Jump to content

Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Category:Mass murder in 2019 Tag?

Should we include Category:Mass murder in 2019 in the article? 06:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I know the court is really in charge here, but if the attack gets defined as terrorism, it would still be mass murder, as mass murder is the unlawful killing of a group of living entities. --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 05:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

A conviction for murder requires mens rea to be established in a court of law. Calling an event "murder" in an encyclopedia does not. There are many examples – one is Murder of Scott Guy. No guilt proven, but the word "murder" is used throughout, from the article title, through the article text to the categories. Nurg (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Not anymore it isn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion in Category:Mass murder in 2019. Strict adherence to the definition of the term "murder" should not serve to exclude an article from inclusion in a category that would seem to be loosely applicable. Bus stop (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The legal situation of the perpetrator has little to do with this being an event of mass murder. It should be included. Rivselis (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support There appears to be no sound rationale for not including the category. Obviously the event was a mass murder. The fact that a suspect has not so far been convicted of it does not change that. Even supposing that the suspect isn't guilty, the mass murder itself obviously still happened. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose With an article that so clearly suggests Tarrant and nobody else was the shooter (of the people and the video), there's no way to define it as murder without automatically suggesting Tarrant committed murder. It's not like when a Jane Doe washes up hogtied, with 40 stab wounds and no leads; no harm in making an educated guess on that. In this case, we have 50 murder charges and 39 attempted murder charges against a specific named relatively-unknown living person, not one of which has been argued in court yet, much less proven.
As gamblers, we'd be wise to predict a guilty verdict. But as responsible Wikipedians, we'd be foolish to ignore BLPCRIME, CRYSTALBALL and the sub judice notice above in a blind rush to scoop a judge and jury. Can't the keyboard vigilantes among us just be happy we've already categorically convicted him of Islamophobia, mass shooting, massacre in a place of worship, filmed killing, white nationalism, white supremacy, neo-fascist terrorism and alt-rightness? All fine demonization, all arguably verifiable, but none prejudicial. It's enough for now; when (and if) the trial begins, those itching to drop the M-bomb can have "Category:Murder trials". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
InedibleHulk did NOT double-!vote. Akld guy is ethical. InedibleHulk is forgiving. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
*Objection Does everyone see that InedibleHulk just iVoted Oppose for the second time? Closer, please note this double vote. Akld guy (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@Akld guy: Huh? I see only one "oppose" !vote by Hulk. Where do you see a second? WWGB (talk) 07:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Oops, I apologise profusely to InedibleHulk. I confused the very first Oppose at the top by WWGB with this one by InedibleHulk. How I managed to confuse two very different signatures is beyond my comprehension. Sorry, InedibleHulk. Akld guy (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
No worries. Both our signatures are blue, it happens. I'm down for deleting this sidethread if you are. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for accepting my apology. No, I think this sidethread should remain visible until archiving so that it's available to anyone who read my accusation and formed an opinion of you and hasn't yet read the apology. I'm embarrassed, but that's no justification for deletion. Akld guy (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Of all the misinformed opinions people could have of me, "double-voter" is pretty light. I don't mind. But it's your call. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
The article does not say (and no-one is suggesting it should say) that Tarrant committed murder. The article does say that he has been charged with murder. But the point is not whether he or anyone else was responsible (whatever conclusion you or anyone else might suggest). The question is was it a mass murder? Nurg (talk) 03:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I didn't mean the article said anything at all when I said it clearly suggests Tarrant and nobody else was the shooter. Nor did I imply it would say Tarrant alone is the murderer of 50 people (and/or attempted murderer of 38) if it were to definitively categorize the event wherein he shot (at least) 88 people and caused 50 deaths in 2019 as a mass murder in 2019. But if both things are taken as true, what logical conclusion about the event and its primary actor could any rational reader reach except "Tarrant is a murderer"?
If you read BLPCRIME again for what it explicitly says (rather than for what it implicitly "means"), I think you'll find we should "seriously consider" omitting stuff which "suggests" accused people have committed a crime. Granted, it already somewhat does that, especially to vast swaths of readers who don't know the differences between homicide and murder, but that's a complex issue with no quick fix.
The question of whether this mass shooting was a mass murder is precisely what the High Court of New Zealand intends to find out when the Crown Prosecutor faces off against an allegedly murderous troll. They'll both call their witnesses, who will explain shit we don't know yet to twelve jurors we haven't met yet, and if that jury announces said troll intended to and did willfully and unlawfully kill at least four other humans without legal excuse, we can declare it a mass murder in any form we please. If the troll kills (not murders) himself in jail before then, his rights become a moot point. If he truly believed those humans were mythical monsters and feared for his safety (or can succesfully lie about that), then it was just another senseless tragedy. There are a few more potential outcomes, but you get the point. Our job here is very simple, it just takes a little patience. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Nurg. Wnt (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Remember the purpose of categories: To group together related pages, for ease of browsing/searching. Someone looking at Category:Mass murder in 2019 would be very surprised to not see this event listed there. It was clearly a "mass murder", even though the crime of murder has not yet been settled in the courts. Ross Finlayson (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The matter is before the Court. Everything except the deaths is currently alleged. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    I can't wrap my head around this bureaucratic notion of a mass slaying without a mass murder. Mens rea is a very valuable legal principle, but in legal terms corporations are called "legal persons" ... doesn't mean our articles call them people. Consider Charles Whitman, the archetypal American mass murderer, who consulted multiple psychiatrists for symptoms of what turned out to be a brain tumor pressing on his amygdala, and never had a trial because he was killed on the spot by raging Texans. Nonetheless, our article (like everyone else) calls and categorizes him as a mass murderer, because this is the English Wikipedia, not the Legalese Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Under NZ law, it is theoretically possible that Tarrant could be found unfit to stand trial or acquitted on account of insanity.[2] In both cases, it would be inaccurate to use the word murder simply because it was a commonly used English word. WP:BLP and WP:CRYSTAL become involved here. There are enough categories without adding one that is speculative and runs into problems with BLP.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Soft Oppose (see below) - I find Nurg's comments above pretty persuasive and believe we should always try to call a spade a spade. That said, I guess there is a risk that the murder accused will be found not guilty by reason of insanity. The judge has ordered he undergo a psychiatric assessment of his mental fitness to see if he is even competent to stand trial. If he was insane then this was not a murder, despite being an unspeakable tragedy. That said, the part of me that longs for justice wants to call this murder. If we were talking about an attack by Islamic extremists (as opposed to one by white nationalist), I don't think we would be having this conversation.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I had this discussion about Dzokhar Tsarnaev six years ago. Here's WWGB being consistent and fair with Sayfullo Saipov in 2017 (and me sticking with it today). Earlier that year, I combined my weary song about jumping to murder with my tired dance against hissing "terrorist", for the basic human right of Rakhmat Akilov; turns out he was murderous terrorist scum (as the news strongly suggested) but that was never the point. Just about literal, Latin-based prejudice. If your skin's warm and elastic, and you haven't been convicted of murder, you're my kind of people. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, I am glad to be wrong about that. Apparently, we would still be having those conversations. Thanks Hulk.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - Mandruss's wit and InedibleHulk's reasoning below have hardened my view slightly. Is medium oppose an option? ;) --Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
It'd be softer than the old soft oppose (being an equally medium support). It would likely obliviate your vote entirely. Then you'd be free to vote again, I guess. But yeah, fence-sitting is always on the table. I've probably swayed you enough throughout this hearing, though, and feel a bit bad about badgering that witty witness witless (get well soon, Tony!), so I'll pass the remainder of my time over to this dramatically elevated boombox. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Obvious is subjective, especially while a click-hungry media is forbidden from reporting on forthcoming evidence. Millions of people and hundreds of reporters thought O.J. Simpson, George Zimmerman, George Bush, Vince Li, James Forcilo, Robert Blake, Richard Jewel and whoever these guys are were fucked, too, before they clearly weren't. This is a different set of circumstances, of course, but they always are.
It's a dangerous precedent, allowing free-for-all tribunals of laypeople to decide criminal cases before hearing either side's opening argument. Especially when some think the only definition of the crime in question is somehow open to interpretation, doesn't really matter or doesn't even exist. We already routinely ignore enough BLP rules by copying every scrap of personal info we can find online into pseudobiographical sections devoted to people who don't qualify for real biographies; it's a bit creepy, but this indiscriminate collection of fancruft is merely invasive of his privacy and suggestive of his mindset, not directly contrary to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Repeating what we read some guy we don't know and don't like said he liked about a topic we know we don't like (or what he said he didn't like about something we do) is the only sort of social justice hearsay testimony an online mob of self-assured character witnesses was ever qualified, expected or prodded to present.
If it's any consolation, actual justice will likely prevail swifter than usual this time, the court not being backlogged by as many shootings as it is in the usual country. And I share your reaonable opinion and seriously contested assertion that he will be found guilty on all charges presently against him. But today, like yesterday, policy advises in big bold headings that Wikipedia should not state opinions or seriously contested assertions as fact, while prefering nonjudgmental language. So we'd have to ignore those three rules on top of BLPCRIME and CRYSTALBALL; by that point, there'd be little to stop anyone else from following the trend and ignoring whatever policy or guideline anyone might bring up to support inclusion of this non-fact. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: - I'm sorta confused what people are arguing here. Are we arguing 1) the guy video taped murdering those folks may not have murdered them, or 2) a New Zealand might not find him legally guilty of murder. If the first, then you're plain nuts. If the second, who cares? When the vast majority of people see the word "murder" they do not think of it by its strict legal definition. Wikipedia isn't written for lawyers or law clerks. It's written for the general public. And to the general public, "murder" means to kill another person in a premeditated and unsanctioned way. By any normal definition, what happened was murder. NickCT (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The court will argue whether the guy recorded killing those folks may not have murdered them (video tape is certainly dead). We're arguing about whether to wait for it to hear the evidence and decide, per BLPCRIME and the wider presumption of innocence, or follow our own untrained and loosely-informed guts, per WP:ILIKEIT, WP:WHOCARES and WP:PERX. The general public should know what murder means, since people are charged with, acquitted of or convicted of it in the news several times daily. They should also be familiar with terms like "alleged", "suspect" and "awaiting trial". If they're not, an encyclopedia would better teach them the difference between crimes and alleged crimes than dumb itself down to their level, especially since some of them might be called for jury duty some day (some may decide this case). For every civilized human's sake, not just the "clearly innocent" ones, the burden of proof is on real lawyers, not a motley crew of emotional Googlers. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, a reasonable person might suggest this. The court had to order a psychiatric evaluation of Tarrant to comply with the law. The same happened after the Murder of Jo Cox, although the court decided that Thomas Mair was sane enough to understand his actions. There was initially some doubt about this, but it would have been controversial to allow an insanity defence.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @Ianmacm: - I think a murderer found innocent by reason of insanity is still a murderer. I don't think "murderer" is a legal definition. Let me ask you this; imagine he was found "innocent" by reason of insanity, you'd oppose inclusion in the category at that time? NickCT (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
You'd be wrong to think that. Murder is a legal term, and a murderer is someone who has been found guilty of murder. Murder noun the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another (emphasis mine) from Oxford online dictionary. If he was found innocent, then quite obviously he's not [been found to be] guilty of murder. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC) Amended notice: Clarify statement at time 11:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
So, your argument then is that this premeditated killing was done in a lawful manner? NickCT (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
So, your argument- let me stop you right there. I am not making an argument. I am correcting your flawed statements about the terms murder and murderer based on your stated belief that they are not a legal definition. Certainly they are, in nearly every jurisdiction in the world. As to the latter statement, not guilty by reason of insanity does not change lawfulness of the act but it annuls the mens rea element, and thereby the culpability of the actor, of the act. So no, that would not, in any case, be my argument. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm confused. You seem to be to saying it would still be unlawful if there were an insanity verdict. And if it were still unlawful, then it would still be murder, right? So you're saying this article should, or should not be in the category in question? NickCT (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
And if it were still unlawful, then it would still be murder, right? - No, it'd be manslaughter or homicide. In both cases, the act would still be unlawful, but it wouldn't be murder. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
So it would be unlawful, and premeditated. But you don't think it would hit the dictionary definition (i.e. the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another). I'm curious whether you see any contradiction in that? NickCT (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
An insane person is not capable of premeditation (malice aforethought originally, mens rea as it has developed). I gave you a link to this above. It's also stated explicitly in the lead sentence at murder. All this is beyond the scope of my original comment, and is an exercise in futility because, ultimately, the court of law will determine whether or not murder has been committed. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah. So we're changing tack. We've abandoned thinking it's doesn't hit the dictionary b/c it might not have been unlawful, and now we're arguing that it doesn't hit the definition b/c it wasn't premeditated? So, you think this killing was done in the spur of the moment?
Listen, I get your point that there's a legal definition to murder. And you're right. There is. But you need to understand that there's also a dictionary definition. And most people think of murder outside of the legal meaning of the word. WP isn't written for lawyers. NickCT (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The only definition that matters for purposes of this discussion is the Wikipedia definition. See the first sentence of Mass murder and the lead of Murder. All other argument is irrelevant distraction. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mandruss: - Love this opinion. The only definition that matters is OUR definition! NickCT (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
That's right. Self-quote: It would make no sense to define the term "mass murder" one way in our articles and apply it in a completely different way in our categories. I'd love to hear the argument that they should be inconsistent. Care to give that a shot? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Hmmmm.... Well I guess you're basically referencing Wikipedia for the definition. And we all know WP is not a reliable source. NickCT (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
For reliable sources, see the citations at Murder—sources on which its lead is based. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)\
Right. The old, "I'm not citing WP. I'm citing the source behind it" response. NickCT (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
My argument was that it makes no sense for Wikipedia to be inconsistent on this; to do so would be anything but encyclopedic. It has nothing to do with using WP as a reliable source; that's your spin. Experience tells me this is a good place to stop, as I'll have difficulty moderating my tone if this continues. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Which definition we take seems like a moot point, since both WP and most dictionaries point to the "unlawful and premeditated" idea. NickCT (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I haven't changed tack, but different questions require different responses. My original comment was correcting your assertion that murder is not a legal definition and I pointed to the dictionary definition which itself has the word unlawful in it. That's all. You proposed that I was arguing that these killings were done in a lawful manner. No, I wasn't making an argument, and any argument I made would not be that slaughtering 50 people is lawful – obviously. An argument against murder would focus on mens rea here. The dictionary definition says both unlawful and premeditated. Listen, I get your point that there's a legal definition to murder - *Sigh*. There are 4 legal definitions of murder in New Zealand. I have referenced 0 of them. So no, you don't get my point. Oh, and I'm not a lawyer. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
You seemed to dodge the "premeditated" question. I'll ask again, do you think these shootings occurred in a non-premeditated way? NickCT (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
It's an irrelevant forum question. I'll allow other readers and editors to take whatever lessons they learned from this discussion thread. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
It's clearly relevant. You've said this event doesn't meet the "unlawful and premeditated" dictionary definition. Yet you've said it was unlawful, and you're not willing to say it wasn't premeditated. Seems to me you've argued yourself into a hole my friend. Maybe time to just sit down? NickCT (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
You've said this event doesn't meet the "unlawful and premeditated" dictionary definition - No I haven't, you've pulled that out of your ass. [Y]ou're not willing to say it wasn't premeditated <- "You said it wasn't premeditated" and "you're not saying that it wasn't premeditated". Which is it? am I saying x or am I not saying x. You don't know, do you? If he's found to be insane, then he's not culpable in homicide. Murder is always culpable, homicide is not. "If x, then y". Your exceptional laziness in failing to note the difference between "this wasn't premeditated" (not said) and "if he's insane, then it's not premeditated" (repeatedly said) has been duly noted.
This article summarizes the insanity defence well: Individuals should not be punished [culpability] for their otherwise criminal acts [unlawful / actus reus] if they lack certain characteristics that relate to the ability to engage in rational thinking [premeditation / mens rea], including an appreciation of the wrongfulness and consequences of their actions, or control their behavior [malice aforethought]. The brackets are my own. This University of Sydney article does well too: If an accused lacks the necessary capacities, he or she is not responsible and cannot be held to account for his or her actions in the context of a criminal trial and conviction.
It is one thing to fail to understand someones statements. It is another to be dishonest about what those statements are. You're engaging in both, but the latter is truly grating. Upon requested wisdom, another user has proposed that you're not deliberately distorting [my] words, just entrenched, limited by language, or being selective (among other explanations). I'm not entirely convinced, but AGF. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
NickCT, the lede of Murder reads as follows:
Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or VALID EXCUSE, especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.
"Valid excuse" includes insanity. As we have been discussing. Premeditation is not the issue. The lede of murder recognizes that a killing even with premeditation where the killer is insane is not murder by reason of "valid excuse". --Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
1) Who says insanity is a "valid excuse"? 2) Can you provide a single RS that states simply "A premeditated and unlawful killing done as a result of a person's insanity is not murder"? NickCT (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
1) WE say insanity is a "valid excuse". Scroll down the article I linked you too above. You will see that it lists insanity defences as one type of legal excuse. If you go to our article on insanity defences, you will also see insanity is a legal excuse.
2) The Law Dictionary makes clear a murder occurs where "a person of sound mind" kills another person. Cornell Law School's Wex Legal Dictionary notes the following in its definition of "homicide":
Not all homicide is murder, as some killings are manslaughter, and some are lawful, such as when justified by an affirmative defense, like insanity or self-defense.
It is a pretty basic principle of the old common law (in Britain, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the US/13 Colonies etc.) that a person is "not guilty" if they suffer from insanity (ie. not knowing the difference between right and wrong) at the time they commit a crime. If they are insane at the time of trial (ie. not able to assist in their defence) that is a connected but different matter because while it insanity at the time of trial will result in a trial being delayed until the accused can assist in his/her defence (possibly indefinitely). If they later become sane they can be prosecuted then but may still attempt to rely on an insanity defence (ie arguing that they were not sane at the time the crime was "committed" and thus are not-guilty by reason of insanity). I hope that all helps.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:NOTNEWS; WP:DEADLINE. It's not going to harm anyone's understanding of the matter if the mass murder category isn't added until after a conviction. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    Yes it might. As I noted above, someone (e.g., a student) looking at Category:Mass murder in 2019 would be very surprised to not see this event listed there. Ross Finlayson (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    God forbid! Then they'd have to learn the allegations against the suspect are yet untested. How dare we teach a hypothetical student the fact of some matter when we could simply undermine the Queen's justice and deprive a named living person of his universal right? Seriously though, this whole story is surprising the first time you hear it, from the plot to the setting to the characters. If people can handle that much, they can handle far less. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Per Nurg. Categorize it for what it is. Meatsgains(talk) 00:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Support the Category:Mass murder in 2019 is full of similar incidents. Also the word mass murder is associated with this crime in many sources [3].--SharabSalam (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    There were seven similar incidents (and one military battle), but I fixed them (in a few ways). The remaining ones only unfairly damn vague groups and dead people. Eight wrongs don't make a right. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    @InedibleHulk: That was improper. If there was community consensus on this question, we wouldn't be here. I think you know better than to go around modifying other content to support your position in a discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    It's not to support my position here, it reflects my position everywhere. Same violations of the same policy and same human right. Just hadn't bothered noticing those prejudicial articles till now. WP:OTHERSTUFF is an equally poor argument for either side, so it's not like I'm affecting this RfC's outcome. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This is more about us than the shooter. Whether we realise it or not, to go against time honored rules of justice, whatever the alleged crime, we demean ourselves by ignoring basic principles of civilisation. The guy deserves a fair trial, just as those in the dock at Nurenberg did, and what people like Ceaușescu and Saddam Hussein did not get. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Roger 8 Roger: So he's less likely to receive a fair trial if Wikipedia includes this article in Category:Mass murder in 2019? What a curious notion; I didn't realize Wikipedia categories had such power. Do you know of any reliable sources who have reported on that phenomenon? ―Mandruss ☎ 09:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - The first sentence at Mass murder reads: "Mass murder is the act of murdering a number of people, typically simultaneously or over a relatively short period of time and in close geographic proximity." I see nothing in that article to the effect that it's not mass murder until a court says it is in the strict legal (legalistic) sense, and cohesiveness requires that Wikipedia apply the term in a consistent manner. By Wikipedia's definition, then, there is no question that the events described in this article constitute a mass murder by somebody. The category says nothing about who did it and it's not our problem if readers read something into the category that isn't there. Perhaps something could be added to the category page to describe how Wikipedia uses the category.
    I reject the idea that inclusion in the category might affect Tarrant's right to a fair trial in the slightest. But, during voir dire, defense attorneys are free to ask prospective jurors if they are aware that Wikipedia includes this article in this category. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    The first sentence also contains a link to murder, the base unit. Not murder (law), murder (philosophy), murder (theology) or anything else only nerds can grasp. Just generic common murder, the most famous crime in the world. If there was another, more general sort people knew that wasn't "strict" or "legal", there'd be an article on it. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    Exactly. Thank you for providing additional evidence that Wikipedia is not generally concerned with legalistic interpretations of the term, although we explore the distinction in articles like Insanity defense. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    I have no idea what you're talking about. I provided the only article Wikipedia has about murder, which says it's about a crime (the "legalistic interpretation", you might say). Whenever any other article here mentions murder, it either refers to the only kind we know or an editor used the wrong word and nobody bothered to correct it yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    Ok, the lead of Murder pretty much murders (or at least manslaughters) my argument. I plead temporary insanity and switch to Oppose. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per lead of Murder, which implies the legal aspect and is linked from the first sentence of Mass murder. For cohesiveness as above; it can't be mass murder per Wikipedia if it isn't (yet) murder per Wikipedia. It would make no sense to define the term "mass murder" one way in our articles and apply it in a completely different way in our categories. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Yes, of course. I find the mental gymnastics of not considering this an act of mass murder until the the suspect has been mentally diagnosed to be weak, since an encyclopedia is not a court of law that is required to establish motive or guilt, and should use the term mass murder as the best description of the act that took place. If there was a wikipage about the shooter that described him as a "mass murderer", that argument might hold a little water, but as it is, it just doesn't. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I just noticed the discussion under my vote (this article is not in my watchlist) between Mandruss and InedibleHulk and it was IMHO an irrelevant discussion. A) InedibleHulk, you are not allowed to change a category to support your vote here while we are voting see WP:POINT I suggest you self-revert that. B) You guys are talking whether the criminal is a mass murderer or not but the debate is whether the crime that is ALLEGEDLY committed by him a mass murder or not, and yes it is. RSs says that the crime is a mass murder whether HE is a mass murderer or not, is irrelevant [4]NY times [5] VOX [6] Washington Post etc.. RSs also say that the attack is a terrorist attack is he a terrorist? not yet confirmed yet we use terrorist attack similarly the rule should apply here, the category that we are using is "mass murder" not "mass murderers". Quick note to InedibleHulk, Please dont go and remove terrorist attack from the lead of this article to support your claim if you change things to support your claim in the debate one more time I will report you.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    Before you call the police, you're overlooking a few crucial points. (A) The prosecutor's role in a trial is to prove all elements of the alleged crime itself (murder here) occured at a certain time and place and that the defendant did these things. Without establishing the former, the latter would be impossible, so both are very important. (B) I'd removed the other alleged murders from the mass murder category because they prejudged ongoing cases where murder is alleged but not yet proven, contrary to BLPCRIME and CRYSTALBALL. They've some similarity to this case we're discussing, but are completely separate events; what happens to any (or all) of them has no bearing on what happens here, so I couldn't have scored a "point" like this if I'd even been trying (and neither can you). (C) Calling this a terrorist attack isn't a problem, because nobody's been accused of this and nobody intends to prove it (except in the court of public opinion). I even called it (and six other reported bad acts) as "fine demonization" above, and suggested editors should be happy to adopt such labels. They may turn out to be "wrong" in a factual sense, but our decisions to call them early aren't "wrong" in any real ethical or legal way. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment and weak support. The problem seems to be the category name - which does have a precise legal definition. Had the accused in this instance disappeared, been unknown, or shot himself, would we be satisfied with a coroner's verdicts that these people were 'unlawfully killed' and not required a trial to conclude murder had taken place and thus place in the category? I cannot think of a better, usable term for the category though. Are we going to continue to exclude from this category if the accused is found unfit for trial (eg for sanity reasons - which might lead us to where we have murders, but no murderer)? That a mass unlawful killing took place is fairly indisputable - whether we should use a legal term to describe it is more problematic. My weak support is based on the logic that an act of mass murder, just like an act of terrorism, does not preclude the possibility that the person accused will be found not guilty, or will never face trial, and there is no reason to deviate from characterising the act, but not characterising the accused. Pincrete (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
    We don't appear to be consistent about this, arbitarily, Category:Mass murder in 1972, includes many instances of 'Unlawful killing', which do not involve murder charges - including arson, terrorism and 'state agents'. One of these, Bloody Sunday is currently sub judice (an individual soldier has recently been charged with some of the killings). Pincrete (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:BLPCRIME as no-one has been convicted for murder. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Common sense. R2 (bleep) 20:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on several grounds. First, most importantly, it's overwhelmingly how the topic is described and categorized; the principle of least astonishment ought to apply to categories, and this is the least-astonishing way to categorize it. Second, as far as WP:BLPCRIME goes, people are misstating several part of it. First, it simply says that we must seriously consider not including material that would suggest that someone has committed a crime. In situations like this one, where the sources are overwhelming and there is little serious doubt among them, we can easily clear that bar. Second, the purpose of WP:BLPCRIME is primarily to protect the name of the accused; currently the accused isn't mentioned in the lead at all, nor are they the main focus of this article. Therefore, while, yes, it is technically true that someone who read the article in detail and then skimmed the tags could come to the conclusion that the shootings were murder and that the accused is therefore guilty of murder, the relative damage to the accused's reputation is slight (requiring extensive chains of logic, during which the reader would have already read a much more detailed explanation). This isn't the same as outright calling them a murderer in the text by name - otherwise, by the logic some people are presenting above, we could not even say that people died, because readers might conclude that those deaths were murder and, therefore, that the accused is guilty of murder. Finally, such categorization (applied to this article rather than to one about the accused) only implies that a murder occurred, not that they were the perpetrator; the fact that it occurred seems uncontentuous at the moment. If someone wants to believe there is a "real killer" out there or somesuch, as implausible as that might be, it wouldn't dissuade them. All in all, given the slight risk of harm to the accused and the overwhelming way the topic is covered, I feel that categorizing it under mass-murders is appropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
    No one is debating that killings occurred. But a killing can occur without it being a murder. If the killer was insane at the time of the killing, then he would be not guilty of murder by reason of insanity. I don't believe anyone is suggesting the police "got the wrong guy", only that it is possible he is not criminally responsible and as such that this was not murder(s). That is for a court to decide though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Nurg, Wnt, and Aquillion. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 08:03, 03 May 2019 (UTC)

Source for 49 being injured

Is there a source for 49 being injured, to avoid the original synthesis of taking sourced statements that 50 were injured and subtracting the one who died in May? Nurg (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

"Sri Lanka bombings" section

Would anyone mind if I changed (or someone more associated with this thread)

"According to Sri Lankan Defence Minister Ruwan Wijewardene, the 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings were retaliation for the Christchurch attack" to "According to Sri Lankan Defence Minister Ruwan Wijewardene, the 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings on the 21 April 2019 were retaliation for the Christchurch attack" ?

Or better wording

As without any context of time between the events, the reader has to go to the bombings page to get it. And I think seeing the time between each helps determine likely connection. It is the first time I have looked at the page and I had to, to get real context.

--TheMightyAllBlacks (talk) 07:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Ain't had any feedback so changing TheMightyAllBlacks (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Alternatively, you could just remove the whole thing. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Exactly why is this article supposed to be exempt from WP:LEAD?

I've noticed multiple paragraphs and referenced facts, that are on topic for the article have been removed from the lead, such as the legislative impact, and the buyback of weapons. I have absolutely no clue why the people doing this think they or the article are exempt from WP:LEAD, or what positive impact they think this can have. Does anyone have the slightest clue or explanation for WTF is going on in this article? GliderMaven (talk) 02:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." It is not enough for something to be "on topic" for it to be appropriate for it to be mentioned in the lead. It has to concern an essential aspect of the subject. Neither the legislative changes that followed the attacks nor the buyback of weapons is essential to understanding what the attacks were and why they happened. There is no reason, then, to mention them in the lead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
+1, this is why I reverted some of the edits about the gun control legislation. It was too detailed per WP:DUE and could wait until later on in the article. The lead of Port Arthur massacre (Australia) says "Fundamental changes of gun control laws within Australia followed the incident." This is succinct and in line with WP:LEAD, the removed material here wasn't.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to change "gunman" to "terrorist"

Most of the preexisting citation and also general consensus, including statements released by the new Zealand prime minster, made references to the person as a terrorist not as a gunman, as such the article should reflect on the correct vocabulary

Agree.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
The article confirms terrorism, nevertheless, replacing the word "gunman" by "terrorist" on 26 occasions is overkill and pedantic. You don't need to make your point with such a blunt tool. Gunman is fine in most contexts. Anyway, Tarrant is neither a murderer nor a terrorist until a court determines that. WWGB (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is written as an encyclopedia article. WP:TERRORIST and WP:BLPCRIME become involved here. "Gunman" is neutral language.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
User:ianmacm is correct. In a world overwhelmed by 'fake news', it's essential that Wikipedia remain sane, and unadulterated by emotive language. Ross Finlayson (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Brenton Tarrant

There should be an own article about Brenton Tarrant to release this article from too much biography. -- Schmeißfliege (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

As long as the biographical details are sort of incomplete, causing speculation in all directions there is an argument for having a separate page which would make it more noticeable that there is something missing, or we are being led by the nose. Why would anyone who wants to travel the world and visit political groups (here far right) go to live at the bottom of all travel roads = Dunedin?

1. Travelling internationally would cost a lot less from Sydney.

2. Tarrant's income situation has been described as 'large inheritance' and cryptocurrency in a system that existed only two years and had been shut down by government.

3. So where do you find the money for 8 years living expenses and travel???? They need to bring out the truth here or those who have speculated that it was a far right government organisation sending someone sniffing out anti-seminitic/BDS groups are the only explanation.

Incomplete biographies do not contribute to better understanding or addressing issues. Ally Hauptmann-Gurski 2001:8003:AC60:1400:A47E:BC4F:3B35:6B58 (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

[citation needed] Speculation and personal research is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Zerach (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
That is true but if we do not get the information on how the perpetrator got to that point and what enabled him to do his/her damage we do not learn anything how to prevent these patterns of behaviour. This is more about advocacy for more complete information from the authorities. If nobody mentions that, they do not learn either. Just image someone in Dunedin, where Tarrant is said to have lived, would have said three years ago 'this guy is probably sus', because he/she had learned what patterns of behaviour lead to this. I have not supplied information, I have outlined where more questions should be asked and which ones - to benefit the community. I have had 3 years of journalism and we learned to look at news items with the view where the chain of information was broken and ask questions. Ally Hauptmann-Gurski 2001:8003:AC60:1400:28C1:70D3:F923:E029 (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
This would run into problems with WP:BLP1E. It is a judgement call on whether to have a separate article for a perpetrator (alleged at the moment since no trial has take place yet). A biography has to be rounded and sufficiently detailed to support a standalone article. A lot of the edits here are adding exhaustive material about the alleged motives from the manifesto, and this does not add much biographical value.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Tarrant is known for only one thing (WP:ONEEVENT) and anything that needs to be said about him can be contained within this article. WWGB (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Add name to info box or opening paragrapgh

Isn't it already time? The suspected and proven criminal "Brendan Tarrant" Isn't even mentioned until the 8th paragraph. The media coverage surrounding this event overwhelmingly puts his name on everything. Will there be any harm in mentioning him in the opening statement or infobox?— Preceding unsigned comment added by NPCtom (talk • contribs) 10:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

"Proven criminal" doesn't seem to have happened yet. WP:BLPCRIME aplies here. Current consensus is not to name in the lead or the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
This is current consensus by whom? Yourself? Stevenmitchell (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
See Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings/Archive_10#Name_of_the_shooter and Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings/Archive_9#RfC_about_keeping_suspect's/suspects'_name_in_lead.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Attempted murder discrepancy

Why is Tarrant being charged with 40 counts of attempted murder when 49 people were injured in the attack? Is it possible only 40 were injured from actual gunfire and 9 victims were injured from something else? If so this needs to be corrected. Any thoughts on this discrepancy? Deathscape (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't speculate about what might be. If there are no reliable sources discussing this, then we simply accept what the Police, the press and the Courts are saying.  Velella  Velella Talk   08:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
It's not uncommon for news coverage to leave some questions unanswered, and we're given the choice of accepting the apparent discrepancies or removing the content that creates them. For example, we could choose to say he was charged with multiple counts of attempted murder (not that I'm advocating that, necessarily). What we can't do is apply our own speculative reasoning without source support.
I lack the interest and motivation to look for sources that resolve this, but you or anybody else is free to do so.
In other words, pretty much what Velella said, with which I edit-conflicted. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
How about putting in parentheses "40 from gunfire" in the infobox where it shows "non-fatal injuries"? Isn't it fair to deduce only 40 people where injured by Tarrant, and nine others from some other method, since he is only charged with 40 COUNTS of attempted murder? Deathscape (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
We don't make deductions. We go by what reliable sources say. Throwing out challenges like this is not the way to encourage editors to find sources on your behalf, so the onus is on you to find them. Akld guy (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Objectionable

I made this change [7] because AFAIK the older statement was incorrect. Technically if the manifesto is objectionable, it's always been illegal to knowingly distribute or possess it. The Chief Censor's decision was simple officially classifying/recognising it as such. I couldn't find any sources discussing this for the manifesto but it was widely discussed in relation to the video [8]. We don't have to go in to such details, simply removing the suggestion it only applied from the date is IMO enough. (The initial source didn't say it only applied from that date anyway. It just used the term 'now'.) This is not to say the decision is irrelevant since while there is an appeals process, the classification is otherwise likely to be accepted meaning anyone with the manifesto without an exception should be aware they are committing a crime. Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

BBC News article

This is in the news today. Some interesting background material about the shooting, particularly Tarrant's links to Austria. It does, however, assume that Tarrant is guilty in a way that leads to problems with WP:BLPCRIME. It also assumes that he wrote the manifesto.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you say "Brenton Tarrant" in the lead yet?

I've only just read this article today and it seems bizarre that Tarrant's name is not mentioned in the lead or infobox. I see there was a previous RFC, the objections were along the lines of:

WP:NOTNEWS Too soon to include the name of the suspect.

Most of these votes were within days of the shooting and was right and proper to wait for reliable sources in the wake of a major incident. Since then Tarrant has appeared in court several times with 92 charges brought against him. There are plenty of reliable sources stating that he is the suspect and what the charges against him are.

WP:BLPCRIME This is a living person with the right to the presumption of innocence.

The lead and info box must make it very clear that at this time Tarrant a suspect charged with the crimes and not refer to him in any other way which would pre-judge the outcome of the case.

WP:NOTNOTABLE Undue prominence of a non notable person.

There is strong evidence that Tarrant seeks notoriety and people are loath to give his name more prominence that is absolutely necessary. There was a period of self censorship of Tarrant's name in New Zealand news media and even the New Zealand Prime Minister has vowed to not speak his name. However, the fact is that Tarrant has gained instant notoriety as the suspect in this mass shooting and there is no name suppression.

Let's remember WP:NOTCENSORED. Put Tarrant's name in the lead and infobox as the suspect in this case, the article is incomplete without it.

161.29.221.149 (talk) 08:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

  • You're misapplying NOTCENSORED, which is about "content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍". I can assure you that his name is not being omitted from the lead and infobox because some readers might consider that objectionable or offensive‍. Otherwise, no particular opinion or position. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Disagree with that. There's a significant number of people, particularly those from New Zealand, that refuse to "name the shooter" (or "terrorist"), else it "gives him what he wants". I see no reason why Tarrant cannot now be named in the Lede as the "alleged shooter".I'll also mention that obfuscating the reason for the censorship, or denying that the censorship is taking place, is in and of itself a form of censorship.Tym Whittier (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Tarrant is named below the lead, so nothing is being censored. The OP themselves listed three major arguments against inclusion in the lead, and none of them has anything to do with avoiding "content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍".
The only reason I commented about NOTCENSORED at all is because the policy is so often wrongly cited when content is omitted for any of the various valid reasons. Most of the omission we do is not censorship, and NOTCENSORED does not apply; this is one such case. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Things have moved on now that Tarrant has been formally charged and will face trial. The name appears widely in reliable sources and it would not be a breach of Wikipedia policy to mention him in the lead as long as it met WP:BLPCRIME.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
As I said here, I have no opinion on that and was only referring to the misuse of NOTCENSORED by the OP (and then to the support of that misuse by a different editor). ―Mandruss ☎ 14:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Will add to lede in line with discussion here.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk♥ 01:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
My edit was revoked, so I have created a new RFC on this topic.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk♥ 02:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

When to create an Rfc (and when not to)

Please stop creating Rfc's on this page every time a question about the article comes up. Note that Rfc's are not step 1; they come after discussion has failed, and broader input and some formality of process is needed. Before starting the Rfc process, "Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others." Before opening any other Rfc, please be sure you have done your due diligence first; see WP:RFCBEFORE. Mathglot (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

As required by WP:RFCBEFORE, attempts were made to discuss this here on the talk page over a period of time. It appeared that there was a consensus but the edits were reverted by people who wouldn’t then join the discussion. There are contentious points to be discussed so an RfC was raised and it has resulted in some useful comments. It would be great if you could add to those useful comments as a number of others have rather than starting an argument over a point of order. Thanks very much for your time. 118.149.228.0 (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Citing RFCBEFORE is not starting an argument; it's a widely accepted guideline. Voice civil and intelligent disagreement with the OP's comment but kindly refrain from accusing them of starting an argument. That's covered by the very important guideline WP:AGF. As for the pointless snark about "Thanks very much for your time", there is no guideline against it, but you might consider how it will affect how other editors receive any further participation from you on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the WP:RfC format is not ideal. I think that freeform discussion is more useful. We should not jump immediately to an RfC. A neutrally-worded section heading is preferable to an RfC. I agree that an RfC should only emerge from the less formal setting of a simple section heading representing the topic and its ensuing discussion. Bus stop (talk) 12:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC about reinstating the suspect's/suspects' name in lead

Should the suspect, Brenton Harrison Tarrant, be named in the lede? There was an RFC discussion that ended on 31 March, that decided that it was too soon to do so two weeks after the incident. Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings/Archive_9#RfC_about_keeping_suspect's/suspects'_name_in_lead. Since then he has been charged with 51 murders, 40 attempted murders, and engaging in a terrorist act, and pleaded not guilty. The lede currently says " A 28-year-old Australian man, described in media reports as a white supremacist and part of the alt-right, was arrested and initially charged with one murder." His name is not currently mentioned until the 7th section, "Suspect". A recent discussion suggests his name should now be included Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings#Can_you_say_"Brenton_Tarrant"_in_the_lead_yet?. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk♥ 02:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: Checking out the "recent discussion" to which you refer, L'Origine du monde, it seems clear to me that nowhere was there a consensus that the name should be included, which is actually why you stated you're starting an RfC, i.e. this one. And another thing: The leading section, per WP:LEAD, is not a lede and should not be called that if we want to avoid confusion. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The Gnome, in that month long recent discussion I see three people in favour of including his name in the lead, one person who is neutral, and no opposition. I started this rfc to establish consensus because my edit based on that discussion was reverted, apparently based on the earlier RfC.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk♥ 22:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey

  • WP:BLPCRIME says we should "seriously consider not including material". In this instance there is no chance that "Brenton Tarrant" did not commit the crime. Bus stop (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. The article should be as informative as possible. This is an incident perpetrated by someone whose identity is entirely known to all. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that "Brenton Tarrant" committed the crime. Bus stop (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No And pursuant to WP:BLP and per NZ law. The "Wikipedia is not censored and can therefore ignore common sense" argument is of nil value, as far as I can tell. As is the "well we know who did it, so why care about WP:BLP" argument. Neither should be given any weight at all in this RfC. We can add his name when it is proper under WP:BLP and not before. Collect (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes WP:BLPCRIME only applies for individuals who are not WP:WELLKNOWN. With over 80000 google news results for the name + "Christchurch", Brenton is a public figure. I also support Bus stop's notion that we should seriously consider, not take WP:BLPCRIME as meaning definitively one way or another. I believe in this special circumstance, yes, include the name in the lead. It's also of note that WP:LEAD states The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight.. The name is definitely a topic with heavy weight, and as such, should be represented in the lead. I frankly don't care about NZ law. Tutelary (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

RfC about info box accused = Brenton Harrison Tarrant

This article has a Infobox civilian attack template Template:Infobox_civilian_attack which has an info box with a space for the name of the accused. Brenton Harrison Tarrant has been charged with 51 murders, 40 attempted murders, and engaging in a terrorist act. Should he be included in the info box as the accused? It is currently empty. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk♥ 02:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey

  • Νο. Ι'm generally treating infoboxes without the assumption (held by many ) that "infoboxes are an abomination" but this is a typical case where infobox makers got things wrong. There should never have been a place for "accused" persons or of "sus[pected] perp[etrator]s" in the template. The article's main text can, of course, offer the reports of acceptable sources about suspects or arrested people and so on, but these are (or, rather, should be) given within the appropriate context of the respective investigation. Bringing this information up, front, and center in an infobox, in unquestioning isolation, is an indirect yet clear violation of our obligation to keep a neutral stance. Let's start working towards a remedy for this unfortunate state of affairs by not posting up names. -The Gnome (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No it's too simplistic and matter of fact in an info-box and needs the proper context and related info in the prose of the main text, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes If there must be an info box, it seems a simple matter of neutral fact. The authorities, and all reliable sources, seem certain he is accused, and will face trial.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk♥ 23:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes Infoboxes are a simple summary of what can be verified by multiple reliable sources so it is incomplete without the name. The only caveat is that this must refer to the accused rather than the perpetrator because Tarrant is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Info boxes are key/value pairs and this has inherent limitations but this is not the forum to discuss the limitations of presenting data in this format - we need to work with the template we are given. 118.149.198.17 (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. Name him in the infobox as the accused. This is a fact and does not imply guilt in any way. But naming (as accused) in the lead may carry too much weight, so I don't want him named there. Akld guy (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment: In the lead, context can be adequately provided, while in the infobox it cannot, by definition. Shouldn't then this be the other way around, i.e. have it in the lead, but not in the box? -The Gnome (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment: The lead is not the place for context. The lead is meant to be a summary of what follows, not a piece by piece analysis. Look around and you'll find leads that are so bloated they are articles in their own right and there's no need for the rest. Akld guy (talk) 07:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I still fail to see how a small summary in the lead section does not provide context, even at a minimum. The lead is, as you say, a summary. That's still far more preferable that an infobox with an unaccompanied bit of info. We should always follow WP:BLP about relatively unknown people and 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. An out-of-context, stand-alone presentation in the infobox of the name of a person being accused trespasses into the territory WP:BLP warns us off. The template itself is in error and we should minimize its effects. -The Gnome (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
P.S. : I haven't suggested a "piece-by-piece" analysis in the lead. Αrguing that there are already articles with "bloated" leading sections is WP:OSE. -The Gnome (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes No real problems with this as long as it is "accused".--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No This guy is a nobody. Putting him in the infobox (or the lead) is promoting him as a somebody. If his name becomes a household word then it would be appropriate. I feel strongly that Wikipedia should not shape cultural perceptions, but present them as they are. Also to a degree "suspect" or "accused" without any context translate to most as "the guy we all know did it, but we are not saying it outright." Having the reader go to the body of the article to get the name presents an opportunity for context. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
"Promoting" is not reference to any wikipedia policy; as to what cultural perceptions "are", I see no citations and don't think this is verifiable either.--Calthinus (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I suppose WP:UNDUE would be the policy. Presenting this guy's name more prominently is saying "this is important, you should know it first". I feel that is "undue" and not neutral. However this seems to be very much a judgement call. There are cases where policy is clear cut and cases where it is up to the editors involved. In this case, determining what cultural perceptions are is a judgement call. Even if I found some source who said this guy's name is unimportant, it would just be that pundit's view. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes I prefer the word "Suspect", until proper sentencing per WP:BLPCRIME Loganmac (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is essential information for the event. Furthermore, "accused", while in line with WP:BLPCRIME is insufficient. Accused what? Perpetrator? Well that is what most readers would guess but there is no need to be weaselly about this ("accused" could also be a collaborator). Consider instead : "accused perpetrator". This does not state his guilt in wikivoice but still clearly states what his self-filmed role was -- the basis of a legal accusation to which he is a defendant, and will be handled in court. --Calthinus (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong no, per WP:BLPCRIME: we should not include material suggesting a person has committed a crime, nor been accused thereof, until they are duly convicted. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes BLPCRIME does not apply because the suspect's name has been all over the place in reliable sources. We don't need to wait for a conviction in these circumstances - the suspect is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. --Pudeo (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    • You appear to misunderstand what a Public figure is and have substituted your own definition that most nearly equates to “has been in all the papers.” Im assuming good faith but the way you laid this out could be seen as purposefully misleading, at the very least you are gravely mistaken about pretty basic wikipedia policy. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No (Summoned by bot) per WP:BLPCRIME. I agree with Horse Eye Jack above about the suspect being not a public figure. If being named in news coverage qualifies someone as public figure, BLPCRIME becomes meaningless because it wouldn't apply to any article (being covered in multiple independent reliable sources is part of the requirements for even having an article). It's meant to uphold the assumption of innocence with only limited exceptions, and I don't believe this is one. For similar reasons, I'm not convinced by anonymous editor above who says infoboxes are for obvious facts. There's no requirement that articles have infoboxes, let alone that every possible field be populated. WP:BLPCRIME says to err on the side of not including information, so we should err on not including it in the infobox because nothing compels us to include in the first place. Wug·a·po·des​ 05:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. His name has been published widely around the world. That makes Wikipedia look lame and timid not to publish it. WWGB (talk) 09:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: WP:FART says "just because a piece of trivial information was printed in a newspaper or gossip magazine, or on a website, there is no requirement for it to be included on Wikipedia" which is correct. Facing trial for one of the most serious mass shootings ever is a long way outside WP:FART territory. The article has to avoid problems with WP:ASTONISH, as I have said below.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Yeah, it's flippant and doesn't add much to the discussion. I've removed it from my rationales. As to your point, I would still way BLPCRIME over ASTONISH. I think respecting the moral and legal rights to privacy are worth delaying prominent naming; there's no deadline, and we can afford to wait until there is a conviction, even if readers are surprised accusations are not given prominence. Wug·a·po·des​ 12:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No - what's the rush? Wait for the outcome per WP:BLPCRIME. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No And pursuant to WP:BLP and per NZ law. The "Wikipedia is not censored and can therefore ignore common sense" argument is of nil value, as far as I can tell. As is the "well we know who did it, so why care about WP:BLP" argument. Neither should be given any weight at all in this RfC. We can add his name when it is proper under WP:BLP and not before. Collect (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. The subject is an involuntary public figure per 80000 results in Google News for "Brenton Tarrant" christchurch. The qualifier of 'accused' is acceptable. I frankly don't care about NZ law. This is a special circumstance, and passes the threshold of "seriously not consider" that WP:BLPCRIME requires. Tutelary (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Policy seems to say that he is limited purpose or involuntary public figure" who cannot be defamed. [9]. says " this section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by [10]. :Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures says In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported. [11] says a person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk♥ 18:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

MOS:DONTTEASE says "Tabloid, magazine, and broadcast news leads may have "teasers" that intentionally omit some crucial details to entice readers to read or watch the full story. They may even "bury the lead" by hiding the most important facts. This style should never be used on Wikipedia."♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk♥ 15:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment (Summoned by bot): If a majority of reliable sources report this info, then it would not go against NPOV to include it in the infobox; in fact not doing so would fail to give the info proper WP:WEIGHT. It's debatable whether WP:BLPCRIME applies here, given that the suspect clearly sought notoriety for himself by livestreaming the attack. Whether Wikipedia should be helping the attacker achieve that notoriety is another thing to consider. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment: WP:ASTONISH is involved here. Some people have asked why Tarrant's name is hidden in a rather obscure way. Although WP:BLPCRIME still applies, the court did not prevent him from being named and his name has appeared widely in news media all over the world. Overall, it is OK to name him as long as it is made clear that he is the accused person facing trial. In Stoneman Douglas High School shooting Nikolas Cruz, is identified as the assailant in the lead and the infobox, although he yet to face trial.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC about reinstating the suspect's/suspects' name in lead

Should the suspect, Brenton Harrison Tarrant, be named in the lede? There was an RFC discussion that ended on 31 March, that decided that it was too soon to do so two weeks after the incident. Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings/Archive_9#RfC_about_keeping_suspect's/suspects'_name_in_lead. Since then he has been charged with 51 murders, 40 attempted murders, and engaging in a terrorist act, and pleaded not guilty. The lede currently says " A 28-year-old Australian man, described in media reports as a white supremacist and part of the alt-right, was arrested and initially charged with one murder." His name is not currently mentioned until the 7th section, "Suspect". A recent discussion suggests his name should now be included Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings#Can_you_say_"Brenton_Tarrant"_in_the_lead_yet?. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk♥ 02:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: Checking out the "recent discussion" to which you refer, L'Origine du monde, it seems clear to me that nowhere was there a consensus that the name should be included, which is actually why you stated you're starting an RfC, i.e. this one. And another thing: The leading section, per WP:LEAD, is not a lede and should not be called that if we want to avoid confusion. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The Gnome, in that month long recent discussion I see three people in favour of including his name in the lead, one person who is neutral, and no opposition. I started this rfc to establish consensus because my edit based on that discussion was reverted, apparently based on the earlier RfC.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk♥ 22:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey

  • WP:BLPCRIME says we should "seriously consider not including material". In this instance there is no chance that "Brenton Tarrant" did not commit the crime. Bus stop (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. The article should be as informative as possible. This is an incident perpetrated by someone whose identity is entirely known to all. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that "Brenton Tarrant" committed the crime. Bus stop (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No And pursuant to WP:BLP and per NZ law. The "Wikipedia is not censored and can therefore ignore common sense" argument is of nil value, as far as I can tell. As is the "well we know who did it, so why care about WP:BLP" argument. Neither should be given any weight at all in this RfC. We can add his name when it is proper under WP:BLP and not before. Collect (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes WP:BLPCRIME only applies for individuals who are not WP:WELLKNOWN. With over 80000 google news results for the name + "Christchurch", Brenton is a public figure. I also support Bus stop's notion that we should seriously consider, not take WP:BLPCRIME as meaning definitively one way or another. I believe in this special circumstance, yes, include the name in the lead. It's also of note that WP:LEAD states The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight.. The name is definitely a topic with heavy weight, and as such, should be represented in the lead. I frankly don't care about NZ law. Tutelary (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Minor spelling error

If u Ctrl f after "well as interacting with IBO leader Martin Sellner via emails", please replace "IBO" with "IBÖ" (Idenditäre Bewegung Österreich) it is already spelled correctly in the same paragraph (suspect). Das Klügste (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings/Archive_11&oldid=1145930478"