Jump to content

Talk:Chenpeng Village Primary School stabbing

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

Elderly lady

[edit]

Based on a rough translation of [1], I believe she lived next door to the school, and was aged 84. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She just lived directly across the road from the school. I am native Chinese speaker. Wo.luren (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nanchang - August

[edit]

A lot of newspaper stories are claiming that the most recent attack was in August (some suggest 2011, other say 2012) at a middle school in the southern city of Nanchang, where two students were stabbed. e.g. [2] However I can't find any original stories in August about that event, but there are many stories about a strikingly similar event happening in February - same place - same count - etc. [3] John Vandenberg (chat) 12:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. That incident happened in February. This is the Chinese source from China News Service: [4].Wo.luren (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Then nearly every English story is wrong. I think the error started at NYT. :/ John Vandenberg (chat) 01:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Village names

[edit]

It appears the attacker lived in a nearby village of 邹棚村桃元组人; what is the romanised version of it?

Also I am seeing both Chengping and Chingpeng used in sources. A google search for Chengping goes to Tian Chengping, but there is also a Chengping Village in a different part of China. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He lived in "Zoupeng village" (邹棚村). We can just ingore "桃元组" which means a section of "Zoupeng village". "人" means people or person. For the second question, the "Chengpeng" village (陈棚村) is the correct one. Wo.luren (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did he live in Zoupeng village, or was he born there? How far away are the two villages? John Vandenberg (chat) 01:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where he lived does not matter since Henan is one of the most populous area in China and these two villages are quite close. Normally in China people only mention the town/township, sometimes only the county, when talking about a person's birthplace.Wo.luren (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

[edit]

It needs to be made clear, how many ( if any ) of the victims died.Eregli bob (talk) 12:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. John Vandenberg (chat) 19:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese government response

[edit]

In blogs and OpEds (especially those written by Chinese people or foreign correspondents in China) I read concerns about

  • the damage control and managing the local media,
  • the lack of a response from the Chinese government in the form of condolences, when Hu Jintao did send condolences about the Sandy Hook incident,[5]
  • the lack of attention to mental health, which is covered in School attacks in China (2010–2011).

We should include more of this ongoing reaction to the event. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are not RS. OpEds over regular news reports?HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Sandy Hook reference

[edit]

I am opposed to the removal of content in this edit, which made mention of the relationship between this attack and the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting hours later. See the related discussion on that talk page. —Entropy (T/C) 07:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - there is great significance in the link between the two incidents. My vote to not remove the links either. Wikipedia is about knowledge, not hidden editors silencing people. cheers Billyshiverstick (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. At the time I'm posting this the links and reference are still in this article, but they are not in the Sandy Hook article. In fact, one of the discussions on the talk page there was closed. I think it's silly to have the reference on this article but not the other one. We need to reach a consensus on this. See also the section below this one, and User_talk:Dennis_Brown#Closing_of_discussion. —Entropy (T/C) 03:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions

[edit]
Related discussion on Sandy Hook talk page; now closed.
  • Let's get serious here. There is absolutely no relation between the two events. When similar events happen in close proximity to each other, the media is bound to mention them together. That doesn't make the school shooting a reaction to this event, or related in any other way. The information should not be included. Ryan Vesey 07:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh, let me think on it. The recent fix "The attack in China received additional international attention due to an unrelated attack..." helps a lot. (We'll need a source for it though). Ryan Vesey 07:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - this needs to go. We've agreed not to mention the China event at Sandy Hook and vise-versa should apply here. They are two unrelated events, and shouldn't be used for an agenda on gun control pro or con.HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you like it or not, this is being used in the gun control debate, internationally and in the US.[6] Consensus over at Sandy Hook does not apply here, as each topic has to give different WP:WEIGHT to the various themes in the reactions to the event, and those weights differ for each topic. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parenthetical statement "typically perpetrated using knives as firearm ownership law in China tightly regulates civilian access to firearms" in the second paragraph is not directly relevent to the event. This site is an encyclopedia not a debate forum. The statement will only serve to drag the article into a debate about US politics. Please focus writing on only content that is both relevant and verified with sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cthistory (talk • contribs) 20:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Gun control is very relevant, and is frequently mentioned as the reason why knives are used in the Chinese school attacks in the last few years.[7] John Vandenberg (chat) 21:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to who? You as an editor? Some online blogs and Op-eds? There are many editors here who don't see the relevance at this time, if ever. We're supposed to be NPOV and not pushing any agenda. The consensus was to not mention the China event on the Sandy Hook school shooting article - what is the logic that it belongs here?HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to anyone who reads the sources. If you think it is merely blogs and op-eds, you obviously havent read the sources before you removed the Reactions section. Gun control is mentioned on Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, quite prominently - each article has different weights being placed on each aspect of the public reaction. Would you like to put forward a view on what is the most prominent reaction to the Chenpeng slashings? John Vandenberg (chat) 22:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Refresh your pages - there's no mention of "gun control" on that article. Also read the TP for that article.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course gun control is still mentioned in that article. I have been reading that article and its talk page since these events occurred. Gun control has been a constant part of that page. What has been removed is the reference to Chenpeng, and I even agreed with that decision on the other talk page. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AGAIN - where do you see "gun control" in the Sandy Hook article? The link to gun crimes in the us? Hardly that.HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is in the "Reactions" section (emphasis added; first sentence is recognised as a strongly but carefully worded hint):
John Vandenberg (chat) 00:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gun control is an issue in both articles. Anyone who tries to remove references to gun control is promoting their own personal or corporate agenda. Which is not something we tolerate around here, y'all..." Billyshiverstick (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see that these edits have been added, removed, and re-added very recently (apologies, John, that article changes every 30 seconds) and there is an ongoing debate about it yet again. And no, removing ALL ref's PRO or CON is not promoting any agenda - we were saying move these discussions to one of the gun control articles. Also the Feinstein legislation has been deleted more than once, as it was planned before the shooting. I'm going to let the dust settle a bit and then we'll have a consensus vote.HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a consensus vote is needed here. I think the discussion on the Sandy Hook talk page was prematurely closed (and still exists in the section above the closed one). See also the section on this page above this one, and User_talk:Dennis_Brown#Closing_of_discussion. —Entropy (T/C) 03:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As John Vandenberg points out, the two articles are not the same, so what makes sense in one doesn't necessarily apply to the other. Multiple links in this thread to my closing in an unrelated discussion is just stirring the pot. I've yet to mediate here, but available if asked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to stir the pot. I included the link because all discussion on the matter is relevant and should be considered by editors contributing to the discussion. —Entropy (T/C) 03:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with all the blogs and op-ed pieces used as citations? I've removed several of them, as they are not used for proper encyclopedic purposes. An op-ed is an opinion piece from one writer: it is not fact. In general. these things should be used very, very carefully - or not at all, IMHO. The fact that they were all added to one sentence smacks of WP:Citation overkill. Better sources need to be found than these... Doc talk 05:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An earlier version of this article referred to the fact that this discussion was often occurring on blogs and op-eds, especially in China as the media was being controlled. The blogs were not being used for the facts therein; they were added to support the claim that there is critical commentary by academics about this event juxtaposed with the Sandy Hook event. I dont mind the removal of some of these, but others (esp. the Op Eds by notable people and respected correspondences) were useful and can be used, with caution of course, but I dont have the energy to worry about that, and agree that there were too many citations against that paragraph without sufficient prose. There are far more important details that are still missing from this article but are present in the Chinese Wikipedia article and in news stories, but it seems few people here are interested in helping. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I wouldn't touch most breaking/developing stories like these until the media gets their facts right, though I know many editors will (and it's their right, or even duty, to do so). In the Newtown massacre, first it was reported that his brother was the killer: totally wrong. It was reported that the father was killed: totally wrong. At first we widely heard that the .223 rifle was left in the trunk of the car and only the two handguns were used: I read today that the rifle and the handguns were found with the killer's body and a shotgun was in the trunk. Huh? Who knows what the facts really are when major media outlets can't even agree? I digress from the topic of this page, but you can see my point. I agree with other editors that there is no actual connection to the two incidents other than opinion pieces from media personnel who are paid to write op-eds for their livelihood. But people are writing about it a lot, and that's a fact. How pertinent to either event that is will continue to be discussed, I am sure. Doc talk 07:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charge

[edit]

I havent found the exact charge against the accused. I am guessing the section is Chapter II Crime of Endangering the Public Security, Part Two Specific Provisions, Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, but cant see anything specifically relevant in this English copy; not sure how current it is. Not much information at Law of the People's Republic of China#Criminal law and Criminal Procedure Law John Vandenberg (chat) 09:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wanquan

[edit]

There are many mentions of "Wanquan Elementary School" and similar: [8]. Is Wanquan a type of elementary school, or the name of the elementary school? John Vandenberg (chat) 14:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Chinese-language sources, "Wanquan" (literally "complete", "total") indicates that the school has classes for grades 1 through 6. Mimson (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fantizi

[edit]

This event occurred on mainland China. Why do we need to have the traditional Chinese characters? Just the simplified characters is enough. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 07:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not, per WP:MOS-ZH and general accessibility issues. GotR Talk 16:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We always have both simplified and traditional. In modern (post-1949) scenarios if it takes place in the Mainland, Singapore, or Malaysia you put simplified first. If it takes place in Taiwan, Hong Kong, or Macau, or in many overseas Chinese situations you put traditional first WhisperToMe (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chenpeng_Village_Primary_School_stabbing&oldid=1208746236"