already be gleaned by reading through it. I think the prose does a pretty good job of describing what happened. This is Paul (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• It would also no doubt lead to some very strong condemnation from the media. This is Paul (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per This is Paul, plus the principle of least astonishment, plus the fact that the video does not exist on any RS. I point to the Columbian shooting as an indicator of when we have video of such a tragic event where an image or segment enter the public conscious then it makes sense to include a frame or so. Nothing like that stands out from this current video (in part due to worldwide suppresion of it). --Masem (t) 16:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Paul and Masem: Your responses appear to be about uploading the video to Wikipedia, but the person above simply discussed linking to it. Wnt (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Whether linked to or uploaded the video adds nothing to the article, because the prose we have is descriptive enough to leave the reader in no doubt about what happened. This is Paul (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Same as Paul - whether uploaded or linked to, it would be inappropriate at this point in time. --Masem (t) 17:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose external links per WP:COPYVIOEL. There can be a fair use argument for uploading a small screenshot of the attack, because the attack is already discussed in gruesome detail in the Attacks section and the article has a top-level section about the video's distribution. Though I'd give higher priority to a photo of the Linwood Islamic Centre, as that is leadworthy. wumbolo ^^^ 19:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

support Well, the video is public domain. https://archive.org/details/christchurchfull - ❄️Steve ^talk? 00:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Can this be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons? there, it is freely licensed.

Just because it was posted at Archive.org with a license doesn't make it PD. There's a similar issue with "flickrwashing", people that have no right to a photo uploading it and tagging it w/ a CC license. This appears to be the same here as there is no indication this upload has any authority to upload it under a free license. --Masem (t) 00:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The availability on archive.org does not prove the video is free-licensed to Wikipedia standards. However, if a very reputable web site decides to host a highly newsworthy piece of primary evidence that was apparently in essence a "press release", based on its own evaluation of Fair Use and/or other arguments, then we should not immediately assume that they are committing piracy. They may be within their rights, just as many news organizations were, even in New Zealand, which played portions of the video on the air. Bear in mind that even if some sites like Liveleak under tremendous outside pressure censored more gruesome portions of the footage, the non-gory part of the video is no more or less copyrighted than the rest. As such, we can safely assume that WP:EL does not prohibit links to reputable sites that host part or all of the footage. Wnt (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

According to Facebook's guidelines, "the person who creates an original work owns the copyright in it. For example, if you create a painting, you likely own the copyright in that painting. Similarly, if you take a photo, you generally own the copyright in that photo."[14] This means that Wikipedia could not host or link to the entire video by making up PD or CC status. Regardless of how controversial the Christchurch livestream video is, it is unlikely to be PD or CC.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hosting and linking are two different things. It is entirely possible, though unproven, that the killer could have free-licensed the video in a way that would hypothetically satisfy those objecting to violating his copyright, but it is extremely likely that an organization like archive.org could make a Fair Use claim, because it is irreplaceable and people in many places (including here) want to discuss every detail of the evidence, reading slogans scrawled on guns in obscure languages and so on. We should not treat them like they are some kind of "pirates" when they are doing legitimate scholarship. Wnt (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

It is entirely possible, though unproven - Prove it. Your speculation that "oh, well, maybe it's not copyrighted" is worthless. [B]ut it is extremely likely that an organization like archive.org could make a Fair Use claim - No, it isn't. The Fair Use rationale does not give the ability to take [read: pirate] a copyrighted video. It allows someone to make limited use of copyrighted material without prior permission. E.g. taking a short clip from the video for illustrative purposes. We should not treat them like they are some kind of "pirates" when they are doing legitimate scholarship - Masturbating to gore porn is not "legitimate scholarship". By more than a magnitude that statement now stands as "the most asinine thing I have yet read". Mr rnddude (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I resent this assertion of bad faith on behalf of myself and the millions of people who have looked at the video. I'm not above looking at videos for prurient purposes or purely morbid curiosity, but in this case my interests are plainly political. National decisions about key rights like gun ownership and local expenditures by school boards for security precautions are based on daydreams of how these massacres play out. With this video we have the chance to see what happens and understand the practicality of these measures. If we as Wikipedia and as a society make the right decision and are not afraid to look at the evidence, it is possible that the video can save more lives in the future than the killer took in its production. Wnt (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Everything is copyrighted unless expired. Rights must be explicitly released. The fair use doctrine is far more limited than pirates would have one believe. O3000 (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per This is Paul. The video is gratuitously shocking content that does not add anything of substance that cannot be understood through reading the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. --denny vrandečić (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - now this is a fucked up thread. Days after the shooting the New Zealand government went to the tech companies etc to get the footage removed. Even on the day of the shooting, i remember when this article got created some WP:SPA accounts repeatedly added links to the footage on the page and it was promptly removed and those editors permanently blocked. Guys, an administrator needs to strike out the edits that contain the weblinks to the footage and also any comments that relate to that on this thread should be removed.Resnjari (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Reading a textual description of a video will obviously never come close to imparting the amount of information the video itself does (and video itself is about as far removed from real life). Even a still image proverbially requires a thousand words. So yes, we're arguably "cheating" the reader out of knowledge. But we've also given them abundant info to fully understand a video was made and widely copied online. Knowing this, any reasonable truth-seeking, morbidly curious or straight-up perverted peruser is on the right track to learning more (maybe more than they want) about obscene, reviled and illegal material. Wikipedia was never meant to be an absolute one-stop shop for any serious subject, from pointillism to 2 Girls 1 Cup, but more a launching pad. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Video is illegal in New Zealand and probably several other jurisdictions, a guy has even been charged with possessing it. Even LiveLeak won't touch it. What are you proposing, link to 8chan? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This is an encyclopaedia containing tertiary information - there is no obligation to point directly at primary sources infact the opposite is true. And please please do not forget that these are real people getting shot which in itself is a BLP issue, it is not a video game or make believe it is real life as such the bar for inclusion is very very high and no argument here has got that high yet. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The shocking nature of the mosque shooting video does little to enhance its already low encyclopedic value. Looking at the article for the Boston_Marathon_bombing it's clear that gory media is not needed for an article to be of high quality, despite the plethora of photographs of traumatic amputations, video, and other media that exists of the bombing. Rivselis (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Linwood mosque photo

Three weeks later, a thoughtful editor (Wumbolo) points out that the article's missing a photo of the Linwood Islamic Centre. :( --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

So? What's your point? WWGB (talk) 06:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

That it should have an image of Linwood Islamic Centre. The article is hyper-conservative with illustrations: 3 photos and 1 map – two out of four in the lede alone – for an article 6000 words long. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

If there isn't a photo of the Linwood Islamic Centre on Wikimedia Commons, which there doesn't seem to be [15], then nobody has taken one and uploaded it to Commons. Maybe make a request with Template:Photo requested.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

It's tucked away down a back section and cannot be seen properly from the street. Access is along a long drive. It does not look like a traditional mosque either (because it was not designed as one), more like a house. That is probably why there are no photos. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)