Talk:2024 Bondi Junction stabbings

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


Requested move 15 April 2024[edit]

2024 Bondi Junction stabbings → Bondi Junction stabbings – Only one notable mass stabbing to happen in Bondi Junction LouisOrr27 (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 16:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is already the subject of an open discussion at #Would anyone miss the "2024" in the title if it were gone? above. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is so it's listed at WP:RM/C LouisOrr27 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should keep the current title, in accordance with most other recent articles related to mass stabbings such as 2024 Wakeley stabbing, 2024 Rockford stabbings, 2024 Ottawa stabbing, 2023 Nottingham attacks, 2023 Annecy stabbing. There is also one article which doesn't keep the year: Crépol stabbing Mapgenius (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 'Crépol stabbing' is a redirect to Death of Thomas Perotto as he was the only fatality. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 03:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and snow close per WP:NCWWW. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 03:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Changing this vote to support thanks to other editors for making me aware of NOYEAR. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 23:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NOYEAR is relevant and contradicts WP:NCWWW as other users have discussed removing the year making a WP:SNOW irrelevant. LouisOrr27 (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – the year is not necessary in the title since I'm not aware of any other notable "Bondi Junction stabbings". See also precedents such as Lindt Cafe siege, Strathfield massacre, Central Coast massacre, Milperra massacre. 2024 Wakeley stabbing is a very new article so I think it has less weight. I also think we should primarily be looking at comparable events in Australia rather than events overseas. I also think the fact that this was a stabbing rather than a shooting/etc is less significant. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 08:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per my reasons in the concurrent discussion on the same move just above at #Would anyone miss the "2024" in the title if it were gone?. As I said there, get rid of the year per WP:COMMONNAME - it doesn't appear in any of the sources and it isn't needed per WP:PRECISE. Per WP:QUALIFIER it would only be needed to disambiguate the title if another similar event occurred in the same place in a different year. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Its a big event and doesnt need the year Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Admittedly I supported this above given the clunkiness of the lead, before it was rewritten. What I'm wondering is if we truly have a WP:COMMONNAME at this point? The media don't appear to be universally using this term. It's very different from Sydney Siege or something like that. In those circumstances, I have some sympathy for the view given by @Aydoh8 that WP:NCWWW applies. Local Variable (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal here ("Bondi Junction stabbings"), in effect, follows WP:NCWWW exactly if you take into account the WP:NOYEAR part. That says: Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. Well this one fits that.
Like this:
  • When the incident happened: not necessary per WP:NOYEAR
  • Where the incident happened: Bondi Junction
  • What happened: stabbings
Resulting in: Bondi Junction stabbings -- DeFacto (talk). 14:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support particularly per SomethingForDeletion's argument that most similar Australian incidents do not have it and the strongest consistency argument lies there. I find the painful internal self-contradiction of WP:NCWWW and WP:NOYEAR frankly unhelpful, although the WP:NOYEAR examples more closely resemble this article. I think here we run into a similar issue we had with the word "massacre", which is that on a global scale this was not a huge incident, but in an Australian context it is a very much bigger deal. Nobody is going to be calling this the 2024 Bondi Junction stabbings in future years unless we keep the current title and they were Googling it and reading about it on Wikipedia and getting into a WP:REFLOOP. From the references "Bondi Junction stabbing" or "Bondi Junction stabbings" are by far the most common, though I suspect WP:REFLOOP already (as Google prominently displays the WP article title), and most people are dropping the 2024. -- Rob.au (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per @DeFacto. Local Variable (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's the only widely-known stabbing event in Bondi Junction... yet. RPC7778 (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:NOYEAR J2m5 (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I was thinking the exact same thing while using Pageview Analysis. This only only notable stabbing at Bondi Junction, and while the year may help people to find it while searching, its definitely not going to hurt to remove it. (Also, unrelated, but my condolences and prayers go out to the loved ones of the victims, this is truly a terrible tragedy.) Poxy4 (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:NOYEAR Erin1973 (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:NOYEAR Fileyfood500 (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Given this is the only instance of stabbings in Bondi Junction, the year 2024 is a bit unnecessary to be put in front of the incident. 174.44.191.134 (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: WP:NOYEAR seems conclusive here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:NOYEAR. The policy clearly reads that some articles do not a year when in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. It's hard to judge historic perspective just a week after the event. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's not hard for me to tell which one's the historically only one. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: alian Wikipedians' notice board, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Sydney, WikiProject Death, and WikiProject Disaster management have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support unless there have been other articles about other stabbings in Bondi Junction
(Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 12:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:NOYEAR; no other stabbings have happened in Bondi Junction. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I think specificity is great in terms of Wikipedia pages, this is a unique incident and the short description mentioning 2024 should be enough. PickleG13 (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support LibStar (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments made after the closure.

@Raydann: I've moved this back as it is currently on the main page. Feel free to move it back when it comes off.--Launchballer 23:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also feel free to tell WP:ERRORS about the move, they're pretty understanding. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK there's no rule against moving a page even if it's on the main page. @Launchballer, point to the policy/guideline if there is any. Neocorelight (Talk) 01:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why should a link on the main page dictate the page title? It would have redirected and the full page title did not appear. The redirect could be avoided by a correcting the link from the main page. FWIW, discussing this with the original page mover might have been the better option rather than overriding a consensus decision. Local Variable (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's because redirects from anywhere on main page are not allowed per WP:MPNOREDIRECT. JennyOz (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. It should be off the main page soon. Local Variable (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's typically fixed by posting to WP:ERRORS to change the Main Page to use the new title. It's not a reason to delay or reverse an RM close. However, it seems the close is being discussed on the closer's talk page for a different reason.—Bagumba (talk) 10:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find what was posted on the closer's talk page a little confusing. Consensus was decided unanimously here that it should be moved. LouisOrr27 (talk) 10:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, their point is clear - local consensus can't override policy or established guidelines. Where I tend to disagree with @Amakuru: is that (1) it is against guidelines and (2) most of those votes don't reference the guideline that applies on this and maybe editors who aren't aware of the sitewide convention. In truth, neither of these are right. In relation to (1), the guideline recognises that it is a judgement call. Opinions may differ on this point. As to (2), it was quoted verbatim above by DeFacto in response to my query, making the contention we were unaware of it untenable. That all said, there may be value in getting the opinion out outside, uninvolved editors about the application of the rule here. Local Variable (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Local Variable: and really you've summarised the point well. Firstly, WP:CONSENSUS on Wikipedia doesn't in any way mean that majority or even near-unanimous votes carry the day, per the WP:NOTAVOTE principle. It's reasoned arguments that make sense. And sure, whether something stands by itself without need for a year is a subjective question, but given other major incidents such as 2021 Hualien train derailment that have closed with no consensus to remove the year, I can't see any angle in which the Bondi stabbings rise to a higher significnace or long-term recognizability level than that. Indeed, this is far from the only stabbing at that location covered in reliable sources, for example there was one in 2018.[1][2] Overall, the case for removing the year was very weak so I don't think even hefty support numbers should cause a move in this case.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: This proposal was closed but then re-opened per request at Special:PermanentLink/1220569664#Bondi Junction stabbings. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 16:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'll really just repeat the point I made to Local Variable above. The question here is whether the exemption for WP:NOYEAR of the year being unnecessary beacuse "in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it" applies here. I would argue it definitely doesn't. Sure, this event looms large right now because it's just happened, but if we look back on this in 5, 10, 15 years, is it really going to be such a major event that no clarification of which year it was is required? I doubt that. If we take 2021 Hualien train derailment as an example, this was a major rail disaster with many tens of deaths, but ultimately the consensus there was not to remove the year. To do something different here seems odd. That's all. Finally, this is far from the only stabbing at that location covered in reliable sources, for example there was one in 2018.[3][4] That might not merit a Wikipedia page, but it was certainly a Bondi Junction stabbing that wasn't in 2024. Overall, the case for removing the year seems weak to me given other examples and precedent, hence why I requested a relist and I'm not certain there is a consensus here.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was the one who originally nominated the page to be moved, originally based on the Would anyone miss the "2024" in the title if it were gone? discussion above. I'll expand on my reason why I still support the move, mainly based on SomethingForDeletion 's comments. There is a president in Australian events to ignore the year, Lindt Cafe siege & Strathfield massacre are two examples. SomethingForDeletion listed more examples above. Secondly most, if not all, of the sources simply refer to the incident as either "Bondi Junction stabbings", "Bondi Junction mall stabbings" or "Westfield Bondi mall stabbings". Rob.au made a good point about how globally the incident is not huge but in Australia, especially Sydney, It is quite a big deal In years to come people will be referring to the incident without the year. As Amakuru stated, this was not the only stabbing incident to happen in Bondi Junction, so would Bondi Junction mall stabbings be better suited as the pages title? LouisOrr27 (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Bondi Junction mall stabbings", because the usual Australian English term is "shopping centre" not "mall" (which is viewed as somewhat of an Americanism), and the media sources calling these "mall stabbings" seem to be mainly overseas sources which are choosing a term for their own readers. Furthermore, while it is true that other stabbings have happened in the suburb of Bondi Junction in the past, none of them are remotely equal to this in notability. If someone says "Bondi Junction stabbing" it is obvious they mean this one, not some other past stabbing incident, unless the context otherwise makes clear. Finally, everyone in Sydney remembers the Lindt Cafe siege (well, at least people who were here and of age at the time), but how many remember the exact year it took place in? The exact year is not seen as being particularly significant to the memory fo the event, for most people. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can see some force in what Amakuru says. The difference between this and some of the other major events (Lindt Cafe Siege, Port Arthur massacre, etc) is that that is the firmly established common name for the respective tragedy. So we must give way to the common name even if it does not fit the typical naming convention. The examples given on NOYEAR are incidents of such notoriety that it is unnecessary to add the year. This is a fine judgement call. At this stage, I do have hesitations about the conclusion the year is unnecessary. Local Variable (talk) 06:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is I think the year-less common name is almost inevitably going to be established in Australia. It is only a question of how long it takes for you to be convinced that it is established – accept it is now, or wait X months/years and accept it is then? There are going to be articles in the Australia media talking about this for years to come – just like there have been articles mentioning the Lindt Cafe siege even earlier this year, before this stabbing, see e.g. "‘Exhausted by flashbacks’: Lindt cafe siege police sniper Mark Davidson wracked with guilt" – and I guarantee you none of those articles are going to put the year in front of it. As much as Wikipedia editors love doing that, it isn't the style journalists use. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not wrong that the no year form will most likely be the common name in Australia, but this isn't Wikipedia for only Australia. WP:GLOBAL requires we look at a worldwide perspective, would someone in Slovenia immediately recognize the year-less name. Maybe, maybe not. That is why NOYEAR tells us to consider historical perspective when deciding whether a year is necessary. It should be relatively un controversial to say that historical perspective is rarely easy to judge 10 days after an event. estar8806 (talk) ★ 13:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think someone from Slovenia is likely to remember this incident. It is essentially a local event, it is going to stick in the local memory, be quickly forgotten from the global one. I don't think whether the year is included or not will make any difference to whether a person from Slovenia recognises the incident–maybe the word "Bondi" will give them a clue it happened in Australia; I don't see how the presence or absence of the year is going to make any difference to them. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Local Variable: Did you want to strike your ealier "support" !vote in the interim?—Bagumba (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I'm yet to come to a firm conclusion. Local Variable (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to reiterate my earlier Support which remains unchanged. There just is no plausible basis to suggest that in future years this event will evolve a common name that includes the year. The only thing I've noticed is that locally the common name that seems to have very much firmed up in ongoing reporting is Bondi Junction stabbing without the plural, sometimes resolved with Bondi Junction stabbing attack. I also don't agree that editors here were unaware of the Wikipedia policy - the majority did in fact cite policies when making their comments. The only thing I would potentially alter in my support is removing the plural as well as the year. I don't support use of mall, Westfield or other modifiers for the same reason I argue against the year in the title - this simply doesn't reflect the common form of the event in use now, which is not likely to change. Regarding the 2018 stabbing - it's just not notable and nobody remembers it. It was one isolated fracas in a tiny take-away only outlet. This was a major incident that impacted many lives. We didn't have condolence books and messages for the KFC incident. There isn't a memorial set up for it, as there will be for this event (this has already been committed). That point is simply not valid. I also don't agree with the point about WP:GLOBAL - that is an essay about systemic bias, which talks about article content that is not local in nature having localised bias. This is not applicable here. -- Rob.au (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2024 - Aftermath regarding targeting of women.[edit]

At the end of 'Reactions', I believe the global discussion of gender-based violence following this attack is relevant.

After the last paragraph under 'reactions' that ends in "Additional police were deployed in shopping centres in Queensland as a precaution.[35]", please consider adding following sentences;

This incident, where majority of victims killed and wounded were women, aroused national and international discussion about gender-based violence, with great attention to the rates that women are killed by men[1][2], and potential gender-based motives of Cauchi[3].

Following the subsequent 2024 Wakeley Church Stabbing, discussion by the public and major news sites questioned the definition of terrorism, specifically after the "religiously motivated" Church attack was considered a terrorist incident, but not the Police-noted "obvious" targeting of women[4][5]. It was deemed non-ideological due to the fact that Cauchi was schizophrenic, and there has also been criticism of Australia's mental health system, and discussion on how to better support mental health, specifically for men, in order to avoid more similar incidents[6][7]. 


— Preceding unsigned comment added by EyeofHorus13 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 09:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! I'm new to editing/talk pages on Wikipedia. I was wondering if the addition of global discussion about gendered violence following this attack specifically would be a worthwhile contribution, because I believe it would be. I'm unsure how to edit it in a way that would make sense on the page, but I'll try to shortly. EyeofHorus13 (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to believe Cauchi was attacking women in particular. If he was, it was the result of madness. Any attempt to turn this into an attack on women is just political correctness, or more specifically, playing the gender card. Sardaka (talk) 09:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The gender ratio could be explained by many other factors, such as more women then men in the shopping centre. WWGB (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Care should be taken not to derail the talk page into anything other than a place for procedural discussion about editing the article.
If gendered based violence has received significant coverage in reliable sources, it is probably suitable for inclusion (but maybe only a passing mention, since we won't give it undue weight). We of course don't do original research here, and our opinions on the causes aren't of any significance.
@EyeofHorus13, I appreciate you are new, but this template is generally reserved for specific edit requests (eg, fix typo X). However if you build up experience editing other articles, with time you could add a sentence or two somewhere summarising a reliable source speaking about gendered violence, and add a reference to it. Local Variable (talk) 10:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes totally understand. I will note that for the future, thank you. I didn't even know 'talk' pages existed until I was redirected here trying to edit, so from now on this will be the first place I go to.
As for "If gendered based violence has received significant coverage in reliable sources, it is probably suitable for inclusion (but maybe only a passing mention, since we won't give it undue weight). We of course don't do original research here, and our opinions on the causes aren't of any significance." I do agree. I wrote a lot so there is hopefully at least something to use, because I was personally blown away by how much global discussion there was regarding gendered violence with this incident being the catalyst for discussion, so I do think public attention regarding this, and mental health support, is significant to the 'Reactions' page. I know we cannot be partial in assuming his motives, however the discussion is still there and related to this attack. EyeofHorus13 (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, there was no issue with you bringing it up on the talk page, my comment shouldn't be interpreted that way. My first point (directed at others, not you) was that a talk page isn't a venue to get into discussions about "political correctness" and the like.
If you find reliable sources about that view then I see no reason why it can't be mentioned in a sentence in the reactions sentence, along with a citation. Local Variable (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I will look for such to summarise. Much appreciated. EyeofHorus13 (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made changes, does it suit? I've condensed it down to the discussion of gendered violence, definition of terrorism, and mental health. EyeofHorus13 (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. While I agree it needs addressing, I'd stick to addressing the bondi stabbings. A bit too much of what you says doesn't use an encyclopaedic voice "It was deemed non-ideological due to the fact that Cauchi was schizophrenic". I would prefer something closer to what I wrote below, incorporating commissioner Webb's statement and moving it to reactions. Pabsoluterince (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content

This incident, where majority of victims were women, led to discussion about gender-based violence.[8][9], and potential gender-based motives of Cauchi[10] Commissioner Webb said it was obvious that Cauchi had targeted women, while avoiding men.[11] Cauchi's mother suggested that he targeted women "because he wanted a girlfriend and he's got no social skills".[12] While mental health experts have argued that the stabbing could have been avoided if Australia had a better functioning mental health system.[13] Sydney University professor of psychiatry Anthony Harris argued that it could reflect the lack of resources in the mental health system in general.[14]

References

  1. ^ https://www.smh.com.au/national/a-woman-is-being-violently-killed-in-australia-every-four-days-this-year-20240424-p5fmcb.html#:~:text=It%20used%20to%20be%20one,Minister%20Anthony%20Albanese%20to%20act.
  2. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/15/world/asia/sydney-stabbing-women-misogyny.html
  3. ^ https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/sydney-stabbing-attack-bondi-westfield-joel-cauchi-women-victims-misogyny-b2528897.html
  4. ^ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-18/two-knife-attacks-bondi-junction-wakeley-terrorism-target-women-/103736578#:~:text=A%20man%20armed%20with%20a,women%20and%20avoided%20the%20men%22.
  5. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/20/is-violently-terrorising-a-community-terrorism-its-an-uncomfortable-debate-to-have
  6. ^ https://www.healthed.com.au/clinical_articles/what-can-we-learn-from-the-bondi-stabbing-attack/
  7. ^ https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/bondi-attack-puts-spotlight-on-ramshackle-mental-health-system/si0udegxa
  8. ^ https://www.smh.com.au/national/a-woman-is-being-violently-killed-in-australia-every-four-days-this-year-20240424-p5fmcb.html#:~:text=It%20used%20to%20be%20one,Minister%20Anthony%20Albanese%20to%20act.
  9. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/15/world/asia/sydney-stabbing-women-misogyny.html
  10. ^ https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/sydney-stabbing-attack-bondi-westfield-joel-cauchi-women-victims-misogyny-b2528897.html
  11. ^ Atkinson, Simon; Ritchie, Hannah (14 April 2024). "Bondi Junction mall attack: 'Obvious' killer targeted women, Sydney police say". BBC News. BBC. Archived from the original on 14 April 2024. Retrieved 15 April 2024.
  12. ^ Maher, Rachel; Franks, Raphael (15 April 2024). "Sydney mall stabbing: Attacker's parents reveal son targeted women out of frustration he couldn't get girlfriend". The New Zealand Herald. Auckland: New Zealand Media and Entertainment. Archived from the original on 15 April 2024. Retrieved 16 April 2024.
  13. ^ "Bondi stabbings were 'preventable' if Australia had a 'functioning' mental health system". Sky News. 18 April 2024. Retrieved 2 May 2024.
  14. ^ "Bondi attack puts spotlight on 'ramshackle' mental health system, experts say".

Archive[edit]

There are two archive pages of this talk page.

What is the difference between these pages? --Family27390 (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raised at User_talk:ClueBot_Commons#Erroneous_talk_page_archiving. Local Variable (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed by another editor. WWGB (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Bondi_Junction_stabbings&oldid=1221836428"