Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Al Noor Mosque Was In the News Before

Before the shooting that mosque appeared earlier in the news after a few middle eastern militants got recruited through it:

• https://web.archive.org/web/20140727140346/www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-east/10310496/A-Kiwi-lads-death-by-drone
• https://investigatemagazine.co.nz/19770/the-new-jihad-the-radicals-next-door/ --NikitaSadkov (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• (Redacted) (neo-Nazi bullshit) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk • contribs)

The www.stuff.co.nz article either got deleted or censored to avoid inciting further anti-Islamic sentiment.

--NikitaSadkov (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Please don't cite dailystormer here. O3000 (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't want the power to tell people what sources they can't cite, but I do have the power not to find them particularly credible. I'm afraid I didn't hit the relevant part skimming through the second source. But the first source tells the tale: one brother converts at a mosque in Sydney, the other converts at the mosque at issue here, then goes off to join his brother at the mosque in Sydney, and they end up on an odyssey to see Islam at its worst. Trying to blame the mosque for that person becoming a militant is like trying to blame 4chan and Pewdiepie if the shooter read or talked about them. Every nutcase starts somewhere. In any case, this would be at most relevant to the mosque, not to the shooting, so this isn't the spot for it. Wnt (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Pewdiepie expressed some neo-nazi views, but no matter his views, Pewdiepie unwillingly became a center of crystallization of modern white power movement. I.e. Mosque as a building is not guilty, but when it is made a meeting place of extremists, like Pewdiepie comments section, it becomes associated with extremism. If 1/2 of your subscriber base has swastika avatars there is no way back. Remember that Swastika itself before Nazis was a pretty neutral symbol. --NikitaSadkov (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Does that mean we can't cite NSDAP documents either? --NikitaSadkov (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

That's right, you can't cite NSDAP documents for anything except saying what NSDAP documents say. They'd be a primary source, and an incredibly racist one at that. The Daily Stormer is a racist, white supremacist, disgusting shitheap of a publication unfit to be read by any decent human being, and if you believe anything written within it, you have a serious problem. The fact that you even suggested using it here is problematic, because it indicates you don't have a good concept of what is and is not acceptable sourcing on the encyclopedia. I strongly suggest that you review our policies on sourcing such as WP:V and WP:RS before further contributing here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

"I shall never be ashamed of citing a bad author if the line is good." (c) Seneca --NikitaSadkov (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

No "line" from a white supremacist shitheap site will ever be "good" as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Use of unreliable sources (particularly virulently-racist ones) is a one-way ticket to losing your editing privileges here, so I again suggest that you review the site's policies before continuing to edit, particularly in sensitive areas such as this one. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

What about lines from Stalin's period PRAVDA newspaper? --NikitaSadkov (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, it may sound funny, but I got perma-banned from Russian Wikipedia for the opposite: I questioned the validity of Kremlin sources, branding Amir Khattab "terrorist", while in practice Khattab was just fighting against uninvited invaders, who came to Chechen land. I removed the "terrorist" label, because it is not NPOV, and instantly found myself banned. So my guess is that "good source" is a very subjective and politically loaded term. One man's terrorists are another man's freedom fighters. --NikitaSadkov (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Why is DailyStormer not blacklisted? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Generally, blacklists are reserved for cases where people are likely to try citing it even though they shouldn't, or for when we've faced people spamming it. We don't blacklist every unusable source (there are too many); and the Daily Stormer is so transparently unusable as a source that it's never been necessary. Currently it looks like it's cited in about six places, either on its own page or on the pages of far-right figures, always in concert with a secondary source to establish something the article's subject wrote there: here. --Aquillion (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: This is going to sound ridiculous, but remember, supposedly the blacklist is "just a spam blacklist" rather than a Great Firewall of Wikipedia secretly blocking potentially contagious wrongthink. Yeah, I know, people would have to be stupid to believe that, but this is the sort of symbolic item the blacklist might make the right call on to keep up appearances. Wnt (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Do not censor other people's comments. [1] There is no basis in policy to do this and there is every basis in policy not to do this. The Daily Stormer article is out there and the racists already know where to find it. The question is whether you think that pulling down the window shade will stop the oncoming train. Wnt (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I've removed it again — you can go ahead and take me to ArbCom if you want to make a public thing about your belief that we should use patently-unreliable white supremacist anti-Semitic neo-Nazi hate sites as sources on Wikipedia. Good luck with that.

The site and its monstrously-racist, disgusting and depraved bullshit, is, of course, out there as something which exists. That doesn't mean we have to ever link to it on these pages, much less even think about using it as a "source" for bullshit claims in an article about a mosque where a white supremacist just murdered 50 people because they were Muslim. Have you even taken 10 seconds to think about what you're doing and what this looks like? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic, not helpful, and WP:FORUM-like. TompaDompa (talk) 09:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do you have Muslim friends? Ask their opinion on the genocide of gays in Chechnya, executions for homosexuality in other Islamic countries, and what Quran prescribes about gay men. Also ask them, what should happen to a woman in say Iran or Saudi Arabia, if she refuses to wear hijab/niqab/burka, or even more, what would they do if their wife starts wearing "indecent" dress, like say miniskirt. For me talking with Muslims was very educational and eye opening. Just don't do it in real life - I got assaulted by one Tajik Muslim after speaking to him in defense of gay rights. --NikitaSadkov (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• should stay removed: this is not about censorship but about basic decency. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• I did not propose using it as a source, but the link weakened the original poster's argument, so it seems counterproductive to remove it. An article about pro wrestling is going to discuss pro wrestling sources, an article about chemistry is going to discuss chemistry sources, and an article about a white supremacist murdering people is going to discuss white supremacist sources. This shouldn't come as a shock to anyone. This stuff is out there and either you can hide your eyes or you can refute it. And on Wikipedia, our job is to educate. Wnt (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a related discussion regarding teh content proposed here at Talk:Al_Noor_Mosque,_Christchurch#Addressing_allegations_of_radicalism. starship.paint ~ KO 08:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Reactions

In the section, I think there could be some mention of the Australian politician who blamed the attack on Muslim emigrants and was subsequently egged. This was a very notable and reported incident. Currently the reactions shown are largely from one side. Furthermore, the line about PM Imran Khan's reaction seems to be overcited. Would be a good idea to trim some of those down. DA1 (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Being egged for one's views, even famously, does not make one a world leader. But yeah, we don't need five stories for one claim. Fixed that much. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: Not a world leader but it does need to be mentioned somewhere. It was one of the most reported stories of this saga following the shooting itself. DA1 (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the main plot is about a guy shooting a hundred people and how things turned out for them. Reactions from uninvolved people to reactions from other uninvolved people belong in articles like Fraser Anning. Someone getting egged after previously being dry is really something; someone getting egged after a hundred people get shot is just something else, no matter how many times it's reprinted. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Most people, including myself, didn't even know his name. So that "Fraser Anning" could be helpful if linked somewhere to some capacity. I don't see how this wasn't relevant, when it was widely reported and dealt entirely with that violent incident that preceded it. DA1 (talk) 09:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Few should have known his name before he was egged. But after that was widely reported, anyone with any interest learned it in the lead of any story they read or saw. Now they (should) know where to learn more about this widely-named person (like whether he was already on the path to political eggdom or only suddenly turned because of the shooting). InedibleHulk (talk) 09:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

This is really confusing logic. So you're making the assumption people months or years from now will be reading news articles elsewhere that happen to mention him? While that's fine I don't see how that helps Wikipedia readers of this actual article, which will be most people reading on this subject in the future hereon. DA1 (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm saying people who still care what happens to Anning, his policies, his career, his livelihood and his clothes will still know enough to look for it in the article specifically about him. This event and subsequent shaming may very well change his future, but he won't alter this event he mentioned's past. A completely different guy will have still shot a hundred people, and that'll still be the story readers expect to find here, not a bunch of spin-off trivia. Everything leads to other things, and many of those things have their own articles.

In theory, I wouldn't mind including his reaction to the clear subject of this article, as would (and often does) make perfect fucking sense in a section called "Reactions". But in the real world, the eggsplosive reaction to his reaction would seem a glaring omission, and someone would add it just for completeness. Then maybe someone else will add his reaction to that reaction, etc. It's happened before in reactions to Trump's reactions to reactionary stuff, and that was ridiculous enough, but at least people remember Trump's name and there's a decent case to be made that future historians might value how an American president's responses sat with the press and public at the time. The overwhelming interest just isn't there in Franning's case, so an exception to the whole idea of remembering what we're talking about seems even less unwise. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Background section

This should be considerably reworded or even deleted. It draws conclusions, directly or implicitly, that are not directly backed by the sources used. More generally, there is absolutely no link at all between the Raurimu massacre - or other mentioned events - and this shooting: meaning they are not relevant background detail. Some editors have been drawing false conclusions. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The claim of first mass shooting since the Raurimu massacre is now tagged for inadequate source. I looked for sources for the claim and found none, although it's certainly true. Akld guy (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The most recent mass shooting was in 1997, when six people were murdered and four wounded in the North Island town of Raurimu. Until now, the deadliest mass shooting in the country had been in 1990, when a gunman in the small township of Aramoana killed 13 people and injured three. from the Atlantic. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I have replaced the current inappropriate sources with that one. Whether it survives is another matter. Akld guy (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, there is a degree of improper synthesis in that section. Fences&Windows 23:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

+1. There are also WP:TOPIC issues here. What is needed is sourcing that refers to the Christchurch shooting, not a general history lesson about Islam in New Zealand, other mass shootings etc, which is beyond the scope of this article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I've had a back and forth with bus stop about the background section in another talk section above here. Our back and forth was limited to the "history of Islam in New Zealand" (i.e. the last paragraph, and most specifically the second sentence). The paragraph is bits of history trivia that is unrelated to the subject of this article. I've pointed predominantly to due weight for why it shouldn't be there, but also to synth for why we don't relate a to b unless sources do. I have no idea what relevance the appearance of Muslims in Christchurch in 1874 has to this article besides bus stop's assertion that it is and that you only need a source, any reliable source on any subject, to include it. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Mr rnddude—you are alleging policy violations but you are not spelling them out. Bus stop (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Others may work out for themselves whether I spelled it out or not: 1, 2, 3, and 4. I left a final brief comment about disengaging as, by this point, the discussion was going in circles. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

If the entire background section was removed, it would not be a great disaster. It is a pedantic history lesson that has little to do with the shooting itself. I'm not sure how it came to be there, but it just growed like Topsy and is now too long and off topic.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I removed it. The relevance to this event is not immediately obvious, and it's improperly placed even if relevant. TompaDompa (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

And I 'unremoved' it. It's important to provide some context for this crime - in particular, that (1) attacks like this (and mass shootings in general) are very rare in New Zealand, and (2) the Muslim population of New Zealand is (percentage-wise) very low. We can justifiably argue about how big the "Background" section should be, but I don't think it's reasonable to say that it should be omitted entirely. Ross Finlayson (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I almost agree with the person who deleted the entire “Background” section. Not really; a background section is appropriate; but this reads like an essay. Maybe more like WP:SYNTH since it is sourced. I checked some other mass shooting articles such as Westgate shopping mall attack, Gujba college massacre, Charleston church shooting. They have a background section but it is about the immediate incident; it’s not about the history of the country. My advice: Drop the "history of Islam in New Zealand" paragraph. Drop the "Islamophobia worldwide" paragraph. Keep the earlier shootings. Keep any background that may turn up with a direct connection to this specific incident. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Could people please stop deleting the entire "Background" section. There's far from consensus for this here. Ross Finlayson (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi MelanieN—Why "Drop the "history of Islam in New Zealand" paragraph"? I could see changing it. But why drop it? I would say the most crucial aspect of any "background" section would be a brief allusion to a history of Islam in New Zealand, just touching on the high points, such as population surges and landmark indications of integration into civic society. Our own article Islam in New Zealand is a good starting point. Bus stop (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

IMO we seem to have a rough consensus here that there is too much general information in that section. So I have trimmed the section by about half - not dropping any paragraph, but removing excessive detail and generalization. This was just my doing, so others can tweak it as needed. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop, I didn't see your comment before doing this, but I disagree. Let people go to the article you cited if they want that much detail. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC) P.S. I added a "see also" tag to the section, referencing the article Islam in New Zealand. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for shortening/simplifying the "Background" section; I think this is an improvement. (However, I removed the "See also" link for now; see the edit summary for the reason.) Ross Finlayson (talk) 06:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I think these reverts should stop. The 3RR has been exceeded. We are running now at 4 reverts. Dr. K. 07:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments that seem to agree with my original view. I think the background section should remain but be quite short and relatee to the immediate prelude. Time will uncover any extra info that might be suitable for inclusion. Bus Stop - I think the reasoning behind some of your edits fails to convince me.

Now, an observation by me for what it's worth. This was a pretty much chance event without much background build up in Christchurch or NZ. The guy, who was not a kiwi, chose Chch because it was easy: low security, lax NZ gun laws, and he had had some prior knowledge of the city. There was no background local conspiracy backing him; he was not targeting a base for radical militant islamic ideology. The third place he was supposedly heading for was either in Ashburton or a Hornby child care centre. Anybody with any knowledge of the area will tell you that the Ashburton idea is rather strange (a good 45-60 minute drive at top speed-after having alerted the whole country of what he was up to.) The Hornby child care centre sounds more realistic. The problem is most media outlets overseas don't realise the impracticability of the Ashburton option so just report it as if it is possible. Immediately after these shootings it seemed pretty clear that this was an out of the blue event by a non-local nutcase. There is no anti-muslim sentiment in Chch beyond the isolate personal views of a small few, the sort you would find anywhere in the world. That Deans Ave mosque is absolutely not viewed locally as any sort of out-of-place building acting as an enclave of alien foreign people. It is in one of the more exclusive and desirable areas of the city. So, I am a little bemused when I see editors trying to make what has happened fit into some type of 'mass shooting' template. Another way this event is being mis-reported, and to an extent mis-edited here, is that unlike many other countries, NZ has regional differences that make different cities pretty different from each other. There isn't even a mainstream national newspaper. Ethnic diversity and race issues in Christchurch are noticeably different from, say, Auckland. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Roger 8 Roger—you say "Bus Stop - I think the reasoning behind some of your edits fails to convince me." I have made this edit. Please feel free to weigh in to what I presume will be ongoing discussion. Bus stop (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The shortening of this sub-section does not go far enough and is following the wrong route. The general background should be about the far right worldwide, anti-islam worldwide and slack NZ gun laws. Specifically, it should been about this person, his background and why he chose NZ and his actions in the months leading up to this event (bearing in mind he has not been convicted). Those earlier massacres have absolutely nothing to do with this event and should be removed with their citations. As the NZ PM has said several times, this man is not a NZer and his actions are not those of NZers. The background detail should be found elsewhere, not in NZ. Why not look at Grafton to see what it was in his youth that made him start on the path to become what he came to be? The Stuff article used to confirm NZ, especially Chch is a hotbed of the far right, has been given undue weight. Those general, opinions with few actual examples, comments by a couple of academics are being misused. A 1989 murder by a skinhead? A free speech protest in Auckland recently when the mayor banned a far right speaker? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The mayor did not ban the speaker. The mayor refused permission for council-owned venues to host the speaker. The speaker was free to seek a venue anywhere else in the city. Akld guy (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion the above commentary by Roger 8 Roger is misguided. In my opinion the background section is about Muslims in New Zealand. The 50 people killed were Muslims and the killings took place in Islamic Mosques. I think the primary concern of a background section in this article is the shedding of light on the Muslim identity in New Zealand. The Islam in New Zealand article is synonymous with the background section. We are not going to transplant the "Islam in New Zealand" article into the background section of this article but the "Islam in New Zealand" article serves as the template for the primary subject to be addressed in our background section. We are trying, in the background section, to shed light on the presence of Muslims in New Zealand. Whatever that background might be, we should unflinchingly convey that information to the reader. It would not matter an iota whether New Zealand was welcoming or antagonistic to newcomers. Your analysis gives prominence to material that would be of secondary importance in a background section, properly understood. You say "As the NZ PM has said several times, this man is not a NZer and his actions are not those of NZers." Let me try to keep this discussion on topic. Why would you be citing the comments of the New Zealand Prime Minister when ostensibly we are discussing the background section of this article? The background section of this article is not primarily about the pronouncements of the New Zealand Prime Minister. The background section is primarily about the Muslims of New Zealand. Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The background section is primarily about the Muslims of New Zealand. I disagree. This is not how we treat the "background" section in other articles. We don't explain the historical situation of Blacks in the United States in the case of a racially motivated shooting. We don't trace the historical basis of antisemitism in a synagogue shooting. We don't analyze the gun-ownership situation in the state or the country. The section is for background about the immediate incident. I do favor a link to the "Muslims in New Zealand" article, which I see has been removed once already. Do we need a separate discussion about that? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree with MelanieN. A much better way to handle is simply {{see also|Islam in New Zealand}}. Islamophobic mass murders like this one do not have actual Muslim history as the background, but a cartoon fantasy version of it that doesn't exist in the real world. That is why the background of the shooter himself is much more important than the background of his victims, because it is not their true background that they were killed for, but rather a fantasy version of it.--Calthinus (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Excellent point. There is nothing rational or reality-based in this kind of act. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

"There is nothing rational or reality-based in this kind of act." Please explain that to the deceased 50 Muslims who were killed in the midst of worshiping in an Islamic mosque. Bus stop (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a non-constructive retort that is just an emotional trigger. I would simply repeat what I just said. They were not killed for their real background, but rather the shooter's hallucinated version of what it was and meant.--Calthinus (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Calthinus—I would call that "spin". 50 Muslims were killed in the midst of worship in an Islamic mosque. That is the subject of this article. You are engaged in explaining away the central theme of this article. You explained that "mass murders like this one do not have actual Muslim history as the background". You are free to explain that angle somewhere in the article, provided that viewpoint is supported by reliable sources, but you are not at liberty to foist that explanation into the forefront of a discussion about the purpose of a "background" section of this article. I prefer to examine the most basic facts. Those inevitably involve the 50 deaths. You are comparing a "mass murder" to a "cartoon fantasy". You are saying "the background of the shooter himself is much more important than the background of his victims". I think I understand what you are saying, but that does not obviate the salient fact that the 50 deaths were Muslim. That is not a fact that can be reduced in significance. Muslim identity is a very real part of this article. Bus stop (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't twist Calthinus's words. They did not compare the murders to a cartoon fantasy. They compared the shooter's understanding of Islam to a cartoon fantasy. Nobody is taking away from the fact that these people were targeted for being Muslim. But the shooter's reasons for doing it were not based on "the history of Muslims in New Zealand" (in fact he wasn't even from New Zealand). His reasons were based on the false and twisted "information" - the cartoon fantasy - that he absorbed about Islam in the process of getting radicalized. For that reason, the actual history of Islam in New Zealand is a footnote to these shootings. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

In determining whether the Background section should link to the Islam in New Zealand article we are not essentially concerned with the shooter's country of origin or the shooter's misunderstanding about the true history of Muslims in New Zealand. Calthinus is saying "Islamophobic mass murders like this one do not have actual Muslim history as the background, but a cartoon fantasy version of it that doesn't exist in the real world." And you are saying "he wasn't even from New Zealand" and "the shooter's reasons for doing it were not based on the history of Muslims in New Zealand". I think those are gratuitous comments in the context of the question we are addressing concerning linking to the "Islam in New Zealand" article from the "Background" section. Bus stop (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Is that all we are disagreeing about here? Yes, we should link to the "Islam in New Zealand" article from the background section, as we now do. I though you were still arguing for a full exposition, in the article, of the history of Muslims in New Zealand. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MelanieN—no, we don't need a "separate discussion about that". Bus stop (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, it is in the article now, and it looks like several of us agree it should be there, so I guess we don't. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Islam in NZ should be a 'see also' or similar, that's all. So, Goff didn't ban the speaker, he banned him from speaking at council premises. All is now clear. :) Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

It is interesting that you aren't providing any reasons. You just feel it would be best to take the link to Islam in New Zealand away from the "background" section? I can't say you've provided compelling reasoning. Bus stop (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

[Un]Bolding

The suspect's name is in bold, there is a comment citing guideline WP:R#PLA. There is some discussion of this in Archive 5, but the question there was more about whether to include the name at all. I don't think this is a good reading of WP:R#PLA, anyone typing the name will see it in the first sentence as the subject, and the title of the article and section make it clear why you have been redirected there.

This is not a practice I have seen in common use elsewhere, so possibly this guideline is also out-dated.

I propose un-bolding the name here.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC).

Done, at least for now. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC).

Agree. That guideline says : "It will often be appropriate to bold the redirected term" - but that works much better when the term is in the lede/intro, than deep in the body. - Snori (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2019

Please apply the reference fixes made in this diff: [2]

Thanks! 79.168.3.237 (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. —Hugh (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

No problem! 79.168.3.237 (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Should the manifesto get an article?

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.

---

Brenton Tarrant's manifesto has become quite a major story even aside from the shooting itself. There has also been further controversy, due to the banning and censorship of the document, with people even being arrested or investigated for posting or sharing it in Canada, and New Zealand. I think a fairly decent article about the manifesto, and the controversy surrounding the ban could be made. Alex of Canada (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I proposed that previously, and your interest is good to hear. Though you don't need to ask on a talk page before starting an article. Wnt (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I oppose that. Lots of these sickos write manifestos. The last thing we should do is let them succeed in drawing massive attention to their "philosophy" because they killed people. The Unabomber for example wrote a manifesto - so important to the case that it actually led authorities to him - but it doesn't have a separate article. You are free to write an article, of course, but if you do, I will nominate for it to be merged back into this article. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• No. Our job is not giving oxygen to this crap. --Calthinus (talk) 04:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

As with every article, the notability criteria apply. My own opinion is that the manifesto probably fails WP:NBOOK, WP:NWEB and isn't independently notable of either the person, event or fringe theory with which it is associated. Now, the livestream on the otherhand seems to have taken on a life of its own and it has received significant coverage that is fairly independent of the mass shooting itself. It also seems likely that that will continue, and I think at some stage, an article for that recording will be made, or at the very least a significant section in this article will be needed to deal with that subject. 202.155.85.18 (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Our job is to write an encyclopedia, not to decide what gets 'oxygen'. This isn't "PRpedia". I should say (as I said in my link above) that it seems like putting cart before horse to have an article about only the manifesto rather than the author, since the manifesto is basically notable because a killer wrote it. But if there is some issue in starting Brenton Tarrant on account of people citing BLPCRIME without citing WELLKNOWN, the manifesto would make a perfectly good GNG-able article on its own until such time as it has a parent article ready to receive a merge. Wnt (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• FUCK NO. The ravings of a murderous madman have no place here. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• No, because the Unabomber manifesto and Anders Behring Breivik's manifesto don't have separate articles either. They don't have that type of independent notability. Whether they are offensive is covered by WP:NOTCENSORED. Mein Kampf may offend some people, but it is notable enough for an entire article. Tarrant's alleged manifesto isn't.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• No - The manifesto receives enough coverage in this article (five whole paragraphs of it), and it doesn't have independent notability. Mr rnddude (talk)
• No - it has no independent notability beyond this article starship.paint ~ KO 08:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Absolutely not Not only does it fail the notability guidelines, the manifesto is a piece of raving garbage literally designed to cause division, trip folks up, and is designed to be so "ironic" and full of sarcasm its hard to know what is or isn't meant to be serious in it. The best it should get is a mention that it exists, not an in-depth discussion of what it did or didn't mean. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• No. Just no. WWGB (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Not yet unless and until you can establish notability, as Starship.paint says. The fact that there aren't articles for the Unabomber manifesto and Brevik's manifesto aren't relevant, unless there are discussions to refer to. Similarly the "raving garbage" and "ravings of a murderous madman" would not be good reasons, we cover notable written works regardless of the author's sanity or criminality.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC).

I wasn't trying to cite WP:OTHERCONTENT, but the Unabomber and Breivik manifestos do not meet WP:GNG and the alleged Tarrant manifesto doesn't either.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• No especially if it as meandering and nonsensical as the media has presented. --Masem (t) 14:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Definitely no since it doesn't appear to be independently notable. This is Paul (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• No on notability grounds. But as Ianmacm said, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and offensiveness is not a reason for exclusion. 79.168.3.237 (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• It seems this discussion is snowballing. 202.155.85.18 (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• No, not notable. Cinadon36 (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• No, first of all because it's what he wants so he isn't getting it. Also because all coverage is predominantly still in the reactive journalistic sphere of the event. Unlike unabomber for instance, the external scientific review and analysis simply cannot exist yet and for that reason I would oppose a separate article on a topic like this for at least several months after the event. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• No per notability concerns and less importantly because if such an article existed I would feel compelled to edit it, which would be no fun, and it would be a nightmare with people coatracking shit into it. No. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 10:30, 26 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.

OSM map in the infobox

I understand that OSM maps are quite common in event infoboxes. I don't know how much actual thinking or discussion has occurred on this subject, and it may be that this is so common simply because it's so common. Sometimes it's constructive to take a hard look at conventional thinking, and inconsistently better is always better than consistently mediocre.

1. Let's examine what information can be gleaned from the OSM map without clicking. The two locations were in a city called Christchurch. The reader already knew that after reading the first sentence of the lead, if they didn't get it from the article's title. The two locations were at about the same latitude. The two locations were separated by an area of apparently denser streets, possibly a downtown area. That is the benefit of something that consumes a considerable amount of space in the infobox.

2. One click gets you a zoomable, scrollable OSM map. Or, two clicks via the coordinates gets you a Google Maps map, which offers all of that plus various other features including "Satellite" (aerial photography) view, Street View, distance measuring, and more. Or, two clicks via the coordinates can also get you a Bing map or an OSM map. A reader can get the interactive map facility they prefer and are familiar with, instead of being forced to use OSM.
The downside: Readers have to know what they can get by clicking on coordinates; it's not obvious. But it is obvious that they can get something, since coordinates are clearly a link. After the first click, they see big icons at the top of the resulting page, labeled Bing Maps, Google Maps, Google Earth, and OpenStreetMap; the rest is easy. My reasoning assumes a bit of curiosity on the part of most readers, and it favors readers with some experience using Wikipedia.

I submit that the OSM map in the infobox is a net negative, and I propose its removal. Comments? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I WP:BOLDly removed it. TompaDompa (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't some readers familiar with the city also get an immediate sense from that map of where the shooter was driving around taking potshots at anyone on the sidewalk? Wnt (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Almost all readers familiar with the city are tucked up in bed right now, being almost 4 am Monday morning. There is no report of shots being fired from a moving vehicle. Akld guy (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Restore it. This happened in separate, identifiable places; so of course we should show a map of them, with links to further tools for those wanting them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'd also consider having a no-click map showing both sites worthwhile so request it be reinstated. I've seen it in other places, so currently have a rough idea where they are in relation to each other. This won't be true for people reading this article in years to come or when the news has moved on to something else. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The main issue is that the Wikimapia tileset is it's a poor render - if you look at the OSM Standard map of Christchurch of the same zoom level at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/-43.5299/172.6398, the map is much clearer, showing suburb names and better street hierarchy delineation (e.g. the "Four Avenues" ring road around the city centre is much more visible). Lcmortensen (mailbox) 20:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Burj Khalifa projection

This could fit there: Image of Jacinda Ardern projected onto world's tallest building. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a reaction to Ardern's reaction to the shootings, not a reaction to the shootings. It would fit better at Jacinda Ardern#Christchurch mosque shootings. Being cast upon a very tall building, even briefly, is a pretty huge personal honour and something I think people interested in her career would like to know. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Added there, with that CNN article as a ref. —Hugh (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hl, minor thing but I don't think you should have changed my edit/heading like you did here [3] for the usual WP:TPO reason, it muddles the following comments. Something like "Reactions 2" would have been better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Alt right section

Milo claims that two Al Kaida terrorists had ties to the christchurch mosque. It should be in this section of the article. Source:

https://sputniknews.com/asia/201903171073315161-milo-yiannopoulos-al-noor-mosque-radicalism-report/

https://web.archive.org/web/20140727140346/www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-east/10310496/A-Kiwi-lads-death-by-drone

Above comments added by 5.204.64.161 talk at 20:21, 24 March 2019

It shouldn't be in that section unless it has some relevance to the events discussed in this article. This is Paul (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

These individuals always refer to mosques like they have memberships. What are "ties" in their view? Unless they were personally involved with administration or were notable figures within the congregants, these "ties" involve merely praying at or paying visit to one? I'm surprise they don't describe their high schools or the groceries they went to as having "ties" as well. DA1 (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos is hardly a reliable source and I'd take anything he says with not a grain of salt, but about ten pounds of salt. Just cus "Milo" said it doesn't mean it should automatically be included. The articles listed merely quote him, and don't actually determine the veracity of his wild claims. As is, his claims, if introduced, would represent serious WP:BLP issues. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Milo is a no-no. @This is Paul, DA1, and CaptainEek: but this assertion didn't originate from Milo, it is from the since-deleted 2014 Stuff article reported: 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." starship.paint ~ KO 08:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint:Why was it deleted? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• @CaptainEek: - I have no idea. starship.paint ~ KO 08:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

(EC)The stuff.co.nz source is fine. The only question worth answering here is related to WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH. Any relationship between alleged radicalism at the mosque and the shooting needs to be reflected in the coverage of reliable sources. The only one drawing that relationship so far appears to be Milo as quoted in Sputnik News. Including that in the article would be giving undue weight to a viewpoint that is not being widely reflected in coverage, and to infer a relationship ourselves would be synthesis. 202.155.85.18 (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, the coverage is WP:UNDUE and not relevant on this page. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a related discussion regarding teh content proposed here at Talk:Al_Noor_Mosque,_Christchurch#Addressing_allegations_of_radicalism. starship.paint ~ KO 08:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Milo is definitely not a reliable source and anyone that thinks he is should look into the topic of reliable sources. This is utter nonsense. 2600:1700:7A51:10B0:7D2E:15E8:B117:2E4B (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The Stuff article is the same thing the Daily Stormer cited in that previous thread before we went down the ANI rabbit hole. Another article is here. But the case is very, very indirect: two men met, one article says it might hve been in Christchurch, one converted to Islam at a local mosque in Christchurch before going to join the other in Australia, and you might say things went south from there. This story is only relevant to this article if it can be shown to have some relationship with the shooting; otherwise it belongs at best in the mosque article. The shooter did seem to create a nexus of sorts, declaring that "The Christchurch and Linwood mosques had far more invaders, in a more prominent and optically foreign building, with less students,more adults and a prior history of extremism." (emphasis mine) But we need a secondary source (one more impartial than Milo) to make that connection before we claim that this is what the shooter meant based on our own guess. If we get that, then we can cover this, but we should still be very cautious about how we present what was essentially a McCarthyist type argument to begin with (you were in a club with a guy who later became a communist, therefore you're a communist). Wnt (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Eyes needed

At Ahmed Bhamji. wumbolo ^^^ 00:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

This probably has enough legs that the Mossad claims and condemnations thereof should go in here - Newshub original, Newshub on HRC condemning this, JPOS, and a whole bunch of other sources.Icewhiz (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Does he have anything to do with the Christchurch Mosque? If not, why would we care about what one guy may have suggested at a rally? O3000 (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

He is a community leader - chairman of the largest mosque. Why do we care? Since RSes care, and widely covered it in relation to the shooting - ergo DUE.Icewhiz (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

What community? He isn't even in the same city, much less the same mosque. And, I don't see it as widely covered. A jerk said he had suspicions at a rally and wants an investigation. O3000 (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

He's not even basing the claims on anything that one could argue as evidence so I don't think we should give it any credibility. Mention it in his article by all means, but it's not worth a mention here. This is Paul (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Which is what makes this accusation notable - leading to widespread condemnation, including by the HRC: {{tq|"But the HRC has called out Bhamji for his statements, saying it's important to "give nothing to racism". [4].Icewhiz (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

"Accusation"? I didn't see such. O3000 (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with @O3000 and @This is Paul that Bhamji's controversial comments should not go into the article. Otherwise other controversial comments by Australian Senator Fraser Anning would have to go into the article as well and so on that are despicable to say the least. The article is about the shooting and main events that relate to it. Public figures (who are not world leaders etc) who have made controversial statements on the shooting, but are distant from the main event, those things can go on their articles.Resnjari (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Imho the main effect of having it here would be letting people know about one of the infinite conspiracy theories concerning Mossad -- does it let them know something about this attack, no not really. --Calthinus (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

connection to Norse Mythology

I have noticed there is a connection between White Supremacists and Norse Mythology when I first read into the Nordic Resistance Movement.

I have provided three references for connections of White Supremacy regarding its connection to Norse Mythology. Only one is about the Christchurch mosque shootings. I think that helps demonstrate that the connection is widespread. I think an inclusion about this shooting's connection to Norse Mythology should be made in the article and am hoping someone can help with that and that a consensus can build.

The shooter wrote, “…if I don't survive the attack, goodbye, godbless and I will see you all in Valhalla!”

I have requested similar topic inclusions on the "Norse Mythology" article, the "Valhalla" article, and the "Norse Mythology in Popular Culture" article.

2600:1700:7A51:10B0:B1ED:B440:CA68:E8D9 (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources

This is is being blown massively out of proportion, based on only one quote, in a manifesto that is known to have been designed to offend. --Calthinus (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like a bit of original research to me. As I noted during the discussion about the Dylan Thomas poem, BBC News describes the manifesto as "a confused jumble of thoughts and misinformation which rambles on for 74 poorly-written pages" and suggests that much of it had no relevance to the events that occurred. His mention of Valhalla may or may not indicate a link between Norse mythology and white supremacy this incident, but that's not a conclusion we can draw without reliable evidence. The links here don't provide any strong evidence for a link. This is Paul (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this OR? I am not the author 2600:1700:7A51:10B0:B1ED:B440:CA68:E8D9 (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

In terms of this article it is original research. We don't know if the perpetrator's mention of Valhalla was a nod to the Nordic Resistance Movement or just another one of those confused ramblings. It's something we may never know. This is Paul (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I do see that a lot of different reliable news outlets have described the manifesto as 'rambling'. I don't disagree with that. Still it seems the Cross of Odin symbols he used and the use of Valhalla were related to Norse Mythology. 2600:1700:7A51:10B0:B1ED:B440:CA68:E8D9 (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Be that as it may, reliable sources need to be providing us with evidence of those links; we don't need to be theorizing about them ourselves. This is Paul (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources

The link seems to have been established by the anti defamation league. I provided that citation in the references. It doesn't seem likely that the use of the Cross of Odin on his weapons and references to Norse Mythology in his manifesto was all just 'trolling' or 'rambling'. There seems to be a consensus that it is rambling but there is also a consensus that he did what he did for white supremacy. I suppose that as the story develops this topic will be touched on further. 2600:1700:7A51:10B0:9445:E83D:A5BF:DEFF (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no such thing as the "cross of Odin".--Ermenrich (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Meant to write, "Odin's Cross" - thanks for the heads up. 2600:1700:7A51:10B0:C556:8553:A711:7FB (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't seem likely that the use of the Cross of Odin on his weapons and references to Norse Mythology in his manifesto was all just 'trolling' or 'rambling'. There seems to be a consensus that it is rambling but there is also a consensus that he did what he did for white supremacy. Where is your "consensus that he did what he did for white supremacy"? Who is saying that? Are they reliable sources? You need to provide sources for these statements otherwise they are just your theories. This topic may well be touched on again in future but until or unless that happens it's not something that can be discussed in this article. This is Paul (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)