Jump to content

Talk:Fraser Anning egg incident

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

Comment

[edit]

The Page subject is a trending meme, so the writing isn't all that good. This may become a significant Australian cultural moment though, but only time will tell

Requested move 16 March 2019

[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 section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator. The page has already been moved to a better title. Closing as it is also at AFD, so delete ¡votes should be placed there. And for the record, I never suggested any particular title as some users mentioned below. (non-admin closure) © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 19:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Egg Throwing Incident (2019) → ? – Apparently, this name echoes Egg Throwing Incident (1917) because if I search "Egg Throwing Incident" I get results of many other incidents but this one. Assuming it is notable enough, it requires a better name. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 16:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • This incident is not known as "Egg Throwing Incident (2019)"... it is known as #Eggboy, and should be named as such.
  • Disagree. The name can be retained, and the article should also be kept (for now) as per my comments in the following section. User:Tbhotch has been unclear on what would constitute a "better name"; if examples were given, more opinions may be swayed to rename the article. —DIV (120.17.234.201 (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Blatant recentism and NEWS

[edit]

I cite WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. Whenever there's a big event, there's a tendency to make spin-off pages related to it. This is blatant News, and over detail on a recent event. This deserves maybe 1 line in the main article on the attack, and a short paragraph on the page of the politician. It doesn't need a full page on its own. This is a short event that falls under news. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COmpletely agree. This should be documented on the politician's page, as it has no sign of having long-term enduring coverage. --Masem (t) 18:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep calm and read WP:DELAY. Give it a couple of weeks. If this doesn't pick up coverage, we can totally merge this into another article.VR talk 20:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is entirely within the scope of Fraser's article, as any fallout from this will be about him. This never should have been created. --Masem (t) 20:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No--the burden should be exactly the opposite. If, after a couple of weeks, it gets sustained coverage, then we give it a separate page. Until then, it should be merged with Anning's page--which already mentions the incident, although perhaps it can be elaborated on with the secondary sources here. This is one of the most egregious cases of recentism I've seen. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Struck comment from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 13:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you re-read both WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. Whenever there is a big event, there's a tendency for people who have not properly read those guidelines to invoke them in a deletionist way. Please cite the part of WP:NOTNEWS you think is pertinent, and allow me to quote from WP:RECENTISM. "Recentism ... has positive aspects as well — up-to-date information on breaking news events, vetted and counter-vetted by enthusiastic volunteer editors, is something that no other encyclopedia can offer" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:985:B400:B166:434B:34A0:97EC (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely with VR and the above 'unsigned' user. There is no need to burden the main article on the Senator with updates on this topic. It is quite normal for very specific matters to be treated in more detail in separate articles. If the importance fades with time, then it can be trimmed and merged. But for all we know it may grow in importance! Just wait and see: leave it here until that becomes clearer. —DIV (120.17.234.201 (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]
This article is not really about Senator Anning, it's about Will Connolly. There should be a one line reference on the Senator's page that refers to the incident and references this page, but this page should absolutely stand. It is being reported around the world at a far more significant rate than Anning's commentary.Kathoc (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on. Connolly is only famous for egging Anning. There's not much more we can say about Connolly. This page should be deleted. I don't understand why people think this important. Incidents like this occur all the time.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why this page exists and would agree that it should be deleted. Alssa1 (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DIV, I think it should be retained with a view to how it develops. - SunnyBoi (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is important Jack Upland, and is being reported around the world as important, as it was a protest action against racism and white supremacists... that the world is taking note of. We don't know much about Will Connolly. We don't know what will happen (why WP:DELAY exists) - but this isn't in the same class as Astro Labe headbutting Tony Abbott. Kathoc (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kathoc: maybe we should create a page for every single egging incident that is considered "important" and 'significant' at a given point in time? In my own country, the politicians John Prescott and Nigel Farage were egged during times of politically significant campaigns (as well as a similar incident happening to Peter Mandelson). Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS so what is the justification in having a article dedicated to rather minor egging incident? Alssa1 (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alssa1: It would probably be more accurate/appropriate to have a page of the history of things hurled at politicians. It is a time honoured protest, the origins of which may interest people - rotten fruit and vegetables, eggs... and of course the throwing of shoes. I still think this event is something more significant than a minor line in either the Christchurch Massacre or Anning's story - got its own mural in Melbourne as of this morning https://www.instagram.com/van_and_paint/p/BvH4nZ3nLgh/?utm_source=ig_twitter_share&igshid=8cdvoo734n8c (courtesy of Kevin Rudd's nephew), but time will tell. I'm not adding any more to the page though given everyone is hell bent on deleting the content. Kathoc (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also support merging the contents of this article with Fraser Anning's main article. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DON’T DELETE If this article was merely to be merged into Fraser Anning’s, virtually all of it would be deleted. I think it’s worthwhile and is definitely a very important incident in the history of anti-racism in Australia. Far right terrorism and far right groups are big news right now. The reaction comments in the article make it obvious that the incident is very important. Boscaswell talk 03:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Boscaswell: You should discuss it at the AFD instead of here. I provided a link at the word AFD. INeedSupport :3 14:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article should include:

[edit]

Removal of Senator

  • Calls for Anning to be removed as Senator, esp. Change.org petition (to PM) to "Remove Fraser Anning from parliament" Partial URL: /p/the-prime-minister-remove-fraser-anning-from-parliament As of now, it has received ~715000 signatures (target of 1000000).
  • Analysis that states the House no longer has the power (currently) to expel a Senator [1]
  • Please also clarify whether the Governor General, who officially installs Senators (as the representative of HRH the Queen), also has power to remove them — like the 1975 dismissal of the federal government.

Police investigation

  • Police are reportedly investigating the two punches thrown by Anning at the boy following the egging. [2] [3]
  • The boy was released without charge.

Censure

  • A bipartisan (multipartisan) motion to censure Anning is expected. [4]
  • Anning has been "instructed" by the government not to comment on the Christchurch attacks. (See above link.)

—DIV (120.17.234.201 (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Police investigation yes, but the removal of Senator (which cannot happen) and the Censure (which will happen) are subjects for Anning's page, not this one. Kathoc (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You beat me to it. I completely agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kathoc and Jack Upland, and would add this. If Anning is convicted of an assault (very likely), he could be imprisoned for up to 5 years: Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 31. I doubt that he would get as much as that, and might only be fined, but the offence is "punishable ... by imprisonment for one year or longer", which would instantly disqualify him from the parliament: Constitution s 44(ii). There would thus be a bit of a race between the process of prosecution and the date of the federal election. Wikiain (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt he's going to be convicted. He hasn't even been charged. He can argue he acted in self-defence and needed to arrest egg-boy. If it does happen, that definitely belongs on Anning's page.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't share your doubt. Charging is presumably being considered very carefully. It doesn't look like Anning was still under any threat, so punching the young man doesn't seem to have been in self-defence: he just lashed out. Even if it was in self-defence, an act in self-defence has to be "a reasonable response in the circumstances as the person perceives them": Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 322K(2)(b). Anning's act doesn't seem to come into that category: it was out of proportion to any possible second egging, he was bigger and he had mates. Not does it look like Anning was attempting an arrest, for which it would seem to have been sufficient to grab hold of the assailant or get mates to do so. Well, we shall see. Wikiain (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget Anning was struck on the back of the head. He wouldn't necessarily know it was just an egg.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He necessarily knew that he was still conscious and had not been hit by a heavy or sharp instrument. Let's wait for the evidence, which the police will be gathering from the many witnesses—including, it appears, a TV crew (Channel 10) and a reporter from a reputable newspaper (The Age). Wikiain (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eggboy's lawyer has said that he wouldn't be pressing charges. Nobody knows if they're conscious. Sen Anning wouldn't necessarily know the wet stuff wasn't blood or a toxic substance like VX. The vision we have seen takes place in seconds. He wouldn't necessarily know that the Eggsiter's mobile wasn't a weapon. He certainly wouldn't know that he was 17 and went to a private school. He probably wouldn't know the colour of his underpants or his Chinese star sign. He wouldn't know what else what coming. Hence his neutralisation of Eggo is probably reasonable.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The number of signatures from those who want Anning impeached has just passed 1 million, and it continues to grow. I know you may delete this article, but it's worth pointing the updated number out. 2001:8003:AC57:FB00:502C:DA3:D241:F529 (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not impeachment, which is not in the Australian constitution and might not exist in Australian law "received" from England. The Change.org petition, addressed firstly to the Prime Minister, states:
Senator Fraser Anning’s views have no place in the government of our democratic and multicultural country. Within the bounds of Australian law, we request that he be pushed to resign from his position as Senator, and if appropriate, be investigated by law enforcement agencies for supporting right wing terrorism.
Wikiain (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, upon reflection I also agree that of the three themes mentioned, only "Police investigation" belongs wholly on this page, while the "Censure" and "Removal of Senator" themes could be either omitted or perhaps briefly mentioned here (but covered in detail elsewhere). —DIV (120.17.52.102 (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)) Based on the article's title (Fraser Anning egg incident), it seems that of the three themes mentioned, only "Police investigation" belongs wholly on this page, while the "Censure" and "Removal of Senator" themes don't. HOWEVER, the Christchurch mosque shootings section of the main article on Anning directs to this article for more information, implying that any details related to his interaction with or around the "Christchurch mosque shootings" could be included in this article.[reply]
If so, then perhaps indeed the article title should change to something like "Fraser Anning comments on Christchurch mosque shootings, and response", except that it is quite wordy and doesn't explicitly mention the egg aspect. "Fraser Anning's comments on Christchurch mosque shootings, and the subsequent egging incident" is more explicit but even wordier. Less wordy (but much vaguer) would be something like "Fraser Anning controversies (2019)".
—DIV (120.17.52.102 (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]

"International coverage"

[edit]

While I believe this article should just be one sentence on Anning's article (throwing eggs at controversial politicians is nothing new [5] [6] [7]), if this article survives, the "international coverage" section should be first to go. It's just a list of outlets of varying notability who covered the story on the day, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. For example, you can find just as many sources for a one-day soft news story of a British student implying she would sue Nestle for a defective kitkat [8]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.226.17 (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it before I saw this. Obviously I agree. AIRcorn (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Identity of teenager

[edit]

Please do not name or otherwise identify the 17-year-old until a consensus to do so has been established on this talk page. Charges could still possibly be brought against him, and he would be considered a child for legal purposes. Identifying him could then be illegal under Victorian/Australian law and result in prosecution for contempt of court, despite his being active on social media. Accordingly, I've removed his name from the article. Out of caution, I have done this quickly, without first reading up on relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please post below if you think I have overlooked something in my haste. Meticulo (talk) 07:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have also removed his name from this talk page, which required editing others' comments. I've added a signature wherever I've done so, but unfortunately have left something of a mess behind me. Apologies for taking these liberties, Jack Upland and Kathoc, but I didn't know off the top of my head which Wikipedia policy and guidelines apply in such cases, and thought it best to act quickly before any of us face legal proceedings. Meticulo (talk) 07:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC) - Struck out because I've reverted those removals, adding his name back in. Multiple Australian sources have named him, and the editors whose comments were affected have both posted against such changes being made in the article. Meticulo (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind you doing that, but I think it's unnecessary. He hasn't been charged yet, and he has been identified in many places.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Meticulo: while I don't think this page should exist in the first place, there are a couple of issues with your edit. Firstly, the age of criminal responsibility in all provinces of Australia is 10, and while being tried as an adult cannot occur without judicial waiver, he is not considered a minor in Australia (at least in the sense you're referring to him as). Secondly, as has been mentioned previously, a number of reliable sources both international and domiciled in Australia are reporting his name as "William Connolly" and therefore I am unaware of any issues in reporting his name on that front. Thirdly and finally, by posting the name that is being widely reported by reliable sources, we are not speculating on his guilt or innocence we are simply referring to what the sources say. For these reasons I have undone your removal. Alssa1 (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alssa1: No, I'm not saying he's below the age of criminal responsibility. I'm referring to him as a child in the sense that he would most likely appear before the Children's Court if tried for a criminal offence in Victoria. In other words, 'a person who at the time of the alleged commission of the offence was under the age of 18 years but of or above the age of 10 years'. Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Victoria), section 3(1). For details about the possible penalties for identifying him, for those of us in Australia at least, see section 523, particularly (5) and (6)(a). Meticulo (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Meticulo: I think you're being a bit overzealous. The law you are citing (and the penalties thereof) refer to the contravening of a particular order made by the judiciary. Not only has such an order not been made, it is highly unlikely that an order of anonymity would be made, given the numerous news sources that have already reported the name of the individual in question. As for the "a person who at the time of the alleged commission of the offence..." line, you seem to have misread what that refers to; it's talking about the penalties one would face for contravening an order (given by the age of perpetrator). Alssa1 (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We can comply with court orders when they are made.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
His name is in banner headlines in major press around the world. There cannot be a court order to undo that. Kathoc (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, consensus is obviously against me here, so I won't revert the changes in the article. However, I'd still advise editors based in Australia, and particularly Victoria, to think twice before referring to the teenager by name in their own contributions, given the following:
  • Wikipedia policy could be against such identification. See WP:BLPNAME.
  • Section 253(5) of the Act says, "An order posted under this section must not contain any particulars likely to lead to the identification of the child who is a party to the proceeding." Admittedly I'm not a lawyer, but I'm yet to be convinced I've misread this. Should have referred to section 534. See below. Meticulo (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such orders are routinely made by Children's Courts in Australia.
  • Looking at the more reliable and experienced of the current Australian sources in the article, neither ABC News nor The Guardian have identified the teenager.
  • Victorian prosecutors seem to be a little touchy about such issues in the wake of the George Pell trial.
  • When assessing risk, it's best to consider not just the likelihood of an event (in this case, being charged for contempt of court) but also the worst possible consequence of such an event (that being jail time à la Derryn Hinch or Tony Barrass).
Anyway, I'll leave it up to individual editors in Australia to determine whether they want to take the risk. Meticulo (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should find out if he becomes 18 years old soon, that would solve the issue entirely. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that it's the age at which the offence an alleged offence was committed that matters, not the age at which charges are laid, but I could be wrong. I'm out of my depth here. I've posted at WikiProject Law and the Australian Wikipedians' notice board‎ in the hopes that we might get someone with legal expertise to help us. Meticulo (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In all seriousness, several things would need to happen. That he becomes a party to a criminal proceeding, that the courts decide that publishing his name is serious enough to threaten sanctions, that Wikipedia editors are liable for repeating what reliable sources report, and that he doesn't become eighteen years of age soon. This only applies to Australian editors anyway, and overseas editors consistently published the details of George Pell's conviction on Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure it regards the person's current age, as that was certainly the case with Kim Duthie who was 17 and then named in the media once she was 18. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Meticulo: An order posted under this section must not contain any particulars likely to lead to the identification of the child who is a party to the proceeding. An order is something published by the court in this case, it does not concern what media reports. We're not really dealing with the 17 year old as the accused party here, and it's highly unlikely this will be a Children's Court matter. If anything, this will be a matter prosecuting the adult(s) that were involved in the incident, and the 17 year old may be considered as a participant by being a victim, where publishing his name may be a contravention of law. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Onetwothreeip: Sorry, it was unintentionally misleading of me to have not posted a longer excerpt which included the subsection immediately afterwards. It should have read: (5) An order posted under this section must not contain any particulars likely to lead to the identification of the child who is a party to the proceeding. (6) A person must not contravene an order made and posted under this section. Goodness knows if this is even the most relevant piece of legislation - it's just the best result I could find with a quick search. Anyway, I'm much less concerned about the risk of Australian editors being prosecuted after having found established domestic sources that have named the teenager, including: SBS, Channel 9 and another story in The Guardian. All of these sources are mainstream enough to have lawyers scour a story before publication (I hope). Meticulo (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not misleading, it's just that what you're quoting has no relevance to us. You should be looking at section 534 instead. "The subsection immediately afterwards" which you have now posted only says that people cannot contravene an order of the court, while the original subsection you posted was something that the court has to follow when making an order. Neither subsection says that the court can't name a child, or that the media can't. It is not an order of the court to not publish the name, it's section 534 of the act which says (1) A person must not publish or cause to be published (a) [...]any particulars likely to lead to the identification of[...] (a)(ii) a child or other party to the proceeding. However we're not dealing with a Children's Court case, we're dealing with an event that happened on several news cameras. The media is allowed to report the name of the person in the video, but even if this were to be the subject of a Children's Court proceeding, we would not be allowed to identify that proceeding. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Section 534 is the one I should have quoted. Meticulo (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The court order on Pell was addressed to all media, whether in Australia or overseas. WP is published in the USA, but some of us are Australian contributors. I have a legal background, although not specifically in this area of law, but my sense of the matter (in no way formal advice!) is that WP should not mention the young man's name unless and until it has been mentioned in open court. Wikiain (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
American websites are not bound to Australian law even if the Australian courts "address" them, regardless of whatever imperial notions those courts may have.—chbarts (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Australian news outlets are naming Will Connolly as 'eggboy', I don't see why a US domiciled organisation should be more zealous in its censorship than Australian news organisations. Alssa1 (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Victim of what?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely no reason for us to not name him here. We're not bound to Australian law, no matter what Australians might think or desire, and we break stupid laws (for example, about depicting certain religious leaders) all the time here.—chbarts (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What law? No one has identified a law that applies here. There are no court proceedings.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The boy assaulted the Senator with political motivation - Terrorism. It wasn't just an egging but a hit on the back of the head. Anning only slapped the assailant once in self defense. The boy was released with pending investigations, meaning that if Anning makes a formal complaint the boy will be charged.— Preceding unsigned comment added by THL.Larkfeast (talk • contribs) I had to strike this out due to comment made in bad-faith. Also, it violates WP:NLT, WP:LIBEL, WP:TERRORIST. INeedSupport :3 22:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Terrorism" prone to hyperbole much? Come on now, that's plain childish. Bacondrum (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fraser_Anning_egg_incident&oldid=1253429074"