Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

The lede is not clear as it suggest that the terrorists were the people in the mosque

Hi, so recently I made an improvement to the lede that was not clear as it didnt mention the motive of the attack and mention some less needed information like "friday prayer". I was reverted by an editor who only cited his personal opinion.

Here is the previous version of the lede

Two consecutive terrorist shooting attacks occurred at mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, during Friday Prayer on 15 March 2019. The attacks began at the Al Noor Mosque in the suburb of Riccarton at 1:40 p.m. and continued at Linwood Islamic Centre at about 1:55 p.m. The gunman live-streamed the first attack on Facebook.

Here is what I suggested

Two consecutive shootings took place in mosques during a white supremacist terrorist attack in Christchurch, New Zealand, on 15 March 2019. They began at the Al Noor Mosque in the suburb of Riccarton at 1:40 p.m. and continued at Linwood Islamic Centre at about 1:55 p.m. The gunman live-streamed the first shooting on Facebook.

The problems with the first version of the lede is that it doesn't clarify who made the attack and it suggest that the shooting was between the people in the mosque. If I am a person who doesnt know anything about what happened. I would say that the shooting happened in mosque between the people. The lede says during friday prayer, is that more important than the motive of the attack?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

References

You only added "white supremacist" and removed "Friday prayer". I changed the rest. Don't get us twisted. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Why did you overtop Masem comment?. I came here late. I saw the lede was ambiguous. I wanted to add more clarification. I later noticed your change of the number of attacks.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Because up here is where you suggest "previous version" means "immediately before your version", not down there. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem is the attack's motive was never 100% confirmed to be driven by white surpremacy though most sources consdiered that the driving factor. We should not treat that as a fact here. The lede correctly states that later by the 3rd para about the influence of white supremacy in this situation. --Masem (t) 02:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Masem, Is this your own personal guessing? Here are some RSs that might change your guessings [1][2][3][4][5]

In any case we can mention that the attack was by a white supremacist. The current version is ambigous and not clear.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, I am talking about the lede paragraph. I thought that in Wikipedia the lede means the first paragraph which should provide some information but not specific but the current one is misleading as it mentions the Friday prayers and not who the attacker was suggesting that the attack happened between the people inside the mosque.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Just because someone is an X and carries out an terrorism attack does not make that an X terrorism attack. White supremacy is involved, but its not clear if that was the primary driver or if he was trying to troll (the whole reason the PM wants to not give him any naming attention). Terrorism- absolutely.

I do agree that the first para should say something of the like "A single gunman fires into two separate mosques which killed 51 people and injured 49 more." as to make it clear it wasn't an "internal" thing. --Masem (t) 03:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The lede paragraph mentions the fact that the gunman live-streamed the attack, that the attack happened during Friday prayer, the times when the attack happened "1:40 p.m" etc and yet doesn't mention overwhelmingly reported fact that the attack was carried out by a "white supremacist". This doesn't make sense. The lede paragraph should offer very few details and should provide information that will help understand what the whole article is about. The lede paragraph is what most readers read. A lot of people ignore reading the whole lead section.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The first para describes what happened, the second who did it (which includes the description that he was a white supremacist), and the third is the aftermath (analysis , courtroom, etc.) That's the neutral way to present the information. Pushing for the white supremacist angle any sooner when it is not confirmed 100% as the motive is inappropriate. --Masem (t) 03:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

For SharabSalam: Just so it's clear, the lead of a Wikipedia article is everything before the table of contents, i.e., it's not just the first paragraph of the lead. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Masem I am not pushing anything here. We should mention that the attack was carried out by a "White supremacist" as per all reliable sources that says this. There is no source that contradicts this fact except you, yourself, and you are not a reliable source. All reliable sources are saying that the person who carried out the attack was a White supremacist. The exact time like "1:55" PM is not what the lede paragraph should provide per MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH. The lede should mention that the attack was carried by who. All reliable sources say that he is a white supremacist. You are the only one who is denying that well-established fact.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The details of the identify of the gunmen are left to the second paragraph. There's no need to add an extraneous detail like 'white supremacist' to the first just because. The timing is important that these were in the middle of the day and thus while the players were populated with people. The lede is mentioning who carried out the attack. But after establishing what the attack was. --Masem (t) 04:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

No, the lede paragraph should NOT be ambiguous. The times are not needed in the lede paragraph. They can be mentioned in the second paragraph while the information that are essential for understanding the whole article should be mentioned in the lede paragraph. The attack was carried out by the "white supremacist". The lede paragraph is the only paragraph that is shown in Google when searching for the article. It should not be ambiguous.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

You are seriously pushing really hard on the white supremacist angle when that is not necessarily the motive for the attack. That's the problem. That's a coatrack. We can't do that. --Masem (t) 04:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

You are pushing for an ambiguous lede paragraph that could mean that the attacks happened between the people inside. The fact that the attack was carried out by a white supremacist is well-sourced. All I am doing is making the lede less ambiguous.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

All we need to say is the gunman entered the mosques, and that clears it up without trying to suggest a motive for the shooting that hasn't been identified by any source yet. --Masem (t) 04:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, here in this thread, you are proposing that the lead be changed from two terrorist attacks (plural) to one terrorist attack (singular). In the thread above, you argue that the lead should say it was two terrorist attacks, not one. Which is it? Were there two terrorist attacks that day, or one terrorist attack that day? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Masem, stop pushing unsourced fringe POVs. All reliable sources say that the motives were Islamophobic and white supremacism.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

It is important to credit the reader with an attention span longer than a goldfish. The WP:LEAD, which is spread over three paragraphs, makes very clear that a lone white gunman entered the buildings and committed the attacks. As for the motive, this is for the investigators rather than media reports.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I am talking about the lede paragraph not the lede section. The lede paragraph should provide a general idea of what the article is about. See what the MOS:INTRO says. The lede paragraph is the paragraph that appears in Google search. Currently it is misleading. The motives are sourced and already mentioned. There are no source that is denying that the attack was Islamophobic or white supremacist. Editors should not push fringe views that are not support by sources even in the talk page.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Declining to push a mainstream opinion is not attempting to push a fringe opinion. This isn't a zero-sum game. I think editors are just pulling for a more factual lead; this is an acceptable bias on Wikipedia, in general and in this case. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not a NPOV. This is pushing a fringe POV that is not supported by any reliable source. All sources agree that the motive was anti-Muslim. The lede paragraph is seriously misleading.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Which fringe POV do you see pushed? The idea that an internal Muslim did it? If so, Masem already actively dissuaded that imaginary notion on your behalf. If you mean the other unstated theory, you'll have to explain it more clearly than just vaguely referring to it again. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The very first para of a lede should be, literally, "just the facts" without the insights of what came after the fact. That an external gunman came in, shot up two mosques at the same day within 20 minutes in the early afternoon, and killed 51, injured 49, is "just the facts". Anything else beyond that is getting into more detail that becomes a judgement call as to what's important to the content of the article per WP:UNDUE. At which point, identifying the gunman as both a white supremacist and as part of the alt right is completely appropriate. Those elements, though, as not part of "just the facts" however. --Masem (t) 16:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Freeknowledgecreator reverts an improvement that I think everybody here doesn't disagree with. He is not participating in this discussion. His reverts are because "no consensus". There should not be a revert only because no consensus.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• If you are referring to this edit, I gave a clear reason for it in the edit summary. The changes I reverted were very poor and lowered the quality of the article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Don't make arguments with imprecise explanation. How did it lower the quality of the article?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• It is unhelpful, and even inappropriate, to begin an article about an attack by listing a secondary detail such as the precise number of people killed instead of describing the actual nature of the attack, eg., a terrorist shooting. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Who said that? All articles are written like this. The article lead paragraph currently starts with the time which is "secondary" and is ambiguous as it suggest that the victims were the attackers.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• There is no evidence that "all articles are written like this". Your claim that the lead currently starts with the time is factually incorrect. The first sentence currently reads, "Two consecutive mass shootings occurred at mosques in a terrorist attack in Christchurch, New Zealand, during Friday Prayer on 15 March 2019". The time comes at the end of that sentence. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• So you didn't even read what the editor who reworded the lede paragraph said? You just revert any change in the lead paragraph? The editor has pointed out another article (2015 San Bernardino attack) with the same lede paragraph?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• There is no rule that because one article is written in a particular way another article, about a different event, must also be written in that same way. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• You have not explained your reverts yet. You keep changing the goalpost of your arguments. The current lede paragraph is ambiguous, that edit was an improvement. You said it lowered the quality, how?.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• I explained my revert clearly in the edit summary, and it is false for you to claim otherwise. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• I think you just revert and editwar things that you just don't like them without even participating in the discussions.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding original research to the background section

Freeknowledgecreator, please explain why did you add this original research content to the article? All sources are irrelevant to the attack. We don't do original research here.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I simply restored content that you removed, without any attempt at discussing it beforehand. None of the content was originally authored by me. That it is "original research" is only your assertion. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I should discuss every edit I make here? Are you imposing that rule on me? The content is obviously original research. You have made more than 100K edits and yet don't understand that the content is original research?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

You want me to explain every edit I made at the other (imaginary) mosque shooting, so what's the problem with you wasting your time? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I have removed part of that content. That there were reports, years ago, of someone alleging that someone had been "radicalized" there, that's nothing more than blaming the victim. Do not restore that content--it smacks of islamophobia. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, I am not suggesting that you must discuss every edit beforehand. I am simply pointing out that in the case of major changes that are potentially controversial, it is often a good idea to discuss such changes before making them. Simply asserting that the content you removed is "obviously original research" is not helpful. You need to provide evidence and reasons if you want to show that something is original research; it is useless to just make a claim like that and expect other editors to automatically accept it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Freeknowledgecreator, did you learn your original research lesson? It seems to me that you will also need to learn WP:OWN and some other policies in Wikipedia.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Try providing evidence for your claims instead of making random insults. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

"Random insults"? I have said that those are not related to the attack? Why juxtaposing them here?.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The information you removed here is in my judgment obviously helpful to readers in that it provides context that helps them understand events. There is no evidence of any original research. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no editorial judgment here! Original research is original research. We don't put irrelevant stuff based on someone's judgment.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Obviously you have failed to persuade other editors that the content in question is "irrelevant". Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

No. Drmies has removed the irrelevant content that was Islamophobic.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

He removed only part of it. I really don't care - I have no intention of restoring that content. The remaining content is perfectly appropriate and you have convinced no one that it should be removed. You have only made angry comments. If this entire discussion is upsetting you, perhaps you should try taking a break from Wikipedia. There are plenty of other things to do. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

You have restored that anti-Muslim content. You have not convinced anyone that the content there is not original research. Also, the one who is editwarring is you. It shows that you are the one who should take a break from Wikipedia.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Why are you being so needlessly rude? Your comments verge on personal attacks. They are also confused, in that you are not even being clear what content exactly you are referring to. What specifically is "the content there"? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry, what?. I am rude?. Is this a personal attack? You added an original research and your addition was removed by an Admin. Your addition was clearly wrong and you were corrected. This is what exactly happened.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

You may be a polite person, but your comments here lean rude, yes. They've called several editors anti-Muslim crusaders, liars, rulebreakers and ignoramuses (in various words). I've worked with most involved here (including you) and think these characterizations are wholly unfitting. Maybe you're pissed off in your personal life, or at the plague situation, and projecting your discontent. This would be understandable, but if we are lost, then we are lost together. Be kind to your fellow editors and dumb animals, and feel better in return, my friend! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I have never said any of that. Second, yes I was a little bit pissed off because the content was clearly original research, the relevance of a content should be established by the sources and none of the sources mention the attack. Freeknowledgecreator has reverted me twice and in the first time didn't even participate after reverting. And here he said he reverted me because there is "no consensus".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that and read about it. There still doesn't seem to be consensus, more like you and Drmies against FKC and whoever added the content. All four should forget the past and calmly discuss the pros and cons of this content, not each other's deeds and intents. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

There are several discussions about "radicalization" in the archives. Perhaps a consensus already formed, or at least began. Take a look? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• I can't judge if that content was indeed OR; it depends on the sources. I stand by my opinion on that one bit I removed. But what I will note is that I have seen no personal attacks from SharabSalam in this section and Freeknowledgecreator's claim of "random insults" is baseless and does not show good faith. But, InedibleHulk, "Maybe you're pissed off in your personal life, or at the plague situation, and projecting your discontent" shows a violation of AGF and is an awful, awful kind of gaslighting. Please do not say things like that anymore, because it poisons the atmosphere and is really blockable. Drmies (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. Didn't mean it as gaslighting (and though I've heard denying gaslighting is another kind of gaslighting, I don't mean it like that, either). Just spitballing and a little teambuilding. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam commented, "Freeknowledgecreator, did you learn your original research lesson?" The comment implies that I am unfamiliar with WP:NOR, which is insulting. The more important point is that SharabSalam has provided no evidence that any of the content he objects to is original research. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

(No one wants to insult anyone here- this is a volunteer project to create an ideal encyclopaedia.) Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I have told you! Sources are not related to the attack!. (See my comment at the top All sources are irrelevant to the attack.) This is SYNTHESIS of sources to imply something not in the sources. You are indeed not familiar with original research if at this point you still don't know what is the original research.---SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Rude comments, and sentences that end in exclamation marks, are not a substitute for rational arguments and evidence. You have provided no evidence of any sort that the material you removed employs synthesis of sources. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Not rude comment. It's factual at this point. You are not familiar with original research. I am saying sources don't not include any content that is relevant to the attack. What is the type of "evidence" you are asking for?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I have edited Wikipedia for over a decade. I am perfectly familiar with WP:NOR, and with what constitutes original research here. You have provided no evidence of any kind that the content to which you object is original research. Your comments ("I am saying sources don't not include any content that is relevant to the attack") are clearly confused and have not been thought through properly. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed that this discussion was discussed before and most editor (including admins) said that it is improper synthesis of sources. The content has already been removed. At this point I have no interest in discussing this further with you as you failed to get what is the original research. It would be a waste of time.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Stating that 1) there's a sizable population of Muslim worshippers in NZ and 2) establishing the dates of the mosques is not original research and is useful background information to understand why this was important and how many people felt impacted by that. The information is sourced (so not original research), nor pushing any POV or the like. No novel conclusions or synthesis. It is completely fine. And no, I don't see any sign on this page that this information was discussed and determined not to be appropriate to include. --Masem (t) 04:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The content that Im talking about is the one that Drmies removed. That content was readded by that editor who is not familiar with original research basic rules and is still asking for evidences. The content was discussed in the past, you can find it in the archive. Almost all editors agreed that it is improper synthesis. Some suggested that the whole section should be removed. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Please note that this is what Drmies removed, which, yes, FKC did add as part of the larger section here, but minus what Drmier removed (which I 100% endorse as irrelevant and victim blaming) the rest is fine, and hasn't been challenged. --Masem (t) 04:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

the rest is fine, and hasn't been challenged, wrong again, it has been challenged. Not that I want it to be removed. Also, Drmies removed most of that section. FKC added that content saying there is no evidence of original research.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The background section that your discussion link points to [6] is a completely different thing from a year ago compared to the much more neutral bit that FKC has created. So, no, the material, less what Drmies removed, has not been challenged. And no, there was no original research in what Drmies removed, but it was poorly sourced and was coatracking things that didn't need to be pushed into the article, which is different from original research. --Masem (t) 05:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

That's pure nonsense. The content is original research. None of the sources establish the relevance to the background of the attack.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how to explain that simply giving an idea of how large the Muslim population of NZ is or the age of the mosque is to give the reader a brief overview of the Muslim practice in NZ is not original research, given that one would not normally associate Muslim faith with NZ. It is fully appropriate. --Masem (t) 05:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources that are used there don't say that this is relevant to the WP:TOPIC of this article which is the shooting. If we are going to allow such interpretation of relevance, we are going to have lots of original research and implications. Here is a question, if a Muslim made a terrorist attack in Germany, do you think we should include a section called Background with the estimates of the number of Muslims in it?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

New Zealand has a relatively small Muslim community; this was noted by many sources at the time of the shooting. The manifesto puts forward the theory that countries are being swamped and overrun by Muslims, but this is definitely not true of New Zealand. It is worth noting this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, these sources should be used not the current ones. Don't use irrelevant sources. Also, "worth noting" sounds like an editorial judgment which should not be the case here. As I said, Masem's wrong interpretation of relevance will open the door to many editors to add content with the same relevance to make original research implications.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Netoholic, please see this discussion. Seven days ago I removed this content and I was reverted by FKC.[7]

Content that I think is original research
Islam is practised by over 57,000 New Zealanders (1.2% of the population), 3,000 of them in Christchurch and the wider Canterbury region. The Al Noor Mosque opened in 1985; it was the first mosque in the South Island. In 2014 and 2015, local press reported an allegation that a congregation member had been radicalised at the mosque. The Linwood Islamic Centre opened in early 2018.

Sources

I think this whole section is an original research and is irrelevant. I had to go to Drimes' talk page and ask them to intervene because FKC was saying that there is no evidence that it is original research. I felt like if I am having a sleeping paralysis while trying to convince FKC that it is original research.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that much of the section is WP:SYNTH in that it combines multiple distinct facts which may or may not have relevance to the topic. Just because facts A and B are true/reliably sourced individually does not mean they are relevant to the topic of the article. What is needed are sources from after the attack which themselves describe appropriate background on the event. For example, if a source describing the event states that the exact population of Muslims in NZ, the opening date of a mosque, etc. is relevant to the event, then that should be the source used - not editor-selected sources from prior to the event or otherwise not covering the event. Such an editorial decision can only be considered original research (even if it seems likely or reasonable). -- Netoholic @ 19:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources creating a story

See also: § Adding original research to the background section

Well, Freeknowledgecreator, I find myself here quicker than expected. Look at it like this: the sources used were primary so I removed them. That meant the statements in the article were unsubstantiated, which in turn meant I could remove them, which is what I did. If you want them back then please find a reliable secondary source that draws a direct link between Tarrant and/or the shootings and the alleged simmering underground cauldron of far right extremism just waiting to explode onto the streets of Christchurch. I suggest it is up to you now to provide a RSS if you want that piece of media created drama put back. If you think the original sources were not primary, please say why. Even if the statements about extremism are true, where is the link to what happened? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC) It appears you have no case. All of the material you removed is properly cited, and your comments above are confused and strange. Wikipedia does not have a policy stating that primary sources should be removed. Per WP:RSPRIMARY: "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere." It does go on to say that, "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately", but that is only a way of pointing out the need for care in using such sources. There is no rule against their use. Looks like you are making things up as you go along. None of the material you removed actually states that there is a "link between Tarrant and/or the shootings and the alleged simmering underground cauldron of far right extremism just waiting to explode onto the streets of Christchurch", so you have totally mischaracterized the material you removed. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources that are used there are used in a synthesis way. There is no source that is related to the Christchurch attack. Your revert is totally disruptive.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

As already explained to you at great and tedious length, it accomplishes nothing to assert the existence of synthesis of sources when there is no evidence of any kind that there is actually synthesis of sources. Your comment above is just you asserting the existence of synthesis while providing not the least actual evidence of it, as usual. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

You have not made any objective argument. You fail to realize the problem. Primary sources shouldn't be used to create synthesis.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

You fail to realize that other people do not have to accept that there is a synthesis of sources when there is no evidence of any kind that there is a synthesis of sources. Repeating endlessly that it exists while providing no evidence of it is not helpful. You are the one asserting it exists, so you need to back up your claims with evidence. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The "evidences" is that sources in the background section are not related to the attack.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

You are either very confused or else do not really care whether what you are claiming is correct or not. Whether the sources used in that section discuss the attack or not has nothing to do with whether there is a synthesis of sources. There is only a synthesis of sources when multiple sources are being used "to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", per WP:SYNTHESIS. No evidence of that in the background section. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

It is implying something not in the sources. It's implying that the Muslim numbers etc are related to the background of this attack. If there was an article about an attack by a refugee in Germany and we added a section called Background with the number of refugees in it, would you be cool with that? That's exactly the same thing happening here.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The statement in the background section about the number of New Zealanders who practice Islam is not synthesis. It is not synthesis because it it does not use multiple sources "to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Your repeated insistence that the material is synthesis shows that you simply do not understand the policy, or what synthesis actually is. As often happens in Wikipedia, an editor is misconstruing what policy actually states to create a spurious case for removing article content. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

While one statement in isolation may not be SYNTH, the problem is that the overall narrative of the Background can be if built up by selective statements. Why is the number of muslims in New Zealand relevant to the event? The only way to know would be if sources tied that number to the event... in which case, you should be able to cite a journalistic source that does that, rather than cite a primary source like the NZ government stat figures. -- Netoholic @ 06:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. That's what I have been saying.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

None of the material in the background section is synthesis. WP:SYNTHESIS is a very specific policy, with a very specific definition of what constitutes synthesis. No one has made any real effort to show that there is actual synthesis per that specific definition of it. Editors here are abusing and misconstruing the policy to create a spurious case for removing the section. Netoholic's comments ("the problem is that the overall narrative of the Background can be if built up by selective statements") are one more example of this. What exactly does the expression "the overall narrative" refer to? I have no idea. It's a vague expression, bordering on babble, with no clear meaning. In any case, WP:SYNTHESIS does not talk about "overall narrative" or even about "selective statements". These may be concerns of Netoholic, but they have exactly nothing to do with the policy he is trying to invoke. The template Netoholic added here should be removed. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The sources are not relevant to the attack. It's not a matter of "concerns". It's definitely synthesis to use irrelevant sources to make an implication that is not in sources. Also, the template should be there as there is a discussion about original research and that template will bring editors to this discussion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The sources are not being used to make statements about the attack, so "The sources are not relevant to the attack" is an irrelevance. Your comment, "It's definitely synthesis to use irrelevant sources to make an implication that is not in sources", is more confused, irrelevant babble. WP:SYNTHESIS defines synthesis as combining "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". The background section does not do that. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

"The sources are not being used to make a statement about the attack": yes they are! The sources are used to say that this is the background of the attack.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

What a foolish comment. You are confusing two completely different things - the attack and the background to the attack. If you think that properly cited content, for example about the percentage of New Zealanders who practice Islam, suddenly becomes original research simply because it is placed in a section titled "Background", then I can tell you that WP:NOR doesn't support you there. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

While I think Roger 8 Roger is overstating the issued about the sources under the Background section being "primary", he is making a good case for there being significant WP:SYNTH in that section. Editors should take a very critical look, and likely remove portions, which are cited to sources that pre-date the shootings in particular. The most fair way to build up a Background section is to find sources from after the event - that cover the event - and themselves provide background info. Finding a few of those, and consolidating what those sources consider relevant background on the event, is the best way to build the section. -- Netoholic @ 06:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Freeknowledge, I take from your original reply that you accept the sources are primary and that you think they are used appropriately. A primary source that can be used, in certain but not all cases, but that will need to be handled carefully is, for example, public opinion poll data. In this case all we have are two people saying: "I think this and that" and a reporter writing down that they said this and that. The reporter, being properly trained no doubt, is careful not to attribute those views to himself or the media outlet. The reporter is simply passing those comments over to us. That makes those comments no more credible that my opinion or yours. If you actually read what these people said there is very little there that relates to the shootings, if anything at all. Now, the form of synthesis I referred to is simple: the article (and/or the sources it uses) says and/or implies that Christchurch was and is a hotbed of far-right extremists; and it says that far-right extremism is fuelled by internet; and that NZ gun laws were lax. This is all rolled together to synthesise the conclusion that this played a large part in causing Tarrant to do what he did. That false sythesised conclusion then can be put into the subsection entitled 'Background'. What?? I suggest that we all look a bit more closely at some of what is written here and weed out as much of the suspect commentary as possible. If that means a smaller but more accurate article then so be it. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Roger 8 Roger: do not not attribute views to me that I have not expressed ("I take from your original reply that you accept the sources are primary and that you think they are used appropriately"). I did not say anything about the sources either being primary or about their being used appropriately, and you should not presume that I believe either of those things. Don't ever put words in my mouth. What I do think is that reliably cited content is appropriate on Wikipedia, per WP:RS. If you cannot show that the content in the background section is not cited to reliable sources, then your comments about it are irrelevant. You comment that, "Now, the form of synthesis I referred to is simple: the article (and/or the sources it uses) says and/or implies that Christchurch was and is a hotbed of far-right extremists; and it says that far-right extremism is fuelled by internet; and that NZ gun laws were lax. This is all rolled together to synthesise the conclusion that this played a large part in causing Tarrant to do what he did". Your comment is nonsense. The articles does not say or imply that "Christchurch was and is a hotbed of far-right extremists"; rather, it notes that someone, Paul Spoonley, suggested that, and that someone else, Gerry Brownlee, rejected the suggestion. Furthermore, the article obviously does not say anywhere "that this played a large part in causing Tarrant to do what he did". That is something you made up out of nothing. You are mischaracterizing the section in question and asserting that it says something that anyone can see it simply does not say. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

FKC, the start of the synthesis article could not be simpler: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Someone with your experience should, and I suggest does, know this, which makes me question your motives, even though I am assuming good faith. There is a lot of bluster, skirting around and using selected examples. Here is an example: You say (with bolded raised voice): do not not attribute views to me that I have not expressed ("I take from your original reply that you accept the sources are primary and that you think they are used appropriately"). "I take from your original reply" means what it says and does not mean that that is what you intended to convey. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The background section does not "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Hence no synthesis. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly what the current background section does. It takes irrelevant sources to say/imply that this is the background of the attack. I agree with Roger you should know this.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

What total nonsense. Synthesis is combining multiple sources "to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", and the background section does not do that. Each statement in that section is properly cited to a specific source. None of the statements in that section are based on combining multiple sources. Simply placing all those statements, each of them properly cited to a specific source, within a section titled "background" does not constitute synthesis. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Simply placing all those statements, each of them properly cited to a specific source, within a section titled "background" does not constitute synthesis; Yes it does! This juxtaposing makes an implication that is not in the sources. Also, that would be coatrack (see WP:TOPIC). --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

No it doesn't, because it's just a section title. Section titles are not based on cited sources in the same way that other article content is. What title is used for a section is an editorial decision. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• It is in no way synthnesis. The sources specifically mention the attack. It also names and attributes the opinions. AIRcorn (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  Aircorn, could you show me one source from here that mentions the attack?SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  SharabSalam You are looking at the wrong diff. We are talking about this one. Every source that was removed in that diff refers to the attacks. As to your above cited removal that is a different discussion. I don't think there is anything wrong with a background section looking at the history of key factors in an event if it is presented neutrally. AIRcorn (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  Ignoring the background section, and taking all news sources from after the attack, we know that the attack involves the Muslim population in New Zealand, and white supremacy in New Zealand. There is no question as to these being relating topics. As such , it is not original research to summary the state of either topic just prior to the attacks in a neutral manner to help provide background to the reader and make a comprehensive article. We do expect a reader coming to this article to know what New Zealand is, but we do not expect them to be aware of its current population makeup or any of its current fringe political leanings, so these help give context to why this attack occurred and the discussion later in the article of responses and actions taken by government officials and other people. --Masem (t) 13:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  That's original research. I asked you a question and you failed to answer it: would you add the number of refugees/history of refugees in Germany in a background section of an article about an attack by a refugee in Germany.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  Arguably, summarizing any topic on WP involves a minimal but acceptable amount of original research- what sources to use, what focus to give, how to organize that information. As soon as we write from two or more sources, we engage in this "original research". But as long as we are staying to the key principles of WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and others, where we are not trying to push for a novel point of view or a specific interpretation not present in the existing sources or misrepresenting the sources, this is acceptable "original sources". In other words, we rarely actually call this type of basic structure, source-decision, and content selection as "original research" in the fist place, but do know that it exists.

  It is important here, because we use some of this implicit original research to create a structure for this article, which is a combination of how reliable sources have generally covered this attack as well as other similar attacks, and how similar attack and shooting articles on WP are structured. In that area, understanding what basis we want to presume the reader knows about the topic area: Christchurch, Muslims in the area, and the political aspects in the geographic area, is a choice left up to editors. For example, we have presumed readers know what New Zealand is and we don't stop to explain it is an island nation in the South Hemisphere near Australia. But we do explain Christchurch is a major city in NZ. This is wehre it is fact to explain what the extent of Muslim faith is in NZ is , as well as the situation around white supremacy is in the region as well. It establishes elements we do not expect readers to be immediately familiar with but would be helpful to a comprehensive article, and is part of the implicitly allowed "original research" in their inclusion in their background section. It is possible that these could have been written in a manner that would have violated original research, eg if we had presented the white supremacy side as "NZ has failed to take steps to step a raising white supremist population in recent years." without any inline attribution, that would be violating WP:NOR and needed to be removed. --Masem (t) 18:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Let us take a step backwards to my principal reason for deleting. The sources used are primary opinion, that is all. They are no better that what you would get from a talk show. Aircorn, those primary sources mention the attacks - correct. So what? This debate is starting to become interesting, if only for highlighting the risks in taking Wikipedian articles with anything other than healthy skepticism. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Masem, carry on please: I am all ears (or rather eyes) Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Focusing on what you had removed, neither the NYtimes nor the Stuff.co.nz are opinion pieces, they establish that there's a growing issue of white supremacy in NZ before the attacks. The statements from Paul Spoonley and MP Gerry Brownlee as experts and equal counterpoints seems reasonably fair (one person saying there's an issue, the other there's not). So net effect, of your diff, no there is no primary opinion pieces there so removing it on that basis alone is inappropriate. --Masem (t) 13:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• This is pretty standard practice when writing these articles, especially breaking news stories as this was when it was compiled. Your talk show analogy makes no sense, we have experts bringing their opinions about a certain very relevant aspect of the attack, it is attributed and it is presented neutrally. Citing Synth and Primary as reasons to remove it are incorrect. A case could possible be made that it is undue. Again given the nature of current events being recorded in wikipedia they tend to use sources that appear close behind the event. It would be better to find some sources that look back on it with a level of hindsight, especially now that a year has passed. Given that we have the NYT weighing in would suggest that, at least at the time, it is worth mentioning. AIRcorn (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with much of what you say, Aircorn, such as the structure of this article is standard for many current events, with sources that later need updating. That does not make use of all of those original sources correct though. There is a basic misunderstanding of what constitutes a RSS. What we have here is selected verbal statements from three people. That is all. Just because they appear in newspapers does not change that. There is no analysis of those primary sources by the author/reporter that would make them secondary sources. That is why they are not much better than talk show comments. If the reporter had written the article differently, whereby statements of fact were made based on what the three people said, that might be different, but the reporter, quite correctly, does not do that, he words it to make it clear that the statements are not those of him or the newspaper. Person one has supposedly written a book about extremism. Of the three so called experts, one, Gerry Brownlee, is a seasoned politician who is speaking as a politician (with other motives in mind), which gives an even greater reason for disregarding what he says here. Taking a step back again and looking at this 'background' section, where is the evidence that there is any link between far right extremism in NZ and Christchurch (whether that exists or not) and what happened? You might just as well write something about the number of Australians of dubious character who are allowed to live in NZ, which might well fit better into the background section. Reference to lax gun laws in NZ does have a closer link to what happened, and that might warrant greater mention in the background section. And the analysis of the wider NZ muslim population is pointless without forming a link to what happened. A case might be made for why Tarrent chose Christchurch (such as a greater number of worshippers in one place (a mosque) at one time. But there is none of that analysis (that would still need a RSS). I think we could all benefit from a closer look at the sources used and the way they are used. More reflective better quality sources have started to emerge which should help create a more balanced article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Although I agree with you, Roger 8 Roger, about Gerry Brownlee's opinion being irrelevant basically because he's a politician, Paul Spoonley's accreditation is different. He's an academic, and you can (generally) trust academics to be unbiased and responsible in their theories. After some research about him, it's clear that he hasn't just supposedly written one book about extremism. (He's not all a perfect source though, I hint some low-key poltical bias here:[8] Also see here: [9]. I believe that these sources, Brownlee and Spoonley, should merely be observed: they should not be claimed as speaking the truth, as all theories. But, I do not see any "Spoonley is right!" language in the article. Spoonley's is just a theory, and Brownlee rejected his theory. It is important, in my opinion, that these sources stay in the article, because it signifies the reader that this event hasn't just all of a sudden come at a surprise: there was at least one person (Spoonley) who basically predicted this. New Zealand has spent a lot of time saying that this event was unpredictable.--Violetnights (talk) 08:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

What you are describing above Roger is the original research that we should avoid. You may well be right with everything you say, but without sources saying it we can't use it. We have sources talking about far-right extremism and its appearance in Christchurch. They are specifically linked to the attack, reliable, neutrally written, attributed and from an expert in the field. You can't really get much better than that. Brownlee is there to provide a counter, but has the weaker case for inclusion given he is not an expert in the field and being a politician from Christchurch some obvious skin in this. If you find sources presenting any of your additional reasonings feel free to add them. But the absence of something we think belongs but can't source doesn't mean we remove something we think doesn't belong when it is reliably sourced. AIRcorn (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter beyond some common sense and a bit of editorial judgment what we think should be in the article. If you find sources relating to the (SHOULD THIS WAYWARD PHRASE BE HERE?)

No it I refactored my reply and accidentally forgot to delete this fragment. AIRcorn (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Aircorn, I am talking here about source 35 from Stuff by Michelle Duff. The wiki article here linked growing far right extremism in Christchurch with the shootings. It was part of the supposed background to what happened. We then look at the source used to verify, Duff. It quotes three people. First Battersby, who is an expert in internal defence issues: He says:"For a long time [New Zealand] has assumed that this extremism is not here, but it is," said Massey University Centre for Defence and Security Studies counter-terrorism expert Dr John Battersby.

"The internet is causing this, the echo chambers of the internet where people with extremist views can get together and listen to each other and encourage each other. We have been warning about this for some time." A very general statement with no link to what happened in Christchurch. Battersby then goes on to discuss lax gun laws, which is dealt with elsewhere in this article. We then get to Spoonley, an expert in political extremism. He says" "Whatever the details of this incident, it's the end of our innocence." Far-right groups were particularly attractive to young, working-class males, he said.

"They feel as though they are losing their place as the dominant group and their culture is under attack from multiculturalism. What's happened since 9/11 is there's been this big international conspiracy theory that Muslims are the major threat.

"They think 'they're undermining our culture and identity and also physically attacking us so we've got to fight back.' The type of things these people think and write about ethnic and religious minorities are truly dreadful and hateful." A pretty bland generalisation - Where is there any link to Christchurch's underground terrorist community or to Tarrant? Spoonley then says: "It feels very counter to New Zealand political culture, but I've done enough work over enough years to know that there are some very extremist groups and individuals who are always capable of it. ", which is about as close as he gets to linking what happened to an Christchurch underground movement being behind the shootings. Now, we must though not overlook the role of the reporter, Michelle Duff in all this. The article has many of her words thrown in at selective moments, words that are not direct quotes from these experts but are in fact her interpretation of what they said, ie OR by a non-expert. She says: He said Christchurch has long been a hotbed for white supremacists and the extreme nationalist movement, with several violent attacks in the city since the late 1989 murder of Wayne Motz by skinhead Glen McAllister. (Her words that create an impression in the readers mind of this simmering anger brewing up in Christchurch.) Similarly, she steers us off course with: This far-right extremism had noticeably grown in New Zealand in the past couple of years, Spoonley said. He pointed to the popularity of Islamaphobic commentators like Stefan Molyneux, who had planned to speak here in August last year. At a free speech rally in July, after mayor Phil Goff refused to let Molyneux speak at a council venue, protesters were holding "Free Tommy" placards, Spoonley said. This refers to Tommy Robinson, a violent anti-muslim activist in the United Kingdom. And she began her article by saying: Experts tracking the rise of far-right terrorism say extremism has been growing in New Zealand and the warning signs of an attack have been apparent. What followed was a neatly written article that was very general mix of expert quotes thrown in between her opinions. (I won't bother spend any time on Brownlee). And last but by no means least is the fact, as noted further on in the article, that Tarrant formed his views overseas and spend most of his short time in NZ in Dunedin, not Christchurch. So, in summary, it is hard to see how this source backs up the claim made that what was going on in Christchurch prior to this event formed part of the background to what Tarrant did. We have a collection of isolated sourced facts that are being stuck together to draw a conclusion that is not directly stated by any one of the sources. To back up that conclusion that is implied in this 'Background ' section, we have the OR of Michelle Duff, a reporter. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

As long as the reporter is from a reliable source (in this case, stuff.co.nz), then we do not make any consideration on the reporter's work in preparing their article, so we absolutely do not consider that original research at all. Original research only starts with Wikipedia editors. --Masem (t) 05:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

All of the statements in the Background section are reliably sourced, and do not involve drawing a conclusion that is not already in the source. The WP:TLDR of the Background section is that New Zealand has a relatively small Muslim community and no history of gun violence or political extremism. I can't see any major policy based problems with the background section.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Masem, thank you for your reply but...I suggest you check more deeply policy on and intention of reliable sources in wikipedia . Publishers are important but you attach too much weight to them. Media sources can publish a variety of articles written in different ways. It is not just obvious opinion pieces we need to be wary of, but editorials and more. You do not seem to have read what I wrote because your only reply is "if it was published by Fairfax (Stuff) it must be correct" (my paraphrasing). If that is your understanding of what constitutes a reliable source then there is an awful lot of suspect information in Wikipedia. I think you would benefit from first looking at the author and then the publisher, and then at what exactly is being published by that publisher and precisely how it is being published (eg, exact quotes or a rewrite of what was supposedly said). Also, do not overlook when these articles used for this wiki article about the shootings were published, many were on the same day when nobody knew what was going on and reporters all were copying any snippet of information from each other to be first to hit the press. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• This tag warring is getting a bit ridiculous. You don't put an orange level Primary Source tag for one instance of of a primary source in a section, especially if you inline tag it as well. There is no problem using primary sources anyway if they are used correctly. Is anyone really questioning the interpretation of this information or that it is being used inappropriately? Seems like using a sledgehammer to smash a walnut. AIRcorn (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Found some sources that pretty much say what the previous ones did, but are primarily about the attack. This should deal with the synthesis allegations. So it seems we just have ten words about the number of Muslims in Canterbury. It is relevant enough to the article since it took place there that there is no reason to remove it apart from pedantry, but if it stops this needless verbiage then I won't stop anyone from doing so. AIRcorn (talk) 10:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• This is how reliable sourcing works on WP. It is why we are looking to make sure reliable sources have two key features: a clear editorial process and control they use, and a history of reputable fact checking to their work. Stuff.co.nz meets those. As a tenet, we thus do not doubt what they publish. There's a lot of people that come to Wikipedia that want to push fringe theories and put doubt into the mainstream sources as biased and corrrupt but we cannot take this view at all. Now, we can talk about sources published close to the event versus those published before versus those published far after the event, we would prefer the latter two over the first, but doesn't make the first one unusable. --Masem (t) 13:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I've tagged WP:OR/N for review of the background section if it is original research or not. --Masem (t) 14:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Here we go again - see edit made twenty minutes ago and reverted. FKC, this is an English language encyclopedia. If you do not know what 'affiliated with' means then look in a dictionary. Beside that, that wording is the term used in the survey as reported by StatsNZ, no doubt carefully thought through to gather as closely as possible the survey information it required. I won't waste time telling you not to alter what a source says in a way that changes its meaning, because you know that is wrong. Your actions really are now disruptive. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Dictionaries contain definitions of "affiliation" and similar terms, but they do not explain the meaning of longer phrases such as "affiliated with", as that is not their purpose. The phrase "affiliated with" might mean different things in different cases. Without further explanation, it is certainly not clear what it means for a person to be "affiliated with Islam". I do agree that we should follow what sources state and not try to go beyond them; that does not alter the useless vagueness of stating that a given number of people are "affiliated with Islam" absent an explanation of what that means. Please think of a wording that both follows the source and is clear in meaning to readers. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 3 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There's consensus to not move the page. (non-admin closure) – Ammarpad (talk) 06:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Christchurch mosque shootings → Christchurch attack – Two reasons:

1) Per this discussion, since this was a single, uninterrupted sequence of events (an act of terrorism) as opposed to individual events occurring in distinctly separate points of time, perhaps the title should accurately this as well.

2) Unlike the United States, which has seen several high-profile occasions of mass shootings at places of worship (Sutherland Springs church shooting, Charleston church shooting, Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting, etc.), this incident is the only one of its kind in all of New Zealand (or at least the only one that has received this kind of high-profile attention that would warrant a long, highly-detailed Wikipedia article about it), so therefore, the word "mosque" is unnecessary in the title.

I'm also open to Christchurch shooting if it's a better search term than my original suggested title. Love of Corey (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose there were two shootings in different places. Also, there is no reason to remove mosque from the title.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

  But those shootings occurred within minutes of each other, barely any cooling-off period there; and they were committed by the same person. Also, I just explained why "mosque" should be removed in this article specifically. Care to tell me why we need to have a disambiguatory term in the title if this event is the only mass shooting to occur in a place of worship in New Zealand, not to mention the first mass shooting to occur in the country since the 1990s? Love of Corey (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

  Titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article per WP:TITLE. All reliable sources say that there were shootings not just one shooting. The lede itself says two shootings.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. The title "Christchurch attack" is too vague. It's important to think about a person trying to find this article online, and although the 'Christchurch mosque shootings' incident goes by many different names, such as "Christchurch terrorist attack", it is safe to assume that a person would write something along the lines of "Christchurch" and "mosque" into a search engine to find this article. Your second reason for why "mosque" shouldn't be included in the title is an insightful one, but again, you need to think about the average person who could have little knowledge on this event. In conclusion, an inclusion of "mosque" in the title is necessary, I believe. A title of "Christchurch mosque attack" would be acceptable. --Violetnights (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose': I don't understand why we should make the title more vague. Bkatcher (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Making the title more vague seems counterproductive to me. "Christchurch attack" could refer to almost anything. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The title "Christchurch attack" is vague and does not properly convey the nature of the event. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: Definitely not an an improvement, way too vague. Knife attack, bomb attack, gun attack, vehicle ramming attack, who would know from this title?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Title reflects common name. Schwede66 17:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC0
• Oppose: As stated by others Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm having a hard time believing anyone would NOT know what one is talking about when "attack"/"shooting" and "Christchurch" are used in the same sentence. The suggested titles are most certainly not vague, especially considering the extensive and long-lasting news coverage the event has been given. Love of Corey (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • You are forgetting that some readers of Wikipedia will be people who are entirely new to these attacks and will not know anything about them. In any case, an article title should stand by itself as a clear description of the thing it is about and should not require a reader's familiarity with news broadcasting to clarify it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: as current pagename is succinct and to the point.Resnjari (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Background section

@Roger 8 Roger: made this edit, which changed a statement that "Islam is practised by over 57,000 New Zealanders, around 1.2% of the population" to the vague statement that, "over 57,000 New Zealand residents affiliated with Islam, around 1.00% of the total population". Although that was a good faith change, "affiliated with" has no clear meaning and is of no use to readers. I therefore reverted the change. Roger 8 Roger restored the change without explanation, which was rude. I undid the change again, since Roger 8 Roger had made no effort to get consensus for it on the talk page. I was reverted again by @Andrewgprout:, again without explanation, in what was clearly a calculated act of rudeness. For the record, reverting edits without explanation is only appropriate in cases where the edit is deliberate vandalism, which my edits were not. If Roger 8 Roger or Andrewgprout consider Roger 8 Roger's edit an improvement they are free to make their case here. I see no advantage to it myself. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Only because I have a spare few minutes will I spend any time on this. To affiliate with a religion and to practise it are significantly separate things, meaning to use one to mean the other means neither is sourced properly, meaning what is written is OR, not to mention being misleading. 1.2% was not mentioned anywhere that I could see. The closest I could get was working out about 1.1% based on figures in the NZStats source. The only percentage given was the 1.00% in the Algezeera source. As that was the figure used, that is what should be there, not the unsourced 1.2%. A New Zealander and a New Zealand resident are not necessarily the same and figures for both can vary significantly. Precision is better to avoid the very ambiguity your refer to. They were the terms used by the sources anyway, so changing them is wrong. I could elaborate further, but your ten minutes of attention is nearly up so I cannot enlighten you further on phrasal verbs, even if being enlightened were the reason why you are here, which it clearly is not. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

"To affiliate with a religion" could mean a number of different things in the absence of explanation; practicing a religion is one of them. The absence of any clear meaning to the phrase makes it quite unhelpful for readers. Denying that the problem exists is not helpful, nor is the defensive attitude you have taken to criticism. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems clear that "affiliated" is a vague claim that can't be substantiated by a reliable citation- I suspect something was lost in the communication between editors, Try reaching out to the user on their talk page and explain clearly that you are not trying to delete their content- however the onus on them to provide citation and unambiguous information. --Willthewanderer (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The source says "Apart from the Christian religions, 121,644 people reported Hinduism nfd as their religion, 57,276 identified with Islam nfd, and 40,908 reported Sikhism." But it then helps to read the actual census form which, if I read it right, is here [10] and you'll see question 16 is simply a fill-in "what is your religion". I would simply state this plainly. "57,000 NZlanders identified their religion as Muslin according to the NZ Census.". No doubts on what implication was there. --Masem (t) 05:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

.....and the word used in the census to describe the figure is "affiliated" so I have no idea what Willthewanderer is on about above. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The wording now used is 'identify themselves with' which I think makes no change to the intended meaning of 'be affiliated with' but does, I agree, run off the tongue slightly more easily. And yes, 1% is better than 1.00%. So, as far as I am concerned, what is now there is as good as it is going to get. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

While I do not wish to argue about semantics, these figures are important and readers must understand the context in which they originally appeared. If the wording of the census was vague or open to interpretation our readers must understand this- "affiliated" in the English language has many implications. As a rational solution maybe we could just put the exact phrase that was used in parenthesis so readers know this wording comes directly from the census paper- not from us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willthewanderer (talk • contribs)

I am "done" with this discussion and have moved on. However, one point I will make is that IMO there is source confusion. The census and its wording is not our RSS, it is a primary source. The two sources we are should be using are the Aljazeera article and the commentary on the census result made by StatsNZ (not the census form that was written by StatsNZ). Therefore, the word 'affiliate' is the correct word to use. Alternatively, we could deem the StatsNZ commentary as unreliable, and the Algezeera article too, and not use either. Or, we re-write the whole section to incorporate the census wording in it, but without using it as a RSS. Or, we leave the whole topic of the number of muslims in NZ out of the article entirely. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Given the way the wording has filtered into the StatsNZ (which is also the primary source, they're the census group in NZ) and the Al Jazeera article, its clear that we need to see how exactly the census was worded to know what the question was, and thus how to frame the statement in this article. The StatsNZ summary, if you read the whole thing, is playing the thesarus game to avoid repeating the same word over and over again, so we should be careful taking one word out of there as the Bible. --Masem (t) 21:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Lack of photos

This article has a considerable lack of photos immediately after the event. The only photos we can use is photos in the public domain of public gatherings in mourn of the shootings, and although those are great, it's disappointing looking at the photos that could be used in this article, such as that one photo [11] of police and their metal detectors. I understand that this is mainly because of copyright issues, but surely we can add more photos? --Violetnights (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

What photos do you want? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Photos like these, a man praying while being pushed into an ambulance [12], this image of police (not amazing) [13], Ardern while addressing the nation on the evening of March 15 [14]. I understand that most of these photos are copyrighted, but these are just examples.--Violetnights (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy to restrict the use of non-free content and promote free content. While there are certainly plenty of images of the aftermath of the event, none of these are so "unique" or "important" that would meet our non-free policy to be used. Eg the image you show of the cops looking for bullets via metal detection isn't really that unique to be of use here. --Masem (t) 03:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The photo of the cops looking for bullets was just an example. I agree, it's not so unique and amazing that we should go out on a quest to be granted the rights to use the photo.Violetnights (talk) 07:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Some people are very fussy about WP:NFCC. Professional news photos are rarely used on Wikipedia. For most practical purposes, the article should stick to ones that do not set off fair use debates.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with comments above. Taking private photos of what was happening at the time, that would be worthy of use here, was not easy. Remember, most people are not expert photographers with high grade cameras; at the time (about 1.30 pm onward, there were confused media reports for a couple of hours about a gunman or gunmen on the loose with people advised to stay inside (citywide school lock downs); there were police cordons around the mosques and elsewhere; and around the hospital there was panic, grieving; medics and police; and then the sun went down. None of this made it easy for someone to take wiki-standard photos even if they were close by. The '?best' photos that could be easily taken over the next few days were of the swarms of media that took up residence all around the hospital and park and of Hagley college, (opposite the hospital) that was used as a sort of hub, but even then getting an encyclopedic level photo is easier said than done. I think photos that capture the moment of any given event are few and far between, and those taken by an amateur that are copyright free are even rarer. There is no point adding a photo just for the sake of it, which happens often in wiki articles. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh no, I get what you're saying. I was there in Christchurch myself. I was merely talking about the high-quality images that I had seen not exactly on the day after the shootings, but rather in the 2-3 day period after March 15.Violetnights (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)