Jump to content

Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 77.57.32.151 (talk) at 11:33, 26 February 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Sub judice and Contempt New Zealand

Political motivation?

"Described in media reports as a white supremacist and part of the alt-right".

Except that isn't clear.

He expresses a desire to "destabiliz[e] and polariz[e] Western society," "[turn] NATO once more into a united European army," and "create conflict between the two ideologies within the United States on the ownership of firearms."

On his political ideology, he says: "conservatism is corporatism in disguise, I want no part of it." "The nation with the closest political and social values to my own is the People's Republic of China." "Sir Oswald Mosley is the person from history closest to my own beliefs." (context: Oswald Mosley founded several authoritarian political parties in Great Britain, and ultimately strove for a unified Europe.) "Were/are you "right wing"? Depending on the definition, sure. Were/are you "left wing"? Depending on the definition, sure. Were/are you a socialist? Depending on the definition. Worker ownership of the means of production? It depends on who those workers are, their intents, who currently owns the means of production, their intents and who currently owns the state, and its intents. Were/are you a supporter of Donald Trump? As a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose? Sure. As a policy maker and leader? Dear god no." "Conservatism is dead. Thank god." "There is no Green future with never ending population growth, the ideal green world cannot exist in a World of 100 billion 50 billion or even 10 billion people." "Emotions rule over facts. ... Be creative, be expressive, be emotional and above all be passionate. These are the things that speak to people, connect people, drive people. Paint, write, sing, dance, recite poetry." "global free markets and the trade of goods is to be discouraged at all costs. An environmentally conscious and moral society will never be able to economically compete with a society based on ever increasing industrialization, urbanization, industrial output and population increase."

Seems to have a lot more in common with socialists and communists than anything, and the only supposed link to "white supremacy" is his vague answers to the "right wing" and "renewed white identity", the latter of which is a clearly politically motivated question.

It would seem more accurate to file this under "unknown" or "unclear" because this guy is all over the map, and the only common theme I'm seeing here is psychopathism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V0latyle (talk • contribs) 15:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That you disagree with the wide array of cited reliable sources for the description of this as white supremacist terrorism is interesting, but of no relevance to Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The manifesto is a load of alt-right/far-right rambling. People who do crackpot political things are rarely able to plead insanity successfully, with Anders Behring Breivik a good example. Psychiatrists disagreed about his exact mental state, but any sort of advanced planning shows that a person is aware of what they are doing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I myself, am fairly Right wing, so I hate to say this but if you read his whole manifesto, it's clear that he was indeed an ethno-nationalist, and that was the main reason for the attack. The user above me who talks about "a wide array of cited reliable sources," gives an annoying answer, "reliable sources" cited by wiki editors are normally far Left, but he HAPPENS to be right this time. The guy directly above me is also right, but for the wrong reasons. Killing Muslims does not mean that you are crazy, in the same way that Muslims killing us does not mean that they are crazy (because it says to do that in their holy book). In both cases it's a software problem, not a hardware problem (their ideas). You seem like a reasonable person, but I think you are wrong, OP, on this occasion. Bluexepnos (talk) 06:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You won't change their minds. On Wikipedia the consensus is, "If it is racist, it is right wing" and then they pull references from echo-chamber media articles that all rewrite what each other are saying, and the editors say "Look, see, we referenced it". Then you look at the references closely and the authors are basically making opinion statements that don't support the facts. You are absolutely correct in the fact that this man was aligned politically with the left, and he was a racist. His very existence destroys the theory that only right wingers are racists (among others, including the Ohio shooter recently). But you'll be drowned out. Wikipedia's leftist editors like the ones above have effectively killed conservative editor viewpoints and now turn their attention to running off centrists like myself. Then they'll make statements like "I am impartial in my editing" when they aren't even remotely close to impartial. 2600:8804:80:2280:F49C:FC66:D888:7F2A (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The term "part of the alt-right" is clearly a political opinion, has no basis in fact (AFAIK?), and has no business in Wikipedia. If you think otherwise, good luck finding a citation because one should be there on such a divisive issue.

Brenton Tarrant in the infobox

There was an RfC resolved to include Tarrant's name in the infobox. However, as the matter is before the courts, his name should be reported against "Accused" and not "Assailant". WWGB (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WWGB, unlike the word perpetrator, assailant doesn't imply that the person is guilty. Accused implies that there is a doubt about the shooter's identity which is not true. The shooter identity has been confirmed to be Tarrant.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Completely wrong. WP:BLPCRIME provides that "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law." In the eyes of the law, he did nothing wrongful unless convicted (or insane). WWGB (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I repeat the same thing? Assailant doesnt imply that he is guilty of the crime. Perpetrator does. Accused implies that it has not been confirmed that he is the shooter.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck finding another editor who agrees with you. WWGB (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ha ha, you are just out of arguments.
This is not rocket science. Its simple English. The word assailant doesn't imply that the person is guilty, he could be insane or something. The word perpetrator implies that someone is guilty of a crime. The word accused implies that the identity of the shooter has not been confirmed which is not true. The identity of the shooter has been confirmed and there is no doubt about it.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In simple English, assailant is a synonym for attacker or aggressor. It's a loaded word. WP:BLPCRIME covers whether Wikipedia can state as a fact that the person in question did the deed, not just the criminality involved in the deed. This person can fairly be called the suspect, as the article currently names him. • Gene93k (talk) 06:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Gene93k, it has been confirmed that Tarrant is the attacker, period. There is no doubt about that. The only thing is whether he is guilty or not. If he is guilty then we will use the perpetrator parameter. It is not a "loaded term".-SharabSalam (talk) 06:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPCRIME absolutely applies here. Media reports do not determine a person's guilt or innocence. Until a trial takes place, Tarrant is the accused, not the attacker, perpetrator, assailant etc. It's a pity that the article is protected over this. On a more general note, the infobox should include only simple and uncontroversial information. The current parameters for {{Infobox civilian attack}} are insufficient for complying with BLPCRIME.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ianmacm, he is the attacker. All reliable sources say that. WP:BLPCRIME says that for relatively unknown people we should not suggest that the attacker committed a crime and we aren't. The word assailant doesnt suggest criminality at all. If he is convinced and he wasn't able to prove that he was insane or mentally crippled then we will put his name in the perpetrator parameter which is a different parameter and not the same parameter as the assailant parameter which again doesnt suggest crimial case but that it has been confirmed that he is the attacker.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also we have an outcome of a lengthy RfC that says we should mention his name in the infobox.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by the previous comment. Infobox civilian attack should include a field for "accused" or similar, but it doesn't. This leads to problems with BLPCRIME.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it does. See, for example, 2019 El Paso shooting. WWGB (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ianmacm,
You appear to have a problem understanding what BLPCRIME says. Read the closing comment by GRuban

the WP:BLPCRIME argument that many of those that oppose are trying to use isn't very applicable in this case. It says: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." That's about protecting the relatively unknown person, which would not be affected by leaving the name out of the infobox while going on in noticeable detail in the article lead and body.

That means people who their names are relatively unknown to public not someone who his name is mentioned tons of times in the media and even the court names him.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that GRuban determined there was "Consensus to include the name of the accused in the infobox". WWGB (talk) 09:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to WWGB for pointing out that Patrick Crusius is given as "accused" in the infobox of 2019 El Paso shooting. This is uncontroversial and the article here should do the same.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ianmacm, As I said before that accused suggest that there is a doubt that Tarrant was the shooter. We have multiple sources that say Tarrant is the shooter. The only reason he would be not guilty is if he proved that he was insane or mentally crippled. Since this seems to be hard for you to understand think if Tarrant was proven not guilty because he was insane would we put his name in the accused parameter or the assailant parameter? The assailant word doesnt suggest any criminal case, it merely says the fact that the attacker is Tarrant. Something that is indisputable. He even shared a video of the attack.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "hard for me to understand" because my position on this issue is consistent across all mass shooting articles. The article should not say "x did it" before any trial has taken place. I'm well aware of the livestream video, but this doesn't alter the fact that Tarrant is yet to face trial.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The terms assailant, attacker, even shooter, are all slightly loaded terms, implying intent. Intent implies sanity. That is why they should be avoided. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy in the lead sentence

I think the redundancy in the lead sentence should somehow be avoided. Defining Christchurch mosque shootings as shootings in mosques in Christchurch is a bit goofy, akin to defining the black panther as a panther that is black. Freeknowledgecreator opposes my idea to make this redundancy a bit less jarring by identifying the mosques (instead of just saying "mosques" twice). Is there another way to avoid the repetition? Surtsicna (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my view the bolding of the title words in the first sentence of an event article such as this is important only for the few events that have acquired iconic, "household" names, such as September 11 attacks. This is not such an event. Thus my preferred solution is to eliminate those bolded words and begin the article with something like: "On 15 March 2019, two consecutive terrorist attacks occurred at mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, during Friday Prayer." This would eliminate first-sentence repetition for both "Christchurch" and "mosque". ―Mandruss ☎ 12:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Mandruss. That would be my preferred option too. I have learned, however, that Wikipedians love bolded words. In my experience, Wikipedians prefer boldface to good wording. See this failed attempt, for example. I am slowly giving up on fighting that windmill. Surtsicna (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It all depends on who shows up, so there's some hope. I don't intend to get involved in a protracted debate. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hate crimes against UK Muslims following the massacre

User:Roger 8 Roger Can you tell me what your problem is with acknowledging this fact in the entry? How is it "misrepresenting the source" to say the anti-Muslim hate crimes in Britain increased by nearly 600%? That's exactly what it says, starting from the title: https://inews.co.uk/news/anti-muslim-hate-crimes-rise-new-zealand-shootings-mosque-tell-mama-504978 — Rafe87 (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we unpack the hyperbole in that article, reports of hate crime, to one organisation, rose from 15 to 89. Were these claims investigated? Were the alleged victims being hypervigilant? I would prefer an encyclopedic entry to be more reliable and fact-checked. WWGB (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The headline says: Hate crimes against UK Muslims soar by 593% after New Zealand mosque shootings but the article says: Figures seen by the Guardian found that reports rose by 593 per cent in the week following the atrocities, with more recorded hate incidents in the last seven days than following the 2017 bombing of the Manchester Arena. A hate crime happening and a hate crime being reported are not the same thing. The article is saying what someone else (The Guardian) says it saw what other people said they saw, which is fourth or fifth hand information and not a secondary source. The article then compares Christchurch with Manchester, which is a separate matter again. I am not sure how much weight we should give to that news source, even if the information is worth adding to this wiki article, but if it is used then it should be re-worded to reflect what the source says. Thank you for not edit warring. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also the guardian article also attribute the claim to MAMMA, basically one organisation is claiming this, its an opinion not a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that Tell MAMA does not fit the bill for a secondary reliable source. Statistics from the police and actual prosecutions would be better here. To expand, a hate crime implies that a criminal offence has been committed. There is a risk that any incident that a person found untoward could be recorded as a "hate crime" but this is not the same thing as an incident that led to a prosecution and a conviction.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mistakenly assumed the editor concerned was a newbie but he has over 3,000 edits behind him. He has been blocked for persistent disruptive editing and personal attacks. His talk page makes interesting reading. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings&oldid=942717504"