Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings/Archive 10

A "List of the dead" needs to be added
The Wikipedia page for the Orlando nightclub shooting has a list of all 50 people that were killed in the shooting and this page needs to do the same. Michael14375 (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You can always find another article or 50 that does what you want to do, and there is always another article or 50 that doesn't do that, so pointing to other articles is meaningless. A victims list has been discussed at this article and failed to reach consensus to include. See archives if interested. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that is wrong, our articles should not be memorials, but I also think double standards are wrong to.Slatersteven (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * When the issue has been discussed at community level (Village Pump), the result has always been that this needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In other words the community currently feels that flexibility is more important than consistency in this area. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Then I see no reason why these should not be listed here, what is the objection?Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTMEMORIAL is the objection, as you stated in your first post. For the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument: 2016 Nice truck attack doesn't name the victims, why should this article be any different? I thus see no reason why they should be listed here, what is the objection? See how easy it is to reverse the argument? Mr rnddude (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That is my point, that is why it should not be "evaluated on a case-by-case basis", why are the Orlando victims more note worthy these these ones (after all this attack will actually change a law, and affect a society, unlike Orlando). I see much about this incident that makes it (and its victims) far more notable then Orlando.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem with nearly all of the victim lists is that they are a bunch of non-notable people, names that will be forgotten by the public at large given time. It's not just a NOT#MEMORIAL issue but also a NOT#IINFO issue as well. Only in the case where naming victims is necessary to describe the sequence of events (eg several of the teachers that died at Sandy Hook were essential to protecting others and thus need to be named) should we consider listing the victims. --M asem (t) 14:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, the problem is that is not consistently applied either (again this was not the case with Orlando, it is just a list of victims). My point is that here the incident is far more significant, for example there were children, that is actually rather notable. A few had in fact fled war zones and picked new zeeland because it had a reputation for safety. Some were not even New Zeelanders. There is a lot to this that would be of interest, not a list (as in the Orlando article) but details of who the victims were. The range and variety of the victims demonstrates just indiscriminate (beyond religion) this crime was. Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Which can be summarized using statistics - how many men v women, age groups, nationalities, etc. The names mean little, which is the problem with most victim lists. --M asem (t) 15:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * How about a compromise: a list under a hat? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose, as my concerns have nothing to do with the space required. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose, some articles have a list of the dead only because some users insisted on having them despite longstanding debate about whether they are valuable or not. They lack encyclopedic value and have problems including WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:BLPNAME for the victims' relatives.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also oppose. Does nothing to aide in an understanding of the article. As for the fact that some were children, seems to be more of an argument against. And as said, a summary can be added, which would be of more value anyhow. O3000 (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Re this edit: pointing out WP:OTHERCONTENT does not override the debate on this talk page. As for "I spent hours typing this", well, this must be in Guinness World Records for the most irrelevant and lame reason for a revert in an edit summary. It was pretty much inevitable that someone would insist on a list of victims and give lame reasons to have one.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand it was unnecessary to add how long I typed but most Wikipedia pages for mass shootings have a list of the dead. If people want to know who died it should be on this Wiki page. Michael14375 (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My most recent response to the most Wikipedia pages for mass shootings have a list of the dead argument can be found here. If you find it unconvincing, that's fine; see WP:SATISFY. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I support adding a list of the dead to honour the victims. It feels more encyclopedic that way, and more properly sourced information is good to have on the article. I see no reason as to not have one, as the list of dead is not too long (thankfully). --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Honouring the victims" is another non-policy based reason to have a list. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a way of memorializing the dead.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If people want to find out who died in the Christchurch mosque shootings its own Wikipedia page should have that information. Michael14375 (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You already said that. Repeating an argument does not make it more convincing. "Give readers what they want" is not a Wikipedia principle and you can't know what readers want anyway. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * No. No. and No again Lists of non-notable victims contradicts the spirit of NOTMEMORIAL and are inherently unencyclopedic. An external link to a tasteful memorial website with a list of victims is fine. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The much cited WP:NOTMEMORIAL is not relevant. With the debatable exception of Atta Elayyan, nobody is claiming the victims are notable, but nor are they the subject of the article. Also dismissively linking to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument; for one thing that is just an essay, for another it's a lot more nuanced than simply saying "just because other stuff exists doesn't mean we need it here" and dismissing precedent as irrelevant. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * NOTMEMOIRAL absolutely applies: "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." All but one of the victims are non-notable, so it is not WP's place to memorialize them. --M asem  (t) 22:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Subjects of encyclopedia articles". There is no requirement that every name mentioned in an article must be notable. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please explain, convincingly, why it should be ok to memorialize someone in an article provided it's not a BLP about them specifically. If you can't, you're just throwing around the letter of a rulerather, your highly disputed interpretation of the letter of the rulecontrary to Pillar 5. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * But putting together a list of victims is obstinately to memorialize them if they otherwise had no role in the shooting. --M asem (t) 00:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, this is not my personal "interpretation", this is what it actually says. It says "subjects of encyclopedia articles", not "every single name mentioned". You're the ones trying to make the policy say something that it doesn't. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I see you've missed my point. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe I see your point and disagree. Ever think of that? I go by what the policy actually says, not by "interpreting" it. The WP:NOTMEMORIAL section is irrelevant as Fish and Karate pointed out some time ago; it pertains to subjects of articles and is really just an extension of WP:GNG. There is nothing anywhere in that paragraph that prohibits a list of victims of mass shootings. The "privacy" argument is also laughable; people can look up the BBC or any other news source for a list of victims, so listing them on wikipedia is hardly going to violate their privacy any further. So the only moderately convincing policy-based argument I can see for non-inclusion is WP:IINFO, which is a judgement call. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe I see your point and disagree. Ever think of that? I did, and I rejected that possibility since you only responded to a small part of my comment, indicating that you missed the main thrust of the comment. That's the WP:AGF interpretation, the alternative being that you deliberately dodged the point. Whether intentional or not, you are not hearing me. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "you deliberately dodged the point" What point would that be? For the sake of clarity would you be so kind as to repeat your point? Bus stop (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a written discussion, which means my point is still there for you to review. The time stamp was 00:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC). I can't state it any clearer than I did the first time. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I've struck through my above comment. I was only trying to keep the debate clear. Bus stop (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You told me I was putting a "highly disputed interpretation" on the WP:NOTMEMORIAL paragraph, I replied that I was not "interpreting" it, simply going by what the policy actually says, and that the current wording makes the policy inapplicable in the present case. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC) To be clear, I posted originally as a comment rather than a vote in support of inclusion. I am weakly in favour of inclusion but a case can certainly be made for WP:INDISCRIMINATE. My main point is not to argue for inclusion, but to criticize the constant citing of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

All the discussion in this section is going over old ground yet again. The only way that a list of victims will appear in this article is if someone starts a WP:RFC and there is consensus to include names. WWGB (talk) 05:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:MEMORIAL is irrelevant to this discussion. We are not contemplating writing articles on the victims. WP:MEMORIAL is largely a restatement of WP:BIO. We are discussing including victim identification in a comprehensive list. We are discussing content. Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article.90% of similar articles contain victim lists. Our longstanding practice is to include victim lists. Victim lists can be considered standard material for inclusion in articles such as this.I certainly favor the inclusion of this information. A reader should find this article a resource for relevant material. Those readers not interested in knowing anything about the identities of the 50 victims would simply skim over that part of the article. That is the way articles are used. It makes no sense to me to deliberately omit material that is of clear relevance to the article. I think the editorial practice that we see over many years had it right and I think the new impetus to suppress this sort of information has it entirely wrong. I favor the inclusion of this information. Bus stop (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Here we go again, the 90% figure plucked from uranus. WWGB (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a bit more than plucked from hisanusit might even be close to accuratebut it's not meaningful per this. Thus it misses the point to insist on better evidence. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Why is the proposal to list the dead and not also the wounded? I'm opposed to any list of victims' names. Akld guy (talk) 06:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wounded people often have privacy concerns and wishes to distance themselves from traumatic events in their futures. The dead want for nothing. Perhaps for these reasons, the injured are often not named in news sources, so a list here wouldn't pass WP:VERIFIABILITY. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the permission thing is overstating the case, but I agree with the essential point, that families' privacy is something worth considering. I don't consider that weird at all, but you're certainly entitled to your views on weirdness. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion. WP:NOTMEMORIAL refers to the subjects of articles. Including a list of victims as part of an article (possibly even under a hat) does not make them the subjects of the article. While Village Pump should have stepped up to the plate and made a community-wide decision, they didn't. So therefore the debate will be rehashed ad infinitum. Rehashing the NOTMEMORIAL debate on multiple pages where some editors don't want a list included, and are coincidentally absent from the debate on pages where they do want a list included, well... (I should probably just write this up comprehensively once and save it to userspace for future copy-pasting). Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose a list of victims' names. Unnecessary for understanding the attacks, fails WP:PROPORTION, and could also be viewed as a privacy violation negatively affecting relatives of the victims. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Enlisting victims without their family's explicit consent would be a violation of their privacy and personal rights. Also making their information available on the Wikipedia page might subject them to online abuse, resulting the secondary victimization of the victims' families. Aceus0shrifter (talk) 09:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a privacy violation, as the list is sourced.--Kingerikthesecond (talk) 09:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That doesn't follow. The list of names is both unnecessary for understanding the attacks and potentially damaging or offensive to survivors. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously it's sourced or we wouldn't be in this discussionwe wouldn't have any names to list. WP:BLPNAME clearly shows that we don't report every name that occurs in sources, and that we have some sensitivity to privacy concerns. So your comment is completely without merit. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The "privacy violation" argument hardly stands up given the number of sources that have published all 50 names, ultimately sourced from NZ Police. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not need to become one more website potentially damaging survivors of the attack or relatives of the victims. "Other websites do it so we should do it too" is not a cogent argument. In any case, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and has a totally different approach to a news reporting site. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Doesn't it also damage those dead and surviving to treat them as nobodies not worth talking about? To be sure, I don't actually like the idea of having a plain list of every name.  This at once increases the potential 'damage' in the sense that even the most media-shy person is publicized, while minimizing the benefit in that readers don't learn anything past a name.  The first consideration isn't really encyclopedic, but the big problem is that if readers don't learn anything that's not encyclopedic.  What I suggested here earlier is that we should give biographical details about some people who died based on the media coverage that can be found.  There are stories here worth telling. Wnt (talk) 11:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There were 56.9 million deaths worldwide in 2016. Everyone has a story. But, we aren't here to document everyone's story. O3000 (talk) 11:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Just the ones which are reliably sourced! Wnt (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's genuinely one of the weirdest arguments I've ever seen on WP. No doubt you're visiting the talk page of every article that does list victims of attacks to demand the removal of names; and raising it centrally at AN or VP? No...? Hmm. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Who are you replying to? Anyway, for articles where there has been a significant amount of discussion and the consensus was to include, I personally respect that local consensus despite disagreeing with it. I consider that a virtue, not something to criticize with a "Hmm". For other articles, I may well challenge lists as time and energy permit, but the fact that I haven't yet done so does not diminish my arguments against inclusion at younger articles. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Per the indentation,, I was replying to 's "We'd need permission from the families because privacy!" argument. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll add you to my list of editors who understand and follow WP:THREAD for the greater good.
 * I don't understand why the families of victims of a mass shooting would be assumed to have a wish for, or a greater entitlement to privacy, over, say, any other random subject of a biographical article. Or indeed any person who isn't the subject of an article but just gets mentioned in one. Why would Wikipedia alone strive to vindicate those unvoiced wishes, when mainstream media have widely reported the names? By the same token, the NZ prime minister has said the perpetrator shouldn't be named, yet we (obviously) name him, because of course we would. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Strangely, nobody mentioned "privacy of victims' families" here, where the victims of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting are listed. Those opposing inclusion here seem to have missed that article entirely. Same here. I wonder what's different about those articles? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You're doing it again. How is it remotely significant that editors participate at some discussions but not others? What exactly is your point? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Just as at Pittsburgh synagogue shooting and Orlando nightclub shooting this article, "Christchurch mosque shootings", should contain a list of victims as well as supplementary information on each victim as reflected in good quality sources. Bus stop (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Why not point to the good quality sources that list these instead? Clearly, information about who was killed in a shooting or other event is important to some, but that is a small minority of there readership who are more likely to understand what happen, who did it, what the motives are, and how they are being prosecuted. There is no restriction that we cannot have, as top level reference to one or more of these victim lists that go into detail offered by the media; those that need to see it can find it, and it avoids all the issues around NOTMEMORIAL/NOT:IINFO related to inclusion. That is, we are not trying to hide that there were victims, but there are other places readers can go and that we can easily point them to to find this information. --M asem (t) 16:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Masem—are you presenting the above argument on the Talk pages of Pittsburgh synagogue shooting and Orlando nightclub shooting? If not, why not? Bus stop (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We are talking this article, not any other. --M asem (t) 17:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What makes this shooting different from the others when it comes to listing of victims? --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately some people are coming up with a stale rehash of WP:OTHERCONTENT to support their position rather than providing an explanation of why a non-notable list of names adds any significant value. It was predictable that this would happen.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. And it will happen at every such article. Because there is no justification for inclusion on some articles, and exclusion on others, based pretty much just on what editors turn up at that article (and apparently less chance of inclusion the less white/Western the victims are). Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So you don't feel obligated to justify inclusion beyond pointing to other contentyou have no argument except the need for consistency. In other words, being consistently bad would be better than being good only part of the time. I strongly disagree. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We generally include information if it is not "indiscriminate" and it is on-topic. Is there any reason you feel identifying information pertaining to the victims such as found at this source or this source should be omitted from the article?Is this on-topic? Note the titles of the two sources: "Christchurch shootings: The people killed as they prayed" and "New Zealand mosque attack: Who were the victims?" The titles would seem to indicate that the topic addressed in the sources coincides with the topic of this article. Bus stop (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Same song, verse 17. You well know my reasons, assuming you've been paying the slightest attention in the past dozen or so of these articles. I now consider these comments to be trolling. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose list - Yes, this is a pain to rehash, but my stance has, to my knowledge, never changed. As to why I haven't pushed against this list including agenda on every other article, briefly: Well, because I'm not involved at every article. What kind of a stupid question is that? I never edited the Pittsburgh article, or the Manchester arena article, or the Charlie Hebdo article, etc, etc. I was at the Nice article, and although there were a lot of Western victims, I didn't ask for a damn list. So the argument from Hu-wite people, Bastun, is bollocks. It's also false that every article includes a list of victims: 2016 Nice truck attack (86 victims/0 names), 2017 Manchester Arena attack (23 victims/0 names), 2016 Berlin truck attack (12 victims/0 names), 2017 Sinai mosque attack (305+ victims/0 names <- yes, you read that right 305+), etc. Many major attacks, like the massacre of 160 people near Bankass Mali (8 days after Christchurch), don't even get an article (just a short paragraph at List of terrorist incidents in March 2019). So the argument from "it's what we've always done" (OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) is untrue. Current or recent major events articles tend to be a magnet for indiscriminate collection for information. This is more or less because editors try to include every detail, no matter its significance. Refer to the background section of the article a couple weeks ago, for example. This is a WP:NOT issue, and NOT is not just a notability guideline as someone asserted. It considers article content as well, from WP:NOTEVERYTHING: A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. So the IDONTLIKEIT dismissal of NOT#MEMORIAL and NOT#INFO (both fall under NOTEVERYTHING) is weaker still. From much of the above, I get the distinct impression that many have never opened a published encyclopedia in their lives. I have a 1200 page biographical encyclopedia published by Cambridge University Press (1998). It dedicates at most a single page of detail to the most notable individuals. Adolf Hitler and Ludwig van Beethoven got 1 page; Winston Churchhill, Albert Einstein and Catherine II got 3/4 of a page; Mao Zedong and Christopher Columbus received 2/3 of a page. Everybody else, including individuals such as Franklyn Delano Roosevelt, Hirohito, Elizabeth II, and Fyodor Dostoyevsky received 1 to 2 paragraphs. I could not find a list of names of non-notable individuals anywhere in the book, I couldn't even find every notable person. In some fantasy realm, Wikipedia is meant to be a comprehensive encyclopedia. Encyclopedia. Encyclopediae are reference tools that summarize the significant facts of a subject. Plainly, editors do not agree what those words means. For me, they mean that we are not a news source, an indiscriminate collector of information, or a memorialization service in or by article. If there are publicly known victims, like Atta Elayan, then they may warrant inclusion in prose. Finally, I am not interested in going on a merry-go-around with half-a-dozen editors again. If you don't like my position and argument for it. Tough. See WP:SATISFY. If consensus is against a list. Tough. See WP:CONSENSUS. If consensus is for a list. Tough. See Consensus again. Till the next rehash: Adieu! Mr rnddude (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Mr rnddude—for practical reasons we don't include lists of victims when the number is too high. Bus stop (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Because 12 and 23 are larger than 50? What? Mr rnddude (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I was referring the the incidents involving fatalities greater than 50 that you mentioned. Bus stop (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow. It appears you didn't actually read what I wrote. The point of my argument is that it's illogical to include lists of victims within some articles and exclude them in others. So yes, I'm well aware other articles don't include such lists, while very similar articles do. I'm not sure of the significance of talking about your biography book is? This isn't a biograpahical article. Space-wise, WP is not paper. Congratulations on owning a book, though! I hope you're very happy together. I have no idea what "Hu-white" means and I don't think I want to know. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Taking a cue from Mr rnddude, I'm posting my formal !vote and departing this discussion, kicking myself once again for being drawn into time-consuming, repetitive, often circular debate on this issue. As Mr rnddude said, if consensus is reached to include, c'est la vie and I'll see you next time. However, I'll continue to monitor and I'll start an RfC if someone attempts to add a list with anything less than a roughly 66% agreement (a 2:1 ratio). My argument is changed little from previous discussions at other articles: Names generally add nothing to reader understanding, and the privacy of the victims and their families is worthy of our consideration. Per Mr rnddude and WP:SATISFY, if you're not convinced: Tough. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  01:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion. The spirit of WP:MEMORIAL is that we don't initiate articles in violation of WP:BIO. But we are discussing "content". We are here to write an article. That means compiling an abundance of relevant information. The reader skims over information that interests them less and more carefully reads information that interests them more. We should be a good-quality resource. That means drawing upon good quality sources. Names, ages, country of origin if applicable, occupation, even familial relationships—can and should be included, preferably in list form. A table serves this purpose well. Bus stop (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral, lean towards include. I reject the constant citing of WP:NOTMEMORIAL which is not applicable in this and similar cases. I also reject privacy concerns, given the multiple outlets that have already published the names with no apparent harm. The only policy-based argument I accept is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, on which I could go one way or the other but slightly lean towards including. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You say that there has been "no apparent harm" - but how do you know? It is 100% possible that there has been harm and that it has not been reported. We ought to err on the side of caution. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there ever any harm? Do you know of any instance in which harm has resulted from listing victim names—either in sources or on Wikipedia? Here is another source providing information on the victims in this incident. The Guardian is a good quality source. Another source—CNN. How many sources do we need to show us how to write this article? I have already mentioned this source and this source. Both the BBC and Al Jazeera are good quality sources. Bus stop (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm just giving my "vote" and don't want to discuss further. Their names are public knowledge so privacy doesn't even come into it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, privacy is a relevant factor, and saying that there names are "public knowledge" doesn't dispose of the issue. Obviously not everyone in the world will know those names and some people might encounter the information for the first time on Wikipedia. The issue isn't what other sources report but what it is appropriate for Wikipedia as an encyclopedia to include. We certainly shouldn't include content that may cause distress or harm in cases where there is no compelling reason for including it anyway. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe this would not be a "compelling reason" but some of us would just rather not write a truncated article. Bus stop (talk) 04:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Then,, you'll be taking this argument to Village Pump or Jimmy Wales, or the EU Commission, or something, to make sure Wikipedia doesn't publish the name of any person without their or their family's permission?! Maybe we should just pull the plug on Wikipedia altogether? I mean, it's possible someone hasn't heard that JFK was shot and we wouldn't want them to read about it here first... Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking of putting a codicil in my will, saying that in the event of my death in a plane crash, boat sinking, mass shooting etc, I do not want to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article because other articles have similar lists.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not want to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article because other articles have similar lists. Oof... yeah, no, fuck that. Leave me out of as well. What a sour reason to mention me in an article. No thanks. Ne hvala. Nein bitte. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. I oppose a simple list of names but support a table, similar to the one proposed by User:Bus stop above, that includes all victims including the wounded, their age on the day, sex, birth country and a little info about them like "died 2 days later in hospital" or "released from hospital after 3 weeks" or "shot while running toward the shooter" or relationship to other victims. That would add real meaning to the article, paint a detailed, easily-accessable picture of the victims as a group. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support These people weren't just involved in the event, but central to why we even heard of it. They've been featured in multiple independent secondary sources. "Who" is a basic and simple aspect of the Five Ws, and the same reason we name the shooter, the sociologist, the windshield smasher, the police commissioner, the judge, the district commander and the early career research fellow. Not because we want to "memorialize" these non-notable people (who will all die later), but just because we want to remember who did what in relation to this thing.
 * NOTMEMORIAL is no reason to omit because it pertains to article subjects rather than content. BLPNAME is no reason because it regards private individuals rather than dead people (it does apply to the injured). Even assuming the imaginary guideline "spirits" invoked above matter, rather than the actual words, there is nothing sentimental, honourable or shameful about a certain person either being dead or dying at a particular age. Sure, this basic identification info may not interest some readers and they may soon forget it completely, but that goes for virtually everything, from who directs Late Night with Seth Meyers to when iridium was discovered to what Pratap Singh Shah did at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It simply is not true that these people were "central to why we even heard of it" if that implies that it was because these particular 50 Muslims were murdered that the event attracted notice. Obviously the event would have attracted just as much notice had 50 completely different Muslims been murdered. Their individual identities and names are not relevant to understanding the event at all. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * These people are why we heard of this event, the one that actually happened as it did and the one we're trying to document with this article. I don't doubt the media would be (and has been) excited by 50 completely different victims, but that would be a different event. As it would be (and has been) when a different shooter hits up a different building in a different city on a different date. Maybe if you only view as it as a sociological event, or one battle in a wider ideological war, any dead Muslim/schoolchild/gay is simply one point on the anti-Islam/schoolchild/gay board.
 * But for readers who see these as standalone mass killings and individual criminal cases, the real identities of the actual victims certainly set them apart. By giving them separate names, ages and maybe hometowns, we show people like you that they weren't actually one homogenized clump of anonymous corpses symbolizing Islam as a whole. One who really died was as different from one who really didn't as Jackie Kennedy was from Jack (the media and conspiracy kooks would have similarly gone to town over a Catholic First Lady's head suddenly exploding, too.) InedibleHulk (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What you are suggesting is completely untrue. The names and identities of the victims are not why we heard of this event. We heard of the event because 50 Muslims were murdered. The fact that the event would have been different in one respect if 50 different Muslims had been murdered is irrelevant. Your comment about showing "people like you that they weren't actually one homogenized clump of anonymous corpses symbolizing Islam as a whole" is simply an insult that doesn't answer the point. I don't care what a corpse does or doesn't symbolize; I only care about keeping the article focused on points that help readers understand the event. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "I only care about keeping the article focused on points that help readers understand the event." So, you are concerned that information on the decedents will make the article unfocussed? Is that it?We include so-called "victim lists" in approximately nine out of ten articles that might contain victim lists because people are not interchangeable. By providing this information we are informing the reader of some information on the decedents that is specific to the incident being written about.I think our assumption is that each incident is different and each person killed is different. I think our policy supports inclusion of details so I think that would apply to some background information on the people unfortunately killed. And an abundance of good quality sources provide information on each decedent. Therefore I find the argument to omit "victim lists" to be a contrived idea at odds with our standard operating procedures. Bus stop (talk) 05:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Nevermind what I'm suggesting, you know what I'm saying isn't completely untrue. The people (Muslim or not) were central to this event, not their ID. And not in one respect, but in fifty. Identifying someone is just a normal human way of referring to them; anything less has an air of collective dehumanization to it. Which, again, is totally fine if you're here to catch up on abstract identity politics or muddled religious conflict. More distant the better, for those sorts of studies.
 * All I'm saying is true crime readers (traditionally Wikipedia fans) are going to want to know who got killed while praying in a mosque, after (immediately and effortlessly) deducing the common religion. Maybe not where they'd each been living, which gun clubs they joined, where they grew up, which school they attended, what they did for money in 2010, which countries they visited in 2012, their interests in 2016, the organizations they contacted in 2017, the donations they made, the sites they logged into, their opinions on contemporary events and which non-notable politician they'd rather lead a fringe party. But something to relate to and understand. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course the people who were killed were central to the event. That does not make their names important information for the article. Their names are completely inconsequential information and it is not relevant whether readers want it or not, not that it is even possible to know that. That "Identifying someone is just a normal human way of referring to them" is an empty pronouncement that has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. We only mention people's names if that there is a real reason why the names matter. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - the victims are also central to the event, just like the main suspect. Their identities are already public knowledge and I am not aware of any attempt to censor their identities for protection. starship.paint ~  KO   22:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The point isn't whether they were "central to the event" or not, but whether there is an encyclopedic purpose to including their names. There is no such purpose. Unlike the case with the suspect, readers do not need to know their names to understand the event. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Right...because this would be something else entirely if police told you the suspect was 24-year-old Anthony Jonathan Taggart from Queensland. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no comparison between the name of the attacker and the name of the victims. Providing the name of the attacker helps readers understand news reports dealing with the events. The names of the victims don't. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You can't grasp the significance of a news report about birds named Tariq, Talha, Muhammad Mazik, Hamza, Sayyad and Mucad by recalling the name of a child killer. Kiwi pride aside, the story notes at least six families don't see a problem with the public remembering their dead relatives' names. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC) InedibleHulk (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Providing the name of the attacker helps readers understand news reports dealing with the events. The names of the victims don't." All perpetrators of mass shootings are not the same. We name the suspect because the suspect is an individual. And the same holds true for victims. The victims warrant identification, including by name, because they are individuals. You would do yourself a favor if you dropped the facade of speaking in lofty terms. We are not here to help the reader understand the event. Our raison d'être is reflecting the majority of good quality sources. If we help the reader understand the event, it is only via reporting what good quality sources say. We do not contrive to omit information in order to guide the reader to a more correct understanding of the incident. In my opinion,, information that is entirely relevant to the subject-area of an article and which is widely covered by good quality sources warrant inclusion in an article, unless there is a good reason to leave it out. We don't just omit relevant information because you feel that the inclusion of victim information takes the "focus" away from what you think really matters. You have said "I only care about keeping the article focused on points that help readers understand the event." Are readers so stupid that they can't peruse an article and derive their own significance from it? Do readers need you to eliminate "distractions"? Bus stop (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The fact that they were Muslim is central to the article as that is why they were killed. The fact that they were randomly killed, as opposed to killed for any particular actions on their own parts, is also central. What may be important here is that they were victims -- not because of anything that they did – but because they were randomly chosen members of a group killed by seemingly randomly aimed fire into that group. Alas, their names are not important to an understanding of this event. Their relative randomness is important. O3000 (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "It is not necessary or desirable to reply to every comment in a discussion." MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Other than one deceased, no other victims were notable in life. Their killing does not itself convey notability. The names of individual victims does not enhance the understanding of readers. Relevant demographic information about the victims (age, gender, country of birth) is already included in the article. Adding a long list of unknown and non-notable names is just WP:INDISCRIMINATE. WWGB (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Other than one deceased, no other victims were notable in life. Their killing does not itself convey notability." "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article." Bus stop (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This point of WP:N is misunderstood. It means that WP:N does not demand that content conform to notability, but it leaves open the option of using notability as a guiding principle in cases where a topic might draw a number of non-notable names, such as in lists of people. This is the essence of NOT#MEMORIAL, that if victims of a major crime are not independently notable, we do not need to be listing them in that article about the event. --M asem (t) 14:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Masem—WP:MEMORIAL refers to "Subjects of encyclopedia articles", not "content" of encyclopedia articles. And you are referring to "lists of people". This article is not a list of victims of the Christchurch mosque shootings. Information pertaining to victims would be "content" within this article. We have List of American architects. Do you see any red links in "List of American architects"? There shouldn't be any. Bus stop (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's not what MEMORIAL is about. Flip the two parts. If people are not able to be subjects of their own articles due to notability, then we don't memorialize them. --M asem (t) 15:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Flip the two parts" means what? The reference at WP:MEMORIAL is to "subjects of encyclopedia articles". Bus stop (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The core phrase at the heart of NOT#MEMORIAL is "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." with "such requirements" being about people that can sustain a standalone article. --M asem (t) 15:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that is the "spirit" behind WP:MEMORIAL, according to you and several other editors.What WP:MEMORIAL actually says is: "Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. (However, for the Wikipedia page for deceased Wikipedia editors, see WP:RIP)."Furthermore there is no memorialization taking place except perhaps incidental memorialization. The information is pertinent to the article. It is well within the article's scope. If incidentally it memorializes, that would not be a reason to omit it.The argument could be made (I'm not making it) that the inclusion of the name of the suspect "memorializes" the suspect. But we are not going to remove the suspect's name on that basis because that information falls within the scope of the article. Bus stop (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Naming the deaths of non-notable people that are, for all purposes, interchangeable, with respect to the event is memorializing them. We name names when those people were known to try to take action (as the case of several teachers for Sandy Hook) - the people no longer become interchangeable. Naming the suspect is similarly necessary for clarity of explaining how the event happened. --M asem (t) 16:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * People are not "interchangeable". And at Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting all 28 decedents are listed. It may seem that a 7 year old is interchangeable with another 7 year old. I could understand that argument. A 7 year old has accomplished nothing in life. But I would reject such an argument. The reason is that memorialization is not our primary intention. We include names of decedents and additional information about decedents because such information is specific to the incident about which we are writing. I believe somebody named James Joyce said "In the particular is contained the universal." There does not have to be a reason for telling the truth or for including facts. On the contrary there has to be a reason for omitting facts pertinent to a subject-area. Undoubtedly the decedents are pertinent to this article. They are no more "interchangeable" with decedents in a similar article than the suspect is interchangeable with a suspect in a different incident. Information within a given article scope warrants inclusion unless there exists a good reason for omitting it.<P>You cannot simply argue that the inclusion of the decedents is not necessary in "explaining how the event happened". That is because we are doing much more here. A simpleton could explain how the event happened. It could be explained in one sentence. We are providing the details that are found in the best quality sources and we are providing those details in abundance. By doing so we make the article a useful resource for a wide variety of people. Bus stop (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * there has to be a reason for omitting facts pertinent to a subject-area. True, and multiple such reasons have been given many times. I'd advise you to stop suggesting they haven't, since that only reinforces the impression that you don't truly listen to opponents' argumentsand tests the limits of WP:AGF. "I'm right because I reject your arguments" is not an argument. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Bus stop is right on this one. Some other shooting could have happened but this one did, and it matters.  To take this back to first causes, bear in mind that the death of 50 people is only notable because it occurred by evil.  But what does it mean that evil was involved?  It is to say that the events were part of a supernatural conspiracy, signed off by Old Scratch himself, and the chain of events does not begin with the first bullet nor end with the last one.  For example, consider Amjad Hamid, a heart physician -- how many patients will have to go to someone who doesn't know their case and does the wrong thing, or is less qualified, or simply has a longer wait time now?  More New Zealanders might die from the loss of a physician than from the shooting in the first place.  There is a network of consequences, the webbed threads of a vast plan of misery that encompasses the world going forward, just as a single jihadist's visit to convert at this mosque became a thread that led to it being targeted.  No one can see them all.  But we should not be too cowed to even look, nor to lose trust that there is a countervailing force without which this world could not be or remain. Wnt (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's why its important to stress that WP's job is to summarize sources, not replace them. Heck, for a situation like this, I would have zero issues with a noticable box, ala external media, to show one or more articles where the list of victims, including their brief bios, are given (they should already be used in sourcing) We just shouldn't be documenting them in full if they were not notable to begin with. Yes, every death here has consequences, but then, "everyone dies", and that argument would then say we should be documenting every death, even natural ones. That's just well beyond WP's purpose. Should, in this case, Dr. Hamid's death lead to notable secondary events, then maybe it can be added here, but any suggestion that there will be is CRYSTAL. Let's let the sources do that job, and we stick to the summary of those. --M asem (t) 20:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't have to name the heart physician to mention him, and the reader's understanding would be no different if he were named Fajid al-Tammar or Dāwud Suri. In any case, this discussion is about a complete names list, not about naming a few selected individuals with more justification than the fact that they were killed and some sources named them. As for the rest of your comment, perhaps we can keep the discussion somewhere below the level of Bachelor of Philosophy, Theology, or Sociology. This business is not about out-debating one's opponentswe don't have debate judgesbut rather about how many others you can convince. You're more likely to convince others with arguments they can understand than with a display of your obviously superior intellect. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What Wnt is saying is that information is valuable for its own sake, and I agree. We aren't crafting information with some end in mind such as "adding to the reader's understanding of the event". We don't even know what the significance of this event might be. We are anything but omniscient. Therefore we stick to sources. Do many good quality sources expound on the identities of 50 victims? Then I think we should do likewise. We can disagree as to the amount of information provided. But the names at the very least, and probably much more, should be provided. This is information for its own sake, which is what the whole article is. We do not know what is important or unimportant in the absence of sources showing us what matters to the coverage of "Christchurch mosque shootings". Bus stop (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We are not an investigative agency. We don’t include information in case it will one day be important. If it becomes important one day, we then add it. O3000 (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Surely we are not supposed to be involved in erasing the facts either. If sources cover something, then we shouldn't have to argue about whether the information is really really really important.  We should just put it in the article, and when the article gets full, divide and subdivide.  Instead people here have worked from the premise that they have one article and it has to be really short and it shouldn't say much useful about anything because then that section wouldn't be as short as the rest.  By now there should be an article on the shooting, an article on the reaction, an article on the victims, an article on the perpetrator, and another about his manifesto, and another about the effect on loss of gun rights, and another about the censorship ... and all those articles should be at least as long as what you have for the whole thing. Wnt (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If we went by the importance to aspects of this shooting as given by RSes, that would further justify not including a victim list. It's been reported, but since then, the focus remains on the event itself, the culprit, the manifest, the aftermath, and how this can be stopped in the future. The victims were given their due time, but no longer are considered important to the media, outside of being 50 unfortunate people at the wrong place at the wrong time. --M asem (t) 04:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "If we went by the importance to aspects of this shooting as given by RSes, that would further justify not including a victim list. It's been reported, but since then, the focus remains on the event itself". I think what you are saying is that the dead remain dead but the busy lives of the living are ongoing. Court proceedings must proceed. Jail sentences may be meted out. Guns may be banned. Lots of stuff goes on in the lives of the living. We know that. It is axiomatic. Aren't you dodging the question that we are addressing here? Should the article include a victim list?<P>"The victims were given their due time, but no longer are considered important to the media". Are the media going to report on the dead every day on an ongoing basis? "The vast news resources available in recent decades have increased competition for audience and advertiser attention, prompting media providers to deliver the latest news in the most compelling manner in order to remain ahead of competitors." We are not trying to court advertisers. Why should we deliberately truncate the article? We should be a long-term resource for a wide variety of readers. Our articles should contain an abundance of relevant information. The argument here is to deliberately omit material that falls squarely within the scope of the article. Bus stop (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No I'm not dodging the question. Wnt said the victims were reported, we should include. I point out that per WEIGHT the names of the victims have had a very minor mention relative to the weight of all other material discussed about the shootings, so on that basis, (ignoring all other factors considered), we'd still omit them. But there are many other reasons to omit, namely that as an encyclopedia we are meant to summarize events, not document every detail; we are not supposed to be the holistically only source of information but provide a top level reference to help readers to find more. That's why WP:NOT exists. There are plenty of other sources that list out the victims in detail and nothing prevents us from using those as references or even highlighting those. Just that incorporating the list of victims is inappropriate here. --M asem (t) 16:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an article about 50 worshippers killed while in prayer. I don't think there is any argument that their names constitute indiscriminate information. Bus stop (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support as third choice. My preferred option would be simply have a lot of details about various people killed, injured or missing that appears in the press, in a large victims section with no particular priority on including every last one if not much is known; ideally this would be linked the second-by-second account of how they were murdered and tried to survive, what they were feeling and trying to do if they survived to tell, with an inline copy of the video alongside for readers to cross-reference.  A second choice would be to have the table with extra data others above supported.  A distant third is to simply have a bare list of names without context.  But it is still better than closing this as saying no even to the names. Wnt (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Somej (talk) 10:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support of course. WP:NOTMEMORIAL is relevant for subjects of entire articles, not prose within an article that is clearly notable. And it's not indiscriminate information, as the victims are all bound in their relation as victims of the shooter. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - we have details about the gunman, the least we could do is have the names of the people who were killed. In the end, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and readers have a right to know about the full scope of what happened. Wikipedia is often a first port of call for readers before they consult the media. Its important that articles give readers sufficient information about a topic, like in this instance.Resnjari (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I went to the Orlando shooting - the list there does very little to enhance the encyclopaedicness of the article, a bland list of otherwise everyday people's names does little to enhance or explain the situation. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I, too, went to the Orlando shooting article. The name of the perpetrator did little to enhance my understanding of the situation and event. Clearly, the name should be removed. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For a more reasonable comparison consider Pittsburgh synagogue shooting. Bus stop (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - unless the narrative of events has actions by a named individual, a collection of names is meaningless and does not add to the article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

What were the actual weapons Tarrant used?
Hello, I am writing a persuasive essay against guns, and I was wondering if I could be given the list of the actual guns Tarrant used (not the types like "lever-action", the actual model)

Thanks

2600:1700:6390:6C50:9D72:97EA:1D27:891A (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Here is not the place to ask your question. If anywhere it would be at WP:REFDESK, but it was deemed some days ago we shouldn't include the information about the make and names of the weapons that were used in this article, because at present there are no reliable sources that include this information. This is Paul (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings/Archive_9.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2019
To change the 'white supremacy'motive to 'white nationalism'. FireDragon157 (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not done without consensus. See the discussion at the top of the page . Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Turkey
I think, for the sake of neutrality, a line should be added to Erdogan's response saying that he first condemned the attack and Islamophobia worldwide. I know it is in the footnotes, but reading the article seems like his primary response was that he showed the video.

if you need a source: https://www.foxnews.com/world/turkeys-erdogan-condemns-new-zealand-mosque-attack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.5 (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2019
I want to add the fact that even Islamic State claimed that the 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings were the result as it was the retaliation for the Christchurch mosque attacks. 112.134.69.55 (talk) 09:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC) 112.134.69.55 (talk) 09:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See Christchurch mosque shootings. <b style="color:black">Nici</b><b style="color:purple">Vampire</b><b style="color:black">Heart</b> 12:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It is in claim territory as usual. The 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings were probably the work of radical Islamists, but the idea of Islamic State being the direct planners behind the attack is less plausible. Some experts believe that the Sri Lanka bombings were being planned before the Christchurch shooting.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, that wasn't ISIS claiming anything, it was Rita Katz' takeaway from some ISIS fans she claims to have watched online. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Change the title to Christchurch terror attacks
As labeled by the NZ prime minister, the shooter himself and everyone in the world, this was a terror attack.

Please label it as such. Drq80 (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This would require a formal discussion to ensure consensus. The proposed rename is not very descriptive, eg, the article 2016 Nice truck attack gives the year and the method rather than saying "Nice terror attack".-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've yet to see a reliable source that didn't say these were shootings at two mosques in Christchurch; i.e. "Christchurch mosque shootings". And we go by reliable sources, not the NZ prime minister, the shooter himself and everyone in the world. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's appropriate to title the article like that; it would imply that the article is about *all* terror attacks in Christchurch, not a specific attack. While I do agree that it should be labelled as such, I think the appropriate place to do so is in the article — and the article does use that label, right in the first sentence. MaxHarmony (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That says "terrorist attacks". Meaning acts of terrorism. "Terror attacks" would suggest as much, but not technically say anything meaningful. Useful for breaking news about public violence of all stripes, but better suited to the news than Wikipedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * No. “Shooting” is what we usually call such events; we don’t try to put a legal or political definition of the act in the title. See, for example, Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Charleston church shooting, etc. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Arsenal vs weapons


Ok, so where's the link to the New Zealand English dictionary that says they don't use the word "arsenal" in this way in New Zealand? ENGVAR doesn't remove the requirement to show something more than personal perception/opinion on these things, nor is this going to become an evidence-free democratic vote among New Zealanders (or, more precisely, those who claim to be New Zealanders). ― Mandruss  &#9742;  17:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well... if you can get access to it this will tell you if there's a difference. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm puzzled why "arsenal" is appropriate, actually. In New Zealand or anywhere else. Some definitions say a secondary definition of arsenal is a "collection of weapons" (see Meriam-Webster), but what's a collection? 2 or more?  5+?  10+? I've noticed that the English-language news media, in the USA at least, like to use the term to make things sound more dramatic. But use of the term in connection with a private citizen who happens to have a few weapons seems so over the top. The list of weapons in this monster's closet is actually very tame. I own more firearms than he does. And if what he had can be reasonably called an arsenal, then the USA, for example, has millions of arsenals. I don't think this usage is correct or appropriate. In fact, I believe it might be a form of "weasel word".  IMHO.  [[User:Cyberherbalist|Cyberherbalist] (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * In response to 's comment above and to who asks in this revert What has this to do with NZ English: well the word isn't used this way (in an encyclopaedic context) in NZ English (or in British English for that matter). Sure, it may be used for sensationalist or provocative effect in some publications, but not in serious or formal works. I gather though that it has gained a more widespread use in US English and US publications, judging by the entry in the Merriam Webster US English dictionary. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I say again: Prove it. One person's view does not define any language or dialect thereof, nor would eight out of ten persons' views. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Compare these two entries in the Oxford Dictionaries free online dictionaries - the UK/World English entry: A collection of weapons and military equipment. and the US English entry: A collection of weapons and military equipment stored by a country, person, or group.. You see that although the latter includes personal and group arsenals, the former does not. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What I see is that the former doesn't qualify one way or the other. If the intent was "stored by a country", full stop, I suspect they would have said that. Besides, how relevant is UK/World English to NZ English? I they are the same, or even close enough for our purposes, why have a template? &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  22:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * See New Zealand English. There are significant differences between NZ English and UK, US, and Australian Englishes. Akld guy (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Although, based solely on dictionary definitions, the word "arsenal" might be appropriate, the word has a 'militaristic' connotation that might suggest (rightly or wrongly) a non-neutral point of view. Although I don't feel strongly about this, IMHO the word "weapons" seems better. Ross Finlayson (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Many reliable sources in NZ use the term "arsenal" in connection with an individual's collection:, , , . WWGB (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

On the matter of the word itself, it does leave the impression of editorializing (for me). Whereas it meets the dictionary definition of collection of weapons, when somebody says arsenal I think shedload of firearms, ammunition, and a sundry assortment of home-made explosives moreso than a stack of guns. Despite that, there does not appear to be a valid argument to suggest that arsenal has a different meaning in NZ English as opposed to any other variant of English. Moreover, the proposal that editorializing is a facet of US media alone is laughable. In essence, while I personally think weapons is better, arsenal is probably fine to use. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the point about editorialising is that as in the US the word has already passed into common usage in this context, so it is not seen as editorialising there. On the other hand, as the word is more generally used in military contexts elsewhere, its use may be perceived as editorialising outside the US. I'd go for the compromise of 'collection of weapons' mentioned above, to avoid any misunderstanding. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My 2 cents is that "arsenal" is over the top and lacks WP:NPOV. The shooter had several guns but nothing remarkable.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Name of the shooter
Is there any particular reason why the shooter's name, Brenton Tarrant, is not mentioned in the article until the 14th paragraph (more or less a third way into the article) and not in the opening paragraph? Is it a political statement?

In comparison, in the article for the Columbine High School Shooting, the shooters' names are mentioned in the very first paragraph, in the second sentence. This needs to be fixed. 189.216.26.137 (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Voted out, see Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings/Archive 9. WWGB (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Why is there no english articale on Brenton Tarrant, there is a german and a france articale on him, he is a noteworthy person so its absurd he has no wikipedia page in english — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butcer (talk • contribs) 18:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Outside of the topic covered by this page, he has zero notability. I think that's amply demonstrated by those other articles you mention. We also have a guideline about this: WP:PERP. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles should name the perpetrator(s) in the beginning summary. It is good writing style and respective readers will expect this information at the top. The article, by not naming and/or delaying the mention of the perpetrator's name, pushes a hidden agenda above the content of the article itself, thereby questioning the neutrality of the article itself. The summary could append a "hereinafter 'the gunman'" (a'la legal documents "hereinafter 'Plaintiffs'). That would be amenable in my opinion if the editor(s) truely want to be taken seriously as a tertiary source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpo777 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The reason the name isn't in the lead is mostly WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME. Whenever possible, we limit the use and prominence of the name of people accused of crimes unless the coverage is absolutely overwhelming to the point where putting their name front-and-center couldn't do any harm to them.  This is also, incidentally, why the Columbine shooters can be named in the lead, because they're long-dead and therefore unlikely to be harmed at this point.  Once the accused is convicted, he could also be mentioned in the lead.  Personally I think there's enough coverage that we could mention him now, but WP:BLP is taken very seriously, especially for otherwise low-profile people accused of crimes. --Aquillion (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)