Talk:Christchurch terrorist attacks/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 8 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Duplicate

We already have an article on this subject in draftspace. Either merge them or delete one. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, it seems that the page I created have much more information, better continue with it. Thinker^(unlicensed) 18:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Merged. — Dysk (contribs) 18:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Linking the manifesto

Is this needed? — Dysk (contribs) 19:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

[1] <---- Good summary of what's in the manifesto, so you can avoid wading thru Tarrant's depressing assholery. Millennium Scallion (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I read it already, but thanks. :) — Dysk (contribs) 21:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with linking articles that provide contextualization to quotations from the manifesto, rather than linking to the manifesto directly from a source that may be eventually taken down. Not only does this provide sources of context, because Tarrant's content is a blend of evidence of his ethnonationalist ideation and flat-out bullshit, it adds a degree of separation from the manifesto itself. That's my argument, anyway. Ampharand (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

A link to the manifesto combined with an article that's mostly straight reporting is kind of useless. There's too little of RW's signature blend of analysis and refutation of fucknuttery, i.e. File:Condescending_wonka_on_minorities.jpg. Millennium Scallion (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer we didn't link to the manifesto. — Dysk (contribs) 18:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dysklyver removed the link to the manifesto. I guess his action is based on the idea that racist material should not be linked. Although the sentiment could be understandable, I think that a primary source is needed otherwise the debunking work of RW can't be trusted. Writing "X says so..." but not giving the source is extremely shady, and exactly the opposite of what one would expect from a honest wiki. Also, not linking the manifesto gives the impression that RW editors criticized the manifesto without having read it. Thinker^(unlicensed) 21:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The source is given, the link to a random copy of the source is not. This is an excellent compromise. — Dysk (contribs) 22:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Views

@Dysklyver Do you have a better reason than "nope" ? I wrote my reasons for my edits. Thinker^(unlicensed) 16:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

If you could expand on why exactly you think his ideology is coherent, then maybe, but otherwise, no. — Dysk (contribs) 16:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Let's not start with straw men, OK? I never said his ideology was coherent. (Fascist and Anti-Imperialist? He cares of the environment and praise China?)

I deleted two things:

(1) "Regarding his ideology, Tarrant said that he is a racist, but neither a xenophobe nor a islamophobe, he is an ethno-nationalist, but neither a nazi, neo-nazi, nor a anti-semite, a self-denying and incoherent set of views."

My motivation was: "Well, one can be a racist ethno-nationalist, but neither a xenophobe, islamophobe, antisemite, Nazi, nor a Neo-Nazi. It's not necessarily incoherent." What is unclear about that?

(2) "He specified he is not a conservative, since he consider conservatism as corporatism is disguise, and he is not a homophobe, and he can see himself as left-wing, right-wing, or socialist, depending on the definition in spite of having dominant extreme right views."

My motivation was: "Probably it's because of its extreme views that he can see himself as left-wing, right-wing, or socialist depending on the definition (note that fascism has a big socialist component)" What is unclear about that? Thinker^(unlicensed) 16:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems difficult to be a racist ethno-nationalist without being a xenophobe, so describe his stance as "a self-denying and incoherent set of views" is perfectly reasonable. Likewise, his manifesto contains numerous extreme right views, such as "WHITE GENOCIDE", the need to kill "anti-white CEOs", the fact he "did contact the reborn Knights Templar for a blessing in support of the attack, which was given", the frequent references to Muslim "invaders", he does also at one point state "actual nazis do not exist" so I would take his rambling with a grain of salt. — Dysk (contribs) 18:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

"It seems difficult to be a racist ethno-nationalist without being a xenophobe, so describe his stance as "a self-denying and incoherent set of views" is perfectly reasonable."

OK, but now you are picking only two terms ("ethno-nationalist" and "xenophobe") from 7. My issue is that, as it is, the sentence seems to implies, for example, than a racist has to be an antisemite and a nazi. What about this version: "Regarding his ideology, Tarrant said that he is a racist and an ethno-nationalist, but (somehow inexplicably) neither a xenophobe nor a islamophobe. He also said that he is neither a nazi, neo-nazi, nor a anti-semite."

"Likewise, his manifesto contains numerous extreme right views, such as "WHITE GENOCIDE", the need to kill "anti-white CEOs", the fact he "did contact the reborn Knights Templar for a blessing in support of the attack, which was given", the frequent references to Muslim "invaders", he does also at one point state "actual nazis do not exist""

Those are not extreme right views, those are white nationalist views, and a white nationalist (similarly to a fascist, and even a nazi) can perfectly be a socialist. Of course, for them socialism is only for their race. Thinker^(unlicensed) 19:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Not sure I agree still. However, some rewording could be fine. I guess? Jut don't screw up the meaning too much. — Dysk (contribs) 19:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

No, they can't. Your repeated assertions that Nazism draws heavily from socialism remind me of this drivel. One can not praise crony capitalism and still be a Socialist, anymore than one can reject the doctrine of a religion and still claim to follow said religion. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure they can. There's plenty Christians who've championed racism and money-worship despite this going directly against Jesus's teachings. People have no trouble being hypocrites ideologically or otherwise, and this will certainly continue being the case in the future. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:6C5D:2EE2:4AFB:6C04 (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Here's a fun experiment. Try to guess the ideology of the person quoted here:

“”Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. [...] The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews.

—On the Jewish Question

Good luck. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:6C5D:2EE2:4AFB:6C04 (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Good to see the original topic was kicked into the bin, and that we are now debating important matters of whether Christianity is inherently socialist, and examining the fine details of the Jewish Question. RIP — Dysk (contribs) 21:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to RationalWiki? *shrugs* 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:6C5D:2EE2:4AFB:6C04 (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

To (briefly) address the BoN, First off, I never stated any particular religion, since this rule of thumb applies to them all (and to any form of organized social structure with core ideas for the matter.) Second off, oh hell is Christianity a mess ideologically, claiming to champion love while also defending things like, slavery, rape, mass murder, infanticide, mass murder, infanticide, authoritarianism, mass murder, thought crime, and infanticide. (God loves dead babies.) This is because there is a disconnect between what the followers want, and what the core ideology as laid out in the book is. Third off, why the fuck should I care what you want or say Mikey? Especially after your latest death threat. Fuck off. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Who's Mikey? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:6C5D:2EE2:4AFB:6C04 (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, Jesus said to live a simple life and help one's fellow man. Not to go into politics and make the government enforce such a way of life. Big difference. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:6C5D:2EE2:4AFB:6C04 (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The Bible claims Jesus said a bunch of things, some contradictory. And that is irrelevant as to whether Nazism, an ideology that promotes crony capitalism (among other things), draws influence from or is a form a of Socialism, an Ideology that advocates the complete destruction of the capitalist class system. The answer, of course, no, it does not. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

If you're trying to put the means of production under formal control of the people, making the current owners of the means of production swear unconditional loyalty to the single-party state which nominally represents the people (something something dictatorship of the proletariat) seems like one hypothetical way to do it. Also, most socialist states sooner or later devolve into bureaucratic crony capitalism, so arguably Hitler was just getting ahead of the game. *shrugs* 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:6C5D:2EE2:4AFB:6C04 (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

PLEASE, don't go off topic.

"Not sure I agree still. However, some rewording could be fine. I guess? Jut don't screw up the meaning too much."

@Dysklyver Is the reword I proposed fine or not? Do you have other proposals? Thinker^(unlicensed) 08:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

As long you are keeping the "a self-denying and incoherent set of views" bit then sure. — Dysk (contribs) 10:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Daryl

So it seems that someone called Daryl Jones converted to Islam at the Al-Noor mosque (the one that was attacked), and was later killed in Yemen. Conspiracy theorists are already suggesting this is why the killer picked the site. — Dysk (contribs) 22:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Oxygen

why are we giving so much space to this pricks manifesto, or the oxygen he craves? AMassiveGay (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Because he killed fifty people on live video. — Dysk (contribs) 23:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

so we reward him by giving his shite such publicity? AMassiveGay (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

it certainly doesnt need such scrutiny. not by us AMassiveGay (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Because if more people understand what this little fucker believed that made him kill 50 people, they’ll be able to see the warning signs elsewhere when other people parrot the same shit. There’s value in seeking to understand evil.DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 23:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

or we just give them some shit to parrot like this fucknut. it serves no purpose to unpick every bullshit of this screed AMassiveGay (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It's a self-written record of an individual who turned a mass murder into a livestreamed entertainment event, as evidence of terroristic ideation combining with internet culture. Even if Tarrant is undoubtedly a prick, that requires some scrutiny. Ampharand (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

theres nothing here that cant be boiled done to a short paragraph. this is lurid voyeurism. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I definitely don't disagree that the manifesto's section could and should be pared down to identifying the salient points of the apparent ideology that drove him to kill people. I would also argue, like I mentioned above in this page, that we should link to sources that add context to the content, not link to it directly. Additional context can be added or removed locally as the article gets cleaned up and as more information comes out. Ampharand (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

what would be more useful is detailing some of the responses to this tragedy, instead we have us poring over this shite with evident glee. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. That could be made into its own section, and articles about the responses to the attacks have already been published. Let me look to see what I can add. Ampharand (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

...well, shit. I can't edit the article to link anything about responses, since it's been locked. Ampharand (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

You are aware I suppose, that practically everyone coming into contact with this manifesto believes at least some part of it is true? On platforms I help moderate it's got to to point that it's safer to simply instaban anyone that mentions even it. The video has been reincarnated in everyone's favorite video games, remastered, edited into "fan versions" and given rise to a million memes. And this is on perfectly normal social media, not normally full of fucking nazis. RW debunks cranks, alt-right, etc. This guy fits, and people need to know exactly why his shite is shite. — Dysk (contribs) 00:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Given my interactions with other people on other platforms, I'm pretty aware of the cherry-picking and varying interpretations of the manifesto's content. The manifesto doesn't need a blow-by-blow analysis to prove Tarrant's writings are the product of assholish trolling, as it repeats points often and is riddled with unmistakable bullshit; make a list contextualizing or debunking claims, or a summary of the most oft-repeated points, but don't long-form regurgitate the content. Ampharand (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@dysklyver - and i suppose you are aware that given there is nothing in there remotely new or unexpected, that there is no point rehashing it here. as i said, there is nothing here that cant be be expressed in a paragraph. and least then it wont look like it was written with on hand typing the other firmly on your cock. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I want something on which can be linked as a single page, which address or debunks the main points he made. If we have that already that's cool. — Dysk (contribs) 15:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

why bother? why pretend this isnt just filled with PRATTs? there is nothing worth debunking. why validate it?AMassiveGay (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Because a lot of people believe it, PRATT's or not. And our {{mission}} is something along the lines of debunking stuff. The "Great Replacement" ideology is relevant to debunk imo. — Dysk (contribs) 10:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

and they are even refuted. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

there, done itfor you. see below. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Concerns about "giving this guy the exposure he wants" may overestimate RW's position a bit. But it's a legit question how seriously we should be taking a deranged individual's manifesto. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:6C5D:2EE2:4AFB:6C04 (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm good with the proposed/currently up summary that was detailed below, but I do think there's at least some value in debunking his claims and pointing out his hypocrisy, if not now then at least once things have calmed down -- after all, RW does have a lengthy, detailed, and cited dissection of Breivik's 2083. (Unless you think we should remove that as well). ℕoir LeSable (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

considering breivik was cited as an influence, i say it should be removed. as with anything similar on articles for on atrocities AMassiveGay (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The "contradictions" in Tarrant's manifesto are part of the trolling/shitposting designed to trigger nerdy dissection and emotional response from 'lolcows' for the amusement of his 8chan pals and to manipulate and amplify media coverage.[2] IMO, the Breivik article's dissection is fine, but Tarrant is a special case where RW is justified in not feeding an obvious troll. Millennium Scallion (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The summary that's up now is good, but I'd also be fine with a small analysis debunking/pointing out the hypocrisy of contradictory statements, or even highlighting his use of memes and sarcasm to make the manifesto a vehicle for trolling the ignorant. If we do come to a consensus on involving more of the manifesto's content for the purpose of detail, don't do a long-form dissection like what was previously posted; make it short, concise, and representative of how ridiculous a document it really is as a whole. And let's face it: we're falling into the same trap others have merely by arguing about how to best present the fucking thing. Ampharand (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

[3] added some mentions of above. See what you think. Millennium Scallion (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

In broad strokes and without going into a point/counterpoint breakdown, that's exactly what the manifesto is, yeah. Ampharand (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Responses

Like @AMassiveGay suggested, we should be detailing responses to the Christchurch attacks, rather than just focusing on that fucknut Tarrant and what happened. Here are some links I think should be added in a section of the article:

• World Response - NZ Herald
• UK Support for Muslim Community - BBC
• Proposed Gun Law changes - Washington Post

Anything else? Ampharand (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I say delete all the details of the attack too. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 01:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

i was thinking this AMassiveGay (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

its comments like that we should be responding to not the manfifesto AMassiveGay (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

or trumps response white nationalism isnt a problem AMassiveGay (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I think those are definitely pertinent, yeah. Ampharand (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

There's also a Bellingcat article that I think does a decent contextualization of some of the online responses to the attack, namely 8chan, since Tarrant announced the attack there. I feel like it could be briefly summarized to illustrate the sort of positive attention he was looking for. Thoughts? Ampharand (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

ha, thats pertinent the conversation above AMassiveGay (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Added a Canadian section. Thank you @Dysklyver for fixing my reference fuckup. Gonna look for more. Ampharand (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed reworking of Manifesto

So it reads like less of a love letter:

Tarrant posted a link to an 87-page manifesto on Twitter, Facebook, and 8chan, just before the attack. The manifesto is titled "The Great Replacement", a reference to the white genocide conspiracy theory.

He describes himself as racist and ethno-nationalist. Despite claiming he he not a Nazi or Neo-Nazi, the document is littered with with numerous Nazi and Neo-Nazi slogans and symbols such as the Fourteen words and the Black Sun, and support for a pro-hitler British facist.

There is some lip service to environmentalism, in that environmental destruction is blamed on over population of non-europeans, whoare characterised as ‘invaders.

He expressed a desire to kill German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British Muslim London Mayor Sadiq Khan, Turkish President Recep Ayyip Erdogan, "Anti-White CEOs", and the "Local Drug Dealer" ,while giving some support to Donald Trump - "As a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose? Sure. As a policy maker and leader? Dear god no."

I propose to remove the quote at the top too. Thoughts? AMassiveGay (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

this is a compromise btw, id gut further AMassiveGay (talk) 12:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes it needs a big edit. Ignore all the I'm-not-a-Nazi-I'm-an-environmentalist trolling and shitposting (99% of the manifesto) and focus on the one actual message in it: he was terrified of becoming a minority because minorities are treated badly, so his narcissistic solution was to commit a mass shooting. Millennium Scallion (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

there really is nothing especially interesting about it at all once you get down to it. its a nazi playing to the 8chan crowd. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

there, thats my new proposal AMassiveGay (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The actual version is well written and full of interesting details, I see no reason why we should replace it with a more superficial and less informative version. Thinker^(unlicensed) 19:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

see whats written here and in the thread above. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I read and still I see no reason why we should replace it with a more superficial and less informative version. Thinker^(unlicensed) 20:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

do you not? it currently glorifies him. it validates him. it treats his screed like it was a well reasoned document. it treats it as if there is anything particularly special or informative. and what you describe as interesting details is simply trivial had it not, and this is what clinches it for me, had it not been for the fact that it is the justification for the murder of 50 human beings. its fan service to 8chan and the very fact he cites as inspiration similar perpetrators of similar atrocities should tell you we shouldnt be doing him the favour of treating him and his bullshit manifesto as anything more than the dribblings of a racist murderer, potentially inspiring others for a similar level of respect. it being well written is neither here nor there and any salient points, of which are very very few at best, does not require this level of fan service. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

"it currently glorifies him."

@AMassiveGay How does so? It start by saying that the central point of the manifesto is a conspiracy theory.

"it treats his screed like it was a well reasoned document."

Then go on and start debunking the claims of the manifesto, isn't what RW does with racist bullshits? Start ridiculing it (some absurdities: The guy is an environmentalist and praise China!? He's fascist and anti-imperialist!?) Who's stopping you? Thinker^(unlicensed) 21:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I can see AMGs point; Tarrant intended his writings to trigger outrage and thus generate attention, so extensive regurgitation of the manifesto just fulfills his wishes. Maybe it should be short and snappy, like:

Like fellow narcissistics Ted Kaczynski, Anders Behring Breivik, and Dylan Roof, Tarrant tried his hand at a "manifesto" in which he championed white genocide conspiracy theory. Amid much trolling and shitposting for the benefit of his 8chan hate-monger buddies, Tarrant proclaimed that he moved to New Zealand in order to carry out the attack, identified himself as a racist, fawned over his various white nationalist heroes, and said he supported Donald Trump as "a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose" but not as a policy maker or leader.

Or it could refute his lunacy point by point if someone wants to tackle that. Otherwise, we've got a lame version of the Wikipedia article (even the Wikipedia article has better analysis). Millennium Scallion (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

i like your summary. i vote for that. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

It also has my support. — Dysk (contribs) 22:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thirded. Ampharand (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure. I got rid of the references to narcissistic personality disorder, though, that's not made in good taste. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

How convenient, the new version does not mention the attacker plans about Second Amendment and cuts his sentence about Donald Trump to make it look more a supported of him. Thinker^(unlicensed) 07:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

--It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The Attack section

@LeftyGreenMario suggests the details of the attack section should be culled. I agree - its fucking appalling. heres my proposed rewording:

'The attacker drove to the Al Noor Mosque, and then on to the Linwood Islamic Centre, killing 50 people and injuring 30 others.

The attack on Al Noor Mosque was livestreamed on Facebook.'

lets not focus on the ghoulish relish of the gory detail. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

iirc only the attack on the Al Noor Mosque was on the video. — Dysk (contribs) 12:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

now? AMassiveGay (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Seems like a really good idea. — Dysk (contribs) 12:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 12:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

done. but looking at it, its all in the opening paragraph anyway. do we even need it? AMassiveGay (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I think the whole section should go. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 13:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the rest of the article, so it is acceptable to say it twice. — Dysk (contribs) 16:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay Why the descriptions of the attacks have been completely deleted? Thinker^(unlicensed) 18:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

It's because they are irrelevant. — Dysk (contribs) 18:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

read this thread. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

"It's because they are irrelevant."

@Dysklyver Maybe a step-by-step description of the attacks is not necessary, but I think that at least these information are relevant to portrait the nature of the shootings, since they describe well the kind of evilness of the attacker:

"the Facebook livestream of the attack started, recorded with a head-mounted GoPro camera. Before the attack he said "Let's get this party started" and "Remember lads subscribe to Pewdiepie" (referencing the famous Swedish YouTuber and his feud with Indian channel T-Series over the most subscribers). The attacker drives to the Al Noor Mosque, while a British grenadiers march and a Serbian anti-Muslim hate anthem called "Remove Kebab""

Why not mentioning them? Thinker^(unlicensed) 19:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The PewDiePie thing is already in the PewDiePie article, and his favorite music is trivia at best. — Dysk (contribs) 19:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

we could mention it under a heading 'how to get your atrocity column inches in a tabloid' AMassiveGay (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Not only irrelevant, but needlessly complicated, glorifies the attacker by undeserved obsessive attention to his actions rather than the consequences, and it's triggering on top of all of this. I was going to ask for a trigger warning but thought about it more just about how unnecessary this detail is. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

73 pages

The manifesto is 73 pages. I should, i've read it. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2601:ca:8200:34a:35f1:a7e:6656:7ebd / talk / contribs}

I have two copies from different sources, one is 74 pages, the other is 87 pages. There may be some variation going on depending on the formatting. — Dysk (contribs) 12:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)