Talk:Christchurch terrorist attacks

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Scale, etc. Section

Rewrote and cleaned up some of the Scale of Attack section. What else can be added or removed? Ampharand (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Faked video conspiracy

Another conspiracy I've heard is that the videos were actually fake/pre-recorded that did not depict what actually happened. It's the typical conspiracy-style "this doesn't match my preconceived ideals of what it should look like and I certainly won't look for any reasonable justifications; it's all very strange isn't it??" crap.

some basics of what I've more-or-less had forced upon me:

• it's meant to be reminiscent of a video game somehow for whatever reason
• there isn't blood everywhere ohmygod
• don't hear anyone screaming
• bystanders outside didn't immediately make a fuss and call the police, how dare they
• people already cowering before he'd entered?
• 8chan is a reliable source

At least it's an improvement from the initial reaction of "the whole thing was faked never happened it's those darn jewmasinatis!" 61.69.174.174 (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Name of the Attacker

Apparently, a New Zealand politician suggested something akin to damnatio memoriae with the attacker, encouraging people to cease reporting the attacker's name. Should we follow this advice, or is it unnecessary? And more importantly, should we do the same for future attacks? RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

i agree with the sentiment, but it is just unworkable on the whole. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

On a whole, maybe. But we can do our parts if we decide this is the course of action we want to take. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I do not support not ever mentioning his name. People need to know who he is and what he did. Nerd (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't think his name is super important to know compared to the event. Anyhow, maybe just saying his name once and then using generic referralls throughout the article and any future referralls to this would be referrall by event name. There were name drops in earlier referralls to mass shootings but I removed them. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if it's because the media I read uses their names less or if it's just become so damn common, but if you asked me to name three mass shooters in the past six years, I probably couldn't. Just a thought. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a bad thing if RW decided to remove mention of his name as a show of solidarity with New Zealanders and the Muslim community in particular. Articles about future attacks wouldn't need to follow suit, but could be handled on a case by case basis. People don't come to RW to read neutrally framed news stories, they come for a point of view, i.e. RW is not Wikipedia or Reuters. In the very least, remove the link to the manifesto, which anyone can find with a Google search anyway. Millennium Scallion (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it is more difficult to find the manifesto than you think. I am speaking from experience. Various tech companies seem to be supporting the decision by New Zealand's Chief Censor. Many links are broken. I took me a while to find one that works. Nerd (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

So I guess the banning thing was more of a symbolic example and turned the manifesto into a toxic asset that hosts don't want to associate with. We lost nothing. I'd debate on other censored things far more worth discussing. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Why do we need the cover of the manifesto?

Explain to me what we gain with it. I don't find it necessary and I don't like it being there. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Brenton Tarrant wrote it as an attempt to explain to the world what his beliefs are. If you want to better understand who he is and why he did what he did, then you should know about it and read it. The same goes for Adolf Hitler and Mein Kampf or Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and the Communist Manifesto. In order to tackle a problem, you must first understand what it is. Nerd (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we should discuss a little about the manifesto. But why do we need an image of it? Can this article do without it? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Unlike the other books I mentioned, this one was posted on the Internet with an easily recognizable cover page. So posting it could help readers identify it when they try to find it (assuming the link we give at the end stops working). Perhaps it would be more logical to put in the section dedicated to the Manifesto itself? Nerd (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The cover page, or more specifically the wheel thing on it, is a significant issue in it's own right. Also it's the only image this article has and I don't think it would be appropriate to include photos of the mosque or the attacker. — Dysk (contribs) 01:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I added moved the image of the cover page of the Manifesto and added a photo of the Prime Minister of New Zealand. Nerd (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

But it's not mandatory for this article to have images either, right? Maybe the cover should be in the "white extinction" article instead. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Strictly speaking, no. But it is generally a good idea to break up an otherwise monotonous body of text with relevant images. Nerd (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an image of the al-Noor Mosque, pre attack. Wanna use that instead? DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 18:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Good idea! Please add it! Nerd (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

“I HAVE BEEN CHOSEN BY SAINT TARRANT!”

So are we putting yesterday’s utter embarrassment of a 4chan psycho on this page, or on a new one? 70.24.119.163 (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)