Talk:2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings

Name

Suggesting a name change for the article. Alrightthen1 (talk) 08:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move (August 2012)

Due to the super-charged as it were volatility of past debates on an article which probably did not warrant it, as if any did... I suggest renaming this to something using a word such as period or time. There are not many people that involve themselves in naming / re-naming articles. Some quite vocal fanatics seem to override common sense.

It is very difficult not to assume you are another sockpuppet of the same person. Okay, if you're not, there has been no lack of consensus whatsoever, no super charged debate. Just one person, probably you, advocating for a rename and generating a debate by abusing multiple accounts in support of a move that everyone else disagreed with because there is no problem with the name.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Since when is it relevant to bring up (quibble) about how many people view or respond to a given article? I'll say it is not. Lack of debate? You have not read much of the talk section. To leave the Olympic Games out of the title goes against established journalism practices. Freestyling2 (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I am happy with the current title. It is just a coincidence that the event happened at the same time as the Olympics. Bluap (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

By all means as long as bluap and fuhghettaboutit like things, we are all set! Back to reality for a minute, you two and a quite small cadre or similar ilk are attempting to dictate public opinion. Freestyling2 (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested Move (March 2009)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to 2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings. Listed for five days and no opposition. The past sprawling discussion has been reviewed and this seems an appropriate retitling given the results, such as they were. It appears clear that the current title, by comparison, is not in keeping with that discussion. I urge anyone seeking to move this in the future to make a further formal request, given the history of controversy (and rather lame move war in my opinion) that the titling of this article provoked.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move

I note that there has been no comment on this subject since I made a naming proposal in November, I now propose to move the article to 2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. -JWGreen (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Please move to anything other than the current abomination (i.e., support). — AjaxSmack 04:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (August 2009)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was Not moved.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

---

2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings → ? — This article has been hijacked by people who want to promulgate their personal views. Yadontmind (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Are there talk page archives for this page, somewhere?
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This article should remain at "2008 Beijing Drum Tower Stabbings". The other title which it was at for a while, "2008 Beijing Drum Tower incident during the Olympics", is too euphamistic for the English Wikipedia. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 00:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point, Ohms law, they were removed by the same people attempting to overrun this page. They can be restored if you or someone wishes to put them back. Yeshua, you didn't spell euphemistic correctly and I doubt you even read much of what went on regarding this article. It is one of the most debated pages on Wikipedia. Yadontmind (talk) ...and oh, even if you are correct in your assessment, I am not saying that was the correct title to begin with. But using a quite graphic title is offensive and the polling that took place reflects that. Regardless less than five people were able to usurp this page. Yadontmind (talk)

• Oppose. Let's be concrete - what's wrong with the current name? This article has been the subject of numerous renamings, which also involved some sockpupperty. The 'move somewhere else' argument is much too vague considering the very considerable debate which took place and which appeared to end it total apathy. I believe most of the options were covered in arriving at the current name, which is basically neutral whist remaining descriptive of the incident. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

To Ohconfucius, you were the one who removed said talk pages. That is much more of a violation on wikipedia than any "sockpuppetry". Furthermore there are times when cloaking one's id is necessary, such as in dealing with troublemakers and also in other situations. You would do well to apprise yourself of such matters and also avoiding turmoil. Oc, you have been embroiled in controversy, one needs to only look at your "contributions". Additionally you are on your own soapbox. Lastly, two points: you are successful in driving away well intentioned contributions to the encyclopedia and you are not really aware of how Wikipedia guidelines are implemented. Yadontmind (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• I believe your complaint above is out of place, and I did only archived the talk page here, not "remove" it. I don't quite understand to your allusion to needing to cloak one's identity. You need to clarify if you are referring to yourself, and your previous actions on this article under another guise, and I ask you to desist in perpetuating your lack of good faith and your personal attacks. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose — I'm actually leaning towards recommending a procedural closure on this, as well. This appears to be a thinly disguised and slow motion attempt at forum shopping. Aside from that, without an actual proposed place to move it I simply can't imagine a better place for this article to be located.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 07:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  Amazing! Ohms, "forum shopping"?? Truly you are out of order and outrageous to boot. As for a proposed name change, I am not the one who should come up with a name. A year later no one has come up with anything better than identifying the incident, place, and other facts (which in itself is not bad, but too many international globalists dispute minutiae).

  Oc, I and many other people probably don't care what you think. You are risking a lifetime ban I do know. As for archiving - you are inept. Over 75K bytes of talk have seemingly disappeared: the archive is woefully incomplete. Furthermore I and other users will not let news be "changed" for a very small number of other users' likings. I would like to ask both of you to refrain from editing this page for a full three days to give other people a chance to share their thoughts. I can do the same but I doubt you will. And Ohms, go read the whole article and talk page before commenting further... I do not think I am asking too much from either of you. Yadontmind (talk) 10:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  If you don't stop, Oc, I am going to seek your immediate lifetime ban. This is your only warning. Yadontmind (talk) 10:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  Honestly, I think you should go ahead and try getting Ohconfucius banned, since that seems like it will be the least disruptive course of action for you to take from this point forward (other then just letting this drop, which doesn't seem at all likely). I bet that you'll end up being somewhat surprised and disappointed at the result of your action, however.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  Go ahead, I'm waiting. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Seems like a User:Yadontmind fits the pattern of the previous sockpuppets on this article. I do however think the talk page archives should be restored. -JWGreen (talk) 04:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Wotchu mean? Isn't it all here? Ohconfucius (talk) 05:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry... I read all the comments and never looked to see if the archive was there. -JWGreen (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I have blocked Yadontmind indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Crashingthewaves. These edits quack for themselves.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else in favor of continuing this rename discussion? I know I sure am not. -JWGreen (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• If you look at the previous discussion, interest completely fizzled out after the first round. Let's just close this discussion. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The article title (yet again)

The following discussion 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.

---

I received email requests (along with skype calls and msn chats) about this article title. The major complaints I kept hearing was about how the title contains the "barbarism." While I know yall are tired of having name changes and I saw the results of the previous ones. However, I wish to hear what your thoughts are about the title without any of the concerns of sockpuppetry or anything like that. Personally, I would like to replace stabbings with knife attacks, but keep everything else the same. Thoughts? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• I am more or less neutral on that change, as I had previously had that in mind as a title which was acceptable to me (see previous discussion). I would just observe that barbarism is a fact of life, and WP is not censored. I would also note that 'knife attack' is also a euphemism to some extent, because 'knife attack' does not convey injury suffered, whilst 'stabbings' does. This is, once more, a lesser degree than 'murder', but the stabbing is something common to the victims, whether or not they died. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Correct. Is there a possible substitute to stabbings that would be acceptable or will it just become something odd? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• I had a look here but didn't find anything inspiring, but I guess 'knifing' would be a synonym. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• That would not work. Slashing is a bad idea. One thing I also do notice is that stabbings is used for other article titles, along with bombing (or bombings). I really have no pony in the race either, but I wish to try something with regards to ending this dispute once and for all. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Well, knife attacks would be something I would go with, but I wish for others to comment about this before I make the formal request. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• FOr info: There are fewer than 30 people watching this page. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• I am no hurry, I want to do this right. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I looked in the archive, but I couldn't find an explanation of the problem with "stabbing". Zscout, do I understand you correctly that some people refer to this as a "barbarism"? That sounds to me as if "stabbing" was a slang word, at least in this context. Is that what is meant?

Comparing "stabbings" and "knife attack" myself, "stabbings" conveys the information that people were actually hurt, while "knife attack" conveys the information that it wasn't a symmetric situation with people on both sides stabbing away at each other. Hans Adler 07:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I am using the words of the people who complained to me about this article. Stabbing is not really slang (now if the article was titled shanking, then that is slang). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

r to Hans: You're right - nobody objected when the word 'stabbings' was proposed. The person objecting has been trying to change the article name by unilateral moves without advancing any rationale, using sockpuppets. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so yay or nay about knife attacks as the title? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I prefer "stabbings". It's definitely not a "barbarism". (Perhaps a non-native speaker is using a poor dictionary? I know many Chinese use electronic dictionaries that have a habit of coming up with the most unlikely translation first, or even exclusively.) It doesn't convey the asymmetry, but "knife attacks" makes it sound like a mere attempt, and that's worse. Hans Adler 10:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

To me, "stabbings" is both succinct and accurate. "Knife attack" is rather vague and woolly (it doesn't even imply that the blade pierced the skin, let alone that the victim died!) Bluap (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose We do not use euphemisms. There is no ambiguity here of whether people were stabbed. Stabbing is what occurred and that is the verb that describes the actions taken. I don't even understand the reasoning, other than that it is a faulty translation of the word stabbings, as Hans postulates above. We name articles "murder of ____" when the subject is a person's death by homicide, not "death of ____". Stabbings are what actually occurred here and there's nothing point of view about it. Knife attacks is misleading; slashings is incorrect. More critically, while the user who posted this is operating in good faith, the reason for starting this discussion appears to be an email from an indefinitely blocked user who engaged in massive sockpuppetry that resulted in all or most of the past move war and rancorous discussion over the name. Despite using multiple accounts to support his outré position, he was overruled and consensus led to the current name. We should not give any consideration to such tainted and improper request made through back channels.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Alright, the title will stay put. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:58, 22 November 2009 (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.

Requested Move (April 2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. In the future I strongly encourage a discussion that reaches consensus about any name problems before this is nominated again. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Due to biases that have been exhibited on this talk page, a proposal is made to move it.

Here are a few reasons: obviously international attention is given to this topic. I assume like many, that finding no common ground users wish to remain at loggerheads. Additionally, it is quite evident that other than a quite small group of very vocal users "watching this page", they have no interest in anything more than virtual ambulance chasing current events. The only reason they have not moved along is it benefits them somehow.

They are not even interested in having a separate page for this event. At the start there was much ballyhoo and a hue and cry to have the page deleted and then merged. Failure at both of these ventures has created a ruckus on this website.

The disservice done both to everyone who was polled on this page is clear also.

Anyone with a minor interest in journalism and news can see the ineptitude exhibited in the title of the page and comments made in the talk sections.

4challengingt (talk)

• Oppose - déjà vu. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Based on the OP's innuendo-filled move request above, the language used and ideas espoused, I cannot help but think this is the same person who was User:Crashingthewaves, User:Thunderstruck45, User:Overmoon, User:Comingattractions, and a number of other accounts confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Upgrade1, indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry with a common thread of clamoring for and move warring over the title of this article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Why? This has been discussed to death. You have provided no solid reasoning for why it should be moved, you only complain about comments on the talk page. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose the title is accurate and NPOV. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• I just looked at Elisabeth Bachman and noticed much of the key information here is at that article. Would anyone oppose a merge? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • If Liz Bachman was not notable in her own right, we would already have redirected her namespace here. I'm not sure if that's the suggestion, or a merge in the other direction, but the two seem sufficiently notable and dissociable. It might get us around the persistent attempt [by one editor] to change the article name, but it creates more problems than it solves, IMHO. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Because of the olympic context, and because it affected Americans, the attack got world-wide media coverage. However, in the grand scheme of things, it's a very minor incident; this stub article has little or no possibility of evolving into a more substantial subject. Overall, I can be persuaded that it can be simply redirected. I'll tag the article for that discussion. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • She might have been notable, due to the fact that she was a part of the US delegation to the Olympic games as an athlete (this is a common thing I see for a lot of Olympic athlete articles). What I am saying is to redirect this article to Liz's article because about 1/3 of the content there is about this event. While I know the move votes get annoying after a while, I wanted to suggest another option if it has not been brought up yet. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose both the move and the suggested merge. No good reasons given for a move and why should an article on someone notable in their own right be merged with an article on an incident such as this? Basement12 (T.C) 21:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The content is already there, all we need to do is just to make a redirect. However, I am just tossing out ideas. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• What are you even proposing that we move this to? rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Based on previous history, something that does not include "stabbings" in the title. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, regardless, I can't support or oppose a move if none in particular is being proposed. But my intuition is that calling the article "stabbing" is the most sensible way to treat an article about a stabbing. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Yeah, but this user has called stabbings before a "barbaric" term that should not be in articles. But if I can be honest, I really am trying to focus my energies to merging this article elsewhere. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested Move (May 2011)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was requester (now blocked indefinitely) is a quacking sockpuppet of Crashingthewaves, who has edit warred and advocated for moving this article under about eight different names with his multiple accounts being the main supporters of the move. A very persistent single purpose user.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Citing the fact that this article which doesn't have many outside links has created such a stir in the past and also that certain people have tried to usurp said article as their own bailiwick... I suggest renaming it to simply Drum Tower Incident or Olympic Games Attack. I realize that one or two wikipedia users don't wish to have it connected to the Olympics, facts however show it occurred during the Summer Games and not far from venues where the Olympics were held. Dubmasterr (talk)

A poll was taken and the user who seems to show some interest in this article now was part of the minority. Dubmasterr (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:FLOG: Oh, it's that time of year again... Happy anniversary! You can portray me as "a small minority" if you like, but the fact is this is a low-traffic and little-watched article, but I am not the only one who opposed you in the past. In fact, I don't recall you getting any support at all the last time around (or the ones prior to that), so please drop the accusation about me owning the article. I would still oppose the move to a nondescript title. Your best bet could be to nominate the article for deletion, where I may support you, if you say the right sweet things. ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Again. See previous discussions for my reasons - Basement12 (T.C) 10:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

condition of the tour guide?

Was there any mention in the media of the condition of the tour guide? (I checked a few of the citations and didn't see anything.) A similar question was asked back in 2008 Talk:2008_Beijing_Drum_Tower_stabbings/Archive_1#Tour_guide, but didn't get a response.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• There was little or no follow-up on this story about the guide. AFAICT, she wasn't even named in any news report to begin with. My guess was that she was treated for cuts and abrasions and soon left hospital; but even if she died, apologies in advance for saying this: Chinese lives are cheap. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I was afraid it was something like that. (Or maybe the guide requested anonymity?) I can appreciate that it made international news because the parents of an Olympic athlete were involved and that the American media would pay more attention to the American victims, but I had hoped that the American media would have done a more thorough job or that at least there would be something on the other victim in the Chinese media.--Wikimedes (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

CNN reported the guides condition at the hospital as stable. One assumes she didn't die. Not named and added info to article. Cotton2 (talk) 09:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 October 2023

The redirect associated with this talk page was recently merged into List of mass stabbing incidents (before 2010). The other page that redirects here, 2008 Beijing Drum Tower incident during the Olympic Games, should be changed to List of mass stabbing incidents (before 2010)#Beijing, China (2008) as well in order to avoid double redirect. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)