Wikipedia

Talk:2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings/Archive 1

< Talk:2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Ohconfucius in topic comments
Archive 1

Chinese tour guide = American national?

Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments9 people in discussion

shoudn't this be 2008 Olympics attack on American nationals and a Chinese tour guide :D .:davumaya:. 09:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Well, maybe not that particular title--but yes, this attack was not limited to Americans and the current title is misleading.70.189.70.188 (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Rephrasing the title so as not to exclude the Chinese victim would be appropriate, but that proposed title is too long. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I am the one who initially named the article and I fully support a rename. --mboverload@ 15:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It could be renamed 2008 Olympics attack on tourists. That leaves the door open for any other such events, God forbid. It also makes it more specific, as any terrorist attacks, God forbid again, would almost certainly have their own article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I like that title Baseball. .:davumaya:. 18:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
If there are more attacks. An isolated attack by a transient is not notable. It's tragic, but commonplace. It's only with the backdrop of the Olympics that makes this sad event worth covering by the press. I'll change my mind if somebody can provide data showing that this is an unusual event (i.e., foreigners being victims of random violence). --Elliskev 18:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
According to the news reports, an attack on tourists in China is not commonplace. Which you would know if you weren't so hell-bent on deleting stuff. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There is an over-emphasis on American interests here. I pointed out in the article that the volleyball coach is in fact a New Zealander. This was deemed irrelevant. If so, then none of the nationalities should be mentioned. Either tell the whole story or none of it. Half truths are never helpful. Wallie (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The New Zealander is the deceased's son-in-law. He was not present at the attack and has nothing to do with the incident. What's the relevance of his nationality? WWGB (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I beg you, please suggest a better name. I knew when I renamed the article that it wasn't the best or the most accurate. Please suggest something else. --mboverload@ 18:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Another problem with this name is that it may be over-emphasizing the significance of the Olympics on the attack. How about "Attack on tourists during Beijing Olympics? --Tesscass (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

AFD notice

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Alert I have re-nominated this article for deletion. Please provide your input to the discussion. --Elliskev 17:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Olympics attack?

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Did the Olympics Monster, possibly composed of five gigantic circular discs, leap up and swallow the victim? Was the killer on secret instruction from the IOC?

Why is this article even here? A brief note in the 2008 Olympic Games article should be enough. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Inappropiate title

Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion

The name of this article 2008 Olympics attack on American nationals is misleading. There should be a change of the title. Obviously, if this article is going to merged into another article, there wouldn't be this need. Ingramhk (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it to "2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbing". It was not an attack by the Olympics, on the Olympics - or on Olympians or by Olympians or anything to do with the Olympics, really. The only connection is 1) time and 2) that some of the victims were in the city because of the Olympics. But they weren't attacked because of their connections to the Olympics or to Olympic athletes, or even because they came to watch the Olympics. You may as well call every attack on an Olympic visitor an "Olympics attack". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Palace, as the one who moved the article to the previous name to escape an AfD I support your move. This is a much better name. A good WP:BOLD edit, sir! --mboverload@ 01:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it clear that they weren't attacked because of the Olympics? Everyone in Beijing must know the reason lots of foreigners are in town is the Olympics; he may have decided to take out his frustrations on those people and attacked the first ones he came across. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they were attacked because of the Olympics. Supposing it was, the previous title only dealt with the attack on "American nationals" and neglected the Chinese tour guide who was attacked. Supposing it wasn't, this article avoids making that (as-of-yet unclear) assumption. Either way, this new title "2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbing" is a better title. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Horrible title. The title should be 2008 Olympics Beijing Drum Tower attack or 2008 Olympics attack at Beijing Drum Tower. There are two issues here. By redirecting the article and not including the words Olympics or 2008 Olympic Games, Palacelord008 is usurping authority over the issues being debated. Secondly, stabbing is not a good choice. It needs to be attack. Thunderstruck45 (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The connection to the Olympics is only assumed at this point. Why is "attack" better than "stabbing"? I am not opposed to it, but they are both accurate. Is there a reason this is preferable over stabbing? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this title is much better than the previous one. I am neutral over whether the word Olympics is added to the title or not.Nrswanson (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
My problem with any title including the term Beijing Drum Tower attack is the implication that the building was attacked, and not people. WWGB (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Well then doesn't the current title suggest that the building was stabbed? :P Haha! — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Notable

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

this person is notable; he is the father of an olympic athlete and was recently murdered in beijing Benji64 (talk)

As well as being a corporate CEO and the father-in-law of an Olympic coach. But more importantly is the potential implications this has for security questions in Beijing. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Hence the move to an article that covers the whole incident, opening the door to a broader story. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, what is the point here? First, the horrible shock and calamity of this event can't be overstated. Second, the last person to contribute said it correctly: the title is incorrect.

Another thing, there is so much wrong with the logic of even considering deleting or merging this article. 1. This is an ongoing event. 2. The people suggesting amending this page should be better occupied with more worthy matters, SORRY. 3. You are almost all misguided... Wikipedia is not supposed to be this bureaucratic. Lastly, this topic deserves a separate page from the side-issues regarding Olympic matters, international conflicts or sporting events. Back to our regularly scheduled program and please stop over-thinking things and doing too much. Bye. Crashingthewaves (talk) 10:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's called Wikinews, try it sometime. .:davumaya:. 18:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The treatement of the tour guide vis-a-vis this article is biased. 70.55.85.40 (talk) 08:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Why? Because he did not own a multimillion dollar company or father an Olympian? WWGB (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
What? I can't understand that sentence, its snarky and kind of ungrammatical. .:davumaya:. 18:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Chinese tour guide = American national?

Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments9 people in discussion

shoudn't this be 2008 Olympics attack on American nationals and a Chinese tour guide :D .:davumaya:. 09:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Well, maybe not that particular title--but yes, this attack was not limited to Americans and the current title is misleading.70.189.70.188 (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Rephrasing the title so as not to exclude the Chinese victim would be appropriate, but that proposed title is too long. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I am the one who initially named the article and I fully support a rename. --mboverload@ 15:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It could be renamed 2008 Olympics attack on tourists. That leaves the door open for any other such events, God forbid. It also makes it more specific, as any terrorist attacks, God forbid again, would almost certainly have their own article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I like that title Baseball. .:davumaya:. 18:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
If there are more attacks. An isolated attack by a transient is not notable. It's tragic, but commonplace. It's only with the backdrop of the Olympics that makes this sad event worth covering by the press. I'll change my mind if somebody can provide data showing that this is an unusual event (i.e., foreigners being victims of random violence). --Elliskev 18:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
According to the news reports, an attack on tourists in China is not commonplace. Which you would know if you weren't so hell-bent on deleting stuff. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There is an over-emphasis on American interests here. I pointed out in the article that the volleyball coach is in fact a New Zealander. This was deemed irrelevant. If so, then none of the nationalities should be mentioned. Either tell the whole story or none of it. Half truths are never helpful. Wallie (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The New Zealander is the deceased's son-in-law. He was not present at the attack and has nothing to do with the incident. What's the relevance of his nationality? WWGB (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I beg you, please suggest a better name. I knew when I renamed the article that it wasn't the best or the most accurate. Please suggest something else. --mboverload@ 18:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Another problem with this name is that it may be over-emphasizing the significance of the Olympics on the attack. How about "Attack on tourists during Beijing Olympics? --Tesscass (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

AFD notice

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Alert I have re-nominated this article for deletion. Please provide your input to the discussion. --Elliskev 17:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Tour guide

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What became of the tour guide? The male tourist died and his wife was severely wounded. Did the tour guide only receive minor injuries, and is there any evidence that her injuries were only incidental to an attack on the other two? Whatever the severity of her injuries, it should be included in this article, as it currently only describes the Bachmans. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Olympics attack?

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Did the Olympics Monster, possibly composed of five gigantic circular discs, leap up and swallow the victim? Was the killer on secret instruction from the IOC?

Why is this article even here? A brief note in the 2008 Olympic Games article should be enough. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"Despite the attack"

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The last sentence of the article ("Despite this attack, attacks on foreigners in China are rare, and Shanghai and Beijing are still safer than most cities of their size.") is a bit odd. The attack didn't increase crime rates, it was just a crime. Any ideas as to how it could be improved? Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 02:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

From an Encyclopaedia perspective, this sentence is irrelevant to the subject of the article. If there is a direct source backing it up, we can phrase it as "This incident as been described as a rare instance of an attack on foreigners in China. blah blha blah". -PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Inappropiate title

Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion

The name of this article 2008 Olympics attack on American nationals is misleading. There should be a change of the title. Obviously, if this article is going to merged into another article, there wouldn't be this need. Ingramhk (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it to "2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbing". It was not an attack by the Olympics, on the Olympics - or on Olympians or by Olympians or anything to do with the Olympics, really. The only connection is 1) time and 2) that some of the victims were in the city because of the Olympics. But they weren't attacked because of their connections to the Olympics or to Olympic athletes, or even because they came to watch the Olympics. You may as well call every attack on an Olympic visitor an "Olympics attack". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Palace, as the one who moved the article to the previous name to escape an AfD I support your move. This is a much better name. A good WP:BOLD edit, sir! --mboverload@ 01:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it clear that they weren't attacked because of the Olympics? Everyone in Beijing must know the reason lots of foreigners are in town is the Olympics; he may have decided to take out his frustrations on those people and attacked the first ones he came across. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they were attacked because of the Olympics. Supposing it was, the previous title only dealt with the attack on "American nationals" and neglected the Chinese tour guide who was attacked. Supposing it wasn't, this article avoids making that (as-of-yet unclear) assumption. Either way, this new title "2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbing" is a better title. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Horrible title. The title should be 2008 Olympics Beijing Drum Tower attack or 2008 Olympics attack at Beijing Drum Tower. There are two issues here. By redirecting the article and not including the words Olympics or 2008 Olympic Games, Palacelord008 is usurping authority over the issues being debated. Secondly, stabbing is not a good choice. It needs to be attack. Thunderstruck45 (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The connection to the Olympics is only assumed at this point. Why is "attack" better than "stabbing"? I am not opposed to it, but they are both accurate. Is there a reason this is preferable over stabbing? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this title is much better than the previous one. I am neutral over whether the word Olympics is added to the title or not.Nrswanson (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
My problem with any title including the term Beijing Drum Tower attack is the implication that the building was attacked, and not people. WWGB (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Well then doesn't the current title suggest that the building was stabbed? :P Haha! — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yawn

Latest comment: 16 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion

Slow news day huh, that edit history is chock full of goodness I can see all the way into last week in that edit history. It's great we have resources like Wikinews to report updates on this. /sarcasm off .:davumaya:. 16:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If nothing else comes of this, it's not due to any foreknowledge anyone had. Me, I'm still waiting for the threatened al-qaeda attacks. Maybe they decided they don't want to take on the nation of China. But there are still a few days left. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to WP:POINT out that dozens of users in the AfD have never contributed once to this article yet took the time to write pages of discussion about it. And the article still stated for a week that she was pseudo wounded in the hospital even after her condition was plastered all over local channels. And lo and behold CNN stopped covering the story and everyone seems to have mysteriously disappeared from caring. What kind of WP:Notability is this. .:davumaya:. 08:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
And once the Olympics are over and if nothing more comes of it, then you can nominate it for deletion. But you don't own a crystal ball (or if you do, it's OR). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Is a lack of continued media coverage supposed to mean it wasn't a big deal? Firstly, China is quite well-known for media censorship. Secondly, the press would really be stretching this story thin if they covered it for more than three days or so. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Davumaya, sarcastic bitching about the outcome of the AfD doesn't belong here. There are plenty articles that don't get enough attention. If you don't have anything constructive to add, you're just trolling. --Elliskev 13:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Elliskev, you are the troll, methinks. why are you still discussing anything to do with this page anyway? Thunderstruck45 (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Thunderstruck/Crashingthewaves/Overmoon it's appropriate now to tell you to STOP the attacks and harrassment. .:davumaya:. 20:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This article has always been a Crystal Ball nightmare based on your assumptions. I'll bitch all I want Elliskev. .:davumaya:. 16:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
No, it hasn't. Neither you nor anyone else had any way to know if it was notable or not at the time. If it proves not to be (which is still unknown), hit your "AFD" key. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't realized my keyboard had one of those. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
My assumptions? Sheesh. You realize that I nominated it for AfD, right? --Elliskev 17:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Bleh the other d00d. (Bugs) .:davumaya:. 17:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
......Non-notable articles? In MY Wikipedia? It's more common than you think! If you think the article is crap nom it for AFD. Otherwise I can't see any point to this. --mboverload@ 18:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh here's another news story that hasn't gotten up on CNN.com:

USOC chief says attack on Bachmans not political

Peter V. Ueberroth, the USOC chairman, told McClatchy Newspapers that the assailant did not at first target the American couple. "The first person attacked was a Chinese," Ueberroth said, referring to a tour guide accompanying Todd Bachman, CEO of Bachman's Inc., and his wife, Barbara Bachman, both of Lakeville, as they toured the Drum Tower, an ancient landmark in Beijing, on Aug. 9.

Oh dear, the first person attacked was the tour guide, oh did we jump the gun by initially naming this article Attack on American nationals? and why all the initial discussion focused around the Americans to support Notability? I wonder how it would have panned if initial news reports focused on the Chinese tourist. Then it wouldn't have gone up on CNN.com, then we wouldn't be here with an irrelevant article. .:davumaya:. 19:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Davumaya, why all the hating? I initially named the article that because an American WAS attacked. Please, nominate if for an AfD already and stop the gloating. --mboverload@ 19:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
oh Davumaya, by the way you didn't even read your own link. at the end of the article it says a noted historian disputes Ueberroth's assertions. Thunderstruck45 (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
just stop this nonsense already. you guys are trying to usurp authority. just go away already. this article belongs; I don't think most of you guys do belong on here. Thunderstruck45 (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

::Are you threatening me with recourse action based on my proposal? I have not even filed it yet. .:davumaya:. 17:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops that was in re to the threat he left on my talk page.

The travels of a tortured title

Latest comment: 16 years ago25 comments14 people in discussion

First it was Todd Bachman, then 2008 Olympics attack on American nationals, then 2008 Olympics attack on tourists and reverted, then Attack on tourists during Beijing Olympics and reverted, then2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbing. To be continued? WWGB (talk) 04:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

<continued> then 2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings, then Attack at Beijing Drum Tower during 2008 Olympics, then August 9, 2008 attack on American tourists at Beijing Drum Tower and reverted.WWGB (talk) 11:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The murder of Tim McLean (aka the "Greyhound passenger beheading incident") underwent a few name changes, too. I think the current title, or something very similar, will be the final resting place. —Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The saga has indeed continued, at least in a minuscule form. The title has been changed from 2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbing to 2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings   — C M B J   22:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard the term "drum tower stabbings" used to refer to this incident. Isn't this failing POV, OR by coining a new term? --Philip Laurence (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

No; it's just using the English language. If someone tried to treat it as a proper noun, writing "Drum Tower Stabbing" with a capital "S", that would be coining a new term. As it is, it's just a terse description of what happened, like a newspaper headline. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The title is too obscure to find anyway, and will require several redirects, when or if a final title is settled upon. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I accept the comments in respect of the fact that not all the victims were Americans. However, kindly note my objection wasn't so much to the American vs Chinese (or not, as the case may be) victims, but the reference to the Beijing olympics, which I believed to be tangential at best and violated WP:NPOV at worst. Therefore I tried to shift the focus to [date] plus [action]. Can we agree on a move to something more neutral along those lines? Ohconfucius (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm getting rid of the "during the Olympics" part. It is a mere coincidence in time. Our article on the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand is not at Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria during the official opening of the Sarajevo museum, is it? --129.78.64.105 (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Well someone moved it to 2008 attack during the Olympics, which I reckon definitely violatesWP:NPOV, so I just reverted it. I'm going to apply for protection if this rather abusive moving doesn't stop. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The someone is me. I am going to file complaints if you guys don't stop. I do have recourses and I will be seeking disciplinary action against you. It has been decided over and over that AfDs are not warranted. The date (the fact that this occurred during the Olympics is not disputed). As a matter of fact, this happened very near the Olympic venues. I am not sure why you otherwise fine Wikipedia users and administrators are creating such havoc on here, but it WILL stop!Thunderstruck45 (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I am willing to talk with you, but you are only seeking drama. to me, that is completely awful and unacceptable. citing Wikipedia principles does NOT MEAN you have the foggiest idea as to how to apply them. how can you possibly consider yourself philosophical? it is inconceivable.Thunderstruck45 (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
You are not making a lot of coherent sense Crashingthewaves. Calm down. The merits of the article are being discussed, not your POV. If the article holds up then all is well. .:davumaya:.18:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Yet another change. Now it's "Drum Tower attack during 2008 Olympics". Not only does the lack of a "the" make it rather ungramattical, but now I've got a picture in my mind of an animate tower rampaging and attacking people during they olympics. Or maybe I just need more sleep. —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 11:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The present title Drum Tower attack during 2008 Olympics is stupid, it doesn't even report the city/country in which the incident took place. The usual title for such incidents is <year> <place><incident>. See, for example, 2002 Bali bombings, 1993 World Trade Center bombing, 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, 1999 Grozny refugee convoy shooting etc. A reasonable title in this form would seem to be 2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings, which was the actual title at some stage.WWGB (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The editor who did the last move, Upgrade1 (talk · contribs) is a self-admitted sock[1]. —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 20:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it does sound like a Drum Tower lurched from its foundation and began terrorizing as Michael Phelps swam for gold. Each time we move it to a title with Consensus, it gets moved to a completely opposite interpretation. Maybe if we leave it at a really ridiculous title, it won't be changed again andno one will say anything. .:davumaya:. 07:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for spoiling your fun - a lesson for me in reading talk pages more carefully in future. I've reverted the sock attack and moved it back to the previous title. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
alright here, I am trying to get people who said something in the above paragraphs to pay attention. this is a horrific title. think of if you had relatives who died in such a case. would you want the article defined in THE title as stabbings? this is really horrible and not justifiable. notice that you guys swarm back to a "supposedly meaningless" article way after it is over. also you had nothing to say until now? very questionable. Upgrade1 (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
A better solution would be to delete it, as I have expressed my opinion of in the AfD. The argument then was to give it time to see if anything developed from it, but nothing has. The general conclusion has been that this was unrelated to the Olympics, to the point that the article's not even linked to from the Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics article. In fact, this article is an orphan because it's only got two incoming links. Page views are dwindling away, probably mostly Wikipedians enjoying the dramaz- it has the strange facination as a car wreck. This article is a perfect example of why WP:NOT#NEWS exists. (P.S. Please don't erase the comments of other editors)—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 15:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Upgrade1/Crashingthewaves/Thunderstruck45 I don't know what to say anymore other than stop TROLLING around. If this article was on probation you'd be wam-bam blocked in two seconds while the keyboard was smoking. We have rehashed this over and over. While some still feel the article has relevance, as you can see attention has indeed dwindled and supporters have pretty much left the arena which is how NOTNEWS plays out. I doubt anything will ever convince you of otherwise but please stop trying to subvert things and pretend like you're not a sock troll. (end justified name calling) .:davumaya:. 17:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Boldness

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Should the main parties involved — Tang Yongming, Todd Bachman, and Barbara Bachman — have their names in boldface? I think this is justifiable. These three are the main parties involved (the tour guide was not identified, and was the least injured). All three names redirect to this article (I just created the Barbara Bachman redirect). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the article is about an incident, not about individuals. WWGB (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Interesting request but doing so would imply Tang targeted Todd and Barbara when the tour guide was attacked first. .:davumaya:. 07:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Most-moved article?

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is this article in the running for most moved article? How can one get a list of articles ranked by number of moves? When I click on "what links here" restricted to the article space, I get a somewhat long list, nearly all redirects, and when I then click on "hide redirects", only two are left. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but it's garnered a listing at Lamest edit wars! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 07:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Title discussion

Latest comment: 16 years ago104 comments12 people in discussion

Let's try to build some consensus about the title of this page. Most of the debate is about whether to include specific words in the title of the article. So let's break it down into individual words, and have a discussion about whether each individual word should be in the title. Once we've worked out what we need to include, we can then start talking about the actual order of the words. After all that, I'm going to suggest a yes/no vote on the actual proposed title. And finally, we'll ask the admins to move-protect the final title. Bluap (talk) 14:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please leave your comments in the relevant sub-sections Bluap (talk) 14:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've blocked this article and talk page from moves until this discussion has been satisfactorily completed. I've intially set the time for 3 days, but I'll extend it as needed until a decent number of editors have had a chance to weigh in. I have no overwhelming interest in the titling; just to see it stabilized. I have noted my opinions below, but I intend to enforce the majority. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Process

The process I've outlined above is

  1. Discuss whether specific words (such as "Beijing" or "Olympics") should be in the title
  2. Discuss the ordering of the words that consensus says should be included
  3. Have a yes/no vote on the compromise title
  4. Move-protect the page.

Does anyone have any comments on this process Bluap (talk) 14:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"Beijing" in the title

"Drum Tower" in the title

"Olympics" or "Olympic Games" in the title

"Stabbing" or "Stabbings" or "Attack" (or other word) in the title

"2008" or "August 2008" (or full date) in the title

"Tourists" in the title

"American" in the title

Other

  • If we used 'Beijing' and 'August 2008' in the title, we would obviate the need to get into the Olympic games red herring. To summarise my comments above, I would suggest August 2008 knife attack on visitors to the Beijing Drum Tower, August 2008 knife attack in Beijing, or August 2008 knife attack at the Beijing Drum Tower. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
    • "Attack" could mean any kind of attack that could have occured at the Drum Tower. I'd accept "knife attack", because that also is exactly what happened. There's nothing objectional at all with the word "stabbing," any more than there is with describing events with words and phrases like "sexual assault", or "shooting". No one is glorifying or legitimizing anything at all in these descriptions. Wikipedia is not censored. (See penis or mother insult.) - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
<year> <place> <incident>
2008 Beijing attack
Beijing Drum Tower knife attack
Beijing Olympics stabbing
Beijing Olympics Drum Tower stabbings
WWGB (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Let's keep to the facts and steer away from sensationalism. Yes, this incident got more attention than it should have because it happened during the Olympics. Does that make it an "Olympic" attack or "Olympic" stabbing? The connection is tenuous to my mind. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. My preferred solution would have been merger or deletion. Alas, it's been nommed twice and twice kept. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The last AfD was inconclusive over whether the article should be kept or merged and redirected. I agree that would be the best solution, shall we set up the templates and re-start that debate? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 04:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Article name poll

Well, it has been decided that the article should be kept. I would like to start a run-off poll for the name. Six names are proposed below follwing 'path of least resistance' which was established by the various comments above. Thereby, I have distilled these down to [when+where+descriptive]. There seems to be general support for 'Beijing Drum Tower' for the [where], so the only real choice is a permutation of the the descriptive and how specific we want the [when]. The choices includes only terms which have not been opposed by any valid editor (sockpuppets excluded). I have rather arbitrarily (for simplicity of conducting this poll) excluded the singular 'stabbing' as more than one person was stabbed. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

For our poll:

  • if anyone feels strongly that another title be included, we will stop the poll and discuss its inclusion.
  • the poll will be closed 7 days from today.
  • If there is no clear winner at the end of this time, we will go to a "final" of the two top choices.
  • The average and total rows are for indicative results only - we will discuss the final outcome when the poll closes.
  • Please vote for for a maximum of three titles you would prefer, giving 5 to your top choice and a lesser number to your next.
  • You may choose to cast your vote for only oneup to three titles; do not give negative marks.
  • Please do not change your vote once it has been cast

Note that the below chart does not allow ~~~~ signatures to be used. You must copy/paste or hand-edit your signature. For assistance in writing your signature, you may copy the time below in red from the preview window after clicking on “Show preview” while in edit mode:
18:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

A = 2008 Beijing Drum Tower attack
B = 2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings
C = 2008 Beijing Drum Tower knife attack
D = August 2008 Beijing Drum Tower attack
E = August 2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings
F = August 2008 Beijing Drum Tower knife attack
G = 2008 Beijing Olympics knife attack
DEGREE OF SUPPORT FOR OPTION 
Editor   A     B     C     D     E     F  
Ohconfucius 5 3
WWGB 5 3 1
Hans Adler 4 5 3
PalaceGuard008 4 5 3
Rich Farmbrough 5
davu maya 5 4 1
  C M B J   3 5 3
Giants2008 5 1 3
nrswanson 4 5 3
Total 26 18 22 1 12 9
Average 2.8 1.7 2.8 0.1 1.1 1.1

comments

Latest comment: 15 years ago20 comments6 people in discussion
  • I kinda figured I should stay out of this... I don't get this. Isn't someone opposed to just about every option so far? What are these set of options and why can't we go outside them? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I have to agree with Wknight94. The poll shows a definite POV. While I don't feel Olympics in the title is necessary or appropriate, censoring his opinion because it does not reflect your POV is not acceptable in my mind. -JWGreen (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I would just say that the rationale and conduct of the poll was explained in the preamble. The whole name debate is various people's point of view, so I was sailing the path of least resistance. The variants above were composed strictly of options which were either warmly or tepidly accepted. I may be opposed to mentioning the Olympics, but am not the only one. What is more, the olympic 'option' was inserted without any debate. It could have been inserted if we had had this discussion earlier. While there is no 'harm' in adding one more title to the list, you must surely be able to see that we cannot have the list growing as the poll continues. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • So you're saying I would need to start a debate in order to add an option to the debate? Right. This debate is doomed to failure until some better logic is injected. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this poll really isn't explained very well. It says to vote for your top three options but some people are voting for five...Nrswanson (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This is apparently for the benefit of Ohconfucius only. I wouldn't consider it binding in any way. The plug should probably be pulled since it is only further muddying the waters. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I also would like to point out that Wikipedia is not a democracy. This should be done as a discussion rather than a poll set up arbitrarily. -JWGreen (talk) 06:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The was I see it is however you set up a poll, there are bound to be objections. However, as the discussion stalled, I wanted to kick-start it, certain decisions had to be made for expediency's sake. I really see little point in re-opening up the debate as there was already a preliminary discussion of what words would be acceptable. The poll was merely set up as a way of finding consensus, and it appears only two people are kicking up a stink about it. Just because one put preferences down for five is hardly my fault, although I see xhe has retracted all but two preferences. Although I attempted to lay out certain ground rules, one person has seen fit to accuse me of bad faith, which I consider not only uncivil, but totally out of order. In fact, the attack on me smacks of bullying and intimidation. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I can see your points. Wknight94 does not appear to be acting in assumtion of good faith. But I also feel using a poll is flawed, and that a discussion would better gauge reasons why people prefer one name over the other, and what the best choice is rather than the most popular, so here goes:

I favor rewording of the title in the date-place-incident format, as is the norm on other articles. I am neutral to whether Olympics is included or not, as people searching for information on the incident would likely use Beijing Olympics or 2008 Olympics in their search, however, I can see that the relation to the Olympics is coincidental. I feel either August or Olympics should be included in the title, but not both, and that attack is the best option to describe the incident (stabbings has been opposed, and stabbings is a type of attack, so attack is not inaccurate). As for Drum Tower or Beijing, if Olympics is included in the title, Beijing is probably the better wording, if not I am neutral on either. As the complexity of my opinion on the matter cannot be expressed in the poll, I cannot "vote" in it. -JWGreen (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • You weren't around when the above discusison took place, and it's no-one's fault. I'm all for finding the best title for the article in accordance with consensus. I would just point out that 'stabbings' was opposed in the discussions, but I had discounted it because it came from a known sockpuppet. 'Olympics' was opposed by me and some others. I would still favour running this out as planned and having another discussion at the end (as we were going to anyway), but I'm open. It's likely to be a fairly long iterative process anyhow. How do we suggest we proceeded now, anyone? Ohconfucius (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Possibly a re-reading of Wikipedia:Naming conflict#How to make a choice among controversial names followed by a period of self-reflection? WWGB (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I was around when the discussion took place, I supported Olympics and was Neutral on attack or stabbings. After following the discussion surrounding Olympics being in the title I understand the opposition, and therefore I've become indifferent towards that issue (for reasons stated above), and yes, a sock opposed stabbings, but I don't think the previous discussion solved that issue, and even you were leaning towards attack. I'd have to say I'm leaning that way as well. Just as Murder of Tim McLean isn't Beheading of Tim McLean, I think attack is better as it is a general term. The event probably would have caused the same reaction, both emotionally by those involved and by the press had another method been used. The method of attack is not what is important, but rather the fact that they were attacked. Does that make any sense? As for going forward, I don't think the poll should stop, but rather that those who participate in the poll should be encouraged to state their reasoning in the discussion section. I hope this clears up my opposition to the poll rather than my first comments which, reading them now seem to lump me in with those of Wknight94, and likewise, thank you for being open to discussion. -JWGreen (talk) 06:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh. The accusations of bullying and intimidation above are laughable. If anything, striking my opinion because it didn't follow the rules of this little sub-discussion is what smacks of bullying and intimidation. If you look up at the earlier discussion you refer to, six people supported including "Olympics" in the title while only four opposed. And Ohconfucious was the most stringent opposer. Why would the one with the clearest bias to the minority opinion get to unilaterally draw up the rules here? And then silence people who disagree with him/her??? This is one of the worst premises for a discussion I've ever seen here. Seriously. Strongly recommend this be abandoned and a proper open-ended WP:RM be run. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Congratulations to Wknight94 for daring to speak up against me and for the silent majority. That "majority" has yet to be demonstrated. Would anyone else care to take a swing at me? I don't mind so much if the end result means we end up with a better title than we have today, but don't just take the ball away. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't read through the whole wall of words, so my apologies if I'm repeating what someone else has said. Wikipedia works by consensus, and requires everyone to make concessions. It has been pretty clearly established that there will not be consensus for including "Olympics" in the title, so I see the above poll as a laudible attempt to find some point of rough consensus short of including "Olympics". If no consensus can be arrived at for anything short of including "Olympics", then I guess there will never be a consensus on the title. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC

Note: please read the foregoing discussion (which starts here), which has some relevance. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

One week on

We are now one week on from the start of the poll, so I thought I'd make a summary of the situation so far: I have created this matrix of first, second and third preference votes, which I then break down into tow matrices showing preferences for '2008 Beijing Drum Tower' vs 'August 2008 Beijing Drum Tower', and 'attack' v 'stabbings' and 'knife attack'.

DEGREE OF SUPPORT FOR OPTION 
Preference   A     B     C     D     E     F  
1st pref 3 2 3 0 1 0
2nd pref 2 2 2 0 0 2
3rd pref 1 1 0 1 3 0
Total 6 5 5 1 4 2

This can be broken down as follows:

DEGREE OF SUPPORT FOR 'WHEN' 
Preference   2008 BDT     Aug 2008 BDT  
1st pref 8 1
2nd pref 6 2
3rd pref 2 4
Total 16 7
DEGREE OF SUPPORT FOR 'WHAT' 
Preference   A     S     K  
1st pref 3 3 3
2nd pref 2 2 4
3rd pref 2 4 0
Total 7 9 7

The first matrix suggests that there is a clear consensus (of 2:1) for the title to start with '2008 Beijing [Drum Tower]'; the second matrix gives no clear consensus as to whether it should be 'attack' v 'stabbings' and 'knife attack', although 'stabbings' is marginally preferred over the three. All three are tied at 1st preferences, and 'knife attack' is preferred as second by more !voting editors.

Proposal

I do not feel confident enough to eliminate any of the 3 choices, so would propose reopening debate on 'attack' v 'stabbings' vs 'knife attack', probably with due reference to WP:NAME. Bearing in mind the vociferous insistence during the last vote that 'Olympics' be included, and in order to avoid allegations of bias, I propose we also had a head-to-head vote of '2008 Beijing Drum Tower' against '2008 Beijing Olympics' (or somesuch) for the first part of the article name. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Merger discussion

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
You know, I was avoiding getting back into this discussion because it was beginning to have the same amount of attraction to me as getting an icepick in my eye. However, seeing as some dander is getting up here, I feel obligated to point out that we're having the wrong discussion. If I am not mistaken, a large proportion of the "keep" !votes in the three AfDs were leaning towards a merger with Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics and it was pointed out that the consensus to disinclude this topic from that article was a thin one and should perhaps be revisited. So, if I don't hear any objections in a day or so I'm going to set up a merge proposal —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 21:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose proposed merger is obtuse. One can not dilute an actual attack to a "concern" or "controversy" without significantly distorting the information. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jerry. This is a notable event in its own right with significant coverage. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The afd's and renaming discussions have all contained arguments that the event is not related to the Olympics. I can't quite figure out why the same people that argue for renaming to not include Olympics now want to see it merged into an article about the Olympics, and I'm not sure what to think about that. Lets follow through with the poll and discussion on renaming. -JWGreen (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_Beijing_Drum_Tower_stabbings/Archive_1&oldid=1147985293"