Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings

New article
This certainly throws a wrench into the government's story. I've chosen not to edit this article but it is interesting and will probably be elaborated on further. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The source is of this article is here. The Press is reproducing it under a CC licence. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oops. Thanks. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have done a bit of research into this whole thing. About 10 months ago someone posted a compiled post of some of his 4/8chan posts. Funny how only just now the media are picking it up. reddit post. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There was a second article published that continued the first. There will be a peer reviewed study published at the end of this, so maybe it's best to add that then, but if this is true (which it seems to be) it is pretty concerning in a lot of ways, and it seems like a lot of the royal commission information was only a partial picture. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Tarrant
Nikolas Cruz, for example, "deserved" to have personal page on Wikipedia, but Tarrant not? Just ridiculous. Feww2 (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * There are no hard and fast rules in this area. Previous consensus is that Tarrant does not need a separate bio because all of the key facts are covered here.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Tarrant in the 17th deadliest murderer in history, the fact that he takes up a quarter of this article is pretty weird in my opinion, when there is such a large amount of information it should be moved to a seperate article and this one should focus on the events and victims. Of course there should still be info on Tarrant but we can’t have so much of this article be about him. A seperate article only makes sense in my opinion. TheCloggle222 (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the discussion as to whether he should have a separate article may need to be discussed again when the result of the study that's being done on his internet posts is published (as mentioned above), and depending on how much coverage that gets (I hope so because if even what half of what they say is true, there were a lot of missed warning signs). It's not a measure of raw death toll, it's a measure of how much can be said about a person outside of the event itself, but yeah given that so much of this article is about him, after that + the coroner inquest it might be necessary.
 * I think a split that would benefit both pages can be written, but it should be done very cautiously and planned, obviously (please for the love of god do not force one through draftspace without discussion again), given all the issues with this. When we had this discussion related to the AfD the article was bad and didn't actually do anything that could not be contained within this article - defeating the point entirely, of having a split. Just wait for now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The reasoning for not having an article about him has been discussed at length, basically he is not notable except for this one event. The same reasing applies within this article, which is about the event/s, not about him. It isn't black and white though, which explains the different approaches with other similar incidents. About this article, I agree that it is in need of a major clean up that might involve some splitting into separate articles. On a personal note with no criticism intended of anyone in particular, I have always found it odd why some people take what appears to be an excessive interest in events like this down to the minutiae of detail, as if it's some sort of computer game. The 17th deadliest murderer in history? Are you sure that's not the 18th deadliest? And what about the 100,000 Ukrainians knowingly killed when Stalin ordered the damn breach during WW2? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Eh, that basically goes for every mass murderer, no? Several of the high profile ones have articles, even ones that did not survive to trial or any aftermath, like Marc Lépine, Omar Mateen, Stephen Paddock - and the aforementioned Nikolas Cruz. As of now it's case-by-case - as the article stands now a split is not ideal but I think to improve its quality in the future, eventually, something has to split. I'm of the mind that we cross that bridge when we get to it.
 * And yeah I'm interested in the topic a lot; never understood why people did the numbers game like that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * When I hear a comment such as, "This scumbag has a wikipedia page, so why not Tarrant?" My thought is that the other wikipedia page should probably be deleted. Tarrant did two notable things. First he shot unarmed worshippers. Second he was caught and sentenced to prison. What else can you say about him? Everything else is both boring and not notable. OrewaTel (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Month late response, but I disagree. A notable aspect of these events in their prevention often focuses on the perpetrator, especially when it comes to terrorism, what lead someone to an event, why they are like that, what could have been avoided, how could they have been caught, etc. Especially with this case, where the entire background of the event is related to one horrible person deciding to do something. 70k+ bytes of this article are about him and his preparation for the attack. This article, as is, is already quite large. IMO, to get it to a higher quality in the future, it would require a split at some point.
 * The other examples thing is a not great point, but generally there is no prohibition on articles on these kinds of criminals, and people frequently misunderstand BLP1E to this end. Also, at this point it would probably be a size split. There are many famous people only technically notable for one event, many assassins of famous people, and yes, many other mass murderers - the question with this is not really notability but is it better covered all in one page, or will multiple articles allow better focus and content coverage than one allows?
 * And now, when it comes out now that the perpetrator had a 5 year history of bragging that the government would never catch him and violently threatening people online, and this was only noticed five years later due to specific rhetoric and personal aspects about him that are the subject of analysis, I would say that is a notable aspect yes? The background is notable (given 1/4th of the article is about him directly), so he is notable - that really isn't in dispute, this is more a matter of WP:PAGEDECIDE. The coroner inquiry also will focus in its second half on his planning and online history of the perpetrator so we will probably have more information then.
 * If someone manages to write an article that isn't terrible (the last one was) I would vote to split it, but the content of this article isn't there yet, especially since the coroner inquiry is on its way. It's important it be done well if it be done at all, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. He should not have a page for the sake of having a page because of some psychopathic death toll count culture but I do think in the future after all is said and done it might be beneficial. Now is not the time though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Double standards are not good for encyclopedia. If he is not notable, hundreds of Wikipedia articles should be deleted. Criminals or mass shooters who killed 5-6 people (not 50), with no ideology, no influence, etc. (Churchill killed 50,000 civilians in the bombing of Hamburg only, still great hero for the West). Feww2 (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * However, the difference between people like Adolf Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer is that Adolf Hitler only ordered the murders whilst Jeffrey Dahmer murdered all of his victims directly and face-to-face TheCloggle222 (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Way too long
I know this has come up before but this article contains far too much detail, much of it with only a tenuous link to the subject. That map of the shooter's travels must have given the creater a lot of pleasure, but what is the point, what does it add to the article? I think we should be bold and really cut down the size to a quarter of what it is now - yes, remove 75%. The removed stuff can be used for another articles if deemed notable enough. Please compare this article's size with other notable murders - it is hugely disproportional. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes. The article needs to be trimmed. Mentioning Tarrant's workplace in 2009 is excesive and should be removed. Alexeyevitch (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I have in mind a scalping not a trim: if this is to be done it cannot happen piecemeal, a machete is required but even then it will take some time to make sure what remains is balanced and well structured. Many people won't be happy to see their contributions tossed out the Wikipedian window but they'll just have to live with it. If anyone wants to use the removed detail for another article they can simply bring up an earlier version. I would be happy to start the hacking prosess with a few sections that really are not relevant but significant removal of sections will need a broad consensus first. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)