Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings#rfc 29D5535

{{Template:Did you know nominations/Christchurch mosque shootings}}

My recent edit (took 20 mins) and user:PARAKANYAA's tidy up edits illustrate just how much work is involved in clearing out from this article. There is a lot of unnecessary detail that has crept in over time - much of it with self-indulgent verbosity. I hope this clean up will continue. Any subsections that are removed might justify separate articles of their own. So, who wants to carry on the thinning out? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't know what to do with this article. Usually when editing these articles I model it after similar ones that have achieved high quality, but the problem is AFAIK every FA on an article and almost all of the GAs about a mass shooting/mass murder/terrorist attack does the perpetrator split, which we have decided to not do. So either we include basically no information on the motive and background (which similar articles don't include, having delegated it to the perp article), despite the fact that this is a lot of the sourcing on it, or we do the horrible hybrid way which does not work for articles that get really long (like this one). See for example Bath School disaster, Oklahoma City bombing, École Polytechnique massacre, etc, for examples, some of our only mass murder FAs.

:That's more for scoping/the end goal. What really motivated me clearing this out is that this article is cited almost entirely to WP:BREAKING or immediate news sources, which are primary, often turned out to be wrong, and have an unfortunate habit of uncritically reciting Tarrant's elaborate lies. There are, meanwhile, a plethora of academic journal and book sources about this case that do look more critically, that we barely use. If we cut out almost all material cited to articles in the month after the shooting we would be in a much better place. Much more, anything prior to the official report outside basic details like reactions. There is just so much primary sourced news content here! PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

: The community has decided that an article for the perp is not warranted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings/Archive_12#RFC_-_Should_a_Brenton_Harrison_Tarrant_article_replace_the_redirect_to_this_page? therefore this is the appropriate place for his background. See Pittsburgh synagogue shooting for a comparable article where the perp gets almost as much screen space. Daveosaurus (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::If we have repeatedly come to the conclusion Tarrant should not have an article that does not mean this is his article. We simply should not include information about him and his motives that is not necessary if we are facing problems with article length. The only information that is absolutely necessary is he's a white Australian guy who was racist. We can't play at both, have this be half his biography when there is so much information. If we decide focus is on the attack than that information is prioritized when something needs to be trimmed.

::The Pittsburgh one has some of the same problems (So many breaking news sources), though not as bad because it is not nearly as long. The Bowers information makes the article come to a reasonable 6000 words. This one is overly lengthy so we have to trim something, and there is really nothing else. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm 50-50 about giving him an article of his own. If he is notable for only one event then he shouldn't have his own article. However, the trial and events afterwards might have created notability in other areas, which might justify an article on him alone. If that were to happen, I think it must be short and use only genuine RSSs, not the vast array of comments and articles about him in the published media that are just opinion pieces, meaning primary sources. There would of course be loads of people trying to add to any article about just him, filling it with all sorts of irrelevant not properly sourced detail.

:::Anyway, about this article, I agree fully about the number of sources written shortly after the event that should not be used. I think steadily removing sources that are too close to the time of the event is a good idea and also removing all the primary sources. (Just because they are published by a newspaper or magazine doesn't make them secondary). There will also be a lot of doubling ups of references, where we don't need, say, three citations that he was Australian or some other basic facts. Here we are discussing Tarrant, but the overkill with detail applies to other sections too (we almost get a users manual on the gun he used). So, I would start be removing many of these references and then thinning out the article from what is left - some of the article will be left without a reference so it can be simply removed. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::TBF, plenty of people "notable for one event" have separate articles, which WP:BLP1E allows for if several conditions are met. Whether those apply is up for debate (for further debate see my unsuccessful attempt to AfD the Derek Chauvin article recently on very similar grounds).... but I agree the overdetail/primary source news overreliance is the biggest issue. What the article looks like when that is dealt with we can fix. Primary sources are good for verifying basic details so we don't need to remove all of them but yeah...

::::Maybe for improvement purposes we could make a list of good secondary sources to look through? News can be secondary of course but not so close to the event. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I've just realised that there are two subsections in 'Legacy' dealing with the same thing, the research centre into extremism. I've also just reduced the first subsection by 80%. The second subsection should now by removed, or more productively, the two parts combined. (This takes a lot of time btw) I have removed the second repeat section and added part of it to the first section. I have not gone into any detail about the precise relationship between the first reseach centre and the trust version in 2022 because that would be unnecessarily detailed. A note - these two sections alone have been reduced by at least 80% by removing non-relevant and repeat detail and excessive low grade sources. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:I've spent some time reducing the 'Legacy' section. There were lots of sources used saying the same thing with unnecessary over-use of certain words and peoples names. The rest of the article appears to be of a similar style. I will probably leave the editing now and move on. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@user:Andykatib, I am truly bemused. What you are adding is called clutter. Seeing what is written in the section above, are you doing it intentially to devalue this article and create yet more work for other editors to sort out and dispose of? It has very little connection with this article's topic and is backed by passing news in TV or newspaper media: here today, gone tomorrow. It is the sort of stuff added by enthusiastic newcomers who have trouble finding any references of greater worth than what's on the 6.00 pm TV news. You are, or course, not such a newcomer, and a quick look at your user page puts you in the top academic category of editors. I am genuinely intrigued. Why then don't you add something of value, find an article in a top journal? Why too, do you not seem to realise that every article has a natural maximum length. I suggest you will get far more enjoyment doing what I have just spent hours doing - namely working through just one section and removing 80% of the chatter inside it. What possible value has your contribution added to this article's topic? A 16 year old overseas youth with numerous social issues scrawls a mis-spelling of Christchurch on a social media site and gets taken in by the police for other things he has done, to prevent him getting into more trouble. Do you seriously think that warrants any mention here at all, let alone 900-plus words? Why not spend time removing the dozen of so other non-notable similar cases above it? You surely know that more isn't always better? Please stop adding every trivial mention of these shootings you find in the media or on some low grade online website with nothing more to link them to the article's topic than a place name. Sorry to be curt, but I am genuinely puzzled. I will doubtless be criticized for criticizing. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Perhaps an article titled "Copycat crimes of the Christchurch mosque shootings" could be created and have the text moved there. ―Panamitsu (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{Ping|Panamitsu}}, that's a good idea. We also need to be careful that the sources that are cited explicitly mentioned the incidents were inspired by the Christchurch mosque shootings. Regarding @Roger 8 Roger's query about why I don't cite more academic books and articles, I am currently not studying or working for a university so I don't currently have access to paywalled academic articles. I could get hold of academic books as an University of Otago alumni but not online material since only staff and current students can access them. I am sorry if I have caused offense by needlessly cluttering up the article. Will work on different projects and minimise my involvement with the Christchurch mosque shootings article. Andykatib (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Have you tried the Wikipedia library? ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Ditto the Wikipedia library. Scholar is also a good search point too, but doesn't index everything. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::This already happened and was deleted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::I looked at Unabomber and Oklahoma City Bombing (Featured article), neither mention copycat crimes. I don't think a stand alone article would meet NLIST/GNG, although I haven't looked on scholar/through academic sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::There actually weren't any actual significant (fatal) copycat crimes for those two crimes. There is the possible exception of Columbine, but that's kind of dubious since they only indirectly mentioned him a single time. With basically every Christchurch copycat crime they have said, directly, that this guy is the reason they did it... it is more similar to Columbine in that way, which we do have an article about the copycat strain for. And it definitely would meet GNG e.g. just a few:

:::*{{Cite journal |last1=Kupper |first1=Julia |last2=Christensen |first2=Tanya Karoli |last3=Wing |first3=Dakota |last4=Hurt |first4=Marlon |last5=Schumacher |first5=Matthew |last6=Meloy |first6=Reid |date=2022 |title=The Contagion and Copycat Effect in Transnational Far-right Terrorism: An Analysis of Language Evidence |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/27158149 |journal=Perspectives on Terrorism |volume=16 |issue=4 |pages=4–26 |issn=2334-3745 |jstor=27158149 |access-date=2024-04-19}}

:::*{{Cite journal |last1=Lankford |first1=Adam |last2=Allely |first2=Clare S. |last3=McLaren |first3=Sonya A. |date=2024-10-13 |title=The Gamification of Mass Violence: Social Factors, Video Game Influence, and Attack Presentation in the Christchurch Mass Shooting and Its Copycats |url=https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2024.2413184 |journal=Studies in Conflict & Terrorism |volume=0 |issue=0 |pages=1–25 |doi=10.1080/1057610X.2024.2413184 |issn=1057-610X |access-date=2025-01-03}}

:::*{{Cite book |last1=Macklin |first1=Graham |title=A Transnational History of Right Wing Terrorism: Political Violence and the Far Right in Eastern and Western Europe since 1900 |publisher=Routledge |year=2022 |isbn=978-0-367-61210-8 |editor-last=Dafinger |editor-first=Johannes |series=Routledge Studies in Fascism and the Far Right |language=en |chapter="Praise the saints": The cumulative momentum of transnational extreme-right terrorism |editor-last2=Florin |editor-first2=Moritz}} - this one kind of disputes the copycat label. but also kind of not. hard to explain

:::*{{Cite book |last=Katz |first=Rita |title=Saints and Soldiers: Inside Internet-Age Terrorism, From Syria to the Capitol Siege |publisher=Columbia University Press |year=2022 |isbn=978-0-231-55508-1 |series=Columbia Studies in Terrorism and Irregular Warfare |location=New York |language=en}}

:::* Hoffman, Bruce; Ware, Jacob (2024). God, Guns, and Sedition: Far-Right Terrorism in America. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-21122-2. - covers it for several pages

:::* https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=XkXKEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=%22christchurch%22+%22copycat%22&ots=dKgmxCIbJ6&sig=0d5HMcf-fRb4Mvc6WH9P2mZxeJQ#v=onepage&q=%22christchurch%22%20&f=false

:::There are more sources for this this is just the first few I remembered. This also resulted in Terrorgram which is basically a murder personality cult. Is it a good idea to make this article? Probably not, it got deleted last time; just because we could doesn't mean that we should. It will also immediately become a nightmare. But it is notable, and is certainly more a significant strain of copycats than any other crime since Columbine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Even if we don't want to split it out, it would be good to trim down the news sources in the copycat section and replace them with citations to Kupper et al. and Lankford et al., because they do cover the more significant ones. Lankford also classifies the Club Q shooting as one of seven Christchurch copycat attacks which is not listed here (apparently the perpetrator had an internet site praising Tarrant at length) PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The first half of the Frontline documentary The Rise and Fall of Terrorgram is also largely about the Christchurch copycat phenomenon [https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/the-rise-and-fall-of-terrorgram/] latter half has some overlap. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thanks {{Ping|PARAKANYAA}} for gathering these academic books and articles. I am presently busy with other editing commitments but might tackle the subject in the future. Will see if Otago Uni has these resources. Cheers. Andykatib (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::My point is the article is simply too long, much too long. The article is not about the gun he used, the type of bullets, the so-called copycat shootings or the number of condolences given. The newspaper sources provide easy sources for all that tangential detail. We should remember that newspaper English is often not encyclopedia English: it is there, with all its adjectival fillers, to grab attention and make its reader's gasp in disbelief. All that dramatisation should be removed when transferring what the reporter actually is saying into Wikipedia's supposedly objective and neutral text. Often a three paragraph newspaper story can be shortened to two sentences because it isn't really saying anything. Unfortunately, that usually doesn't happen here, which is one reason why this article is so long - it's full of unnecessary words. Yes, I agree, if some of the detail should be kept then transfer it to another article somebody can create. As a guideline, in my opinion this article should be at least halved. That alone will make it a better article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I don't think 'halved' is reasonable? There is a lot of serious and secondary discussion about this topic and it was extremely consequential, which justifies a lengthy article imo. I think we just need to cut down on the breaking newspaper sources. The Oklahoma City bombing article is about 10,000 words and is probably what we should be modeling this one after, as the most similar FA. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

The Oklahoma shooting article looks to be better structured with better sources. Perhaps the best way to approach this article is as you say to remove many of the sources from just after the shooting - clear the air sort of - and then further improvements might be easier to do. When I went through that one subsection I found it easy to remove much of what was written without changing the message. That seems to have been because much of what had been written was written in unnecessarily verbose media language (copied from the media source in other words) or it was repeated - due to using more than one source saying the same thing in different words. I'm not convinced that all the side issues, such as international reaction, is entirely necessary but dealing with the excessive sources might be a good place to start. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)