Jump to content

Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Remove irrelevant reference to poem

This edit by Jürgen Eissink needs to be reverted. The user asserts that the terrorist's use of a poem in his manifesto is important. No, Jürgen Eissink, it is not. The terrorist's use of a poem is utterly inconsequential. The mention of it conveys no useful or important information whatever to readers, and should be removed promptly. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I will say that the poem opening the manifesto is of at least as much importance as him playing music, and certainly more important than any of the single songs that are mentioned in the article. The poem by Thomas is pretty wellknown, but far from mainstream and I think it's also far from being an alt-right meme, if the poem is at all known by alt-righters. To speak in nowadays bit worn terms: he opens his manifest with a reference to high culture – he in this one move tries to lift himself up and simultaneously tries to tear down, so to say, an artwork that has been the intellectual posession of a distinct class for some 70 years. It is an attempt for iconoclasm, that certain readers recognize without further explanation. That is my reasoning, and yours is, if I may summarize: "unimportant, utterly inconsequential, no useful information". I hope you come up with something better than that, if you like to maintain the tone of your voice. And needless to say that many RS mention the poem. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC).
That "The poem by Thomas is pretty wellknown" is irrelevant. The article is not about a poem and it is not about Dylan Thomas. The relevant question is, what important information does the terrorist's use of a Dylan Thomas poem convey to readers? The answer is none. It does not matter if a terrorist is pretentious enough to use a poem or has an interest in "high culture". That does nothing to explain his actions. Mention of the poem should be removed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
You have not convinced me. I suggest we wait for other opinions. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC).
You have not convinced me either. That the poem is "far from being an alt-right meme" lends the terrorist's use of it no importance at all. Your personal interest in a terrorist's use of a poem, and your belief that "he in this one move tries to lift himself up and simultaneously tries to tear down, so to say, an artwork that has been the intellectual posession of a distinct class for some 70 years", is of no matter. Why do you imagine other editors will care about a terrorist's use of an artwork or share your interest in it? You have produced exactly no reliable sources that indicate that that particular detail of the manifesto is of any importance. Plainly it isn't. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I added a reference, that links the poem to the death of T.'s father: "Perhaps tellingly, Tarrant opens the document with 'Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night', the poem by Dylan Thomas as an ode to his dying father." I will look for more sources. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC).
Your reference was not needed. Nor does a brief passing mention of a terrorist's use of a poem in a newspaper article give us a good reason to mention that point in the article. Please get over your fascination with this inconsequential point. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm amazed that you know with such unwavering certainty what is "inconsequential". Bus stop (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I make no apology for my judgments. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
One of the main questions in this sort of article is "why did he do it", or "who is the person that did this?" Therefore I think some degree of allusion to that poem warrants inclusion. We should be alerting the reader to this aspect of the event. Bus stop (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, there should be information that helps suggest why the terrorist did what he did. No, that does not include the terrorist's use of a poem. It explains exactly nothing. Wikipedia articles are not meant to be collections of random trivia that individual editors happen to find interesting so no, we should not be "alerting the reader to this aspect of the event". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Information provided by good quality sources should be considered for inclusion. We don't write these articles. Sources write these articles for us. Bus stop (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
For the archive: I added a source, and FreeKnowledgeCreator deletes it right away. This is beyond proportional! Jürgen Eissink (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC).
Your additional citation was not needed because the fact that the terorrist used a poem was already properly cited. If information in an article is already properly cited there is no need for additional citations. It would have been a different matter entirely if, together with the citation, you had added article content suggesting that the terrorist's use of a poem was important - but of course you didn't. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
You said: "You have produced exactly no reliable sources that indicate that that particular detail of the manifesto is of any importance." So I got another source that suggests a meaning to the presence of the poem and you dismiss it without even looking. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC).
I did look at the article. It contained nothing consequential - just a brief passing mention of the use of the poem, and the vague comment that it was perhaps telling. There was nothing of substance worth mentioning in the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
We want to know how substantial is the support in sources for the reference to the poem. Aren't you complicating the process by immediately removing the sources? You aren't the only one evaluating the sources. Bus stop (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
It is not necessary to include the source in the article for editors to assess its importance. Anyone can look it up online. The article mentions the terrorist's use of the poem very briefly, vaguely suggests that it is somehow telling ("perhaps tellingly"), but says absolutely nothing of any real importance or consequence about it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
FreeKnowledgeCreator, you should not have removed the source, and you should put it back while discussion here is ongoing. Here's why: whether or not we mention the poem will not be based on your opinion, or Jürgen's, or mine, or anyone's. It will be based on whether Reliable Sources think it is important enough to mention. To determine whether it has enough Reliable Source support, people need to see what sources there are. "Anyone can look it up online" is no reason to remove it from where people can see and evaluate it now. Apparently the publisher of the piece thought it was "consequential" enough for a mention; all of us, not just you, will determine whether the mention has importance or not. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The source has been restored, thank you. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC).
I think it was well described here. The psychopath misuses good poetry to "justify" his murders. I agree with FreeKnowledgeCreator here. There is no any real connection between the poem and the shootings (see ref above), except the connection in the twisted mind of the psychopath. My very best wishes (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A source need not say something of "real importance or consequence about it". This may be the crux of our disagreement. This is not a Jigsaw puzzle. The pieces do not have to fit together. We should want to assess whether sources actually mention the poem. If they do, then reference to the poem should find its way into our article, even if we can't say anything of "real importance or consequence about it". Bus stop (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@My very best wishes: That is a very interesting article. It is really a quality source giving large argument for including a decent reference to the poem(s) in our article. The author's interpretation is not far from my reason, given above, but better expressed, or at least quite different. I really don't see how you from this source decide to not mention the poem – it screams relevance to the interpretation of the manifesto. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC).
According to the publication, the author of the poem was an anti-fascist. Now, the actual fascist/Nazi/white supremacist cites a poem by the anti-fascist to "support" his murder. Should we put that nonsense by the supremacist to WP? No, I do not think so. My very best wishes (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
P.S. It is very strange that he cited Dylan Thomas. I would expect them to cite The White Man's Burden... My very best wishes (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
We have a section on the manifesto: I don't see why we should only say "It's content is anti-immigrant, white nationalist and meme loaden. It mentions Breivik and has a Black Sun in it. Oh, and he mentioned PewDiePie in the video", while we could also add something like "The Atlantic deemed the use of Dylan Thomas' poem 'Do not go gentle', that opens the manifesto, a "perversion of authorial intent", repurposing the work of an outspoken anti-fascist poet to advocate direct terroristic action. The document closes with Henleys 'Invictus', a poem famously invocated by among others Nelson Mandela while imprisoned, and here "plausibly" used to underpin the attacker's "necessary action". Tarrant was not the first mass murderer to employ works of art for show of "messianic bravery" etc. etc." I think we have a different view on what an encyclopedia is. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC).
  • The "manifesto" is an extremist primary source. We are not going to mention everything it tells. We mentioned Breivik because multiple RS tell that mentioning of Breivik in the "manifesto" was relevant to the case, i.e. Breivik indeed was a possible "inspiration" for the murderer (and that also sounds logical for everyone, is not it?). There are no RS telling that Dylan Thomas was a real inspiration or reason for the crime. The source I cited tells it was not. Same applies to poetry by Kipling (noted in the source). My very best wishes (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
MelanieN, you write that whether we mention the poem, "will be based on whether Reliable Sources think it is important enough to mention." Well, no. It won't. Bar unusual exceptions, the reliable sources Wikipedia uses are not written specifically for Wikipedia, and thus they obviously do not contain statements such as, "This should be mentioned on Wikipedia", or "This should not be mentioned on Wikipedia", which we are then obliged to follow. It is always up to editors to use their judgment about such things, and thus their opinions do matter. So what a very peculiar comment for you to make. Bus stop apparently believes that we must mention the poem in the article simply because one newspaper article briefly mentions it. No. That is not the way things work here. WP:PROPORTION applies: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject". The poem is an unimportant point; there is no reason to mention it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
"Should we put that nonsense by the supremacist to WP? No, I do not think so." Why not? Because it doesn't make sense? It doesn't need to make sense. It is what it is and it stands on its own merit or lack thereof. We are not writing a novel here. We are documenting an event. Bus stop (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
"Bus stop apparently believes that we must mention the poem in the article simply because one newspaper article briefly mentions it. No. That is not the way things work here. WP:PROPORTION applies: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject". The poem is an unimportant point; there is no reason to mention it." You can't say that there is no reason to mention it. In the final analysis maybe we won't mention it. If the reference to the poem is a "minor aspect" of this subject then what do you consider a major aspect of this subject? Isn't the act of killing 50 worshippers a "riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma"? (Winston Churchill) Bus stop (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately it isn't going to be possible to mention everything in the manifesto, since a lot of it is rambling junk anyway. I can't say that there is no reason to mention it, but it seems to have problems with WP:DUE.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The impossibility of mentioning everything in the manifesto is in no way unfortunate. We can mention the points that actually matter; excluding those that don't (like the poem) is not something to regret. I am not going to get bogged down in discussion with Bus stop, whose recent comments are off-the-point. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The poem offers at least some insight into what the alleged shooter was thinking, so it is a mistake to say that it is completely irrelevant. The real problem is WP:DUE as the sourcing has not identified it as a key part of the motive. It is undoubtedly notable that John Hinckley's attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan was influenced by The Catcher in the Rye, and Mark Chapman had a copy of the book after he shot John Lennon. We're not at the same stage of establishing key importance for the Dylan Thomas poem.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
How, precisely, does the poem offer any relevant "insight into what the alleged shooter was thinking" that could not have been gleaned from some other part of his manifesto? It is not helpful to just assert that it does, and I see exactly no evidence that it does. The problem is not that "the sourcing has not identified it as a key part of the motive" but that the poem is not part of "the motive" at all. How does a Dylan Thomas poem motivate mass murder of Muslims at prayer? It doesn't. There is no comparison to the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "I am not going to get bogged down in discussion with Bus stop, whose recent comments are off-the-point." Please give me a concrete example from within the context of this article of something that has "real importance or consequence" about it. My hunch is that you cannot because this is not something that makes sense. In the final analysis the act of killing 50 worshipers will defy understanding. Bus stop (talk) 05:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The entire manifesto is relevant, that is obvious. But I don't think we are anywhere near the stage of saying that the alleged shooter did it simply because he read a Dylan Thomas poem. The sourcing does not say this, so there are problems with WP:DUE.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Was about to add something along the lines of ianmacm. WP editors cannot assign importance of anything in the manifesto until they show the weight of sources to back it up that explain why it is important. This is clearly there for the argument that the document was a shitposting. We can't be armchair analysts here, and if sources only mention the poem is in there but dont explain why that's important, then we shouldn't include it. --Masem (t) 06:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Masem—do sources mention why anything is "important" in the context of this incident? I love the fact that some of you seem to think you are going to find the "reason" for this shooting. Do you seriously think a source is going to come along to say that they have uncovered the "cause" of the event? I guess they may, eventually. But until then we are building the article, to an extent, on those observations that sources deem noteworthy. These can be trimmed back 6 months from now. Bus stop (talk) 06:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Individual sources may point out things as important, so in a case like this, it is better to focus on points made by multiple sources who (presumably) independently came to the same conclusion. That's how we (editors) have to judge independence at this point. --Masem (t) 15:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Akld guy:: I agree that the material you just removed is not weighty enough to warrant such prominence, but if you read the discussion above, you'll probably get the feeling that one of the dedicated somebodies above (who do not believe we can interpret any of the shooter's motives, but nonetheless insist the manifesto is "trolling") will put it back in before too long. I think they need better sources; the section insisting the attack and manifesto were "shitposting" was excessively long and POVish. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: I think the PewDiePie aspect of the paragraph you just restored is UNDUEly long, plus that section of the article is just horribly written at the moment. Is Wikipedia now doing PR for PewDiePie? It's enough to have that he expressed his condolences in the reaction section. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The problem with the PDP stuff is that when it was in the reaction sections, editors were complaining that we had this "Random" Youtuber next to global leaders - which is a fair point. But with at least the Atlantic article, they used PDP specifically as an example of how the attacker was shitposting, and part of the trolling aspect. Because PDP can be mentioned there instead of responses, it makes a lot more sense. Does that make the section look long? Yes, but that's because there's probably more than can be had about other motivations (anti-immigration, etc. ) to be added before to give more balance. --Masem (t) 14:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I commend this edt's reference to "shitposting". We are not including details of the manifesto or the live-streaming to "understand" the actions of the suspect. We are only passing along to the reader the aspects of the manifesto and the live-streaming that provide the reader with an understanding of of this specific incident and we are only passing along those points that have been noted by reliable sources. They call it shitposting, we call it shitposting. Bus stop (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I completely agree with Ianmacm. Yes, that's precisely the point. There is no any real relevance established by RS. To the contrary, the only detailed publication on the subject (one that I linked to above) tells the poem is NOT relevant. Same applies to everything else in the "manifesto": names of people, whatever. Some of that may be actually relevant to the crime as established by RS; other things are irrelevant, and this is one of them. This should be excluded. My very best wishes (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • While the poems may not be relevant to or indicative of the motives, the section on the manifesto should eventually give attention to the composition of the manifesto. From a legal point of view it will not be possible to establish possible motivation from the manifesto if it's construction and content is not analyzed as to which parts are relevant to the motives and which parts are just shitposting. But while we do not, obviously, need to duplicate the manifesto, the intelligent discern of it's elements should not be labeled irrelevant or unencyclopedic. The fact that the manifesto contains three poems by "dead white males" may not be indicative of the motives, they most certainly are indicative of the mindset of the perpetrator. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC).
Some extremist writing like Catechism of a Revolutionary are historically notable. Others, such as that particular "manifesto," is hardly anything significant and does not deserve a lot of space on the page. This is just an eclectic rambling, a shitposting. My very best wishes (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Your opinion is just an opinion. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC).
Yes, the more I look into this the more I have to agree that the concept of "shitposting" is the context for references made by the suspect. There is no significance to "remember lads, subscribe to PewDiePie". That is utter shitposting. This is nihilism only. Bus stop (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
One should separate the significance of the intent, the significance of the content and the significance of the impact. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC).
Yes, one should. One should place the causes of the impacts within the concept of shitposting, a word I had not heard of until 24 hours ago. I would have called these nihilistic impulses. They serve as the backdrop and probably ultimate explanation for the references in the so-called manifesto. Therefore we should enumerate noteworthy points but we should also point out that this has been called shitposting. Bus stop (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Come on, folks. Almost all of this long discussion has been about how we personally feel about this: whether we think is important or irrelevant. That is not how Wikipedia works. This is an encyclopedia, not an op-ed forum reflecting our own views. One of Wikipedia' core concepts is verifiability, which states "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors." I can't believe I am having to explain this; this is Wikipedia 101. Discussion here should focus only on the coverage of the poem(s) by Reliable Sources: is the coverage enough, and significant enough, for us to mention? or isn't it? -- MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Despite this ongoing discussion, My very best wishes deleted the part on the poem. Should one user impose the narrow horizon of his own intellect and affection onto Wikipedia and highjack a subject on the basis of nothing but an opinion that nowhere transcends the passion to shout "shitposting"? Calling on MelanieN and others to weigh in here, because I fear a block if I even try to bring back, in any form, sourced reference to the significant use of poems in the manifesto. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC).

And, mind you, this censorising is done by a user who doesn't get tired of shitposting his own pathetic poems to at least four Wikipedia pages, including his User page. It is scandalous. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC).
Comment on the content, not the contributor. --Masem (t) 16:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Like I said in edit summary [1], that was an example of obvious WP:OR, and I removed it. My very best wishes (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Just saying it doesn't make it true. You know very well that someone reduced the section 'Manifesto' and shifted its content to a new section 'Motives' after this discussion had developed, so you could have rearranged the info, but you felt it necessary to frustrate the discussion and delete. I pity you. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC).
As the one that moved info between "Manifesto" and "Motive" section, even if I didn't move that, the poem still was out of place as why it was included was not explained, and the only explanation was editors' claims that it was "relevant". --Masem (t) 17:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Please acknowledge that above I gave a sketch of a possible edit that does provide relevance and explanation as to the composition of the manifesto and the place and purpose of classic poems in it. Not an explanation of motives, but of the content and possible a better explanation than those given for mentioning f.i. the memes, the (other) symbols and the songs. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC).
But that's your reasoning, not one supported by sources (yet). If you can show the sources that make the inclusion of the poem in the manifesto a subject of importance, then you have a starting point. --Masem (t) 17:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Sigh. Did you even read the discussion, Masem? The sketch is not my reasoning, it is derived from source. I am battling here with people who refuse to read, it seems. It's tiresome. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC).
That source would justify mentioning that he included three poems in the manifesto, and not necessarily stressing any one over the others, but part of the manifesto's attempt to rally others to follow in possibly violent action against immigrants. I think there might be other sources that would support this but not finding them immediately. Stressing that as it was included, mentioning just one poem doesn't provide the linkage we'd want to see pulled from RSes. --Masem (t) 18:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Whatever. Shitpost overlord My very best wishes has already decided. With my very best wishes, Jürgen Eissink (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC).
Perhaps Jürgen Eissink and My very best wishes should not edit this area of the article and in their stead allow Masem or MelanieN form the wording for this area of the article. Bus stop (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your concern, but I have a semiotic interest in events like this and will not let myself be silenced or be witheld from making well sourced attributions that potentially heighten the image and understanding and I will not let dimmed visions have free way to effectively obscure and deny meaningful information. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC).
It is impossible for us to say that the poem had any significance unless multiple third-party source deem it to be relevant. Until then this is a classic case of WP:UNDUE. Also BBC News describes the manifesto as "a confused jumble of thoughts and misinformation which rambles on for 74 poorly-written pages" and suggests that much of it had no relevance to the events that occurred. This is Paul (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
It was part of the event and there should be mentioned as part of the event. In a section dedicated to the manifesto, the manifesto could (and I asy: should) be described, regardless of it's relevance to the motives, although of course the content of the manifesto is related to the motives. Maybe the manifesto should get it's own article. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC).

Leave out song lyrics, what was playing on his radio, poetry he included in his "confused jumble of thoughts and misinformation." Include them much later, but if, and only if, multiple reliable sources deem them to be significant to the event. WP:NOTRANDOM and WP:UNDUE apply and it would be WP:OR for us to attach any significance to the inclusion of a poem without multiple RS doing so. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Point of order: My concern here is nothing but an encyclopedic description of the manifesto and its components, equal to for instance Anders_Behring_Breivik#Compendium. I'm getting sick of people's only argument "it's shitposting and we should ignore it". I mean, who would want to delete the text on Breivik's document? I quit this discussion and am sad to see that many let themselves be dictated by their own or external sentiments, emotions and possibly even political motivations. Don't let censorship prevail. Some users should be ashamed of themselves and they should really be ostracized for insisting their shallow thoughts should be up and leading. It's disgusting. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC).

The problem is, as of looking through what RSes are talking today, most have taken a position that the manifesto is rambling and not really any hard-line screed but basically "Shitposting". Not all, and I am sure there are people looking seriously at it as part of the investigation (in part to build a case, to construct a psychological profile, and possibly for any cryptographic messages that may be triggers for other attacks), but the media broadly is not reporting on the manifesto in that way, so we really cannot switch that around too much per UNDUE. Its not that we can't include serious analysis of the manifesto but they should be backed by more than one or two sources at this point, and should more than just name-dropping what's in the manifesto but to understand what that implies about his motives. No one is closing the door to say "WP is only going to treat the manifesto as a shitposting", only that our hands are bound by what RSes describe. It is OR to try to stress anything else about the manifesto any other way. --Masem (t) 18:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Despite Jürgen Eissink's claims, removing mention of the poem has nothing to do with censorship. No one is proposing removing mention of the poem because the poem is somehow offensive or hurts people's feelings. They are proposing removing mention of the poem because there is an absence of reliable sources indicating that it has any importance whatever in the context of the terrorist attack the article is concerned with. Including unimportant trivia in an article because someone happens to find it fascinating is what is disgusting. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Someone - I think User:Masem - split off most of the content of the manifesto into a separate section "Possible motives". I have undone this and would like to discuss. IMO the description of the manifesto obviously belongs in the section about the manifesto. It's kind of a leap to describe that stuff as his "motives", especially when there is controversy about how much of it is his actual motives and how much of it is trolling for media attention. Let's just call it what it is: the content of the manifesto. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I did do that. The issue is that there is a logical connection between the "shitposting" aspects the media has given the manifesto and him calling out PDP during the attack, an extension of that "shitposting". But editors have removed the PDP stuff then from that because PDP wasn't mentioned in the manifesto. As I pointed out above, while the PDP stuff could also be in the Reactions section, editors were complaining about this "random" youtuber being mentioned alongside the world leaders. The attacker's reference to PDP and PDP's reply need to be called out in this article per BLP (for PDP, not the attacker), and the only logical place that doesn't make it seem out of place is the "shitposting" discussion. --Masem (t) 22:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
PDP makes good sense in the "video" section because he actually said it during the livestream. (We should make that clearer in our item. And I wonder if we can't shorten that PDP item; even though it got a lot of mainstream coverage, a whole paragraph seems like excessive attention paid to that one thing.) BTW I found this article particularly informative, basically explaining that a lot of the stuff in the manifesto was in-jokes and references that only the "hyper-online" would get. I'm not suggesting we put that in the article unless more articles make the same point. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Now that I see it in place, I agree PDP in the video section presently is the best place. I just added a brief reconnection to the "shitposting" aspect but otherwise fine with it there. --Masem (t) 00:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Source-based discussion

The above discussion is very long and dominated by a few people, so that it is impossible to determine consensus - and there is almost no attempt to evaluate the issue according to what independent reliable sources say. If we are going to include a mention of one of the poems or all three, we absolutely need to know what kind of coverage there is on the subject - what sources mention the poem(s) and what they say. Please list any such sources below, just the sources here, with discussion below - so that we all can see exactly how much coverage exists and what it is like. Keep in mind that the manifesto itself IS NOT such a source; we are not permitted to independently evaluate his use of the poems or to decide what we think he meant by them. Here are the actual sources I have seen cited so far; please add any more and then we can discuss this like Wikipedians. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of sources

Are they reliable sources? What do they actually say about the poem(s) and how much importance do they attach to them? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Two first sources mention the poem only in passing and do not tell it motivated the shooter or it was significant in any aspect in relation to the crime. Third source ("Poems of Resilience Get Twisted for Terrorism") tells the poem is NOT relevant ("The Dylan Thomas work actually most relevant to the New Zealand killer’s case is thus not the one quoted in the manifesto, but the Hitler mockery movie"). My very best wishes (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Get a room

The choice of poem used to open the manifesto may be interesting and may be discussed by sources, hence it belongs on Wikipedia if people are willing to summarize them. But it does not belong here, because it is a detail (one poem) of a detail (the manifesto) of a detail (the person accused). Either we should finally start Brenton Tarrant or we should have an article The Great Replacement (which is actually GNG-worthy in itself by now), as much to serve as a toilet for some of this stuff as for the interest in its own right. I would favor the former option because the manifesto is quite arguably not "independently notable" (people only pay a moment's attention to it because the author happened to be this person, and when they talk about it they are talking about his motivation, so anything written about it is relevant to his article etc.) Wnt (talk) 10:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Undue source

The article currently includes one blogger Robert Evans' quote about "shitposting" and the shooters motives. Based on the author's own description of himself on his Twitter: "I'm an author, editor and occasionally a journalist. Currently playing with VR." Notable quotes should be restricted to more serious and reputed journalists and experts in field. He also writes for Cracked.com, which is just one step above TheOnion. This is a WP:DUEWEIGHT issue. DA1 (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 09:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
If we were using his post as the direct source, this would make sense. However several other RS have pointed to this source, giving it weight for inclusion even if he is not any type of expert, they are showing agreement with his concnclusion. --Masem (t) 10:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the source again, the author somehow manages to misquote the shooter's 8chan post even with a screenshot right there. Surely someone confident enough in their knowledge of Shitposting would know the semantic difference between "a real life effort" and a "real life effort post". Except that the "real life effort post" thing kind of breaks down the distinction between "stuff I'm writing on the internet for fun" and "stuff that I really believe", doesn't it? Masem, since you feel this material is worthy of inclusion, would you mind dropping some links to the RS that point to this source? I can't really seem to find them. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
And even if RS are referring to this source extensively, I'm not sure how that warrants quoting whole long sentences from this source, as in the version that was up until recently. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 11:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Links pointing to it: CNN,The Atlantic, BBC, Bloomberg, New Republic, The Independent, CJR, Newsweek, National Post. And that's not exhaustive.
Now when this was deleted [2] I see that someone used the direct source to the blog; when I added it a few days ago I used the Atlantic's article with a secondary link to the NatReview to avoid the UNDUE issue. And the length of the quote was reasonable given that it is explaining to an audience likely unfamiliar with the concept of "shitposting" and how it could even apply to this attack. --Masem (t) 11:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the links. After thinking about it a bit more I think the reason the section of "Manifesto" we are discussing right now bugs me is that it's explicitly motive-focused, while the paragraph before it simply states things that are clearly in the manifesto. As User:Masem and others have stated above, we should be extremely wary of ascribing any motive to the shooter at this point. There is a difference between stating the contents of the manifesto as reported in RS, and stating interpretations of the manifesto as reported in RS. I wonder whether anyone else sees it the same way. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Use of the word "terrorism" in the first sentence

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: Regarding your revert of my edit, none of the other articles in {{Terrorism in New Zealand}} use the word "terrorist" or "terrorism" in the first sentence. Articles about other terrorist attacks, such as 2019 Utrecht shooting, Charlie Hebdo shooting, Manchester Arena bombing also do not use the word "terrorist" in the first sentence of the article. I'd note that my edit did not remove the mention of "terrorist"; it merely moved this fact to a new sentence. Wikipedia should avoid sensationalism, and I don't see why this article should be treated any differently from other articles about terrorist attacks. feminist (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

That is whataboutism. If Rel. Sources are confident about using this specific word to describe the incidence, so should we. Using the word "terrorism" in the first sentence is not sensationalism, it is accurately describing what happened.Cinadon36 (talk) 07:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Feminist, you altered a description of the attacks as acts of terrorism, replacing it with a statement that the attacks had simply been "described" as terrorism ("The attacks have been described as an act of terrorism"). If the justification for that is avoiding "sensationalism", then I do not accept it. There is nothing sensationalist about unambiguously referring to terrorism as terrorism; rather, that is simply accurate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
So, is there a problem with other articles about terrorist attacks? Most of these attacks have been referred to as terrorism, yet their articles do not define them as "terrorist" in the first sentence. We should not deviate from precedent without strong evidence that this attack is different, or the approach in previous articles is wrong. Also see WP:TERRORIST: we should be very careful with using contentious labels, particularly as media treatment of this attack is not substantially different from other attacks where we don't define them as "terrorist" in the first sentence. feminist (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
In practically every other case that I'm aware of, the use of the word terrorist in any form required in text attribution and qualification. This has been true regardless of how widespread the use of terrorist/m was in reliable sources, for the express reason that the term is value-laden and contentious. There's also an explicit instruction within WP:TERRORIST to use in-text attribution when the term has received widespread use, or not at all when not widespread. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
But not all cases though. September 11 attacks is a famous counter example where there's even a FAQ on the talk page discussing it. Note I make no comment on what we should do in this article, simply that there is clear well established precedent for what we're doing so how it should be handled here would need to be based on consensus on what works best here based on source treatment. Nil Einne (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Some other random examples which are called terrorist with or without refs in the first lead sentence (without in-text attribution) 2014 Peshawar school massacre, 2005 Ram Janmabhoomi attack, 2008 Mumbai attacks, 2017 Westminster attack, 2017 Amarnath Yatra attack, 2002 Adora terrorist attack, 2004 SuperFerry 14 bombing, 2012 Burgas bus bombing, 2003 El Nogal Club bombing, 2015 San Bernardino attack, 2017 London Bridge attack. I don't know how well established the consensus is in these cases but it does demonstrate this seems to be common practice. (Incidentally, this is one of the many reasons why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally a problem. It depends on which "stuff" you chose.)

Note that AFAICT the original dispute was over where to describe them as such (in the first sentence or elsewhere), not whether to use the term in the lead without in-text attribution. Manchester Arena bombing does say "The incident was the deadliest terrorist attack and the first suicide bombing in Britain since the 7 July 2005 London bombings." in the final sentence in the lead. While Charlie Hebdo shooting does not explicitly call the attack or attackers terrorist in the lead, it does say they belong to a terrorist group and calls the Hypercacher kosher supermarket siege attacker a terrorist. (Although Hypercacher kosher supermarket siege itself does not.) BTW I'm excluding infoboxes from this analysis.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

And the FAQ on the 9/11 page just says this: "The contributors have arrived at this conclusion [to use the word terrorism] after looking at the overwhelming majority of reliable sources that use this term as well as the United Nations' own condemnation of the attacks." Well, we have the first part in the case of this article, anyway. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
There is a difference here in that there is a person that is going to stand trial on charges, and if so wanted, these could be terrorism related. Should he be convicted on terrorism charges, that makes this a terrorism act, fact-in-WP-voice. This also alludes to a passage of time before actually attaching "terrorism" to this. --Masem (t) 14:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. This is convincing, and shows that the use of "terrorist" in the first sentence is common. It's just that coincidentally the articles I picked at first all did not include the word "terrorist" in the first sentence, leading to the confusion. feminist (talk) 03:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Propose to remove "suspected perpetrator" infobox field

Please see Template talk:Infobox civilian attack#Suspected perpetrator field?. Whether the field is removed from the infobox template or not, I don't think Tarrant's name should be in the infobox here until he is (presumably) found guilty of the attack. U-Mos (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion now moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Remove "suspected perpetrator field" in Template:Infobox civilian attack. U-Mos (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2019

Please change "As gun-policy specialist Philip Alpers noted," to "As anti-gun activist Philip Alpers noted,"

Wiki rule: Weasel words - you are giving a non-notable authority and neutrality that he does not have. 202.50.145.175 (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done: Changed to "As Philip Alpers of gun-policy website GunPolicy.org noted", per the NYT description of "said Philip Alpers of GunPolicy.org, a clearinghouse for gun law data worldwide". We can't say "anti-gun" unless a source says so, and even if it does, something like "gun control" may be preferable. feminist (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

'Manifesto' deemed objectionable

If you're in Commonwealth, and downloaded said manifesto or got it into your browser cache, now is the good time to take measures, before police came checking your downloads list. I doubt your explanation that you did that to write a wiki article will satisfy them: https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/385399/christchurch-mosque-shootings-manifesto-deemed-objectionable The document was examined under the Films, Videos & Publications Classification Act and was deemed objectionable for a number of reasons.

Chief Censor David Shanks said others have referred to the publication as a "manifesto", but he considers it a "crude booklet" which promotes murder and terrorism.

Mr Shanks said this publication crosses the line to make it objectionable under New Zealand law.

According to the Department of Internal Affairs, "knowingly" possessing or sharing objectionable material carries up to a 14 year jail term.

--NikitaSadkov (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

It's a fair point. Some people have asked why there isn't a link to the full manifesto in the article. As already pointed out, many websites removed it because it contains incitement to kill various people which is both illegal in various countries and against the terms of service of a website. In Britain, the Terrorism Act 2006 makes it an offence to access or distribute certain types of material. This renders material illegal where "the use or threat is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public... the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause."[3] So do be careful if you are British, Mr. Plod is watching.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
We do link to the manifesto in the appropriate way (I think, since I added it), namely by linking to a news article about it that includes the full text. The problem with linking to the manifesto "directly" is the question of directly where?. The shooter isn't likely to be maintaining a page - even if the 'social media' weren't censoring personal archives of it, they couldn't be trusted not to change. So we had to have some reputable newspaper publish it and archive.org to mirror it so we had a chain of custody on the evidence. As for the British, I pity them, but Wikipedia came from the U.S. and is based on the U.S. for a reason. Wnt (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, that's purely a New Zealand ruling. Commonwealth Wikipedians needn't worry. And as the only known member, I assure you (dear reader, Chief Censor and all good people under the sun) this bad apple didn't spoil the bunch in the least. I'll even mantain we remain the least harmful environment on the entire mainstream web, at least insofar as subdivisional pseudoanonymous virtual communities of nationals and/or ethnics are concerned. Did you know "least offensive website" finds six Google results and "most offensive website" finds fifty-eight? That's almost ten times worse, and the "best" suggestion for the former is a Yahoo! Answer promoting 4chan/b/. Wake up, sheeple! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Youtube has disabled comments to all music videos used in the New Zealand video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en1uwIzI3SE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atuFSv2bLa8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGrxHO-B2TY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KZCiWizEkw

after comments became the departments of imageboards.

--NikitaSadkov (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

We need third party sources to confirm this was made and its importance. --Masem (t) 13:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
There's nothing on Google News about this at the moment, but that could change. It depends how long ago they did it and whether news outlets have picked it up yet. Also the video "Grün ist Ünser Fallschirm" looks like it's been deleted. This is Paul (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
IMO we have to seriously consider how much coverage to give these sort of things, looking at the level of sourcing etc. While it's obviously part of the story, I'm not so sure how big a part. For example, AFAICT we still don't seem to mention how Youtube temporarily disabled searches for recent uploads and temporary removed the requirement for human moderators to review bot flagged material. [4] Nil Einne (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
No way to know if YouTube dis the disabling, or if the channels themselves disabled the comments. Or if the channels did it at YouTubes request, or at a government request, or god knows how many other possibilities. 182.0.174.58 (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
After the Unite the Right rally in 2017, website bosses became wary of allowing any material that would cause advertisers to pull out of the site, or lead to government bans. Even 4chan split itself into two sites, 4chan.org and 4channel.org, because the boards like /b/ and /pol/ were pretty much a complete no-no for advertisers. The Christchurch mosque shootings are a continuation of this effect, and it could be mentioned in the article if reliable sources make the connection. Otherwise, it runs into problems with WP:OR to say "site x banned y" without giving any sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned. Benjamin (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Missing verb?

This sentence seems to be missing a verb: "On social media, he posted a slew of Balkan nationalist material, and remarked that he hoped the ability of the US to "project power globally" would diminish so that events such as the NATO intervention in Kosovo in response to a Serbian ethnic cleansing campaign against Kosovar Albanians in which, in the shooter's interpretation, "Christian Europeans" were "attempting to remove these Islamic occupiers from Europe"" 81.82.241.72 (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Resnjari (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Its good. Thank you. Best.Resnjari (talk) 04:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

New Zealand heading in reactions

There should be a New Zealand category in the reactions tab where notable New Zealander's responses and reactions can be included. The event happened in Christchurch, New Zealanders were among those killed and New Zealanders I'm sure will agree they can probably give the name of someone who personally part of the response. The response on a national level was massive, anyone who was in New Zealand at the time will agree, personally I have never seen such a surge of action in so many departments across the whole of the country.

This should be above/before the world leaders section as it was a New Zealand event, those killed chose to live in New Zealand and the shooter chose New Zealand as a target. It should therefore take precedence over the interesting, yet after the fact reactions of world leaders who are otherwise uninterested in the racial and religious political issues of New Zealand.

Although the reactions of world leaders are interesting, reactions of relevant New Zealanders are more important as the event took place in New Zealand. Clumster (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

accidental duplicate - not sure if I accidentally deleted someone else's information 2600:1700:7A51:10B0:B1ED:B440:CA68:E8D9 (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Quotes from The Daily Stormer

The article contained this sentence: 'Andrew Anglin, the founder of the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer, said this was "by far the funniest" mass shooting he had seen, that the victims were "death cult invaders", and that the gunman was already a "folk hero" to many.'

The source given was a Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) article, which was quoting The Daily Stormer. So Wikipedia was quoting The Daily Stormer (a neo-Nazi primary source) under the guise of quoting a secondary source (the SPLC). Verbatim quotes, without any analysis or commentary, about the funniest mass shooting, and vilifying the victims is contrary to common decency, let alone Wikipedia's principle of neutrality. Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for extremists to vilify people and laugh at murder. Serious analysis by academics or reliable commentators of far-right reaction may be warranted, but just presenting quotes from a neo-Nazi is not.

I have deleted the sentence. If you think the material should be added to the article again, please build consensus here first. Thanks. Nurg (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much weight is due; perhaps more context is needed, but I'd tend to support inclusion. Benjamin (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Very well said, and I agree with the edit, Nurg. That material doesn't belong in our article. Bus stop (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I could perhaps see it as being due if there is a notable backlash to Anglin or The Daily Stormer specifically. Even then, I'd prefer not using the direct quote. We already have the sentence However a number of alt-right leaders overseas and online posters supported the attack, hailing the gunman as a "hero". to describe the phenomenon. TompaDompa (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Leave it out. Clearly the guy was attempting to get publicity by being outrageous. Clearly, it didn't work; the comment didn't get a lot of coverage. Maybe if it had caused a huge backlash, as TompaDompa says; but it does not have that kind of coverage and so should not be included here. The existing sentence, quoted above, is enough. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion to move whole "Suspect" section below "Aftermath"

(Or even after "Reactions"). Reasons, briefly:

1. More logical.

2. Reduces focus on perpetrator. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

It's less chronological, as the suspect always shows up in real life before any aftermath does. In real life and the news, the suspect naturally receives the most focus, both as it happened and as the judicial process rolls on. It be a bit jarring to general audiences if Wikipedia suddenly played by different logic, especially since we've usually gone the normal way with these types of articles. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
In articles about attacks, the Suspect section usually follows the Victims section. It's not about reducing focus on the perpetrator as without him we would not have an article. WWGB (talk) 05:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Moving the suspect after the aftermath is not logical, because the reactions are all about the suspect's particular brand of lunacy. It could have been a shooter from ISIS who had some nitpick about how the mosque was holding services, and then all the reactions would be totally different. Definite oppose here. Wnt (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't usually edit these kinds of articles, so I was not aware of the usual order (and didn't have time to look at others earlier), and that is a fair point. I also take the point about the Aftermath. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
No. A focus on the perpetrator is important as this was an ideologically motivated crime. --Calthinus (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

First Muslims in New Zealand

In the background section are we sure the first Muslims arrived in New Zealand in 1769? That was the year James Cook mapped the coastline, so did he have Muslims in his crew? This could do with a reference. This is Paul (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Why is this relevant at all if it was 200+ years ago?--Calthinus (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
This kind of stuff may belong in the NZ article. Makes no sense here. O3000 (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I removed that sentence (and its reference) entirely. The source does not appear to be reliable. Ross Finlayson (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
That is myopic. The "background" section provides "background". 50 Muslims were killed—that is the subject of this article. We want to know the historical background of Muslims in New Zealand. And we want to know the relation(s) between Muslims to other New Zealanders in New Zealand.

The "background" section was telling us Islam is practised by less than 1 per cent of the population.[32] The first Muslims arrived in 1769, although large-scale immigration didn't begin until the 1960s, with the arrival of Fijian Indians. Immigratoin has continued with refugees from countries such as Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.[33] The first Muslims in Christchurch arrived in 1874. The Al Noor mosque opened in 1985, and was the first in the South Island.[34] The Linwood Islamic Centre opened in early 2018.[35] Bus stop (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted. I think the source is adequate. Bus stop (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
It's fair enough to provide some background, and to give statistics of the Muslim population, because as you rightly say, the article discusses the deaths of fifty Muslims, but claims about the exact year when the first Muslims arrived in New Zealand could be difficult to corroborate. I would support a partial restore but without the 1769 claim. This is Paul (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Someone else's edit (re)removed the bogus 1769 claim. Note that we already have an article Islam in New Zealand; this article should link to that one for more details; a detailed discussion of the history of Islam in NZ belongs there, not here. (Note, BTW, that the Islam in New Zealand article makes the (much more credible claim) that the first Muslims in NZ arrived in the 1850s.) Ross Finlayson (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
No idea on the reliability of the source, but that is what it said. Everything else in it appears accurate so it may be a typo. The very first link was to Islam in New Zealand, it is still there, it has just been edited out to an easter egg. I don't know your definition of detailed, but one sentence The first Muslims arrived in 1769, although large-scale immigration didn't begin until the 1960's with the arrival of Fijian Indians and has continued with refugees from countries like Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria is hardly detailed. Background and context is one of the differences between an encyclopaedia and a collection of breaking news stories. AIRcorn (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I added "Main article: Islam in New Zealand" to the background section. Bus stop (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The main topic of the section is the background to the shooting though; that section hatnote isn't appropriate. I've changed it to {{See also}}. —Hugh (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree see also is better. Thank you both. AIRcorn (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I really wish Wikipedia editors would think about perception and consequence before throwing things in. Put aside, for a second, that this article is about the massacre and not about the 250 year history of New Zealand. Just focus on the link being made. The entire section is about the massacre of 50 people in a mosque, and we're tying that to "Islam in New Zealand". What are we trying to say with that? That there's a link between massacres and Muslims in New Zealand? Mr rnddude (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Your point is well taken. With that in mind, I moved the "See also|Islam in New Zealand" link to the end of the section (following the paragraph that's talking specifically about Islam in NZ). Ross Finlayson (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually I think a brief history of Islam in New Zealand is in order in the Background section, and I think that could include early history, because that implies what I would call "deep roots". I think we can safely assume Muslims were targeted. All things considered I don't think this edit was entirely out of place. Bus stop (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Please, this guy wasn’t even a NZ’er. This has nothing to do with the history of NZ. A mass murder occurred. The victims could have been Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Maoris, whites, blue-eyed people. Let’s stop trying to add some sort of rationale behind a pathological act. O3000 (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Did he target a type of people? Bus stop (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, because he was sick. If he targeted women because he hated women, would we have a history of NZ women? If he targeted chess players because he was a failed chess player, would we.... Such additions suggest some rationale behind an insane act. Let's just stick to the facts. O3000 (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
If he had targeted women with the same ferocity a link to misogyny in New Zealand and some background would be entirely appropriate. Also extremism is not a mental illness.[6] AIRcorn (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. But, the link wasn’t to Islamophobia. It was to Muslims in NZ in general. O3000 (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
If this is just about the see also/main then that wasn't my doing. My original addition had three parargraphs (see User:Aircorn/sandbox for the draft). I linked Islamaphobia at the start of one paragraph and spelt out and linked Islam in New Zealand in another. Except for my now obvious error in the arrival of the first Muslims I prefer how that was presented. But this is wikipedia and people will and should change this. AIRcorn (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Its a background section, not a section about the massacre per se. It is meant to provide some context on the situation in this country prior to the event. It does not focus on Islam, it also mentions the rise of the right and history of similar violence (or lack of it) in New Zealand. If you are worried about a see also then add a see also to List of massacres in New Zealand as well. Or go back to how it originally was and spell it out in prose. Having it at the end just looks strange. AIRcorn (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Why do you think a history of Islam in NZ provides context? Appears like OR/SYNTH to me. A background to paranoid schizophrenia is probably more on point. But, I won't add that because it's also OR. O3000 (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Because Muslims were targeted. Because sources covering the tragedy are talking about the history. AIRcorn (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
It does not focus on Islam <- This is in itself a prime reason not to add a "main/see also" tag to Islam in New Zealand in that section. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, I removed the "see also", and moved the link back into the main text. Ross Finlayson (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I am fine with that. AIRcorn (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm less fine with that. It's not ok to contort the language in order to shoe-horn a link into the prose. "Islam in New Zealand" is not something practised. If people think that link is needed and justified, and you can't find a natural way to include it in the body, put it in the See also section. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
... or just pipe the link. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, if you can without creating an MOS:EGG. At one point we linked "Islam" to that article, which exceeded my EGG tolerance by a fair margin. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
And I see you did just that without waiting for comments here. Okie dokie. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I thought about that, but I think the context of the prose is clear enough on being about practitioners of Islam in New Zealand that there shouldn't be a surprise about where the article links. I suppose you could do something like: According to the 2013 New Zealand census, over 46,000 or 1.2 percent of [[Islam in New Zealand|New Zealand residents practice Islam]]. Also... the timeline is that I actually did that first, and then thought to leave a comment here. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC) Amended for a sentence fragment correction on 16:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Undone for consensus first. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you.
I'm a very conservative linker and I think the real utility of any link should be seriously considered. Speaking generally, too many editors just link anything they can without putting much thought into it. I question the real utility of a wikilink in that context. So my preference is the See also section. (I also wonder how many readers will want to learn more about the 2013 New Zealand census upon reading that sentence.) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Are there any RS (multiple needed) that examine muslims to New Zealand in relation with this specific terrorist attack? If not, it is OR/SYNTH. Cinadon36 (talk) 07:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Cinadon36—providing information on the history of Islam in New Zealand would not necessarily be original research or synthesis. We would not need sources involving the history of Islam in New Zealand "in relation with this specific terrorist attack". Bus stop (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bus stop:Why is that? If it is an important aspect of the topic, RS will cover it. Cinadon36 (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Cover what? Cover the history of Islam in New Zealand? Reliable sources cover the history of Islam in New Zealand. Bus stop (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Not what is being said. The relation of the history of Islam in New Zealand to this attack should be covered in sources discussing the attack. If no reliable sources connect the two subjects, then, for all intents and purposes, we're not supposed to either. As a counter example to illustrate: there is a connection in the article made between the Bosnian war and this attack. That connection is made by RS, so we can include it. If, however, no RS connected the two subjects, but some editors did, that would be OR. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mr rnddude: Please tell me why "The relation of the history of Islam in New Zealand to this attack should be covered in sources discussing the attack." Bus stop (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Because we take statements from sources discussing the subject matter to determine its relevance to the subject (DUE weight). I.e. if sources discussing the shooting deem a fact on a separate subject to the shooting to be relevant to the subject of the shooting, that is when we're supposed to include it. Otherwise you revert to "I think this statement is relevant", instead of "these sources think this statement is relevant". It's perfectly acceptable to use sources discussing the history of Islam in New Zealand for an article on that topic, but its relevance to another standalone topic is determined by sources on that other topic. Again, I'll give an example: This is the first mass shooting since the Raurimu massacre, in 1997 <- this statement is relevant not because it's true, but because it is discussed in relation to this specific shooting in several sources: 123 - subscription required4 - here a 2001 shooting is described as a murder spree which may throw doubt on the claim within the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
There is no such requirement. It would not be synthesis to include in this article material on the history of Islam in New Zealand, even if that material was not found in a source discussing the 15 March 2019 incident. Bus stop (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
... except there is such a requirement per WP:DUE: An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. And it all relates back to the core principle of synthesis: [d] not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. That includes, ostensibly, relating subject a to b where reliable sources don't. There's now a new section dealing specifically with synthesis issues. I've pointed to a relevant source to retain the Raurimu massacre bit in the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
There would be no undue weight in including a brief history of Islam in New Zealand and you are making zero attempt to show that there would be undue weight in including a brief history of Islam in New Zealand. There would be no WP:SYNTHESIS in including in this article a brief history of Islam in New Zealand and you are making zero attempt to show that there would be synthesis in including in this article a brief history of Islam in New Zealand. Cinadon36 claimed that sources on the history of Islam in New Zealand would need to be "in relation with this specific terrorist attack". They would not need to be "in relation with this specific terrorist attack". They would only need to be "in relation" to the history of Islam in New Zealand. Bus stop (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
[Y]ou are making zero attempt to show that there would be undue weight in including a brief history of Islam in New Zealand <- This coming from you, when all you've cited is your own opinion. So, I have a simple rebuttal: WP:PROVEIT (by citing policy/guideline). You have three claims: 1) There would be no undue weight in including a brief history of Islam in New Zealand 2) There would be no WP:SYNTHESIS in including in this article a brief history of Islam in New Zealand <- both of these are unfounded opinion. 3) They would not need to be "in relation with this specific terrorist attack". They would only need to be "in relation" to the history of Islam in New Zealand <- In an article about this specific terrorist attack you don't think sourcing needs to be in relation to it? Why not include a section on the "history of Christchurch", "history of New Zealand", "history of British colonialism", etc, etc until we get to "history of the Universe"? There are sources for these subjects, and you say that [t]here would be no undue weight and [t]here would be no WP:SYNTHESIS in doing so. Why? because you said so. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I'll not be engaging further in this circular debate with no forseeable conclusion, instead opting to leave a comment at the new section. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, and IMO establishing a "Yes, they have a right to be here." tone in the Article about them being mass-murdered is a good idea, if the facts and RS support the assertion. It would go a long way towards dispelling the shooter's "alien invasion force" allegation.Tym Whittier (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Say/state and that

(Copied from User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator) ―Mandruss ☎ 10:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Re this, Merriam-Webster say, sense 1a, disagrees with you. Do you assert some higher authority on vocabulary, such as a more respected dictionary? If it's just that you "know" better than the dictionary, I'm likely to take exception. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Mandruss. Is there any particular reason you are coming here to my talk page to discuss this extremely minor issue? Generally, I prefer it if people discuss edits to a particular article on the talk page of the relevant article, not on my personal talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok, as it's an extremely minor issue, you won't mind self-reverting all of those changes to this article? ―Mandruss ☎ 10:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes I mind self-reverting, having better things to do with my time. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
No problem, I have the time to do it for you. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Before I go much further with extra "that"s, do you (or Mr Dude) have time to resurrect and/or revert any of that minor issue? If so, I'll fold. If not, I'll gladly burn them all. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
My position is unchanged from that discussion, but I lack the energy to continue the dispute at one article after another. You keep removing the "that"s and others will keep adding them, and everybody gets to enhance their edit counts. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
The system works. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not aware that "the system" is for a single editor to make widespread copy edits that he knows have been strongly disputed with external evidence, with no more support than what you got in that discussion: A tepid "Both sound okay to me, but I would side with whatever saves us 5 characters.", from a username since indeffed for socking. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
This single editor is part of the system. As you say, others will keep adding them, if they want. Just seeing how others feel about wordiness here. Unless I'm forgetting something, it's only come up between us at this article and the other last year, which is technically one after another, but not quite "widespread" or all that exhaustive. Just occasional BRD stuff, and if it turns out trimming is unpopular, the system still works. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
This example, and there are likely more like it, shows that you have little instinct for when the word is important for reading comprehension and when meaning would be clear enough without the word (in which case the word merely provides unnecessary clarity without harming reading comprehension). You are painting with too broad a brush and you might reasonably "recuse" from these edits. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Even after giving it some thought, that sentence means the exact same thing to me, with or without "that". Also would mean the same if we'd said Bender "said", "stated" or "opined" the same idea. But if you see a difference, I don't mind the reversion. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Right, it means the exact same thing to you, with or without "that", because you already know what the sentence means. To understand this you have to put yourself in the place of a reader encountering the sentence for first time. They would see "noted the use of live streaming video" and conclude incorrectly that Stuart Bender noted the use of live streaming video. Reading further, they would be forced to back up and reassess the meaning, and, in a sentence of that length, it might require several passes to understand what it says. Good writing means making it possible to get it right on the first pass. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
If a reader concludes anything mid-sentence, they're doing it incorrectly. If they stop at the period, as all good writers intend, there's no reasonable excuse. Maybe a shorter sentence could help (as might entirely omitting the opinion of a non-notable fellow). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
In other words, any reader having this kind of problem should rewire their brains so they read "correctly". Are you hearing yourself? I think you should consult a reading expert. People have varying reading strategies, and we don't all just read words into a mental buffer until we reach a period and then start processing the buffer as a single unit. I certainly don't—my mental buffer is too small—I process a phrase at a time, and I think Wikipedia should consider readers like me. I agree that the sentence is longer than sentences should be for our target reading level (8th or 10th grade?), but that's a separate issue; the grammatical ambiguity problem would still occur in a shorter sentence. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
"Rewire" is a bit harsh. But yes, anyone having problems with any task should seriously consider doing it correctly (especially if it's a daily chore). Almost everything ever written has agreed that a sentence is one complete unit, conveying a whole thought. I'm all for individuality and variety in the words they contain and how they're stitched together, but by choosing to disregard something this fundamental to the game and arbitrarily choosing snippets instead (surrounding punctuation be damned), a reader is asking for problems. To that point, I'll agree with your suggestion that we "all just read words into a mental buffer until we reach a period and then start processing the buffer as a single unit." InedibleHulk (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
In the previous discussion that you linked above, I brought external evidence from two sources. You've brought your unsubstantiated personal opinions. At some point one realizes they are not dealing with a fair and reasonable editor. Carry on. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
As I said then, we don't take our stylistic cues from the news, only their facts. That notwithstanding, "He noted the company was already working on an orbital version of Starship..." and "She noted 'the same thing is happening again' with the revival. If the external world can take it or leave it alone, so can we (just like we aren't obligated to call the shooter "Mr. Tarrant".) InedibleHulk (talk) 07:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I would prefer "stated" to "said" when "the manifesto" is the subject. Literally, printed words do not speak or say anything, and while the contrary colloquial usage may usually be acceptable, the mixture of printed and video dissemination by the killer in this instance tends to require more clarity. Wnt (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
It's my understanding and experience that dictionaries identify colloquial usage as such. As I showed in my opening comment, "say" does not require oral speech, and that sense is not considered colloquial by Merriam-Webster. To date all I've seen in counter to that evidence is unsubstantiated statements of fact (ie personal opinions); I don't think that's how we do things here at Wikipedia. I support a mix of "said" and "stated" simply to avoid being repetitive, but I don't support the idea that "said" should be reserved for spoken language. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this dispute, but as this article is written in New Zealand English, it would be more appropriate to refer to a Collins or Macquarie Dictionary for usage than a Merriam-Webster. 202.155.85.18 (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Assuming you're referring to say/state: 1. Collins say, sense 3: "You can mention the contents of a piece of writing by mentioning what it says or what someone says in it." Example: "The report says there is widespread and routine torture of political prisoners in the country." 2. Macquarie requires a subscription, I don't care to spend money to prove this point, and any editor unconvinced by now would still be unconvinced by the addition of Macquarie. Some editors recognize no higher authority on vocabulary than themselves. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Note that example also omits "that" after "says". InedibleHulk (talk) 07:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
As would I. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings/Archive_6&oldid=935328676"