[go: nahoru, domu]

Jump to content

Talk:2022 Buffalo shooting

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

Not all victims were black

[edit]

First victim shot was a white female. 2600:4808:711:EA00:80A1:B827:2516:6A6B (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes it clear that two of the individuals injured were not black (though all of the individuals shot fatally were black and that the perpetrator had targeted black individuals). Is there something specific in the article that you see that is inaccurate that should be changed? Thanks, Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Roberta Drury was white. 2600:4808:711:EA00:80A1:B827:2516:6A6B (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source? Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google “Roberta Drury Family”. Click images. Look at the images of her entire family in one picture. They are white. She was white. Don’t let the narrative get in the way of facts. She deserves to be represented properly. 2600:4808:711:EA00:80A1:B827:2516:6A6B (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your perception of someone's race based on a Google image search is not a reliable source. See WP:RS. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previously discussed at Talk:2022_Buffalo_shooting/Archive_5#First_person_shot_was_white.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not right or left

[edit]

This attack should not be labeled as "right wing terrorism". Because terrorism is not right or left. Terrorism is just terrosim. Trying to attach one mans evil to the political views & beliefs of half the population is irresponsible, offensive and creates hostility among fellow Americans. 12.74.54.120 (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what the reliable sources say--and that's what matters for a Wikipedia article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Tucker Carlson

[edit]

Is the giant picture of Tucker Carlson in Fox News as a potential inspiration necessary? I have issues with that entire section really, but it seems inappropriate to include a picture of a man on an article about something as serious as a mass shooting when said man has no actual known connection to the incident. The section itself states that Tucker has only been speculated as a 'potential inspiration' (?) even though the attacker already outlined all his inspirations in his manifesto (which did not include Carlson). Additionally, as stated in the section, the attacker did not ever mention Tucker Carlson at all and in fact expressed a dislike of Fox News. The attacker said he was radicalised online during COVID 19.

At this time, I am not arguing against the inclusion of this section, I am just suggesting the removal of Carlson's picture. It suggests a connection from Tucker to the incident which has not been proved and can be seen as implying Tucker's culpability. This image is just out of place too, what purpose does it serve? Tucker is not an important figure related to this shooting. Why include a picture of him over a picture of the perpetrator, or one of his actual confirmed inspirations like Brenton Tarrant? It just seems wholly unnecessary to me and I cannot think of a justifiable reason for its inclusion. Macxcxz (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I understand why you bring this issue up, but there are sources supporting at least a hypothetical connection between the shooter's rhetoric and Carlson. I would be okay without the picture (and perhaps trimming the section a bit), but let's see if we get any other opinions. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to reiterate that I am not against including the information about the hypothetical association/inspiration, I am just against showing Carlson's picture for the reasons stated above. Macxcxz (talk) 03:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]