Misplaced Pages

Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:04, 16 March 2019 edit2600:1000:b00c:e75f:19dd:5f81:a08:9d3e (talk) →Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:19, 26 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,623 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings/Archive 15) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{BLP}} {{Controversial}}
{{not censored}}
{{New Zealand English}} {{New Zealand English}}
{{Article history
{{WPBS|collapsed=yes|1=
| itndate = 2019-03-15
{{WikiProject Crime|importance=Low|class=C}}
| otddate = 2021-03-15
{{WikiProject Death|class=C|importance=Low}}
| otdoldid = 1012079869
{{WPDM|class=C|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=Low|class=C}}
{{WikiProject New Zealand|importance=High|class=C}}
{{WikiProject Terrorism|class=C|importance=Mid}}
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=other|class=B|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1=
{{ITN talk|15 March|2019|oldid=887839160}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=Mid| importance=High| serialkiller=yes| serialkiller-imp=Top}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{WikiProject New Zealand|importance=top}}
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=top}}
|maxarchivesize = 75K
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=top}}
|counter = 1
{{WikiProject 2010s|importance=top}}
|minthreadsleft = 3
}}
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
{{Copied|from=Christchurch mosque shootings|from_oldid=1192696183|date=31 December 2023|to=Coroner's inquiry into the Christchurch mosque shootings|to_oldid=1192894438}}
|algo = old(12h)
{{Section sizes}}
|archive = Talk:2019 Christchurch mosque shootings/Archive %(counter)d
{{Anchor|Consensus headbar}}{{Consensus|1='''Current/recent consensuses:'''
* Refer to ] as "], New Zealand's head of state" in the ] section. (])
* Do not link to copies of the livestreamed video of the crime.
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(30d)
| archive = Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 15
| maxarchivesize = 100K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 3
}} }}
{{archives|search=yes}}


== remove his name == == Azov reference ==
Don't give him the notoriety that he wants. Remove his name from the article entirely. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Black Sun is commonly used by many organisations, referencing only Azov in an article about a mass killer plays into Russian propaganda painting all Ukrainian volunteers and entirety of Azov as neo-nazis ] (]) 19:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
→His name is newsworthy.] (]) 05:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
: ], sadly. <span style="background: #0800aa; padding: 2px;">&nbsp;''']'''&nbsp;</span><span style="background: #006eff; padding: 2px;">&nbsp;''']'''&nbsp;</span><span style="background: #00bbff; padding: 2px;">&nbsp;''']&nbsp;'''</span> 06:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


==Did you know nomination==
: This is a factual encyclopedic article. Withholding information for the purpose of achieving some specified agenda is clearly at odds with the purpose of an encyclopedic article. Please don't make such blatantly silly requests. ] (]) 09:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
{{Template:Did you know nominations/Christchurch mosque shootings}}


== Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2024 ==
== Link to manifesto ==
The reference to the manifesto does not link to any searchable text.


I propose to alter the link to the archive here:
https://archive.org/stream/TheGreatReplacement_20190315_1216/The%20Great%20Replacement_djvu.txt

Can somebody please do that?

] (]) 15:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:Yes, please do.] (]) 06:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
: What reference to the manifesto is there?<span style="background: #0800aa; padding: 2px;">&nbsp;''']'''&nbsp;</span><span style="background: #006eff; padding: 2px;">&nbsp;''']'''&nbsp;</span><span style="background: #00bbff; padding: 2px;">&nbsp;''']&nbsp;'''</span> 06:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

== Perpetrator name ==
Should we add the number of people that were Captured that were in connection with the attack? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Is it usual to name the perpetrator? They seem to be out for glory. Why hand them that? --] (]) 03:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:This is an encyclopedia. We should note the facts, when they are reliably sourced. But, as always, we should do so with a neutral POV. ] (]) 03:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

: Usually the perp is named when charges are laid so I'm unsure whether to keep it here. <span style="background: #0800aa; padding: 2px;">&nbsp;''']'''&nbsp;</span><span style="background: #006eff; padding: 2px;">&nbsp;''']'''&nbsp;</span><span style="background: #00bbff; padding: 2px;">&nbsp;''']&nbsp;'''</span> 03:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::The name of the perpetrator is obviously relevant factual information about the incident. If a crime is committed, it is relevant who did it. It should be included. ] (]) 04:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::As of now, keep it in the article but not in the infobox. - ] (]) 04:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::And not in the lead, IMO.---&nbsp;]<nowiki/>and] 04:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::I disagree, many articles about shootings mention the perpetrator in the lead. To avoid an edit war, I moderated the tone. I hope you approve of this. - ] (]) 04:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::That is why the article states before your edit that Tarrant was one of the perpetrators. - ] (]) 04:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::::He is just one shooter of several and this is early. There are ]s for crying out loud. Why should we give this one guy such a prominent place in this article. ---&nbsp;]<nowiki/>and] 04:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::::Because he is the only shooter that was confirmed by the police. If more names are revealed, they will go in the lead as well. - ] (]) 04:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

If you want to add the name, do so with a reliable source. I'll remove unsourced claims. --] (]) 05:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:Sourced here: https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/live-gunman-named-four-arrested-christchurch-mosque-attacks-leave-significant-number-fatalities - ] (]) 05:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::Denny, the name in the lead was sourced. - ] (]) 05:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Still: Can we remove the name from the lead? There's a whole section on the perpetrators later, isn't that sufficient glorifying? --] (]) 05:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:I do not consider mentioning that someone has committed a crime a way of "glorifying" that person. ] (]) 05:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::I think it is when he is the only one mentioned in the lead. There is more than one person involved. Mention in the body only. ---&nbsp;]<nowiki/>and] 05:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::He is the only named perpetrator at the moment, others can be added as information is revealed. The perpetrators are very important parts of this event, as they caused the event in question. ] (]) 06:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::Leave in the lead. The lead summarises the article and the people involved in the attack are going to be a large part of the article. ]&nbsp;] 06:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Making famous? Popularizing? Spreading the word? Giving a platform? Helping the perpetrator reaching a larger audience?

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

:Because it lets us know who perpetrated the shooting. Look at the ], ], and ], 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. - ] (]) 06:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::I strongly agree with this, removal of information based on personal feelings is not helpful to the integrity of Misplaced Pages as a source of information.Newaccountfortalkpage (talk) 06:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

You are right. This should be resolved through policy. We shouldn't name shooters in the lead if there is a more detailed section coming anyway, but this requires a community decision, outside of the context of a single article. --] (]) 06:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:The lead sumarises the article, so if their is a more detailed section then it is even more justification to mention it in the lead. ]&nbsp;] 06:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::'''Agree''' their names can be included in the lead with more detail later.] (]) 13:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:In accordance with ] we should take care not to recklessly defame anyone lest they be innocent. Having said that it is entirely appropriate to include their names given suitable sources. Censoring their names to avoid giving them attention is not a consideration.] (]) 13:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Why does the article say two shooters? No source on that. All indications point to a single shooter. Change the article.
:This is Misplaced Pages. You can change it. No. You should change it (if you think it would improve Misplaced Pages). ] (]) 13:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

'''Agree'''<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-15/christchurch-shooting-brenton-tarrant-what-we-know/10904744 | first1=Michael |last1=Workman | first2=Stephen |last2=Hutcheon |first3=Pat |last3=McGrath|title=Christchurch shooting attacker Brenton Tarrant was a personal trainer in Grafton|date=March 15, 2019|publisher=ABC}}</ref> Brenton Tarrant appears in an anti-doping ruling. cant confirm atm if its the same guy. The shooter is reported to have worked as a personal trainer so the occupation and name fit. https://www.asada.gov.au/news/rugby-league-athlete-receives-sanction-3
] (]) 16:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:If you can't confirm it, don't risk defamation on Misplaced Pages's part by saying it.] (]) 17:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
actually the question wasnt really an agree or disagree question so im not sure if i agree. I mean, yes we should post the name now that a reputable source has identified the attacker.
] (]) 16:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

== Reference to Pewdiepie ==
This is not just a simple pop culture reference. Pewdiepie is a "introductory drug", a gateway to further alt-right radicalization and recruitment. We should probably wait for more sources to verify, but this should not be ignored and omitted. ]]] 04:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

:The perp said he wanted to create division within the west so the "right would rise again" or some other Nazi crap. I don't think this information is relevant. <span style="background: #0800aa; padding: 2px;">&nbsp;''']'''&nbsp;</span><span style="background: #006eff; padding: 2px;">&nbsp;''']'''&nbsp;</span><span style="background: #00bbff; padding: 2px;">&nbsp;''']&nbsp;'''</span> 04:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

::"I don't think this information is relevant." I'm sorry to be blunt, but the relevance of the shooter screaming "subscribe to Pewdiepie!" should be obvious. If you claim you don't understand it, well, given that you prominently advertise your interest in youtube, gaming, and internet culture, and you ''created'' the article ], I frankly have to question your objectivity in this matter. You have skin in the game, and I think it's influencing your interpretation.
::The general relevance of internet culture to this incident is inarguable; the shooter's manifesto was written almost entirely in memes and chan-speak, he posted about the shooting ahead of time on 8chan, and was clearly motivated by conspiracy theories pushed on that platform, and he '''''livestreamed it.''''' And while the mechanisms of right-wing radicalization online are a subject of ongoing study, the throughline from "edgy memes" to actual bigotry is already pretty clear. And you must admit that, even if you think it was "blown out of proportion" or "taken out of context," Felix has at least been ''adjacent'' to a lot of controversy, involving a lot of things he's said and done that seem to make the alt-right ''think'' he's one of them (totally irrespective of whether or not he is).
::I don't have the time to add the info myself right now, and the article is going to be a mess for a few days anyways. But you are wrong about this. And I genuinely hope that you reflect on why your reaction was to say it wasn't relevant, and what that might say about your personal biases, and how those biases can affect you as an editor. People writing about things they love is the backbone of this and every other wiki. But when you care about something, that's when being objective is the hardest. And also when it's the most important. ] (]) 07:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::: This! Even if Felix is not a white supremacist, he consciously or unconsciously help the spread of the ideology with his "edgy humor". ] (]) 07:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree, the article should at least mention that the perp mentioned Pewdiepie's name. ] (]) 07:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

:It is definitely relevant as "subscribe to pewdiepie" is one of very few things the shooter said right before opening fire. However, the word 'screaming' is inaccurate. He spoke it at normal volume and it was directed at his livestream viewers rather than his victims.] (]) 08:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Removed the claim as it is not corroborated from multiple reliable sources. ] (]) 10:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

*I agree that PewDiePie is an introductory drug, as reported by sources , to deradicalization and helping victims of terrorism. Definitely should not be ignored as it is a ] reaction reported by many sources. <span style="background-color:#cee">]</span> ] 10:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:Oppose on ] grounds. I think it'd be prudent to wait until we have a reputable third party making the same claim. ] (]) 10:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::Agree. Wait until there has been time for third parties to analyze this. At this point, opinions on PewDiePie's involvement in this is entirely ] and ] &#160;<span style="background:#fff;padding:0px 6px;font-family:Garamond;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing:5px;">]]</span> 10:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' It seems very speculative at this time. Let's wait for more thorough, informed and thoughtful analysis and stick to key facts for the immediate future.] (]) 13:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

* A posting on Bellingcat (I'm honestly not sure how their editorial process works, but I respect the site) argues that Pewdiepie and similar references were what the writer calls "shitposting", i.e. deliberately misleading or provocative. The "gateway drug" model proposed above is a somewhat plausible ''hypothesis'' (right-wing culture -> right-wing ideology -> racism -> murder), but another plausible hypothesis is that one-sided class warfare -> depression -> overdoses and suicides -> ways to put a bright face on a suicide -> choosing some "cause" to use for an excuse. No doubt you can propose more such models. We should ''mention'' all the references like Pewdiepie because we exist to transmit the information, but we should be careful not to imply any given interpretation of what they mean apart from what we can source. ] (]) 13:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
** If we are mentioned PDP's reaction to being called out, we absolutely need to mention that PDP was called out, but we can limit it to that it was yet another meme pointing to the ] competition. --] (]) 16:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the too-quick to label media is accurate calling him right-wing. He is a self-described communist. And no, assertions that conservatives equal bigotry inaccurate. Bigotry has no political boundaries. ] (]) 23:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:No, the media is perfectly accurate in this instance. It was obviously a far-right attack. In any case, ] applies - if reliable sources agree it was a far-right attack, that is what we call it. Editors personally disagreeing with the sources counts for nothing. There is zero reason to think the attacker was serious in calling himself a communist. ] (]) 23:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::Based on Misplaced Pages policies, which assume all media must always be accurate and therefore are reliable, you are correct to assume that -- after all, some media headlines label him as right-wing. But in real life that doesn't make it so. Time will tell. But the evidence is contrary to what some in the media are reporting. ] (]) 23:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::Also, assuming some things he says are "a joke" or "not serious," while assuming other things he says are true is quite frankly a weird way to consider what's true and what's not. You're basically using your own opinion to assume what he says is true or a joke. ] (]) 23:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

== Info about the perpetrator ==
I want to share some details of the perpetrator, I have info about him but I'm not sure if I can share them to all of you since it came from 4chan and 8chan.] (]) 04:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:I mean, you can put in on the talk page, but we go by reliable, secondary sources, so they'll never land on the article unless RS confirm it. 4chan posts are very likely to be joe job too. ]]] 04:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::I am going to agree with ] we cannot post secondary sources unless RS confirm it, at least it posted up on ]. ] (]) 04:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe best to share it with law enforcement. No need to share it here. --] (]) 04:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:'''Strong oppose''' on including information from 4chan and 8chan. They are not reliable sources. Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. The aim isn't to get information out as quickly as possible, but rather for it to be well sourced and accurate. But '''thanks for contributing''' :) ] (]) 13:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a bad idea simply because it has precedent. "How 4chan Trolled Two of Its Friends by Framing Them for the Oregon Mass Shooting" https://gawker.com/how-4chan-trolled-two-of-its-friends-by-framing-them-fo-1734265649

] (]) 16:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

== Bomb at Strickland ==
Anyone is going to mention the bomb in Strickland Street and how that area around it was blocked off in the Incidents section? - ] (]) 04:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:the hypothesized bomb is in the lead? (] (]) 04:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)).
::Yes. - ] (]) 04:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:I recommend adding the information in the attacks section after the main detail of the attacks.It is probably to peripheral to the important information to appear in the lead.] (]) 13:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

== Manifesto ==
A link to the shooter who livestreamed his actions' manifesto can be

: Removed link to document which has been described as hate speech. I am sure people are competent enough to find it if they want to. Misplaced Pages is not a place for primary sources. --] (]) 06:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

] (]) 06:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I think it would be pertinent to include this in sources, as it outlines many of the perpetrator's claimed reasons. It would be easy to say that it should be buried, but this is an encyclopedia and it's a notable piece in this event's puzzle.] (]) 05:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:As of now, wait for police and secondary sources to confirm this. You can show this to law enforcement as evidence instead. - ] (]) 05:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm strongly against linking to the self proclaimed manifesto. --] (]) 05:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:: You shouldn't delete other people's comments just because you don't like what's posted in them. The shooter apparently posted this himself, it's a primary source, and is an important piece of this event.] (]) 05:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It should be linked. This is Misplaced Pages, remember. Our aim is to inform. This has nothing to do with ideology.
] (]) 05:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I did and will again unless there is community consensus to keep such links. Your reference to primary sources is sufficient demonstration of your understanding of Misplaced Pages though. --] (]) 05:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:I understand that you're talking down to me and think I may be stupid, which is kind of inappropriate. My main concern is that why you feel that they should be deleted, you said you are against it, but gave no valid reasons for having that feeling. You merely stated your personal opinion. ] (]) 05:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. This source fails on many counts, it hasnt been reputably published, its likely to be misused.=, it also violates ]. ]] 06:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

:The PDF is available at . Misplaced Pages does '''not''' exist to conceal information, but to facilitate research. We are '''not''' here to teach people virtue, but to allow them to navigate the available information. ] (]) 11:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

::{{ping|Wnt}} and yet, it's a primary source. Misplaced Pages's policy on that is quite clear, and I'm also quite uninterested in idea that not citing a primary source is an example of either censorship or virtue-management. ]<span style="color: #3558b7;"><sup>]</sup>]</span> 19:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

:::Which policy are you referring to? <br />] <br />] <br />"The person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the person says about himself or herself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for clearly attributed controversial statements." --] 23:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

:There is news media articles (secondary sources in this sense) that feature the main body of the manifesto. It is '''unnecessary to explicitly cite the main article'''; '''given that removal of these cites are ongoing, it is also just plain inefficient, as these citing will be invalid shortly anyway.''' If you truly want to reflect the info within the manifesto, just cite NYT article about it: . ] (]) 14:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Taking a look at Misplaced Pages's policy regarding ], I can understand the need for objectivity, however it is still an important document. I'll also note, even with this document, secondary sources are quoting it incorrectly. For example "The manifesto says he chose New Zealand as the target two years earlier and had been planning the attack for three months." (Currently ) is incorrect. According to the manifesto, he started to plan an attack two years ago, but it wasn't original targeting New Zealand. The Christchurch targets where only set three months ago, it was a Dunedin before that after a post by the Otago Muslim Association that I can't date as the post was taken down.

And while we shouldn't fill in info on a article based on primary, there's nothing wrong with linking to information for people to look into themselves. Misplaced Pages is here to provide factual information, not hide things. Ignoring the manifesto completely would be a mistake I feel. Especially considering the NZ government is cracking down and censoring information.
] (]) 21:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:{{re|Ryonez}} Isn't Dunedin in New Zealand too? <span style="color:orange">'''THE NEW'''</span> ]] 21:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:{{re|ImmortalWizard}} It is, but the point was the initial planning wasn't for New Zealand in the first place. When he did switch to it, the target was going to be Dunedin, but without the post that triggered them, I don't know when that decision was made by them. ] (]) 21:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

No where in the manifesto does he say he is an specifically an anti muslim, he says he has no problem with muslims outside and only has problems with non European Immigrants living in European countries.

He's an evil, hateful piece of shit but we shouldn't hide information. I strongly disagree with his manifesto, I do, but it should still be shown. For the simple reason that hiding something because it's offensive is wrong. You can't just hide humanities worst from everyone. ] (]) 12:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

== Reactions section ==
Yet another "Reactions" section where primary sources are used to create a Quotefarm of politicians mouthing platitudes. The only thing that could make it worse is if some flagicons were added. This unencyclopedic material should be removed. <span style="font-family: Cambria;">] (])</span> 05:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:I can understand where you are coming from, but responses are not limited to just politicians. - ] (]) 05:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::The best way to handle this I have seen is to use a blanket statement like {{tq|politicians from around the world have condemned the attacks}} and then create a note listing them. The reactions arre all pretty much the same and this reduces the undue nature these sections inevitably create. ]&nbsp;] 06:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::I disagree. The reactions section contains comments by Jacinda Ardern the New Zealand primeminister, Patsy Reddy the Governor General who is head of state in New Zealand and Scott Morrison, the current Australian primeminister. These are relevant because its the New Zealand leadership and also the Australian leadership (one of the perpetrators was an Australian), not random or other people.] (]) 06:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::If the reactions are kept to curated prose, not indiscriminate lists, we will be fortunate. <span style="font-family: Cambria;">] (])</span> 11:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::If anyone wants to input the reactions from the Muslim world, might be a good list ]-] 12:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::::At least the excessive use of flags hasn't started yet. ]&nbsp;] 12:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::::Remember that wikipedia is a work in progress. It doesn't have to be perfect. Let the Quote farm happen for now and edit it later. A bit of extra time will give some perspective on what to keep.] (]) 15:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::The reactions are not all the same and there has been significant coverage of what countries have said regarding the shooting. This definitely deserves mention. This is standard practice on wikipedia with respect to terrorism-related articles.] (]) 16:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The reactions section should be removed. It turns the article into a ] for politicians and celebrities expressing outcry. We get it. We’re all upset and saddened. But do select quotes from people editors like or dislike really belong? ] (]) 03:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

:I agree. We all know everyone hates it. Should we start including ourselves? PewDiePie's reaction is a bit of an exception for me, though, as the bastard who did this literally shouted him out for whatever reason. ] (]) 13:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
::This is a time honored tradition. Mass tragedy, bloated reactions section, and then when everyone's had their fun we can move most of it to Wikiquote where it belongs once the dust settles. ]] 13:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
: I disagree - the responses from world leaders and organisations can be interesting to compare and contrast and give political context - but unless it's a large list like ] perhaps leave off the flagicons for now &#124; 🔬🚆 &#124; <span style="font-size:100%;background:lightgreen;border:solid 0px;border-radius:3px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 2px 2px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> &#124; 14:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

== Date ==
Include the year "2019" in title. Thanks <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Seems unnecessary. The incident doesn't need to be disambiguated from other incidents like this in Christchurch because there haven't been other incidents like this in Christchurch. ] (]) 05:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

== Personal firearm==
New Zealand Herald talks about the shooting at the Linwood mosque being stopped by an armed muslim prayergoer who had a shotgun/rifle. can any other sources collaborate this?

Claim that a personal firearm was used is unsubstantiated. This is unlikely. Personal firearms are uncommon in New Zealand and it is illegal to carry them on your person or in public.
==

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12213039 about 3/4s the way down the article, ctrl+f chased ] (]) 05:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)bisous

: Summarizing that link: in the Linwood mosque shooting (7 dead), a prayer goer returned fire with a long gun, chased the Linwood shooter(s) and fired shots at their car as they sped off. He was quoted by bystanders as telling responding police that he acted in self defense. -- ] (]) 15:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:: Fog of early reports: Other accounts indicate an individual in the mosque took a gun from the shooter; the individual outside ("Muslim local chased the shooters and fired two shots at them as they sped off") could be someone else.

== Terrorist attack ==
Reliable sources are referring to this as a “terrorist attack”, the title of this article should reflect this. ] (]) 06:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:To be precise the media in Australia is calling it a right wing terrorist attack and the perpetrators right wing terrorists. I do agree that a change will be needed. Probably after New Zealand police give a press conference in coming hours or days.] (]) 06:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::When the government declares it to be a terrorist attack, then yes, it is a terrorist attack. For now though, it is just a mass shooting, and not all mass shootings terrorist attacks. - ] (]) 06:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::Misplaced Pages is based on reliable secondary sources, not primary sources. Only reliable secondary sources need to label it as such for us Misplaced Pages s to add it. ] (]) 06:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The word "terrorist" is usually not in the title of attacks. ] (]) 06:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::Possibly, but it does not preclude it from being a redirect for the article. Also that it was a right wing terrorist attack definitely will need to be cited, after New Zealand police does a press conference and formally gives details to the public.] (]) 06:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::The main shooter does not identify himself as right-wing or even a white supremacist. He identifies himself as an anti-immigration racist.
:'''Agree''' with ]. Even for terrorist attacks, we don't put terrorist in the title. As much as we want to do it, and as true as it is, and as evil as terrorism is, and as much as it should be named, terrorist is a very loaded word, and isn't encyclopedic in a title. Absolutely give it prominence in the first sentence of the article. ] (]) 13:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The article is linked at ], so shouldn't we link that list in the See also section? Or should we remove the entry from that list? ] (]) 06:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:Yeah, add it to the article.] (]) 06:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The category ] should also be added. ] (]) 06:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Right now the PM of New Zealand is calling it “an attack” and “terrorist attacks”. ] (]) 06:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:As above, the PM has said it is a terrorist attack. Source: . ] (]) 06:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::Australia’s PM has referred to the attacks as “right wing terrorist attacks”. ] (]) 06:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::Le Monde is calling it “a terrorist attack”. <ref>https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2019/03/15/nouvelle-zelande-fusillade-dans-une-mosquee-de-christchurch_5436217_3210.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1552632812</ref> ] (]) 07:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
<small>{{reflist talk}}</small>

== RfC about keeping suspect's/suspects' name in lead ==
{{rfc|policy|rfcid=95C5BCB}}
Should the lead section have the suspect's/suspects'<s>perpetrator's/perpetrators'</s> name? - ] (]) 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. ] applies on talk pages as well as articles. The apparent level of proof at this stage has no bearing on that. ] (]) 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 ], ], and ], 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. - ] (]) 06:26, 15 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.] (]) 06:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' too soon, let give it a few hours to make sure its the accepted perpetrators(s) ]] 06:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
** we dont want to creating a circular source by outlets getting the name from us ]] 06:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' as per ] ''"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."''. ] (]) 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. ] and ].---&nbsp;]<nowiki/>and] 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. ]&nbsp;] 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..." ] There are a few exceptions, but this isn't one.&#160;<span style="background:#fff;padding:0px 6px;font-family:Garamond;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing:5px;">]]</span> 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 ]). 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). ]&nbsp;] 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. ]&nbsp;] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 07:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per the Misplaced Pages policy at ], they should not be named in the article at all unless convicted. -- ] (]). 08:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:*'''Support''' the lead should make it clear that they are suspects/not convicted. ] I ''strongly disagree with your interpretation of ]''. The article states:
:::''This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by ]. 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.] (]) 14:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose per''' ]. Nobody has been convicted of anything yet. This can be revisited later, after the trial. ] (]) 08:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:: ] does not apply here per Common Reason. It is not a matter of dispute whether Brenton Tarrant committed part of the shootings. ] (]) 09:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::{{re|Cinadon36}} what do you mean by "Common Reason", I would have thought that as a Misplaced Pages policy, ] applies to ''all'' articles. -- ] (]). 09:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::WP:BLPCRIME excludes those under the purview of ].
::::
::::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. ]] 10:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Winged Blades of Godric}} are they a "public figure"? Have they been convicted wrt this incident? -- ] (]). 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. ]] 10:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::::{{re|Winged Blades of Godric}} ] implies a ]. Are you saying that the suspect here was a public figure (despite not having a Misplaced Pages article about him) before this incident took place? -- ] (]). 10:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::::::It doesn't matter that they weren't ] before the attack. They are and will be well known now. ] is designed to protect people from being defamed by references to criminal proceedings that are unrelated to their notability.] (]) 14:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::Even if we go down the BLPCRIME route it says {{tq|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. ]&nbsp;] 10:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::{{re|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. -- ] (]). 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 Misplaced Pages on detail - then we cited them as facts. ]] 10:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::You do realise it could take a year to get a conviction (see ]). Incidently we didn't wait too long to post Anders Breivik's name. ]&nbsp;] 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". ]&nbsp;] 10:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Too soon. Wait until the story unfolds. There have been no convictions, and Misplaced Pages 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. &#160;<span style="background:#fff;padding:0px 6px;font-family:Garamond;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing:5px;">]]</span> 10:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', the only way that would make sense is if the perp ''already'' had a Misplaced Pages article. <span style="font-family: Cambria;">] (])</span> 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. ] (]) 11:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:: I can understand your frustration, but that would be pretty ]y. ] (]) 15:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' This may be a case where we should ignore ], but I don't think we should be hasty in doing so. These people do not fit ], 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. ] (]) 11:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
**More sources? ]&nbsp;] 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. . 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 Misplaced Pages does not need to be the first to get the scoop. &#160;<span style="background:#fff;padding:0px 6px;font-family:Garamond;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing:5px;">]]</span> 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. ]&nbsp;] 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 ] as well as under laws in the country where the events took place. And we can not forget ] 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. ] (]) 12:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
*: {{re|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 ]. ''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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 13:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::The claims that he should not be named under ] 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 Misplaced Pages to do so.] (]) 14:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::::NZ bars the naming by media. Period. '''The suspects are not ''notable'' under Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines'''. ] (]) 18:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::::I neither know nor care what NZ law says, as Misplaced Pages is in the U.S. With Europe poised to pass utterly awful legislation that interferes with all sorts of news, I expect Misplaced Pages should get a lot more unapologetic about being very strictly an American national project. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 13:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::] in these hazy posturings indicating at some violation of BLP policies over the t/p.... ]] 16:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''', unless there's a good reason to be uncertain about it. ] (]) 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. ] states that you should consider it. ] does not prohibit it. the purpose is to avoid perpetrating ] 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.
] (]) 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.] (]) 17:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
**I removed it and asked for an edit filter at ]. I can't think of anything else that we can do. ]&nbsp;] 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.
] (]) 17:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:That certainly appears to be the case.] (]) 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. ]<span style="color: #3558b7;"><sup>]</sup>]</span> 19:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' in order to reduce exposure of the suspects. --] (]) 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. ]&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">]</span> 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' The judge didn't grant name suppression. Does this change anyones mind? ]&nbsp;] 00:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
**I give up. No response at ANI and everytime I look back it is added again. I actually think the name should be in the article so the opposes can enforce BLP and the current consensus from now on. ]&nbsp;] 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. ] (]) 01:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC).
*'''Oppose''' What's the damn hurry? Wait a week or so. ] (]) 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 ]) has published it repeatedly, as has the government-owned TV channel . 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. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 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 ] 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 (). ] (]) 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. ] (]) 02:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

*'''Oppose in the lead''': unneeded; the name is not material at this point. --] (]) 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.--] (]) 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 ]. &#124; 🔬🚆 &#124; <span style="font-size:100%;background:lightgreen;border:solid 0px;border-radius:3px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 2px 2px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> &#124; 14:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

== People are quoting from the original manifesto - primary source ==
People are quoting from the original manifesto which is primary source even if the secondary source they are placed in does not use the words. Why is everyone pushing it to be in the lead so soon? ] (]) 08:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

:Because it's key to the event and understanding it? ]<sup>]</sup> 14:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:: ] A few hours down the line it is easier to understand this. I had written my statement a long time back. Regards ] (]) 10:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
:: ], "Why is everyone pushing it to be in the lead so soon?" Please note the kind of content that was in the lead when I wrote my comment, and the kind of content in the lead now. This is just an observation and no means an argument. The lead has gone back and forth considerably these past hours. That is why I had my initial hesitations and posted this comment here. But now that there has been more time passage, I am ok with how the page has developed and the analysis being made on the talk page. I didn't mean this in an offensive way or anything. Just as a caution at the time and as a question which I wasn't being able to understand fully at the time. ] (]) 10:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

== Administrators should protect this page for a few hours - only admins edit ==
<s>Administrators should protect this page for a few hours - Only admins to edit.</s> ] (]) 08:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Or ECP at least. ] (]) 08:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''', no rationale given. Articles are ]. If there is edit warring between registered editors or vandalism, then it will be fully protected. ] ] ] 08:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:: '''REASON:''' For editors pushing matter to the lead from secondary sources that only have a video from the terrorist as a primary source. ] (]) 08:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::: I still stand by the reason, but I take back what I said related to full protection needed. Not needed. Issues seem to be sorting out. Thanks ] (]) 11:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::: So why is it semi-protected now? Addition of poorly sourced material or something, according to the log. Yeah, right! How is it that whenever an article such as this comes along there's always a mad scramble to get it protected for no valid reason? Anyone would think that some people here don't like IPs and new editors; surely not. ] (]) 16:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::: ], so you are saying it shouldn't be semi-protected? ] (]) 10:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
::::: ] My comment was written sometime back and a lot has happened since then. I understand better now the WP:Pre-empt and WP:Censor is rare here on Misplaced Pages even in such occasions and there are other ways to handle what I was trying to point out. I didn't mean this in an offensive way and I didn't mean it even as a censor, just that I wanted people to be cautious before pushing things in the lead. I am also a new editor in terms of all this and know now that full protection is not required in all this. Maybe just semi protection as per the discretion of the Misplaced Pages community. Regards ] (]) 10:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

== Terrorism categories ==
The categories identifying the attack as terrorism should be restored. The New Zealand government is now clear that the attack was terrorism. This isn't a BLP issue, as including the categories doesn't imply that any particular individual is guilty of terrorism. ] (]) 08:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:It's not their call, though. It's the up to the courts. Just like it isn't up to anyone abut the courts to decide whether a killing is murder or, say, manslaughter. I also noted that someone added it back with reference to some kind of talk page consensus that I frankly have a hard time seeing. ] (]) 09:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::It 's not court's call though. It's secondary sources who will decide whether it was an act of terrorism or not. ] (]) 09:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::"Terrorism" in most countries' laws has specific definitions that creates certain recourse as to actions policy/officials can take, and increases penalties that those committing the act can be sentenced to. Secondary sources may call the attack terrorism, but it is something that investigation officials and courts need to declare. So we can't go by secondary sources in this case. We can quote, for example, the PM's statement, but he's not in a position to be determining the long-term application of the word. --] (]) 14:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::"He"? Are you referring to the Australian PM or something? While the attacker may have been Australian born, and probably an Australian citizen, it seems of limited relevance. If you are referring to some other PM (Malaysian?), it seems even less relevant. ] (]) 16:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::No, it is not the courts who decide, regardless of the laws that state may have. Secondary sources, historians and journalists, look at the circumstances and make the call - which they have. Universally, this is being reported as a terrorist attack. ] (]) 19:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

== Aftermath - The two bags at Britomart ==
Should the recent news of two controlled explosions at Britomart in Auckland be included in the aftermath? Bomb squad was brought in, the train station was closed and everything. ] (]) 09:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
: That was a false alarm, so, no. <span style="background: #0800aa; padding: 2px;">&nbsp;''']'''&nbsp;</span><span style="background: #006eff; padding: 2px;">&nbsp;''']'''&nbsp;</span><span style="background: #00bbff; padding: 2px;">&nbsp;''']&nbsp;'''</span> 06:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

== Indonesians-Malaysians injured ==
Hi, are informations about (the number of) injured foreigners, eg. Indonesians/Malaysians, acceptable to be written on the page? If not, is there any WP rule/guide that indicates so? Thank you in advance. ]-] 10:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
*''The Malaysian High Commission in Wellington has confirmed that two Malaysians were among the wounded. The ] has condemned the Christchurch shootings and expressed support for the victims and families.<ref>{{cite news |title=Two Malaysians injured in Christchurch shooting |url=https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/australianz/one-malaysian-injured-in-christchurch-shooting |accessdate=15 March 2019 |publisher='']'' |date=15 March 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Two Malaysians injured in Christchurch mosque shootings |url=https://www.thestartv.com/v/two-malaysians-injured-in-christchurch-mosque-shootings |accessdate=15 March 2019 |publisher='']'' |date=15 March 2019}}</ref> ], a ] in the ], has condemned the terror attacks and expressed condolences for the victims. Similar sentiments have been echoed by former ] ].<ref>{{cite news |title=Mujahid slams attacks on New Zealand mosques |url=https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2019/03/15/mujahid-slams-attacks-on-new-zealand-mosques/1733021 |accessdate=15 March 2019 |publisher='']'' |date=15 March 2019}}</ref>'' Hope this gets added back into the article in some form. ] 00:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

== Casualties and victims ==
Just attempted to add this section. Any objections? {{Ping|Musicfan122}}
:It's too soon to add a template like this. We should wait until there's more information on the victims. ] (]) 19:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::I don't agree, since this feels like notable information, and similar content is often included in the development of similar articles... Anyway below is the most recent version with all known nationalities. ] (]) 19:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

=== Casualties and victims ===
<!-- Please DO NOT list names of victims or other personal information, the count from various countries will generally be enough, per ] -->
{| class="wikitable sortable floatright" style="font-size:86%; margin:0 0 1.5em 1.5em; width:20%"
|+Victims by citizenship
|-
! style="text-align:left; | Citizenship
! style="text-align:left;" | Deaths
! style="text-align:left; | Injuries
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | {{Flagu|Egypt}}
| 4<ref name="NYT 4 Egyptians">{{cite web | title=The Latest: 4 Egyptians Among Those Killed in NZ Shootings | website=The New York Times | date=16 Mar 2019 | url=https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/03/16/world/asia/ap-as-new-zealand-mosque-shooting-the-latest.html | access-date=16 Mar 2019}}</ref>
| ?
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | {{Flagu|Bangladesh}}
| 3
| 4-5<ref name="APvictims">{{cite web|url=https://www.apnews.com/cfb6ae4f22e442479a2d871cde808060|title=Foreigners among those targeted in New Zealand mosque attack|publisher=Associated Press|accessdate=16 March 2019}}</ref>
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | {{Flagu|Jordan}}
| 2
| 8<ref name="Jordan">{{cite web|url=http://www.jordantimes.com/news/local/two-jordanians-killed-eight-injured-new-zealand-terrorist-attack|title=Two Jordanians killed, eight injured in New Zealand terrorist attack|publisher=The Jordan Times|accessdate=15 March 2019}}</ref>
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | {{Flagu|India}}
| 2
| 1<ref name="https://www.newsnation.in 2019">{{cite web | title=Nine Indian-origin people in Christchurch go missing after mosque massacre: Envoy- News Nation | website=https://www.newsnation.in | date=15 Mar 2019 | url=https://www.newsnation.in/india-news/nine-indian-origin-people-in-christchurch-go-missing-after-mosque-massacre-envoy-article-217192.html | access-date=15 Mar 2019}}</ref>
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | {{Flagu|Saudi Arabia}}
| 1
| 1<ref name="NYT 4 Egyptians"/>
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | {{Flagu|Pakistan}}
| ?
| 4<ref name="APvictims">{{cite web|url=https://www.apnews.com/cfb6ae4f22e442479a2d871cde808060|title=Foreigners among those targeted in New Zealand mosque attack|publisher=Associated Press|accessdate=16 March 2019}}</ref>
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | {{Flagu|Afghanistan}}
| ?
| 3<ref name="aljazeera">{{cite web|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/03/world-reacts-zealand-mosque-attacks-190315061839640.html|title=The world reacts to New Zealand mosque attacks|publisher=Al Jazeera|accessdate=15 March 2019}}</ref>
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | {{Flagu|Turkey}}
| ?
| 3<ref name="APvictims">{{cite web|url=https://www.apnews.com/cfb6ae4f22e442479a2d871cde808060|title=Foreigners among those targeted in New Zealand mosque attack|publisher=Associated Press|accessdate=16 March 2019}}</ref>
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | {{Flagu|Indonesia}}
| ?
| 2<ref name="APvictims">{{cite web|url=https://www.apnews.com/cfb6ae4f22e442479a2d871cde808060|title=Foreigners among those targeted in New Zealand mosque attack|publisher=Associated Press|accessdate=16 March 2019}}</ref>
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | {{Flagu|Malaysia}}
| ?
| 2<ref name="CNA">{{cite web|url=https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/christchurch-shootings-2-malaysians-injured-6-indonesians-were-11348318|title=Christchurch shootings: 2 Malaysians injured; 6 Indonesians were in mosque during attack|publisher=Channel News Asia|accessdate=15 March 2019}}</ref>
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | '''Total'''
| '''49'''<ref name="stuff-111313938"/>
| '''48'''<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cdhb.health.nz/media-release/48-patients-with-gunshot-wounds/#.XItUhGXNfTs.twitter|title=48 patients with gunshot wounds being treated at Christchurch Hospital after firearms incident|publisher=Canterbury District Health Board|accessdate=15 March 2019}}</ref>
|}<!-- Please DO NOT list names of victims or other personal information, the count from various countries will generally be enough, per ] -->

The New Zealand Police initially declined to confirm the number of fatalities. Prime Minister ] was the first to announce that 40 people died in the attacks. This figure was later revised to 49 people, including 41 at the Al Noor Mosque and 7 at the Linwood Islamic Centre.<ref name="guardian"/> As of 21:00 NZDT on the evening of the attacks, one person had died from their wounds at Christchurch Hospital, and 48 people were being treated for gunshot wounds, 20 of whom were in a serious condition.<ref name="stuff-111313938"/>

], the Ambassador of ] to Australia, New Zealand, and Fiji, stated on Twitter that three Afghans were injured in the attacks.<ref name="aljazeera/> A statement released by the ]n ] noted that two Malaysians were treated in hospital for their injuries. ], ]'s Foreign Minister, stated that six Indonesians were inside the Al Noor Mosque at the time of the attack, of whom three were confirmed to have escaped.<ref name="CNA"/>

The ] of ], based in ], confirmed that three Bangladeshis were known to have been killed, and four or five injured. The ]ian ] stated that two Jordanians had been killed and eight had been injured. Statements were released by other foreign ministries detailing the number of known injuries, including four from ], three from ], and two from ]. The Embassy of ] in ] stated that two Saudis were among the injured.<ref name="APvictims/>

- ] (]) 10:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

:If this is not allowed, please delete. An update: 2 Indonesians injured, as confirmed by ], the Ambassador of Indonesia to New Zealand. (from an Indonesian news article)<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://wartakota.tribunnews.com/2019/03/15/dubes-tantowi-yahya-ungkap-2-wni-ayah-dan-anaknya-ditembak-saat-salat-jumat|title=Dubes Tantowi Yahya Ungkap, 2 WNI Ayah dan Anaknya Ditembak Saat Salat Jumat|website=Warta Kota|language=id-ID|access-date=2019-03-15}}</ref> ]-] 11:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC) ---- (update: a source in '''English''')<ref name="The Straits Times 2019">{{cite web | title=Malaysians, Indonesians injured in Christchurch shootings | website=The Straits Times | date=15 Mar 2019 | url=https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/australianz/one-malaysian-injured-in-christchurch-shooting | access-date=15 Mar 2019}}</ref> ]-]
::Update: a man with Saudi Arabian nationality was injured<ref name="Arab News 2019">{{cite web | title=Saudi citizen injured in New Zealand terrorist attacks | website=Arab News | date=15 Mar 2019 | url=http://www.arabnews.com/node/1467101/saudi-arabia | access-date=15 Mar 2019}}</ref><ref name="Ecns.cn 2019">{{cite web | title=Saudi Arabia confirms injury of Saudi national in New Zealand attack | website=Ecns.cn | date=15 Mar 2019 | url=http://www.ecns.cn/news/2019-03-15/detail-ifzfmzhu2191986.shtml | access-date=15 Mar 2019}}</ref> ]-] 11:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::Update: 2 Indians have died in the attacks, one seriously injured<ref name="https://www.newsnation.in 2019">{{cite web | title=Nine Indian-origin people in Christchurch go missing after mosque massacre: Envoy- News Nation | website=https://www.newsnation.in | date=15 Mar 2019 | url=https://www.newsnation.in/india-news/nine-indian-origin-people-in-christchurch-go-missing-after-mosque-massacre-envoy-article-217192.html | access-date=15 Mar 2019}}</ref> (note: confirmation was from the leader of All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen Party, not a some sort of government official; if this is not acceptable enough by the rules of WP, please delete) ]-] 20:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::Update: 1 of the 2 injured Saudis died due to the injury.<ref>{{cite news |title=وفاة مواطن سعودي متأثرا بإصابته في هجوم نيوزيلندا |trans-title= Saudi citizen dies due to injury in the New Zealand attack|url=https://www.skynewsarabia.com/world/1236079-%D9%88%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%A9-%D9%85%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B7%D9%86-%D8%B3%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%AF%D9%8A-%D9%85%D8%AA%D8%A7%D9%94%D8%AB%D8%B1%D8%A7-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%95%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%AA%D9%87-%D9%87%D8%AC%D9%88%D9%85-%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%88%D8%B2%D9%8A%D9%84%D9%86%D8%AF%D8%A7 |accessdate=March 16, 2019 |work=Sky News Arabia |date=March 16, 2019 |language=ar}}</ref> ~~ ] &#x1F352;&#x1f967; (]) 09:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

<small>{{reflist talk}}</small>

=== Votes? ===
:'''Support''' as this is an event that is likely to have a number of international victims, not just New Zealanders. ] (]) 11:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

:'''Comment''' It's too soon to add a template like this. We should wait until there's more information on the victims. ] (]) 19:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::I don't agree, since this feels like notable information, and similar content is often included in the development of similar articles... Anyway above is the most recent version with all known nationalities. ] (]) 19:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

:'''Object''' looks ridiculous to me. Is there such a thing for a lot of other articles of this type? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::{{Ping|Omysfysfybmm}} It is similar to ]. ] (]) 11:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:'''Support''' it is factual and relevant, especially given the apparent diversity of nationalities among the victims. '''Thanks''' to either ] or ] (it isn't clear) for making the template. ] (]) 14:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' This is common in attacks like these and should not be controversial. See ] and ]. ] (]) 14:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - from the news that is coming in, it looks like several nationalities were affected. Furthermore, there are precedents for these type of tables as mentioned by the user above. Another relevant article would be the ]. - ] ] 19:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' how is such a table supposed to handle dual nationals? Presumably some of these unfortunate people are naturalised Kiwis? Listing by their state of origin seems a bit dubious to me. Maybe wait on this till we have a more complete picture. ] ] 19:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::{{Ping|Sabine's Sunbird}} The totals on the bottom row wouldn't need to be the sum of all other rows. Dual nationals could be included under both of their nations, perhaps with a footnote to clarify e.g. "One of the X nationals was also a citizen of Y". ] (]) 19:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose scorecard''' Nationalities seem irrelevant when victims appear targeted for their belonging to a religion instead. And as mourning is not an international sport, there is little reason to rank participating nations by how many sympathy points they scored here. If there was, the eternal issue of whether injuries should count toward improving a team's standing (and by how much, relative to death) remains unsolved. Leave final tallies to games, in general, and relay in prose if ever necessary. ] ] 21:27, ], ] (UTC)
::{{ping|InedibleHulk}} Putting the nationalities in alphabetical order, instead of death/injured number, might be a good alternative. ]-] 10:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose table'''. It's detrimental to the visual appeal and layout of the page by taking up way too much visual space. Use prose instead if it's necessary to include the information at all. I'll also note that it is at the time of my writing this woefully incomplete, with only 8 out of 49 deaths accounted for. The sourcing is also not up to snuff. ] (]) 22:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
*'''Temporary oppose''' The data seems too incomplete to be reliable and the resultant table is potentially adding further pain to the families of the victims (I'm sure unintentionally). I don't have a strong opinion on the inclusion of the table per se. I'm mildly in favor of it in fact, as long as it has the correct information. Should wait until there are complete sources which provide detailed information about dual nationalities and then the individuals with dual nationality should be counted as New Zealanders. I have no dog in this fight. I was just reading the article and the table looked so outrageously wrong that I thought there must be a discussion over it in the talk page and I was right. Given that these people were killed because they were considered foreigners, counting them as foreigners despite the sources saying:

″but moved his family to New Zealand in the 1980s.″

″The couple moved to New Zealand 23 years ago"

″who moved to New Zealand from the United Arab Emirates in the 1990s″

...is pretty darn callous. When 49 people are murdered in NZ, even in a diverse community a good half are gonna be kiwis so a table that shows zero kiwis is first, wrong and second, hurtful given the reason for their murders. Hopefully sanity prevails here.] (]) 14:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

== We should NOT post any links to the Manifesto ==
I've noticed there are several cited articles that can trace to the Manifesto online.
We should not promote the Manifesto, nor publish any content of his hateful ideologies here. I don't think I need to elaborate on the reasons why promoting the Manifesto is a bad idea.

P.S. May all the victims Rest In Peace. ] (]) 12:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:Content on the Manifesto is in the article because it is cited via RS news sources. Misplaced Pages is ]. News outlets are writing about the manifesto due to events and the shooter's motivations. In a similar past example there is content about ] and his "manifesto". It is unpleasant situation, however the best editors can do is use RS sources and write based on facts.] (]) 12:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::{{u|Resnjari}}, we are not censored, but we can have editorial restraint to limit it's distribution where possible. If there are other RS of equal quality which do not link to it, we can prefer those. —] (] • ]) 13:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::The thing is RS media is linking it to what happened. I'm not saying to recite the document verbatim, but its important for readers to know that it contained hate speech and so on. The perpetrators of the shooting where not doing things in some void. It was a clear and meretriciously planned act with an ideology (i.e rightwing/conservative politics and so on) behind it.] (]) 13:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::We can of course include stuff about this manifesto-thing based on what RS says about it, but any quotes or whatever picked directly from it by editors should be removed. ] (]) 13:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::I understand the reasoning of {{u|Aceus0shrifter}} (and I myself share the same feelings against this hateful ideology) but I do not think that either we can promote or hide his Manifesto. Once it is on the net, anyone can find it. What we have to do, is to summarize Rel Sources. If many RS are mentioning a particular phrase from his manifesto, that means it is an important phrase and we should mention it too. If not, then we shouldn't reproduce it.] (]) 13:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::::That. And what is in the article right now is not ''that'' important, sources will calm down and get better eventually. ] (]) 14:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::(ec) Picking quotes directly from it is otherwise known as using primary sources, i.e. it should be done "carefully". There is a lot of stuff in there that is genuinely interesting -- for example, its position on homosexuality is that ''"I simply do not care all that much what gay people do. As long as they are loyal to their people and place their peoples well being first, then I have no issues."'' It would appear that well within my lifetime the Western world has gone from routine prime-time footage of people calling for all gays to be put to death to a situation where even the most infamous self-professed fascist expresses an attitude of tolerance even despite the apparent contradiction with his obsession about birth rates. As matters of political persuasion go, this is bloody ''miraculous''. But putting it in this article might admittedly be seen as "UNDUE" by those with more immediate interests. ] (]) 14:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::{{u|Resnjari}}, correct. It was however also an act that was attempting clearly to USE popular and Internet culture to enlarge the effects of said act and ideology. We should not let ourselves be used, not even indirectly by RS. We are not in a rush here. —] (] • ]) 14:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::::{{u|TheDJ}} yes i agree. I think the current info on the manifesto in the article balances it out without giving air to hate ideas contained inside it. This article will grow, just the like the Brevik one many years ago and info comes to hand.] (]) 14:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::I removed any direct quotes from the manifesto on the page. That said we can't exclude any reference to the hate document. It was a ideological text that the shooter had articulated for the events. We cant shield readers from bad things in the world otherwise much of the Misplaced Pages articles would not exist. The best that we can do is write the article in a civil manner via RS sources and yes there will be uncomfortable information as NZ police and future court cases relay to the public through the media the horrible details.] (]) 14:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::(ec many) {{re|TheDJ}} saying we aren't "censored" but have "editorial restraint" is a distinction without a difference. We are ''not'' writing ''down'' to the readers as a group of low-castes who can't be allowed to get bad ideas in their heads and who trust us to be their Parents and tell them "this is bad" without saying too much. We are writing for '''researchers''' here! Because every single person on the planet has the '''right''' to be a researcher -- to delve as shallowly or deeply into any matter he or she pleases. And no amount of blather by talking heads looking to grind an axe against gun ownership or Pewdiepie is going to substitute for a researcher gaining access to the primary document. ] (]) 14:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::{{u|Wnt}} I find any sort of extremism to be revolting, including free speech extremism. Like FB takes down videos of live broadcast shootings we have similar responsibilities. We are a global platform, not an experiment in free speech. —] (] • ]) 14:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::You wouldn't care to ''list'' or ''explain'' those responsibilities? Responsibilities to who or to what? Which news articles are "too much like news" to use? Never forget how much worse than useless it is to take this content out of wider public exposure as Facebook is doing -- people go from complaining that there are some racists on Facebook, where they could ''argue'' with them, to delivering lurid denunciations of the "toxic cesspool" of places like some Gab forums where they regrouped. No doubt the next step will be that if you run any internet-connected computer where two people can talk without being watched by a censor that you ought to go to jail, and any opposition to that is "free speech extremism". Then call me a free speech extremist, proudly, because I know full well that if you succeed at censoring every single place the racists can talk, they will spend more time loading their guns instead. Who benefits from ''that''? In any case, as you notice, ''all'' this is off topic for Misplaced Pages, because we ''are'' an experiment in free speech - the freedom ''of the people'' to write an ''encyclopedia''. And to do that, we need to preserve and cherish the sources. ] (]) 14:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::::I think what editors here were concerned about is making direct quotes from the manifesto in the article which by default air those views even though the editor adding the content did not have this in mind. Anyway the manifesto stuff is fixed.] (]) 14:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

:The manifesto is a huge part of this. Does the article on Mein Kampf not cite Mein Kampf because the stuff in it is aweful? No. It's history, for better or for worse. Censoring it will never work, it will just continue to Barbara Streisand effect. We need to remain objective and that includes including the things which have unpleasantries in them. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a moral police. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>

::As {{u|Resnjari}} said earlier, ] applies here. Whatever its content, the manifesto is a valuable primary source relating to this topic. The only exception would be if there were legal issues in linking to it, and there are none that I'm aware of. ] (]) 10:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2019 ==
{{edit semi-protected|Christchurch mosque shootings|answered=yes}} {{edit semi-protected|Christchurch mosque shootings|answered=yes}}
It says pratised but thats misspelt somewhere ] (]) 12:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Please change the reference after Pavlo Klimkin's tweet from <nowiki><ref>https://twitter.com/PavloKlimkin/status/1106463663182020608</ref></nowiki> to <nowiki><ref>{{cite tweet |user=PavloKlimkin |author-link=Pavlo Klimkin |number=1106463663182020608 |date=March 15, 2019 |title=We stay together with the people of New Zealand after the heinous mosque attacks in #Christchurch. My thoughts are with all affected by this sickening act of violence and hatred.}}</ref></nowiki> ] (]) 12:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:{{not done}}:<!-- Template:ESp --> I can't find the misspelt word "pratised" anywhere. ]&nbsp;(]) 14:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:] '''Not done for now:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> I do not see the name Pavlo in the article anywhere. It may have been removed. ] ] 17:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

== Were the gunmen really "terrorists"? ==
According to Misplaced Pages, "Terrorism is...the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people or fear to achieve a religious or political aim". Do we have any sources indicating that Tarrant and/or his fellow gunmen were trying to spread terror (as opposed to just kill Muslims)? For example, something Tarrant posted (and we are quoting) in his manifesto.

If not then shouldn't we rephrase (in the lead for example) "has been described as a ] by the Prime Minister" to something like "has been ''attributed'' to a terrorist attack by the Prime Minister", without the wikilink to terrorist attack. Also, in my opinion, the Terrorism in New Zealand sidebar should be taken down until we get reliable sources that the gunmen intended to spread terror. --] (]) 12:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

:a)We should follow mainstream media. If they are branding the gunmen as terrorists, we have to follow b)The shooting does create terror among Muslims and gunmen were trying to achieve a political aim (pure white Christian NZ/West).] (]) 13:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

:"" We seem to be paraphrasing correctly. ] (]) 13:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:As Cinadon36 and others have said, it's not up to us to ] whether or not his actions meet some definition of terrorism, but to go with what reliable sources say. I mean it's not like it's hard to find stuff in the "manifesto" where he specifically says it's by definition a terrorist attack, and talks of creating fear, but that's not for us to judge. As with all of these sort of things, it's full of contradictions like where he talks about how he doesn't want fame and will soon be forgotten since no one remembers all the other perpetrators but also compares himself to Nelson Mandela and talks about how he too will win a Nobel Peace Prize. Or where he acknowledges Australia is a European colony but then in in another breath says all "colonisers" are guilty and apparently deserving of death (which in the context, must include the children he killed many I suspect who were born in NZ). I've seen some suggesting there was some degree of trolling hence stuff like the kebab reference and the PewDiePie one (well in the video). So there are good reasons we don't engage in OR based on primary sources, let alone definitions from other articles. ] (]) 14:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::But , NZ as in most countries, have legal definitions of what is terrorism that are determined by investigators and courts, and which if an act is deemed terrorism, set into play new rules and penalties. Secondary sources may call it a terrorist attack, but we really should wait for how the authorities in the investigation determine how they will treat it. --] (]) 14:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::Well no, not really. Terrorism is one of those things which isn't simply a legal matter. If this act is widely considered a terrorist attack then this should be mentioned and the sidebar is relevant. We will also mention what any offenders are charged with and convicted of if or when that happens. By the same token ] has the sidebar and is mentioned in ] even though no one was ever charged with any offence relating to terrorism. This probably arises in part because even the government behind the attack seemed to agree it was a terrorist attack (albeit before they admitted their involvement), but again it's not for us to judge. ] (]) 14:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::When used as it is now by secondary news sources, its effectively a label - its a subjective call based on only what they know has happened. We should not be factually treating it as terrorism until the approrpate gov't agencies have completed their investigation and confirm it is one. I am not saying this will not ultimately be defined as such, but WP cannot jump the gun here, even if the press are doing it already. --] (]) 14:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::Except if you're talking about the legal standpoint, the government has very limited room to even decide whether something is an act of terrorism. Most of the stuff relating to terrorism that is under the purview of the government relates to terrorism financing or designating groups as terrorist entities. Otherwise, it's really up to the courts to decide. Ultimately the PM's statements are as good as any considering NZ law and norms. ] (]) 15:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::::Even with that, we should not be rushing to call it as such until the motives of the attackers are clear and the investigation is completed. Terrorism is a very strong word, and at this stage, extremely persausive on how people see the incident, so we should still not be factually calling it that, but certainly can include attributes uses of the word. --] (]) 15:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::::That's largely beside my point. I never commented on whether or not we should label it terrorism in wiki voice. I'm not even sure if anyone else in this discussion, apparently besides you did. Incidentally, why do you keep speaking about "the investigation" as if it's some end all. Do you actually have any real understanding of how things work in NZ? I have to admit, especially considering you mentioned some random male prime minister above, I have my doubts you have any real understanding of anything about NZ. ] (]) 16:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::Gov't agencies don't make the call on "terrorism" ... the act itself does. Do you think Stalin's Russia, North Korea, Nazi Germany would have defined some of their heinous acts in a legitimate way? Historians and journalists are the deciding factor.] (]) 19:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:There is absolutely no doubt that this was a ] and multiple sources describe it as such. There is really nothing to discuss here. ] (]) 19:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::Terrorism is just one use of terror, they aren't synonyms. That's not to say sources don't call it terrorism as well, but don't conflate the two when determining whether one is a common descriptor. As for my personal opinion, I say wait for a guilty verdict before stating it as fact (attributing the apparent public consensus to a newspaper in the meanwhile). ] ] 22:44, ], ] (UTC)
:Yes, I believe they were. I agree with mainstream media on this one. At least the shooter was, the others are TBD <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>
::{{Re|Masem|Nil Einne|p=}} and others: Isn't this a question of ]? Do we have any ] that talk about the legal definitions of what is and is not terrorism? Is there any information of whether Tarrant will be charged with terrorism (in addition to murder) under New Zealand laws? If so, shouldn't we include these descriptions as a significant viewpoint? --] (]) 04:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
: It fits every single definition of terrorism and was called that by the prime minister. <!-- ffs --> <span style="background: #0800aa; padding: 2px;">&nbsp;''']'''&nbsp;</span><span style="background: #006eff; padding: 2px;">&nbsp;''']'''&nbsp;</span><span style="background: #00bbff; padding: 2px;">&nbsp;''']&nbsp;'''</span> 06:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

== Islamophobia ==
Many people in New Zealand and around the world are connecting this act to Islamophobia or anti-Muslim hatred. For example, covers many in the Muslim world making such statements. says
{{cquote|"For Muslims in New Zealand and abroad, the massacre drew both sadness and outrage — it was a crime and a tragedy, but also, in the eyes of many, a brazen act of hatred borne from years of anti-Muslim sentiment."}}
Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon , in reacting to the attack, "We must stand against Islamophobia and all hate."
A Muslim Australian leader also this to Islamophobia. ], an Australian senator.''']''' <sub>]</sub> 13:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:Just because a term was briefly mentioned in an article or a tweet does not mean that it is the main motive of the attack. As the sources state, the motive is more leaning toward white supremacy and anti immigration, thus if we were to insert a template, it should pertain to anti-immigration. ] (]) 14:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::There's no reason we can't include both links to Islamophobia and White supremacy.''']''' <sub>]</sub>
::Adding ] at the very least to the "See also" section is very appropriate. It is bizarre to it being removed from there.] (]) 15:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::It seems unnecessary to me. It's already in the article as it should be. There's no point having it in the ]. Likewise for right-wing terrorism and list of massacres in NZ so I've removed them too . Probably Islam in NZ should be incorporated into the article too, but I've left it until someone does. ] (]) 15:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::] is something that is hard to incorporate into the article.''']''' <sub>]</sub> 06:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
::::::It's possible it could be. But anyway ultimately given the state of the article development, it's probably not that important to find a way to incorporate every relevant see also at the moment. I mean list of massacres in NZ was incorporated but then removed at some stage. I guess the main point is there's actually a good reason why some relevant stuff isn't in the 'see also' and may be removed namely it's already in the article. ] (]) 14:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
:From what I read of the manifesto, the motivations were racist, but mostly authoritarian. He stated he doesn't hate Jews, Muslims, etc. Only when they come to "white" countries. And anti-immigration is usually an authoritarian sentiment with sprinkles of racism. He's a self-admitted "eco-fascist" and his political views were that of the People's Republic of China, although that last part might be a joke.
::I agree with the above. He wanted countries worldwide to be comprised of their own ethnicity. Not even sure xenophobic is an accurate word, but it is closer to anti-muslim or islamophobic. What he hated was immigration; he was a populist, fascist, and an authoritarian but he wasnt afraid of muslims, or hate jews, or any other race, he just wants immigrants to stop coming to NZ. I'm honestly quite surprised he didnt say "Skyrim is for the Nords" with how many other memes he mentioned, because that phrase sums up his beliefs as outlined in the manifesto quite aptly <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Writings on firearms ==
"The shooter's Twitter account showed firearms with the names of victims of terror attacks in the West scrawled on them."

], ], ] were victims of terror attacks in the West? Cited source says that they were fighting agains Ottomans in XVII (Potocki & Cantacuzino) and XIX (Codrington) centuries. --] (]) 14:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

:It can be added if you add a source that mentions this, and there are plenty, like: https://www.news.com.au/world/pacific/gunman-who-opened-fire-on-christchurch-mosque-addresses-attack-in-manifesto/news-story/70372a39f720697813607a9ec426a734. ] (]) 14:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC).

::Ah, it seems that he scrawled both victims and fighters. The cited source I mentioned is already in the text, but I can't edit the article yet (new user). --] (]) 15:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

== 'Second shooter, simultaneous attack' ==
Under '''Linwood Islamic Centre''' it says there was a second shooter in a simultaneous attack'. This was indeed an impression in the first hours after the attack, but it seems there was only one shooter who drove from the first mosque to the second. Since there is only one source talking about the second shooter and the simultaneity, I'd suggest to be cautious on this point and rephrase the section. ] (]) 14:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC).
:I rephrased the section, adding a source too. ] (]) 14:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC).
::Thanks ]. Good pick up.] (]) 14:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

:], will you please explain why you keep adding information that says there were multiple attackers, while later information has shown otherwise? ] (]) 18:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC).

], My bad. I was unaware of this later information. My edits were just being repeatedly deleted without explanation. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Reactions section 2 ==
The following were removed from the reactions section by ]
''(→‎Reactions: No reason to single out the USA or UK)''. Should they be there?
:::Prime Minister of the United Kingdom ] and the ] have condemned the shootings and expressed support for the victims and families.<!--<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/australianz/one-malaysian-injured-in-christchurch-shooting|title=Two Malaysians injured in Christchurch shooting|date=15 March 2019|accessdate=15 March 2019|publisher='']''}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.thestartv.com/v/two-malaysians-injured-in-christchurch-mosque-shootings|title=Two Malaysians injured in Christchurch mosque shootings|date=15 March 2019|accessdate=15 March 2019|publisher='']''}}</ref>-->
:::] ] tweeted, "My warmest sympathy and best wishes goes out to the people of New Zealand after the horrible massacre in the Mosques. 49 innocent people have so senselessly died, with so many more seriously injured. The U.S. stands by New Zealand for anything we can do. God bless all!".<!--<ref>{{cite tweet |user=realDonaldTrump |author-link=Donald Trump |number=1106520743855251456 |date=March 15, 2019 |title=My warmest sympathy and best wishes goes out to the people of New Zealand after the horrible massacre in the Mosques. 49 innocent people have so senselessly died, with so many more seriously injured. The U.S. stands by New Zealand for anything we can do. God bless all!}}</ref>--> In the initial moments after the attack, Trump posted a link to ] the far-right news site, which featured a news feed about the attacks. After several hours, the attack was deleted.<!--<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/03/world-condemns-terrorist-attacks-on-new-zealand-mosques/|title=World Condemns Terrorist Attacks on New Zealand Mosques|date=15 March 2019|accessdate=15 March 2019|publisher='']''}}</ref>-->
I suspect they will ultimately evolve, but they will just keep getting added in anyway?] (]) 14:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

:Reaction sections that primarily consist of "Leader X of country Y offered their condolances" are useless to include; they clutter up too many of these types of articles, when a single sentence, like "World leaders, including, X, Y, and Z, offered their condolances". Specific reactions that involve actual "actions" like providing investigative assistance, relief or funds to support those affected, etc. are what should be documented indivudally. --] (]) 14:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::I agree, but they will just keep popping up. Theresa May's already has. It is just easier to leave them there for the time being and they will get cleaned up in a few days.] (]) 15:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::At most they will be moved to an independent article that may or may not be deleted later. Undue is a real concern and the reactions of the world should not dominate the reactions of the country involved. Yes people will continue to add them, because it is easy to copypaste a quote and some editors like their country to be mentioned when these things happen. Maybe we can get some consensus here now, or should we just create ] and be done with it. ]&nbsp;] 15:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::Maybe put a comment at the start of the section, something along the lines of READ THIS BEFORE ADDING REACTIONS. We can put it in a big border of hash tags or asterisks or something.] (]) 15:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::Once the other article is created (if we go that route) this is probably best. ]&nbsp;] 15:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::::Oh, the point is that we use the comment to keep the reactions section small so that the content never needs to go to another article. Who needs an article on reactions? ] (]) 15:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::::I've added a recentism tag and made a very ugly prominent hidden comment in the section. Hopefully that works. Crosses fingers. ] (]) 17:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::::::And the tag keeps getting removed. Sigh.] (]) 17:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:It's easy to get soundbites from English-speaking leaders on the EN WP. Then someone will come along and say, what about the leaders who speak French, or German, or Spanish, etc? They get added. Soon it becomes a quote-fest of everyone who makes a tweet about it, and the article gets bogged down with said quotes. Leave it for now, then spin it out to its own article. Although, past form shows these are now being deleted at AfD. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 15:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::Exactly - if the bulk of reactions are just words of condolences, that's not really encyclopedic. Of course all world leaders are going to come out to talk about how bad the incident was, so this type of coverage is routine. A single sentence can coverage the bulk of these, it does not at all need to be a separate article at this point. --] (]) 15:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:'''Example''' I added the following: ''], a far right wing Australian politician released a widely criticised press release claiming that the attacks highlighted the "growing fear over an increasing Muslim presence" in Australian and New Zealand communities.<!--<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12213197 |title=Aussie politician lashes out at Muslims after Christchurch shootings: 'They are the perpetrators' |work=New Zealand Herald |date=15 March 2019 |accessdate=15 March 2019}}</ref>-->'' this is notable because it is a right wing politician attacking the victims and he is from the apparent attacker's home country. Yet it was reverted. In the spirit of ] would someone else be so kind as to reinstate it.] (]) 16:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a perennial problem. Personally, I think summary statements would be better. "Condolences and condemnations of the attack were offered by many world leaders, such as ..." ] ] 17:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
*I don't know who turned it into a note, but I '''Strongly Support''' that option. ]&nbsp;] 22:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::{{diff2|887948226|That was me}}. I've {{diff2|783881264|seen it used}} and {{diff2|788813529|used it myself}} before successfully. ] (]) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::You have my thanks. ]&nbsp;] 00:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

== Edit warring: a call for good faith ==
There seems to be a bit of edit warring going on in this article. I have had a few ] edits reverted/or deleted withing seconds of making them. It would be great to see some more civility all round? We should try to improve people's contributions instead of indifferently destroying them.] (]) 15:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:I have already reported one editor for edit warring. ] (]) 15:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::Yep, I dropped out of contributing early on because my first attempts at cleanup were instantly reverted despite hours later those cleanups were justified as the page developed. Let the Misplaced Pages process work. No editor owns this page. ] (]) 19:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::This is exactly why non good faith reversions are evil. They create angst and drive people away from improving Misplaced Pages. My solution has been to create a ] to keep track of people who make multiple reversions. Perhaps this strategy could be employed earlier in future.

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

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

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

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

] (]) 15:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC) <ins>15:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)</ins>
:I am not sure how much weight we should give these first-hand accounts now. There is usually a lot of confusion from eyewitnesses. I am sure in due time, once reports are corroborated we will get a clearer picture of how events unfolded. ]&nbsp;] 15:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::To be clear, only one of them is a first hand account. All the rest are based on the video, not first hand accounts. Sadly I'm not sure anyone survived to give first hand accounts of the rest. We obviously need more RS to comment, but if they agree with these interpretations of the video, then I think they're worth considering. (I think we need more comment on the significance of the strobe light too before we add it.) And for the 1/4 that is based on a first hand account, when I said 'worth keeping an eye on' I meant 'see if it's corroborated and accepted'. Independent corroboration is likely to come for the first and last in time I suspect, although I'm not convinced we need to wait for that if the multiple sources agree with the interpretation of the video. ] (]) 15:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::With the death of the SMH story we only had Post Millenial source for the strobe light bit which I suspect may not be an RS. But found one now so all of these are covered in RS although I think we need more sourcing. ] (]) 02:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

== Australian politician reaction ==
"Politician lashes out at Muslims after Christchurch shootings: ‘They are the perpetrators’" Should we add this to the reaction section?
:''https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/politics/politician-lashes-out-at-muslims-after-christchurch-shootings-they-are-the-perpetrators/news-story/8e3f11fe73821dc3e65d75432ac76f2e''
] 16:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:No, it has no direct bearing on the attacks. It might be material to include on the politican's page, but there, consider RECENTISM to make sure the statements stick. --] (]) 16:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::Thanks for the response, that is a new thing I learned today. ]. ] 16:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::Woah steady on there. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. Wait for a few more opinions before responding. Let people discuss the point. The correct interpretation wins, not the popular vote per se.] (]) 16:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:'''Agree'''This should be included because it is ] Fraser Anning attacked the victims, he is a right wing politician and he is from the attackers country. That makes this more notable than a generic platitude.] (]) 16:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::Using this article about a serious attack to coatrack critical of a national politician is absolutely not appropriate, at least at this stage. If this ends up where, for some reason, Anning is forced to leave office or the like, that's a brief mention in a reactions section, but the brunt of the details would be at Anning's page. But if this is just a "Anning said something that was criticized by others", it has no bearing here. --] (]) 16:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::For the time being, it is ]. It is in multiple reliable sources. If at some point in the future it proves to be irrelevant it can be removed. I note that there is no ] policy. What is coatrack?] (]) 16:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Mozzie}} add the content to the politican's page, its definitely relevant there. Best.] (]) 17:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

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

] (]) 16:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

:It is presently the shooter's copyright. That will probably be lost upon whatever conviction he has but then will fall to the state (NZ). So no, we cannot include samples of the video at all. --] (]) 16:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:Why do you believe he will lose copyright? ] (]) 17:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::We can include fair use clips of coyrighted works. Why do you think we "cannot include samples of the video at all", ]? ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 16:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::Well true, we could, but it would be extremely distasteful to include them in the first point, and authorities are asking people not to share the videos, which we should also abide by. --] (]) 16:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::Isn't the government's intellectual property automatically public domain?
:::Only in the US and maybe a small number of other countries. Also I should clarify even in the US, it's only the federal government and it's, only stuff the federal government creates. It does not apply to copyright transferred to the federal government. ] (]) 17:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::Where does the conviction thing mentioned earlier come about? Are you suggesting a instrument forfeiture order will be used? I wasn't aware that even covered copyright but I guess copyright may be intangible personal property so perhaps it does although I admit I haven't heard of it being used in that way before but I don't pay that much attention. But that's an interesting point especially in light of the above discussion, since it seems to me it's questionable if the video was really "used to commit, or to facilitate the commission of" if the offender is just charged with murder and attempted murder. If the offender is charged with committing a terrorist act, then I guess it probably would. If they're charged with some cybercrime offence, then maybe it is, but I doubt it will meet the 5 year minimum threshold. (Well I'm assuming it's based solely on the offence that the video was used or facilitated the commission of.) But then again, I wonder if the government could confiscate without a conviction using the ]. ] (]) 17:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

:Media has to be hosted on wikimedia, and to be hosted there it has to be free of copyright. I've been down this road over far ore trivial things. I can't see it being hosted.] (]) 17:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::Eh? AFAIK, there's nothing stopping videos being hosted on en.wikipedia, the same we do with images. It's generally better to host them on commons if they meet commons requirements, but it's fine to host them here if they don't but meet out requirements. E.g. content copyrighted in the country of origin but not the US, or content allowed under NFCC. To be fair, there must be very few videos which are allowed under the NFCC since in most cases a small number of frame captures would probably be enough but still..... In this particularly case, I'm very doubtful that even frame captures would be allowed. What can they possibly convey that can't be adequetly conveyed with text? ] (]) 17:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::Maybe my understanding of this is a bit out of date. Can anyone say if non Wikimedia media is allowed on Misplaced Pages? Can we include YouTube videos in articles?] (]) 17:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::As indicated above, content on Wikimedia Commons must be free in both the US and the country of origin. The English Misplaced Pages accepts files that are free only in the US and it accepts fair use files in a very limited number of cases. See also ]. The vast majority of Youtube videos will qualify neither for upload to Commons nor for local upload on the English Misplaced Pages. ]] 17:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::(EC) Well it can't be 'out of date' since commons postdated en.wikipedia and content under fair use (or other acceptable content) was never completely forbidden on en.wikipedia. I'm confused what you mean by "non wikimedia media", but it's trivial to find a NFCC content since for better of worse, it's a fundamental part of en.wikipedia. E.g. ]. I don't know what you mean by "include YouTube videos". Content will need to be uploaded to en.wikipedia or commons and will need to comply with the policies for each. For commons, the basic relevant requirement is that it's under a suitable licence, or is in the public domain in the US and the country of origin. For en.wikipedia, it either needs to be under a suitable licence (although in that case it's generally preferable to upload to commons), in the public domain in the US (if it's 'also' in the public domain in the country of origin then again commons is likely a better choice), or it meets out NFCC including having a fair use rationale. As I already mentioned, the number of videos for which this will apply is very small. Actually if you're talking about whole videos copied from elsewhere it's probably zero since even if there is some compelling reason why the video is needed, it probably doesn't apply to the entire video but instead only a short portion of it. Note that because NFCC is so difficult for people to understand, it's probably not worth thinking about unless you're already fairly experienced with our copyright norms. And since cases where content is public domain in the US but not the country of origin are also so rare, it's probably fine to simply think that you should probably only be uploading content to commons. In other words, it's not that it's forbidden to upload content here, it's just that there's no reason to since you should only be uploading content which can also go on commons unless you really understand what you're doing. ] (]) 18:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::: We ''could'' host YouTube content on Misplaced Pages, but we might as well just link directly to a picture of a black page or a gray screen with three dots to save time. ] (]) 01:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

:One other thing to add: ''maybe'' in the future a still or short segment of the video may be appropriate but it would have to satisfy NFCC. This means the image should be iconic of the attack or significant in the investigation. Appropriate uses of such non-free would be the ] (that video replayed extensively on news that made it iconic to the incident) or the ] (the security video shot of the brothers on their way to plant the bombs). But in here, it will be a matter of time - maybe days, weeks, or more. Right this moment, it would be inappropriate. --] (]) 18:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::Any video posted should take special notice of ], especially given the expectation of readers that they will find suitably encyclopedic material on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 19:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::THat's why I mention the time element. The Columbine image would definitely be shocking, but it is clearly part of the historical record of the event. Nothing I've seen yet has that for this attack, but that could changes, but we need to wait for time to understand that. --] (]) 20:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

== Photo of him in suspects ==
Should we put a photo of him in suspects? ] (]) 17:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
: ], Sounds great but who will upload his image to commons ? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Probably best not to; he'd become the only person with a picture in the article which in my opinion is undue attention. Too many BLP issues with that at the moment. ''']]'''&thinsp;<sup><sup><sup>(])</sup></sup></sup>, at 18:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

No. --] (]) 23:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

== Serbia Strong ==
The song is called "Bog je Srbin (i on ce nas cuvati)", actually. The footage also contains other imageboard-culture-related music, such The British Grenadiers' march, "Gas Gas Gas", and "Fire" ] (]) 18:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

''The anti-Muslim phrase "Remove Kebab", a slogan originating from Serbia that spread globally''. As a guy living in Serbia, i literally hear this phrase the 1st time. I never ever heared it b4. And the reference is pretty weak. When u google it its just gives u an info that it was used by someone to name a yt video from 2009 filmed during the war (which of the same kind there are plenty). Im quite sure that any dictionary in serbian (slang dictionaries or otherwise) doesn't mention this phrase. --] (]) 18:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:I thought that was a ]-related meme. --] (]) 19:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::It originates from eu4, iirc, and before that from a copypasta which you can find by googling 'yuo are worst turk'. ]<span style="color: #3558b7;"><sup>]</sup>]</span> 19:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::{{ping|HyperGaruda}}{{ping|Iseult}} Maybe the meme, but the sentence refers to a -phrase-, saying it has origins in Serbia. And that is false. Primarily based on common sense: the kebab is one of the most eaten meals in the country, so the idea that such a -serbian- meal is used to refer to smth. -non-serbian- is quite obscure (if u know a little bit of the culture). Secondly the author in the Radio Free Europe article doesn't give us any other sources other than his claim. And any google search contradicts him. --] (]) 20:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::I was dubious of this statement originating with Serbs myself. Although I'm predominantly a Croat, my family comes from an area of Bosnia referred to as ''Republika Srpska'' (Serb Republic). The kebab is as widely eaten as '']'' and ''ćevapi'' there. It'd be a bit like an Aussie railing against the Bunnings sausage. ] (]) 20:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Mr rnddude}} It is dubious. I'll try to check some slang dictionaries just to get rid of this RFE reference. --] (]) 20:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::It appears to predate its use on eu4 and probably originated in the copypasta mentioned which is an English language anti-Turk rant referencing a Turkish/American parody of the pro-Serbian song. So its complicated. ] (]) 21:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Rmhermen}}Well as u say. It's not a phrase coming from Serbia which spread globally as the sentence says. And secondly, the lyrics of the (war) song itself nowhere mentions ″kebab removals″. So the parody isn't extracted from the song either. If u wanna specify it, it would be double stereotyping (against the ″kebab eating people″, as well as an original (english-speaker) interpretation of the song/the context to which it refers to (the yugoslav wars)). --] (]) 21:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

This claim that Serbs practice this phrase is incredibly false, there is not recorded anywhere, and such claims unduly tarnish Serbs at this critical time. This needs to be removed immediately. ] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 21:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== ] in the Reactions Section ==
Do we really want to know what some guy called ] has to say about this? I acknowledge his YouTube channel was mentioned by the attacker, but it seems incongruous to have his views alongside those of world leaders. I moved mention of him and his YouTube stuff to another section. Surely that's enough. We don't include the views of, for example, the Christchurch police chief in the Reactions section, so why this YouTuber? ] (]) 18:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:The fact he was called out makes him much more relevant to the situation than random world leaders offering condolences. Without this, the article suggests PDP may have been complicit in the attack. --] (]) 18:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:AKAIK he is the most popular youtuber of all time, with an audience larger than probably many prime time television shows. ]] 18:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::From where was he called out? His views are of no consequence whatsoever. He speaks for no one, unlike the world leaders. By all means put some text in somewhere to state that he had nothing to do with it - maybe even quote him - but not in a section that's obviously designed for the reactions of world leaders and the like. As for him being the most popular YouTuber of all time - until today I'd never heard of him - and I don't live a sheltered life! ] (]) 18:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::: ]] 18:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::Just wondering, did you waste your own time putting that puerile shite together? ] (]) 19:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::: ]] 19:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::::If that's aimed at me, you're wasting your time again. I'm not even going to click on the link. Grow up! ] (]) 19:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

::::::That's a bit hostile, and certainly not ]. ]<span style="color: #3558b7;"><sup>]</sup>]</span> 19:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay guys, a bit of silliness going on here from all of us, nothing too dramatic, but why has some randomer (must be an admin I guess), come in and removed the edit history for the above comments and over 20 more edits? ] (]) 19:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
*The deletions are unrelated to this thread {{u|Silas Stoat}}. Somebody posted material either copyrighted or disruptive (it's relating to a video link, so the reasoning could be either). As a result any version of this page that contained the link had to be suppressed. ] (]) 19:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::Okay, understood. Thanks for that. ] (]) 19:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
**<ec>It was me, it wasn't random. See my note at the bottom of the page - no links to the video. .'''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 19:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

::It looks frankly bizarre to have world leaders abbreviated into one paragraph, and then PewDiePie gets his own paragraph.--] (]) 01:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
:::It's an unusual situation because of being called out with having no other role in it. I definitely don't think we need his full quote, just at least the part far distancing himself. --] (]) 01:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
::::{{re|Masem}} actually not unusual given the number of people he cited. Do we also have to include ]'s response (which did happen on Twitter)? Or ]'s where he said white supremacists were a "small group of people here"? The page appears to be suspended on a slope with no friction but that is not how the laws of physics or symmetrical treatment on Misplaced Pages work...--] (]) 01:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::The mention of the attacker calling out PDP's name is across the media. This directly affects his person, and he quickly distanced himself from any involvement. On the other hand, neither Owen or Trump or others were not affected at all by the attack in a direct manner. Mind you, I would have no problem moving PDP's response elsewhere that would be appropriate - maybe aftermath? - for what reasons you say, just that we absolutely need to include it from a BLP aspect. --] (]) 01:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::{{ec}} Was just about to add (edit conflict) -- a better idea might be to mention this in the suspect's own section, like {{tquote|(in the aftermath of the shooting, PewDiePie expressed his disgust...}} etc.--] (]) 01:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

== Who was the first hero? ==
I see a bunch of articles about the hero who finally ended the attack by tackling the gunman and taking his shotgun. But in the video at Bestgore there is a ''first'' hero at the first mosque who tried to tackle the shooter within the first 30 seconds, and I think managed to actually touch the gun before being killed. But that seems buried under the search hits for the one who succeeded. Does anyone remember seeing a coverage about this part? ] (]) 18:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:We just need to wait for reliable sources to report this. Misplaced Pages isn't a breaking news source, so no need to be hasty.] (]) 18:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::There was not first hero (according to the video at 7:00, I am not allowed to post the link) that guy was just trying to run for his life but he was pushed by the terrorist which was mistaken as an attempt to grab his weapon. ] (]) 19:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::Why are we discussing results of ]? ]<span style="color: #3558b7;"><sup>]</sup>]</span> 19:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::Note at least one source which I linked above, Newsweek, has already mentioned this. As I said, I think we need more sources before we mention it in our article, but we should be clear that most of the stuff is in reliable sources Wnt's ignoring of existing discussions not withstanding. ] (]) 02:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

== Video ==
A reminder: '''don't post links to the video anywhere on Misplaced Pages.''' Editors who disregard this warning may be blocked: BLP applies in the strongest terms, and that's only a start. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 19:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:Would this apply to the manifesto too, or does this depend on discussions above? ]<span style="color: #3558b7;"><sup>]</sup>]</span> 19:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::Precedents exist for things like the manifesto, as distasteful as it may be, but the video is clearly out of bounds. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 19:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::Wouldn't the manifesto technically fall under a BLP violation, though, considering that government sources have released no names and that reliable sources have him as a suspect, and thus BLPCRIME would apply? ]<span style="color: #3558b7;"><sup>]</sup>]</span> 19:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::I suppose it could, I've not been following that part of the event. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 19:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::] explicitly refers to reporting crimes about people who are not well known. The people who committed these acts are suddenly, or very soon will be suddenly well known. Therefore these matters can be published given sufficient reliable sources. The issue with media is pretty much one of copyright as I understand it.] (]) 19:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:I agree, but not quite. Per ], there should be no links to copyright violations. However, if a reliable source has the video and is not a copyright violation, '''it should be included as an external link''' as it is discussed in dozens of other RSes. As per ], stuff should not be removed because it is seen as "offensive", and editors who edit war to remove such content may be blocked too. Per ], it is alright to include controversial links to reliable sources. <span style="background-color:#cee">]</span> ] 19:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::A video of identifiable people being killed falls under BLP, completely apart from considerations of copyright. Any link to anything along those lines should be the outcome of a broad community discussion. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 19:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::Such a video would not exist. Faces are usually blurred. <span style="background-color:#cee">]</span> ] 20:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::] content should not be given ] just because it is available. ] (]) 20:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::I said very clearly that I would support an ''external link'' to the video. That does not violate ] because the reader knows what's behind it. The video is very relevant here and highly cited by reliable sources. <span style="background-color:#cee">]</span> ] 21:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::::Numerous secondary sources will exist that will be just as relevant and reliable without the chance of students/minors accessing graphic video of people being killed from a link on wikipedia.] (]) 21:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::::Misplaced Pages has a ] so concerns like "think of the kids" are irrelevant. If this stuff is inappropriate, what about the child porn (e.g. at ])? Further, Misplaced Pages has a responsibility of being ], as opposed to the Reddit thought-police which banned /r/watchpeopledie a few hours ago . <span style="background-color:#cee">]</span> ] 21:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::::::How can ] possibly preclude a video of an identifiable person being killed? The policy specifically refers to '''living''' people. ] (]) 23:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
{{od}} BLP also specifically includes "recently deceased" people. ]] 23:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:BLP prohibits false or unsourced information about living people, not factual information. Invoking it here is a red herring. The situation with copyright violation is more debatable. Yes, you can argue that a site hosting the video might be violating the killer's precious copyright, and that would surely, by Misplaced Pages policy, be a Bad Thing; after all, the copyright system exists to reward creators for their creativity and ingenuity. But I think traditional and even non-traditional news organizations could make a persuasive case for a broad Fair Use exception based on the newsworthiness of their content, and Wikipedians do not have to judge whether a non-pirate site's copyright lawyers are giving them the right advice or not.
:The tone of moral panic in this severely disappoints me. On a philosophical level, Wikipedians should know that freedom of inquiry is precious. On a practical level, watching the video is useful. We see that (no matter what the guy above says) a hero went to grab the gun about 25 seconds after he walked into the first building, and came within half a second of succeeding. Yet we also see that by that point most of the people had already been shot down. I can say for certain that I had no appreciation for how ''fast'' a mass shooting could be, nor did I really believe that everyone would fall to the ground right away. This has many implications for policy positions, like the American notion of arming teachers. Can someone make the decision to shoot and abstract a gun from a locked case and prepare it to fire before it is too late? It is our calling to hoard information and look deeply into things; let's not be ashamed of it. ] (]) 00:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
::{{tq|It is our calling to hoard information and look deeply into things}} - no, that's definitely not true, especially the second part of it. As an encyclopedia, we are here to report what secondary sources say, not to create analysis of our own. ]] 01:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
:::We are not supposed to impose our analysis of primary sources, but we '''are''' here to facilitate the reader to make his ''own'' analysis. The video remains online as the headline item at ], which should be easy to find, so at the moment I won't defy the above ultimatum over the hypothetical violation of the murderer's precious copyright. I would ''like'' to see a more mainstream link for the video - it is really not particularly gory to watch, it's instructive, it does ''nothing'' to diminish the humanity of the people killed, but rather, conveys the shock of a nearly instantaneous attack, the humanity of their emotions and responses, and even how close someone came to stopping the massacre and saving everyone who had been wounded and at the second mosque. On Bestgore you'll find the comments much more appalling to view than the video. ] (]) 14:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

== The term Turkofagos is wrong ==
Turkofagos was the popular nickname of Greek revolutionary ] during the Greek war of independence, The western media is wrong saying it was used to describe Greek militias generally. ] (]) 19:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

== Comparing death toll to Featherston 1943 ==
The deadliest attack in New Zealand was the 1943 riot at ], which killed 48 Japanese prisoners and one New Zealander soldier (49 total). Since the death toll for the mosque shootings is at 49, is it fair to say that they are the deadliest attack in New Zealand history? ] (]) 19:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:{{ping|Neegzistuoja}} As much as I'm concerned about that, we should be cautious of ] indications, and wait until a source says so - just an advice. (ps: the comparisons to Raurimu and Aramoana massacres in the article are also sourced) ]-] 20:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::The actions of multiple guards at Featherston to suppress a riot under conditions of war were not unlawful killings, so the comparison is not really appropriate in any case. Nonetheless, if the sources make it, it should be reported. ] (]) 01:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2019 ==
{{edit semi-protected|Christchurch mosque shootings|answered=yes}}
Please change Right-Wing Terror Attacks on the first line to Ethno-Nationalism, as on his manifesto, he states he doesn't associate himself with conservatism (on page 15) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5770516-The-Great-Replacement-New-Zealand-Shooter.html

He considers himself an ethno-nationalist. ] (]) 20:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you
:{{Not done}} - plenty of sources state the shooting was a right-wing terror attack. ] (]) 20:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:Moreover, ethno-nationalism is without a doubt a far right ideology. ] (]) 20:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Fairpoint.

== Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2019 ==
{{edit semi-protected|Christchurch mosque shootings|answered=y}}
Changing from right wing attacks to more left wing attacks to keep it actually accurate the people who shot up the mosque were communist terrorist which happened to be leftist ] (]) 20:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> This is blatant POV pushing. Please read the sources. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>] 20:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that they were "communist terrorists". The attacker said he is a "racist" and an "eco-fascist". ] (]) 22:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

== Trump downplays terrorist attack ==
Washington Post is reporting that Trump said that white nationalist terrorism is not a problem. ] (]) 20:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:]. ]] 20:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::It is relevant when discussed by reliable sources. Trump is the President of the United States and his opinion is widely reported on by reliable sources. Misplaced Pages is not a pro-trump propaganda site, it’s an encyclopedia. ] (]) 21:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::{{re|71.218.98.55}} Can you link the source? <span style="color:orange">'''THE NEW'''</span> ]] 21:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-offers-us-assistance-after-horrible-massacre-in-new-zealand/2019/03/15/931833d2-4712-11e9-aaf8-4512a6fe3439_story.html</ref> ] (]) 21:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::::On the contrary, Misplaced Pages has been repeatedly labeled as having a left-wing bias by right-wing sources. And is this commentary being made now or in the past from the WP? .--] (]) 21:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::Pass the sources through the ] test. If it is an opinion piece, take it with a grain of salt. It it is being reported as fact in several major newspapers, then it holds more water. On the separate question of ] it is notable if the leader of the free world is either inspiring the attacks or downplaying them.] (]) 23:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:The Post is a leftist-leaning news organ with an agenda. Trump was very sympathetic to the victims and to New Zealand in his official response to this shooting. He didn't "downplay" this attack in any way.] (]) 21:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::I agree with GMG. Not every article has to be about Trump, as their essay sums up quite well. This article should only include what Trump says about THIS shooting, not shootings or terrorism or white nationalists in general. ] <sup>]</sup>] 21:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

:''The Washington Post'' is basically the Hordak to Trump's He-Man, in this context. He has many enemies in the media, but this outlet in particular has emerged as the clear leader of the horde. While I believe the main feud (the reason for stories like these even exisiting) is between a president and a press, and events like these are merely ammunition for ''that'' battle, rather than focal points themselves, I know talking about Trump will win out in the end (because even I'm doing it now). I'll just ask that we choose another member (such as ], ] or ]) to relay the complaint here, per the general idea of ]. ] ] 21:42, ], ] (UTC)

The Washington Postis widely accepted as a reliable source by the Misplaced Pages community. This is all that matters. Misplaced Pages is NOT Conservapedia. ] (]) 21:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:Even if we trust it, we can't trust its readers to comprehend it before proposing misinformation. notes Trump says he thinks white nationalism (not terrorism) isn't growing (not isn't a problem). In fact, he says the small group that holds these ideas "...have very, very serious problems. It’s certainly a terrible thing.” ] ] 21:53, ], ] (UTC)
::That quote should be added then. Especially if multiple reliable sources report on it. ] (]) 22:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::Added to the ] article, perhaps. But this article should be about these shootings. To that end, the only pertinent bit is the standard condolence/solidarity tweet, which tend to be unpopular on this site (in full) when coming from uninvolved foreign powers. Heather Timmons of ''Quartz'' reports it , for whatever the hell that's worth to ]. ] ] 22:14, ], ] (UTC)

:Mentioning any more than Trump's condolences is coatracking Trump issues on this article, at least at this time. If this causes the world to decide to go to war against Trump, then there might be something, but no, keep these types of reactions-of-reactions out of this article. There are valid articles where to include this though. --] (]) 22:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::I don't think this is ]. Coatracking is ''a Misplaced Pages article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely. This may be because an article writer has given more text to the background of their topic rather than the topic itself. It also may have been edited to make a point about one or more tangential subjects.'' It clearly isn't the worst case, of the article focusing on Trump despite being about the shootings. In the more subtle sense, Trump inspiring the attacks or downplaying them is relevant and should be included in a proportional manner in accordance with ] and ].23:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::Did Trump inspire or downplay the attacks? Has any source said he did? The WP one here repeats "Dear god no" on whether buddy thought he was a policymaker or leader, and suggests Dylann Roof is more to blame. ] ] 23:41, ], ] (UTC)
::::This article says that Trump downplayed the white nationalist terrorist attack in Christchurch. <ref>https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/salvadorhernandez/trump-white-nationalists-new-zealand-mosque-christchurch?utm_source=dynamic&utm_campaign=bffbbuzzfeednews&ref=bffbbuzzfeednews</ref> <small>] (]) 00:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)]</small>
:::::No it doesn't. The headline is "Trump Downplayed The Threat From White Nationalists After The Deadly New Zealand Attacks". The article notes "The president's comments from the Oval Office were not the first time he has downplayed white nationalism." This is all well and good for the white nationalism article, which isn't this one. ] ] 00:18, ], ] (UTC)
* Agree with ] unequivocally and without reservation. ]] 02:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
:I don't believe this belongs in the article since it doesn't seem particularly significant to the attack. It may be significant for some Trump related article, but that's a discussion for another talk page. However I also have no idea why we're talking about random stuff like the reliability of the WP when it comes to Trump. The statement was very widely covered . I mean heck even Ardern was asked about it . P.S. Some of these sources may be agency ones, but although it can sometimes be difficult to tell, from what I can tell all of them even the agency ones are from someone other than the WP. ] (]) 14:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

== Edit request ==
{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}}
Please change {{red|The Al Noor gunman ] 16 minutes of his activities}} to {{green|The Al Noor gunman ] 16 minutes of his activities}}. The former wikilink points to a proprietary company, which is incorrect for this generic usage. ] (]) 21:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 21:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

== Erdoğan reaction ==
Erdoğan's reaction seems to get a lot of coverage in mainstream media. Why not include it when there are those of Trump, Obama, Trudeau, Putin, May etc.? His comments also seems to have personal connections with the idea of Islamophobia. So I believe is much worth to add about him compared to other leaders. <span style="color:orange">'''THE NEW'''</span> ]] 21:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
: The suspect had travelled to Turkey at the time of the "failed coup", and had been monitored by Turkish intelligence. The Turkish government is now reviewing the surveillance recordings and is composing a timeline of the suspects activities in Turkey. This is perhaps more notable than other countries, so Erdogan`s statements may hold more weight.] (]) 03:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
:{{ping|ImmortalWizard}} Provide some sources? ] <sup>]</sup>] 21:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::{{re|CaptainEek}} Alright.<ref>https://www.foxnews.com/world/turkeys-erdogan-condemns-new-zealand-mosque-attack</ref><ref>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-6812819/Erdogan-says-New-Zealand-attack-shows-growing-hostility-Islam.html</ref><ref>https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/03/world-reacts-zealand-mosque-attacks-190315061839640.html</ref> I am not sure if these are reliable enough. I am not desperate for this to be added nor do I have any POV. I just wanted to bring it up for someone to add if necessary and appropriate only.
{{reftalk}}
::The question isn't whether it is fair to include Egdoran when others are included, it is who should be included full stop. I suppose the test for that is whether this is historically notable as opposed to notable in the days after the attack.] (]) 23:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

== Can we have the full name of the suspect? ==
I see his full name is Brenton Harrison Tarrant. Is this allowed to be added? Sources are here and . Thought I should ask instead of just adding it. --] (]) 21:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2019 ==
{{edit semi-protected|Christchurch mosque shootings|answered=no}}
It should be included that President Trump also described the incident as a terror attack, for the sake of impartiality.

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

just maybe say in the sentence which says that the NZ pm did it, "as well as US President Donald Trump" ] (]) 22:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:A better source might be needed as this is a "live news" page (might change quickly over time). ] (]) 22:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

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

== Reaction from New Zealand cricket ==

Should we add the reaction from the New Zealand cricket team as they reacted to these shootings with the third test officially being cancelled as of yesterday NZ Time as the test was going to be held near by at ]. ] (]) 22:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

:A canceled event seems more notable than a simple statement to me. is secondary source. Twitter alone is worthless here. ] ] 22:54, ], ] (UTC)

::Fair enough there. ] (]) 23:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

== Style issue ==

I recently the term "USA" to "United States" per ]. This was reverted without comment by ]. Harizotoh9, please don't do this kind of thing. There is a perfectly clear guideline regarding this issue and your change disregards it for no reason. ] (]) 22:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

== Motive - is the attack connected to the far right? ==

This recent by Oktayey needs to be reverted. The edit summary used states, "Updated motive; not connected with the far right". The claim that the attack was "not connected with the far right" is simply untrue. Numerous sources have identified the attacker as far-right. The claim that the motive was "Alt-right extremism" is uncited. ] (]) 23:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:Then why not revert it yourself (with an explanation in the edit summary)? ] (]) 23:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::]. This is the same reason why I didn't revert the irritating reversion of a (correct) ] change by Harizotoh9, as noted above. ] (]) 23:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::Thanks for heeding by 3RR. ]. Maybe say that up front that you are seeking consensus. On the subject of the matter, I '''Agree''' the reliable sources indicate that this is connected with the far right. I have updated the heading to indicate this. ] (]) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

:Does the notion of an ] even exist in New Zealand? That article's lead strongly suggests it doesn't. ] ] 23:31, ], ] (UTC)
::<small>The alleged perpetrator is not a New Zealander. ] (]) 01:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)</small>
:::<small>Didn't mean to imply he was. Only that the term may mean absolutely nothing when projected onto a New Zealand event. Can Australians be alt-right? ] ] 02:26, ], ] (UTC) </small>
::This by Oktayey is more POV-pushing, claiming without evidence that the attack is due to the "alt-right". ] (]) 23:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::I removed it, pending a source. Didn't replace it with anything, though. And didn't remove the other two unsourced claims, for whatever reason. ] ] 00:00, ], ] (UTC)

== Comment from IP ==

The two sources that are currently referenced to support the shooter calling himself "communist" do not contain the word "communist" in their texts.

The Unsigned comment above was added by 99.14.151.89. ] (]) 23:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:Moreover I believe he stated he used to identify as a communist in the past but not currently. ] (]) 23:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

== Misleading reference to Fortnite ==

The quote given in the article is: He also mentioned that Fortnite "trained him to be a killer."
I think that this is not accurate, because the whole quote is obviously in a mocking fashion and should not be taken literally, which could easily be missed if you read the article's excerpt.

] (]) 23:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

: He also cited ] as his biggest influence, which also seems to be sarcastic (Owens is black). ] (]) 23:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

:Sarcasm is hard to pin down in text, and different things are obvious to different readers. Have any published analysts noted whether he meant it? Without that, any of us can as easily assume ''anything anyone'' ever says is just kidding, and that could get messy in a hurry. ] ] 23:56, ], ] (UTC)

:You're essentially using your own opinion to determine what he says is a sarcastic and what he says is real. You can't pick and choose facts. ] (]) 23:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:But I'm patient and will wait to find a source that references his take on Fortnite. ] (]) 23:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

:::The whole quote is "Yes, Spyro the dragon 3 taught me ethno-nationalism. Fortnite trained me to be a killer and to floss on the corpses of my enemies. No." in response to the question of if video games inspired him. It's sarcastic for multiple reasons, most notably that nobody would "floss on the corpses" of their enemies in any situation. Also, at the end he clarifies "no." which is pretty cut and dry. ] (]) 00:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
::::Yeah, that "no" is pretty damn clear (and I mean that). Leave it out, especially just the misleading snippet version. Candace Owens is ] ] 00:08, ], ] (UTC)

::::This is an example of why primary sources are so important. Yes, we must be careful to use primary sources carefully ... but many of the secondary sources not merely are careless, but are out to push an agenda. ] (]) 00:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::The best part is I'm patient and will wait for other sources to cite these facts. You guys make me laugh.. just because you don't like to hear these things doesn't make them not true. Your opinion is not fact. What is said, as a matter of fact, is the only truth. ] (]) 01:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::: "a classic trolling move", "seemingly sarcastically", and "ironic mockery". Any of those true enough for you? ] ] 01:58, ], ] (UTC)

== Coordinated? ==
Should we use the word “coordinated” in the lead now that it seems there was only one shooter? ] (]) 23:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:No. I have removed. - ] (]) 01:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

== White supremacy ==

The article contains the following comment:
{{Quote|Please do not remove the "white supremacist" descriptor of the terrorist attack&nbsp;— it is widely acknowledged the attacks were the actions of a white supremacist. If you have any evidence of the contrary, please present it on the discussion page}}

It is clear from the manifesto that neither the motive nor ideology of the attacker is consistent with ] as described by Misplaced Pages:
{{Quote|'''White supremacy''' or '''white supremacism''' is the ] belief that ] are superior to people of other ] and therefore should be dominant over them.}}

Given the inexactitude of language use by the media, however, this is difficult to establish with secondary sources. See ].

Nevertheless, I thought there should be a place to discuss this matter, as it is such a clear conflict between primary and secondary sources. --] 23:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

:the manifesto isn't a reliable source on anything.] (]) 00:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

:'''Oppose''' - Feel it should not be placed in the lead. I am happy with removing "white supremacist and Islamophobic" (but keeping "terrorist attacks"), and placing them in the third lead paragraph where the white supremacist motive seems to be expanded on.] (]) 00:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Per his manifesto he is not a white supremacist. He is a white nationalist. Editors of Misplaced Pages should be smarter than this.

:'''Support''' - In his own words he is white nationalist, a populist, and a eco-fascist. He is not a white supremacist nor an Islamophobe and both of these are specifically addressed within his manifesto. He does not support white supremacy, but he does support what he believes is the right of a native ethnicity to rule over their own country. He believed he was fighting against what he described as a group of foreign invaders who out-bred his native european population into minority within their own country. He stated he had no problem with any ethnicity and wanted each one to flourish, only in their own countries.
This should be changed to either say "a fascist by his own admittance" or something similar.
Misplaced Pages is (I hope) better than using a pejorative term rather than an accurate one.
Other words which would be more accurate than white supremacist: fascist, self-decribed eco-fascist, terrorist, radical populist

You may say that his manifesto isnt a reliable source of anything but he goes through great lengths to detail his thoughts and actions and in reality there is no more reliable source you can get on the matter of determining who he is and why he did what he did than 70 pages of him detailing in writing his exact thoughts on everything he was about to do.

News sources are *not* an accurate representation of someones personal beliefs and should not be cited as such <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: '''Support change''' the ideology expressed in his manifest reflects "white nationalism" not "white supremacy". Calling "white supremacy" is not accurate. ] (]) 05:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
:'''Support inclusion''' -- widely reported in RS sources and describes well the views the perps themselves stated they had. Well, perhaps "Christian-culture supremacism" could better fit the bill but in English words for the alleged white race tend to be (mis)used to mean that and everyone understands what is meant.--] (]) 01:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

:The goes against both the official gov't views, and how it has been reported in RS'd news media. ] (]) 01:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
:: I am sorry, but this needs to be called out -- what you just said is ].--] (]) 01:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
::: Misplaced Pages policy dictates that whatever the media says must be true, so unfortunately the wild accusations by journalists that he is "right-wing" is what needs to stay in the article. Until the media stops sensationalizing the story and starts fixing their accusations to explain the truth, the story needs to remain that he is an alleged white nationalist. ] (]) 01:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
::::] ] (]) 01:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::Bingo! Nailed it. Instead Misplaced Pages is a soapbox for the thoughts of journalists. But we gotta play by the rules, so... ] (]) 01:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
::::::Forgive me for not knowing the rules on wikipedia well enough, but can a primary source not be used to supercede a tertiary source such as news media? 70 pages of the man describing his actions is much more accurate insight into his belief system than journalists own opinions on the matter. Why can a primary source not be used as cited material? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>
:::::::I agree with {{ping|Calthinus}}. '''Strong support''' for inclusion on my part.] (]) 06:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
::::::::Good to see this addition has been made and thank you all for pushing for this addition. The addition of ] is in line with the ], both the Christchurch and Charleston shootings are similar in nature and based on the Tarrant manifesto and articles appearing, ] and ] are legitimate motives. ] (]) 06:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::A side note, what is everybody's opinion regarding adding ] as a motive? ] (]) 06:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
:'''Strongly Oppose'''. The white supremacist claim appears to be grounded in the assumption that since the shooter is White he must be a White Supremacist. No evidence to support this claim has been presented anywhere as far as I'm aware and no the MSM echo chamber doesn't count. If there is a basis for the claim please provide links! As it stands the evidence used in this article for the claim the shooter is a White supremacist who used neo-Nazi symbols appears to be an NZ Herald article - which only claims the shooter is Australian, and the Daily Beast which states authorities have suggested White supremacy and anti-Muslim beliefs but not confirmed it. It would seem that this piece is leaping to define this as a White Supremacist event before that has been proven. It may very well be so, but isn't Misplaced Pages supposed to wait before declaring it so? ] (])

== trip ==
Video begins with car parked in a carpark on Leslie Hills Dr. He drives to the first mosque on Deans ave via Mandeville st, Blenheim Rd. After leaving the first mosque the shooter sets the next destination on his GPS navigator. Drives down Deans ave, Harper Ave. Video ends with the car driving down Bealey Ave which is on route to the Linwood mosque. The vehicle from the video is later stopped by police on Brougham St and the suspect apprehended. He is the only person in the vehicle. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:The video is forbidden to be linked per BLP, most of us have seen it and downloaded it, your description is OR - why did you post this?] (]) 01:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
:: Several New Zealand newsmedia as well as middle-eastern newsmedia contractors have already broadcasted the "trip" route, perhaps your suggestion of original research (OR) is not correct.] (]) 03:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
:::Yes, while it would be better if people do their own searches for sources, in reality a lot of the key stuff in the video etc has already been covered. So as with an earlier issue, while the OP may technically be engaging in OR, we don't need to e.g. BBC . That doesn't of course mean this is sufficiently sources and relevant to include. ] (]) 14:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

== Why does this "right-wing" killer disagree with conservatism and right-wing political policies? ==
{{HAT|You need to stop this ] ] ] (])}}
Just so editors are aware, this article is wildly inaccurate. Probably due to the wide range of things the murderer has talked about, but one trend is clear: he is totally against anything policy-wise on the right. No source has mentioned anything he says that would suggest he is "right-wing," except as a sensationalist headline labeling him so. ] (]) 01:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== 24-hour clock? ==

Within the U.S., I'm fairly confident that those who know that 13:40 is 1:40 p.m. are in the minority. But even if they are a 75% majority, we're neglecting the other 25% (I'm also fairly confident that virtually every English-speaking reader knows what 1:40 p.m. means). Is there a case for using 24-hour clock times here? If it's that 13:40 is four characters shorter than 1:40 p.m., that's a terribly weak case. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 01:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
:] says context matters. I'm fine with British spellings here. Not sure why we should argue with 24-hour clock. As far as Americans, the time is not close to any American time anyhow. But, I don't have a strong opinion. ] (]) 02:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
::{{tq|the time is not close to any American time anyhow.}} True, but is it unuseful to give Americans (and readers around the world) a local New Zealand time all of them can understand? &#8213;]&nbsp;] 02:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
:::I suppose we could say 1:40 in the afternoon, or 13:40 (1:40pm) ] (]) 02:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
:I agree with your assessment. Aviators and those in the military tend to use the 24-hour clock (less commonly used) vs. 12-hour clock that a majority of civilians use. ] (]) 02:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
:Since this happened in New Zealand, we should write it the way it’d be written in New Zealand (whether that’s 1:40 PM or 13:40). ] (]) 02:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
::''The New Zealand Herald'' ] ] 02:27, ], ] (UTC)

==Comparison to previous shootings==
As a rule items in the intro should summarise more details found in the body. This is not currently the case with our current paragraph: "The shootings were the deadliest act of violence in New Zealand since the 1943 Featherston prisoner of war camp riot...". I suggest that we might create a section "==Previous shootings in New Zealand==", and limit the intro paragraph to "The shootings are the deadliest criminal acts in New Zealand history". Thoughts? This event is significantly different than the others, so including them in the intro is not really justified. - ] (]) 02:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
:Agree. ] (]) 02:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
:It sounds like your main concern is the principle that {{tq|the intro should summarise more details found in the body.}} That is not adequate reason to create content below the lead that would otherwise be undue. I.e, the body should drive the lead, not the other way around. So, is it due below the lead? &#8213;]&nbsp;] 02:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
::I think it is a legitimate question that a reader would have - "have there been comparable events before in NZ?". But honestly, as I note, there really isn't any comparable event, so yes, I'd be happy to trim from the intro *and* leave out of the body. - ] (]) 02:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
:::{{tq|The shootings were the deadliest act of violence in New Zealand since the 1943 ] riot where forty-nine people were killed.<ref>{{cite news|title=Christchurch mosque shootings: New Zealand's worst since 1943 |url=https://www.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news/article.cfm?c_id=30&objectid=12213106&ref=rss |work=] |accessdate=16 March 2019 |language=en-NZ |date=15 March 2019|via=www.nzherald.co.nz}}</ref> They are the first ] since the 1997 ] as well as the deadliest criminal acts in New Zealand history, surpassing the 1990 ].<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11788645 |title=Raurimu 20 years on: the madman, the massacre and the memories |last=Leask |first=Anna |date=3 February 2017 |work=The New Zealand Herald|access-date=15 March 2019 |language=en-NZ |issn=1170-0777}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/world/asia/christchurch-nz-shooting.html |title=New Zealand Police Say Multiple Deaths in 2 Mosque Shootings in Christchurch |last=Graham-McLay |first=Charlotte |date=14 March 2019 |work=The New York Times|access-date=15 March 2019 |last2=Ramzy |first2=Austin |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.cnn.com/asia/live-news/new-zealand-christchurch-shooting-intl/index.html |title=Mass shootings at New Zealand mosques |date=15 March 2019 |website=CNN |accessdate=15 March 2019}}</ref>}}
{{Reflist-talk}}
:::Adding here so it doesn't get lost. I think a bit of background covering Islam in New Zealand, perceived safety of the country, rise of far-right ideals, Christchurch's current situation and our vulnerability as a target would make a good section beyond just "Previous shootings". I might work on something tonight. ]&nbsp;] 03:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
::::I agree with those others who've said trimming it may be fine, but we probably should include something. And preferable this will include a link to the list of massacres in the article body rather than the see also. While for us Kiwis, and anyone else familiar with NZ, we're surely aware there hasn't been anything remotely in NZ before. For others they may not be. Aircorn's plan is a good idea, I also feel the article needs some minor coverage hence my comment above about incorporating the link to Islam in NZ. ] (]) 14:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
:"deadliest criminal act" is not in the reference given, I like the trim, but saying the few larger massacres were not criminal is a big call that does not need to be made.(] (]) 05:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)).

==Second Person Charged==
A second individual has been charged possibly in connection with the attacks. His name is Daniel John Burrough and he is 18 years old. The charge against him is for inciting racial hatred. However it’s not clear how (or if) he knew Tarrant. See . ] (]) 02:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

*Added. ] (]) 03:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
**Should wait until we get more details before adding other suspects. ]&nbsp;] 09:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

== Nationality of suspect ==

This by Wiki.0hlic, which removed mention of the suspect's nationality from the lead, needs a prompt revert. It makes a major difference to how one understands the attack that it was not perpetrated by a New Zealander but by someone from outside the country. ] (])

{{done}} ] (]) 03:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

== Worshipper fired two shots - dubious ==

"a local Muslim worshipper had chased the fleeing attacker and fired two shots" at Linwood. Sure it was reported early on, but it seems dubious to me now. I suspect it is confusion with the young guy who wrestled a firearm away from an attacker and, despite giving chase, could not find the trigger. Is there any recent confirmation of a worshipper firing two shots? ] (]) 03:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

== Follow the money? ==

We know that Tarrant has not had a job for a few years - but travelled the world. Who funded him or can you really sustain such a lifestyle with profits from a cryptocurrency? (It was not the famous one.)

Is it impossible that he was part of a mercenary/paramilitary unit for a while and then they dropped him? Or will it be like with Paddock, the Las Vegas shooter, the past does not come out in satisfactory details, leaving us to guess in which secret network they might have been?

Follow the money - true here also. Ally Hauptmann-Gurski, ] (]) 03:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

:The Talk Pages are not to be used to discuss the subject, but for discussing Reliable Sources to improve the article. WP:FORUM ] (]) 04:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


==Terrorist or Criminal Attack==
A part of world calling attacker a "Shooter" not terrorist because the attacker was not a Muslim and the attack was on Muslims community. On the other hand if attacker would have been a Muslim everyone would had declare it as terrorist attack. Being on a responsible platform we Wikipedians should deal this part of article with morality and declare this attack as terrorist attack only. ] ] 04:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
:As for the title of the article, this had been discussed ]. To quote ]: "See ], ], ]. Descriptor has never had "terrorist" in it (the title, '''ed.''').". As for the description, the first sentence in the article is: "The Christchurch mosque shootings were two white supremacist coordinated '''terrorist attacks''' at Al Noor Mosque and the Linwood Islamic Centre in Christchurch, New Zealand, during Friday prayers on 15 March 2019." ]-] 04:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

== Mention of gasoline? ==

In the video, gasoline can be seen in the suspect's trunk before and after the shooting. Additionally, while driving away from the first scene, the suspect even noted that he had enough time to "burn it to the ground" and that he didn't need to leave so early. Is this worth adding/mentioning?

] (]) 04:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
:Thanks for commenting. We should wait for ] to cover this before including in the article. Misplaced Pages isn't a place for ], speculation, or rumours. ] (]) 04:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

== Political position of attacker ==

The current page states that he is on the far right, but his manifesto points to him being an alt-righter. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

*He claimed in his manifesto he's most closely aligned with Communist China as well ] (]) 05:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

*Multiple reliable sources refer to him as "right wing", Misplaced Pages is based on reliable secondary sources, not primary sources and original research. ] (]) 05:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
::That should read "far-right" - meaning extremist.] (]) 06:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

*His primary source/manifesto is not very reliable. He could have put comments in there to intentionally provoke a response or to mislead people. We need to rely on secondary sources. ] (]) 08:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
::What basis is there to accept those secondary sources though? For instance the Australian PM identified the shooter as right-wing but as far as I'm aware there's nothing in his background to suggest this is the case. ] (]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 09:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==3RR, edit warring and good faith==
After major incidents, Misplaced Pages pages often evolve quickly. One of the great things about Misplaced Pages is that it can produce an encyclopedic article immediately after events happen. However these articles also attract ] such as multiple reverts, and ]. The following principles apply:
* Contributions should generally be notable (]). They should use reliable sources (]) and should be in neutral tone and weighted properly in an article (]). However Misplaced Pages is also a work in progress (]). New and rapidly evolving articles will not be perfect, and as editors we should be comfortable with this, so avoid speedy reverts of new content. Keep ''improving'' the article and soon it will reach a high quality.
* As per ]: Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other ]. The Misplaced Pages ] policy forbids repetitive reverting.
* If you see a ] edit which you feel does not improve the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of reverting it. Similarly, if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor.
*Edit summaries, always a good practice, are particularly important when reverting. Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Misplaced Pages principle you believe justifies the reversion. Try to remain available for dialogue, especially in the half-day or so after reverting.
<!--Do not use {{divbox}} template. It does not display on mobile devices-->
<div style="border: 2px solid #990000; background-color: #FFCCCC; border-radius: 1em; padding: 10px;">
An editor must not perform '''more than three reverts''' on a '''single page'''—whether involving the same or different material—within a '''24-hour period'''. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. '''See ] for exemptions.'''
</div>
===List of user reverts===
The following users is a list of users who have reverted changes on this article. You should warn editors on their talk page if they have been listed here. If a user makes three revisions of good faith edits in a 24 hour period, they should be warned on their talk page (see ].

]
*Diff removing content from talk page in violation of ]] (]) 09:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
*Diff reversion of good faith edit ] (]) 09:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

== New Zealand ISPs blocking websites ==

There have been reports that New Zealand ISPs have been blocking access to websites that have refused or ignored requests to remove the Facebook livestream footage. I think this would be an important addition to the Aftermath section, which currently talks about social media sites working to scrub the footage.

I'm having some trouble finding good enough sources for this, and I don't think any ISPs have officially announced the bans. This has also made finding an exhaustive list of banned sites difficult. The best I could find was a tweet https://twitter.com/simonmoutter/status/1106418640167952385 from Simon Moutter, managing director of Spark, an NZ based ISP. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Although I have saved the video for study, other places where it had been posted and removed have all stated that it was removed due to violating existing policy. May sound like semantics, but there is a difference.] (]) 06:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

:I have found a source (fro NZ Herald) and included that in the aftermath section. This along with Sky TV NZ pulling Sky News Au after it showed the video. --] (]) 14:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Christchurch mosque shootings|answered=yes}}
Editing the "Reactions section" to include additional countries head of government, head of state and other leaders' responses

Bangladeshi prime minister ] expressed 'her deep shock and condemned the shootings.' <ref>{{cite press release| url=https://www.dhakatribune.com/world/2019/03/15/pm-condemns-new-zealand-terror-attack| title=PM condemns New Zealand terror attack| publisher=]| date=15 March 2019| archiveurl=https://www.dhakatribune.com/world/2019/03/15/pm-condemns-new-zealand-terror-attack| archivedate=15 March 2019| deadurl=no}}</ref>

Pakistani prime minister ] tweeted “Shocked and strongly condemn the Christchurch, New Zealand, terrorist attack on mosques. This reaffirms what we have always maintained: that terrorism does not have a religion. Prayers go to the victims and their families." <ref>{{cite press release| url=https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/444366-pm-imran-khan-condemns-terror-attack-at-new-zealand-mosque-during-friday-prayers| title=PM Imran Khan condemns terror attack at New Zealand mosque| publisher=]| date=15 March 2019| archiveurl=https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/444366-pm-imran-khan-condemns-terror-attack-at-new-zealand-mosque-during-friday-prayers| archivedate=15 March 2019| deadurl=no}}</ref>

Singaporean prime minister ] commented, "Deeply shocked by the horrific terrorist attacks on two mosques in Christchurch...This heinous act is an attempt to spread fear and hatred, and create divisions within societies. We need to respond with unity, fortitude and resilience...Singapore stands in solidarity with the people of New Zealand to strongly condemn such vicious acts of terror." <ref>{{cite press release| url=https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/singapore-leaders-express-condolences-after-christchurch-terrorist-attack| title=Singapore leaders express condolences after Christchurch terrorist attack| publisher=]| date=15 March 2019| archiveurl=https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/singapore-leaders-express-condolences-after-christchurch-terrorist-attack| archivedate=15 March 2019| deadurl=no}}</ref> ] (]) 05:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
{{Reflist-talk}}
:Done. ]&nbsp;] 09:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

== Ecofascism? ==

The article currently says that the shooter talked about eco-fascism and global warming in his manifesto. Be that as it may, what does it have to do with this article? If the perpetrator went on an incoherent rant, will we include all of it here? I suggest we keep only the parts of the manifesto that are relevant to this shooting.''']''' <sub>]</sub> 06:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
:Eco-fascism is one of the labels the shooter actually identifies with. Contrast this with terms like conservative which he emphatically rejects or right\left-wing or socialist which he considers dependent on definition. ] (]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 09:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Can't help noticing the very large and probably undue weight now being given in the article to what amounts to a call for further acts of mass murder by mass murderers. I realise there's always a libertarian streak in Misplaced Pages that wants to expose every last thing about these events and a similar, related streak, that wants to glorify them and use WP as a platform for spreading what right now is being actively blocked in much of social media - but is turning the article into a propaganda base for these maniacs really the best we can do? ] (]) 13:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

== No consensus for Move to 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings ==

I don't see any discussion for moving the article to '''2019 Christchurch mosque shootings'''. In the Move discussion above, only one person suggested it, and it was not seconded. The 2019 is not needed since there has only been this one mosques shootings in New Zealand. <span style="font-family: Cambria;">] (])</span> 09:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
:I left a note with Anthony about this. We could probably just move it back. ]&nbsp;] 09:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
::Agree that there was no consensus for the move. ] (]) 09:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Page has now been restored to ]. ] (]) 11:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. The preemptive disambiguation could be seen as being in bad taste. ] (]) 11:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019 ==

{{edit semi-protected|2019 Christchurch mosque shootings|answered=no}}
Add to Reactions section:

During the ] knockout fixture, ] and ] took the field sporting ]s following a ] that was observed at ] to mark the terror attack.<ref>{{cite news |title=Peshawar Zalmi dismantle Islamabad United to enter PSL final |url=http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/8679/report/1168852/ |work=ESPNcricinfo |date=15 March 2019}}</ref> ] (]) 10:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

== Addition by RookerBowman ==

RookerBowman is edit warring to include the following material in the section on the manifesto: "He supports return of ] in the United States. The manifesto ends with ] symbols above two images." The main problem I see is with the last part of that. We don't need to describe the attacker's manifesto in such minute detail that we discuss precisely where he used a given kind of symbol or precisely how many images he used. The exact location of a symbol in a manifesto '''does not matter''' and the exact number of "images" used '''also does not matter'''. This is a good case where ] applies. As for it showing that the attacker might be a neo-Nazi, the article already notes above that he used neo-Nazi symbols: "He was described in media reports as a 28-year-old Australian white supremacist who used neo-Nazi symbols" (I added that myself). ], could you please stop edit warring to insert unneeded trivia into the article? ] (]) 10:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

It shows he is a possible neo-Nazi or a sympathizer. ] (]) 10:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

:], I just politely explained to you that your addition '''is not necessary to show that he is a possible neo-Nazi'''. The article already stated clearly '''before''' your addition that he used neo-Nazi symbols. So, no, we do not need a minute discussion of his manifesto containing such details as exactly where a symbol was used or how many "images" were included at any point. Again, please stop repeatedly inserting unneeded trivia. ] (]) 10:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

== Odinism ==

One source states that Tarrant's social media account had "paganism and Odin worship":

https://www.theunitedwest.org/2019/03/15/on-the-new-zealand-massacre/

This source states that he said that if he dies, he will "go to Valhalla"

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/world/gunman-opens-fire-in-christchurch-mosque-ng-6f6ce5dc9db6cde5edf5ae778b6da368

] (]) 14:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Christchurch mosque shootings|answered=no}}
Change “The suspect livestreamed one of the attacks on Facebook Live.” in the intro to “The suspect livestreamed the first attack on Facebook Live.” No reason to be ambiguous here. ] (]) 15:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:19, 26 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christchurch mosque shootings article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is written in New Zealand English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse, centre, fiord) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 15, 2019.
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 15, 2021.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography: Serial, mass, and spree killers / Terrorism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Serial Killer task force (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconNew Zealand Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIslam Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconReligion Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject icon2010s Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Christchurch mosque shootings was copied or moved into Coroner's inquiry into the Christchurch mosque shootings with this edit on 31 December 2023. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Section sizes
Section size for Christchurch mosque shootings (51 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 20,820 20,820
Background 17 25,901
Locations 2,185 2,185
Perpetrator 23,699 23,699
Preparation 3,636 48,409
Weaponry 18,624 18,624
Manifesto 26,149 26,149
Events 13 20,982
Al Noor Mosque 10,384 10,384
Linwood Islamic Centre 6,132 6,132
Tarrant's arrest 4,453 4,453
Legal proceedings 24 34,545
Arraignment 5,574 5,574
Initial plea and pre-trial detention 5,072 5,072
Guilty plea and sentencing arrangements 4,132 4,132
Sentencing 12,293 12,293
Imprisonment 7,450 7,450
Victims 3,641 3,641
Aftermath 16 71,553
Governmental response 11,721 11,721
Media response 2,068 2,068
Other responses in New Zealand 18,511 19,683
Operation Whakahaumanu 1,172 1,172
Fundraisers and philanthropy 5,645 5,645
Related arrests and incidents 38 32,420
New Zealand 9,773 9,773
Outside New Zealand 7,267 7,267
Inspired incidents 15,342 15,342
Reactions 17 20,808
World leaders 6,988 6,988
Far-right 3,603 3,603
Islamic groups 4,611 4,611
People and countries mentioned by Tarrant 5,589 5,589
Livestream 3,561 28,284
Video distribution 3,724 3,724
Arrests and prosecutions 8,994 8,994
Media outlets 4,563 4,563
Social media companies 7,442 7,442
Legacy 13 47,605
Gun laws 10,600 10,600
Royal commission of inquiry 6,493 6,493
He Whenua Taurikura 6,996 6,996
Coroner's inquiry 6,436 6,436
Centre of Research Excellence 3,268 3,268
Film 12,623 12,623
Awards 1,176 1,176
See also 637 637
Notes 16,942 16,942
References 44 44
Further reading 512 512
External links 2,180 2,180
Total 342,863 342,863

ConsensusCurrent/recent consensuses:

Azov reference

Black Sun is commonly used by many organisations, referencing only Azov in an article about a mass killer plays into Russian propaganda painting all Ukrainian volunteers and entirety of Azov as neo-nazis 2A00:23C7:15:A501:8DDD:2D5E:6651:F3C6 (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Launchballer talk 14:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

( )
  • Reviewed:
5x expanded by Certified Terror (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Certified Terror (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It says pratised but thats misspelt somewhere 2603:6000:C200:97F:C44F:F3CD:6766:70A1 (talk) 12:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: I can't find the misspelt word "pratised" anywhere. ObserveOwl (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: