Jump to content

Talk:2022 Nong Bua Lamphu massacre

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


Political motivation or just a coincidence?

[edit]

46 years ago, there was The 6 October 1976 massacre. Is the murderer really choose the day 6 October 2022? Or it is just a coincidence? Just no evidences about this in this time. --Love Krittaya (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We'd have to find out more out about the shooter, but I'd say if it was someone like Adam Lanza who would obsess over shootings, or someone with extreme political views then probably, if it were for some other reason it might just be a coincidence. --Frank VII (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article says, he "was scheduled to appear for another [court] hearing on 7 October." Guess, it's more related to that. CompleCCity (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to say if the person accused of the killings chose the day for a specific reason or not. Until there is evidence to suggest otherwise (testimony, writings, or a confession), it would be speculation to say this was the reason the killings happened on October 6th were related to the 1976 event. Jurisdicta (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mismatch between number of fatalities in article and infobox

[edit]

Article says at least 38 people were killed. Infobox says 37. From my understanding of the given sources, the gunman killed 37 other people, and 38 when including himself. DatGuyTalkContribs 15:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source that it's 37 people plus the gunman killed? Many WP:RS is providing the number 36 plus the gunman. Love of Corey (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 October 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. I decline to relist this because I do not believe that consensus will form on whether the attack is noteworthy enough to omit the year even if it was relisted. (closed by non-admin page mover)Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


2022 Nong Bua Lamphu attackNong Bua Lamphu attack – Like Nakhon Ratchasima shootings, this massacre has a high death toll, is unique of its location, and has received a great deal of international media coverage. It shouldn't have the year in its title. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I mostly agree with the proposal, that the article be renamed. The event has received worldwide coverage, and there has not been other attacks like this that necessitate the use of the year to differentiate this attack. However, I also believe that Amakuru's comment has merit and I propose that the title be "Nong Bua Lamphu Thailand attack" to be more descriptive and tie to what has been reported in the news as Nong Bua Lamphu may not be recognizable to persons outside of Thailand. However, by adding "Thailand", it adds clarity to the title and is more recognizable. Just my two cents... Jurisdicta (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Smuckers It has to be good 17:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those examples are incorrectly named. If you don't like the guideline, then start a proposal to get it changed, but for now NCE mandates us to use the year.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Kanjuruhan Stadium disaster was recently changed to not include the year and the consensus was to not put it. Why is this different? Its not that I "don't like" the policy; I am seeing inconsistencies with this policy and trying to understand. Smuckers It has to be good 21:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and there was a very strong consensus for that move earlier this month. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's also a poor move. Just because lots of people believed the nominator's rationale and it was closed early, does not mean it complies with the guidelines. In the majority of cases we should be using the year, and that stadium disaster certainly isn't well-known enough to warrant an exception. Nobody has heard of the Kanjuruhan Stadium, and if you tell someone in the street that name around the world in ten years time, they will not be able to place the event in 2022. Like I say, there's little point in having a guideline if we do'nt follow it, and it should be changed if there's consensus to do so.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i would add that discussing this kind of move just after the event is kind of defeating the guideline's orginal intention to guard against recency bias. Human brain is hard wired to treat recent events as more important. If say after a few month you can still firmly remember and clearly understand what this means without the year, THEN it is the right time to have all this discussion about omitting the year.
A seperate point is the pages listed above all showed the precise location of the event (a camp, a shine or at least a city). Nong Bua Lamphu is a province name and it would be very hard for someone unfamilar to link an attack in a province with a shooting at nursery, with or without the year. At least for the Kanjuruhan Stadium disaster,it would be clear that a disaster occured in a stadium which may infer that is something to do with a sporting event or relating in the design of the stadium etc. 59.152.212.113 (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per WP:NCEVENTS. We have a naming convention to make events consistent with each other in title format, which states that in the majority of cases the title of the article should contain [...] When the incident happened. There is no reason to believe that this event will remain notorious enough to not require the date in the future. Ask yourself: in 5 years, will you and other readers find this article more easily with or without the year in the article title? Pilaz (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC) Edited again by Pilaz (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC) [reply]
If you remember Nong Bua Lamphu, you won't need the year. If you don't, the year being in the title won't help you. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it might be a bit too soon to say this, but I suspect that in the coming years, this will be the case. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - Per the article, "It is the deadliest mass murder by a single perpetrator ever recorded in Thailand". I think that this is an extremely notable event and should be addressed as such. Per WP:NCEVENTS, there aren't any other significant attack articles on Wikipedia that address Nong Bua Lamphu. A very sad and crucial, historic event for Thailand. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per everyone else. This is a very notable event in Thailand's history, as tragic as it is. A year isn't needed to disambiguate it from any other event. Love of Corey (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support I don't know of any other mass shootings in Nong Bua Lamphu. It's also very notable because it's the deadliest 1-person attack in the history of Thailand. Silent-Rains (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support As Smuckers stated, there are no other major attacks in Nong Bua Lamphu so removing the year wouldn't confuse readers. "Oppose per WP:NCE" arguments makes little sense since WP:NCE says Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. As this is a judgement call, please discuss it with other editors if there is disagreement, hence this move discussion. Some1 (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The part about “in historic perspective” means it only applies to historic events… NCE clearly deals with this exact situation ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 02:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The year is there to be descriptive, not to provide disambiguation. Even if this is an extremely notable event in Thai history, that doesn't mean "Nong Bua Lamphu attack" is going to be immediately identifiable to the average reader. It isn't the common name, either. The media is mostly using variations of "Thailand day care center massacre" or "Thailand day care shooting". Surachit (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources that give the location more precisely than the country are most often saying Nong Bua Lamphu. Many sources are only using Thailand in its title because that part of Thailand isn't well-known internationally. Does anyone want Nong Bua Lamphu in the title replaced with something else? Does anyone want attack to be changed to massacre? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As per the naming convention cited above by Pilaz and Amakuru, the year is required because it is a useful identifier. The only time when a year is not needed is when "in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it" according to the naming convention. This implies the event is famous enough for the average reader to at least know something about, which this event is not. Raymond Kestis (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because "attack" alone as a descriptor is vague, unlike "shooting" or "bombing". I wouldn't oppose "nursery attack", but that would be a little too narrow for the actual scope of the event. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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.

Expansion

[edit]

The corresponding article in Thai has a lot more details and covers cite sources that covers the subject well. It's difficult to find sources in English that does the same. It would be great if a fluent contributor can use those sources to expand the English version. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The working link is เหตุกราดยิงที่จังหวัดหนองบัวลำภู พ.ศ. 2565. Note that I don't personally consider the coverage in Thai Wikipedia would be comparable. It has a significantly detailed description, scholarly analysis, and detailed reaction. From what I have seen from the recent articles about recent events, articles in English Wikipedia would try to avoid being too trivial by putting in too many details, whether it concerns the event itself or the reaction by foreign dignitaries. As it stands, the article gave a reasonable coverage that appears to satisfy its MOS. Not that I am saying it can't be improved, but I would say that a more comprehensive coverage would introduce more trouble to enwiki. --124.120.109.115 (talk) 06:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't expect a complete translation of the article and that's not what I meant in that comment. Introducing relevant translations to cover key topics wouldn't cause any trouble. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 February 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2022 Nong Bua Lamphu attack2022 Nong Bua Lamphu massacre – Requesting that the article's name be changed to "2022 Nong Bua Lamphu massacre", as a multitude of weapons were used, including melee weapons, firearms, and vehicle ramming. GoatLord234 (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 11 March 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2022 Nong Bua Lamphu massacre2022 Nong Bua Lamphu attack – The previous WP:RM discussion really should have been discussed more at length. I don't see how "massacre" accurately describes the fact that multiple weapons were used in this attack. "Attack" seems like a better descriptor since there was only one perpetrator using multiple weapons. Besides, "massacre" doesn't seem to be the WP:COMMONNAME for this event. Love of Corey (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article title

[edit]

If someone wants to revisit the article title, I still think there's scope for renaming to include nursery or day care, which is more helpful recognisability-wise than the year. (Though it'll probably open up an ENGVAR issue.) This should be proposed through a new move request, given that there have been multiple RMs before. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]