Talk:Bondi Junction stabbings/Archive 1

Police officer's gender

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Discussion moot given name since released, as pointed out by @SomethingForDeletion. Local Variable (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

---

There's an edit war brewing about whether to include the gender of the police officer who shot the alleged suspect. The gender of the cop who alleged shot the suspect is male while this does not matter per the essay at WP:GENDER, it is best we include it. It is not relevant. There is nothing unusual or out of the ordinary about it. In the words of GENDER, it carries the possible implication that the participation of the subject's gender is uncommon [or] unexpected. The better view is not to include it. We should establish consensus here, to stop the edit warring. Local Variable (talk) 11:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Seconded, putting the gender in there is completely unnecessary, looking back through the last 4 or 5 last massacres in Australia none mentioned the police-person's gender. Creepercast888 (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. HiLo48 (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

It should be excluded at the moment, it may or may not be relevant in the future, but at the moment it isn't. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it could be warranted if more comes to light. There are early reports the attacker may have been targeting women. If that turns out to true and verifiable sources back it up, there may be merit it inclusion. Local Variable (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

In retrospect, this turned into a somewhat pointless argument, given her name has been released, published in the media, and is now included in the article. Which was what was likely going to happen all along, I think police management just wanted the chance to consult with her before releasing her identity, but it was unlikely it was ever going to be kept secret permanently. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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.

Dawn Singleton age?

According to the article she was born in 1998 which would make her around 26 years old, not 35 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Singleton_(Australian_entrepreneur) MrHandsEnumclaw (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if late but media are now saying 25 https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/crime/millionare-businessmans-daughter-named-as-bondi-stabbing-victim/news-story/977156fdccdb75250522f15432b9d4d0 Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Great. Might have been a typo originally MrHandsEnumclaw (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Albo Review

Is it necessary to include Anthony Albanese’s X(Twitter) statement? 115.70.87.192 (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

He is head of government and surely a mass stabbing doesn't happen everyday in Oz. But better to paraphrase it for WP:QUOTEFARM reasons. Borgenland (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I guess so, after the press conference hopefully we’ll get more answers for this tragedy 115.70.87.192 (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

We should include his statement, as it is the subject of significant coverage. The BBC article is a reliable source, and the article accurately summarises what it says, so we don't need to directly cite or quote it. Local Variable (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah just making sure it’s needed or if it should be removed. 115.70.87.192 (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Massacre?

I see an editor has restored the category 'Massacres in Australia' to the article. WP:CATVER says: Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. I don't see any discussion in the article supporting the use of this category, or any of the sources characterising it as such, so I propose re-removing that category. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed. None of the sources refer to it. Local Variable (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

This may be a MOS:ENGVAR issue. There are many incidents with the same or smaller impact that are defined as massacres in Australia, including Greenough family massacre, Central Coast massacre and a very similar incident the Strathfield massacre (as examples). If you're coming at this from a different cultural perspective you may be inclined to feel a very normal word here is not applicable, when in our vernacular it is appropriate. It does not make sense to not have these incidents in the same category. -- Rob.au (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I should have added an example article - here is one: [1] - sorry it is paywalled but is headlined "Stabbing at Westfield Bondi: Killer behind massacre known to police" and in the body states the attacker "killed five women and a man in the massacre before he was shot dead by a lone female police officer." Or an alternative non-paywalled source [2] also uses "massacre" in the headline. "Mass murder" is also used by some major sources [3][4][5] - my understanding is that the only difference between the English definition of "mass murder" and "massacre" is that the latter is indiscriminate. The indiscriminate nature is covered by many sources. -- Rob.au (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Rob.au, thanks for that enlightenment. So to satisfy WP:CATVER we probably need to see it described as a massacre in the article and supported by sources describing it that way. We currently do not have that.

I would say that the word implies more victims than we have here, perhaps into the hundreds, if not thousands. But I bow to your better understanding of the way it's used in Oz.

This then begs the question as to whether we need to move the category Massacres in Australia into a different place in the category tree, and not mix it with categories using a different definition of the term 'massacre'. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The articles in the massacre category seem to focus on willed criminal acts by individuals intending to cause mass harm, instead of something like a psychotic rampage. That probably explains why the media is avoiding that term for now. We have no idea what this attack was motivated by, if anything. The category inclusion seems inappropriate for now, but that may change with time. At the moment that category conveniently captures a lot of articles with massacre in the title and I think should be left as is. Local Variable (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Definitely "massacre" absolutely does not imply "into the hundreds" in Australia, and is commonly used for smaller events per numerous examples already given and indeed there's many more on WP that don't reach that bar. It seems news.com.au for one has now settled on this term for this incident as it's appearing in multiple new articles this morning [6] [7]. It might be that in time the category name should be updated (though I'd avoid rushing into that in the middle of an unfolding event) - but my main point remains, being that WP:COMMONSENSE means it makes utterly no sense to exclude this article from the category to which it very obviously belongs. Rob.au (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry not sure why the links did not appear (not used to using the app). Rob.au (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Late to the discussion, from a media terminology standpoint "mass stabbing" immediately describes the point and draws specific attention, so alongside implication of the word "massacre" headlining shouldn't be used to attempt to satisfy WP:CATV. Instead using the definition of mass murder under from the Australian Institute of Criminology, a massacre has a "threshold of four or more fatalities", as employed within List of massacres in Australia, and also the description in article content. Kak101 (talk) 06:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

As a side note, @49.186.97.193 has changed the lead sentence and infobox title to refer to massacre. I would revert this were I not at my WP:3RR limit. I suggest someone reverts it, it should reflect the article title and the page has not been moved (that move should be discussed as it will be contentious). Local Variable (talk) 06:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

This category was removed by a supposed alphabetical sort [8] but given the tenor of this good faith discussion I've restored it. As per above it looks like the appropriate longer term approach is keeping the category attached but renaming/reindexing it for clarity of what it contains. It looks like the use of the word "massacre" has come and gone from the article and at this time was extant only in the short description, having been most recently changed from "Mass murder in...", which for now is what I've reverted it to as it felt applicable at this stage and seems less contentious, but I'm not firmly tied to precisely how this settles -- Rob.au (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Falsely accused man

I won't link due to BLP concerns, but anyone who was on Twitter would know that as well as people trying to blame this attack on Islam, others were trying to blame it on Jews, and they chose a slightly similar-looking man with a very Jewish name to bear the brunt. This name was shared by Seven News, as well as by The Skwawkbox, a British far-left website that is refusing to retract its "article". Coverage of the scandal, including responses from the falsely accused man, is covered in News.com.au, the Australian and the Brisbane Times.

Is this subject notable enough to be included in the article, as long as it is brief and does not mention the innocent man's name? Unknown Temptation (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Tangentially related but we should be blacklisting Skwawkbox links on Wikipedia if true. Bremps... 17:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it should be mentioned unless something solid comes out of this, like a lawsuit, an apology or someone losing their job over such callousness on their part. Borgenland (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

7 network issued a public apology. Borgenland (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian is reporting on this topic – https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/15/false-claims-started-spreading-about-the-bondi-junction-stabbing-attack-as-soon-as-it-happened – given a reliable source is covering it, I don't see why it doesn't deserve a brief mention in the article. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

A thorough read of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons tells me this stuff does not belong. Naming someone who was actually NOT involved in the incident is unacceptable. If some editors are really determined to post something, please do it without names. HiLo48 (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

We don't need to actually quote the false name(s) to report on the fact that false claims were made. What about a sentence like this: "In the immediate aftermath of the attack, false claims of a Jewish or Muslim perpetrator began to circulate on social media; these resulted in Seven News falsely naming a Sydney Jewish man as responsible, even though he had nothing to do with the incident" with a cite to The Guardian article I linked above. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

HiLo48 you will perhaps be astonished to learn that in this instance, I agree with you. (I hope you weren’t drinking coffee when you read that!) Boscaswell talk 05:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

In my comment I explicitly said I wasn't providing any links in case naming was not allowed, and I ended the comment by saying that if this can be included, it should be without a name. ABC has a detailed minute-by-minute of how the lies spread around the world, so there is a relevance to this story. [9] Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Security guard nationality

@Gianluigi02: and @WWGB:. Please be mindful of the three-revert rule. @Gianluigi02: You added this back a number of times after it was removed without leaving an edit summary. It would have been better to come to the talk page and gain consensus: see the bold, revert, discuss cycle. At this stage, it's not obvious to me why we should refer to the country of origin of an Australian national. Why is it relevant where he was 'originally from'? Local Variable (talk) 12:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

the added articles said he was from Pakistan but did not mention dual citizenship or that he had exclusively ancestry. If so, you can proceed to edit. Gianluigi02 (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Could we just not mention his ancestry at all? I don't think readers are going to care. Local Variable (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, Tahir resided and worked in Australia on a refugee visa prior to his death. His country of birth ("ancestry") is not relevant to his status as a victim. WWGB (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I only mentioned it because in every article about an attack, if a victim is a foreigner or holds dual citizenship this is specified in the victims section of the article. Gianluigi02 (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Gianluigi02: "Every article"? Please indicate even a few articles where this occurs. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

look at the 2018 Strasbourg attack for example. It was specified that one of the victim was a French-Afghan man, and another a French-Polish. Gianluigi02 (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The news articles are mentioning it, but they are news articles and not encyclopedias. We don't cross into obituaries and memorialisation like they do. It's hard to see how it's relevant at this stage, and it looked like we were giving the fact undue weight the way it was expressed. Local Variable (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it is irrelevant in this article, so should not be included. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why this fact should be excluded? The Pakistani Consulate made a statement in which it identified him as a Pakistan citizen, and that was cited in media coverage – e.g. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/refugee-who-died-defending-others-among-six-victims-of-bondi-stabbing-attack/q6p6epk5x – what is relevant to readers? I expect readers from that part of the world might see the fact as having greater relevance, indeed if you look at the coverage of this incident in the Pakistan and Indian media – see e.g. https://www.indianlink.com.au/pak-refugee-faraz-tahir-killed-in-bondi-attack/ (edit: ok, that's actually Australian Indian community media, but here's an example from the media in Pakistan: https://mediabites.com.pk/faraz-tahir-a-pakistani-in-search-of-a-successful-and-peaceful-future-fell-victim-to-terrorism-in-sydney-australia/ )– this is an aspect they are emphasising, because it has particular relevance to their audience. Given the diversity of Wikipedia's readership, I think we should be careful about making assumptions about what facts may or may not be relevant to them. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Leaning to agree, particularly since two other foreign nationals were identified with countries. Borgenland (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I've changed my mind, I think it should be included as it is the subject of significant coverage now. Local Variable (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Casualty section: need for non-English names?

…this being the English language Wikipedia. I’ve never before seen translations of English versions of personal names. Boscaswell talk 05:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

To use the correct terminology, you mean names in non-Latin scripts, as opposed to Latin transliterations. (English is written in the Latin script.) And as to that, lots of articles have them, see (to give random examples) Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un. The original language script is useful in removing ambiguity, because often there are multiple ways to romanise the same non-Latin name, and sources are often inconsistent about which is used. They are often useful for people wanting to research the topic in other languages. Now, in this particular case, maybe less useful, but what's the harm? I'm sure some bilingual readers will find them beneficial. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Motivation for attack

It's been very well established that this was an attack directed at women by someone who openly proclaimed themself to hate women. Surely this should be included within the article? 161.29.77.165 (talk) 10:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC).

It's just the opinion of Karen Webb. WWGB (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

You will probably never truly find motivation for this attack (if there was any motivation) at the moment it's all speculation. LouisOrr27 (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

There will be a coronial inquiry, which will reach a conclusion on this topic (to the extent it is possible to determine the answer). We should wait for the coronial inquiry (which is likely going to take 12 months or more), and then we can cite its conclusions (whatever they may be) in the article. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Reactions pointless.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

A new section has been added below. Please continue discussion there. Local Variable (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

---

I submit that the Reactions section contributes nothing at all to the article. All the reactions are entirely predictable. Most are completely irrelevant. And it doesn't mention mine.

Unless a good reason to keep it is provided, I shall remove it. HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd probably hold off culling it completely for now (and I'm not just saying that because I just tediously changed all the Tweet refs). At least some warrant inclusion under a reactions heading. Also it bespeaks the worldwide notability of the incident. We should probably get guidance from similar articles, such as Lindt Cafe siege, which include reactions. I agree it shouldn't dominate the article. Local Variable (talk) 04:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

It's currently the article's largest section. HiLo48 (talk) 06:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

There was a pretty substantial cull of premier statements by @InedibleHulk (which were definitely unnecessary). We definitely need the Australian PM and NSW Premier's reactions, and I'm inclined to keep a concise summary some of the international reactions (US President, UK monarchy, Pope). Local Variable (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Tweets (or whatever we're supposed to call them now) have always been fine supplemental sources, but in this context, everyone and their dog can tweet the same thing so I think it's good to go by what the secondary sources feel stand out. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I mean, if we're going to keep doing Reactions at all. I have absolutely no problem with no longer doing Reactions. It just encourages us to do them again later. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Object due to recency to event and necessity. Reactions is the easiest section to collate sources for and write about, especially due to the fact the stabbings occurred only 24 hours ago. As more reports and articles are released, and the full timeline of the stabbings is set out, the other sections will be expanded. Re-evaluation can then occur. I agree it currently forms a large part of the article, but that shouldn't entail removal. Aftermath and responses are always necessary components to recent historic events as they set out scale, international impact, community impact. We should follow consistency to other similar articles, with most containing, 'Reactions' or 'Responses'. Kak101 (talk) 07:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says we should not follow what other articles do. Almost all the reactions listed are completely predictable, and tell the reader nothing of value. HiLo48 (talk) 07:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has to be seen in context, it's an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, to avoid discussion getting sidetracked into other similar articles. Almost all disaster articles have a reactions section, which reflects a prevailing view that it's an appropriate thing to discuss in an article. This article would be an anomaly or outlier if it didn't have a reactions section.

I've cut down the section a bit more, and I think it's okay now, particularly given the other sections will expand in the coming days. Local Variable (talk) 07:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

It still concerns me that almost all the reactions listed are completely predictable, and therefore tell the reader nothing of value. If someone had said something a bit out of the ordinary, that would be worth mentioning, but right now it's a big yawnfest. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I think Cauchi’s family reaction is worth mentioning. Most mass killing, murder etc. pages do have a reaction section, so it would be more neat if there was conformity to the pre-established structure. If it really is redundant I guess we could put Cauchi’s family’s response under perpetrator? Derppster (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with HiLo that the section adds nothing as the reactions are stereotypical and predictable. I support its removal. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The political puffery has been substantially cut down and anything further isn't reasonable imo. It demonstrates the extent of notability of the event. The perpetrator's family response is the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. The public response is relevant too, even if predictable. For what it's worth, in exceptional cases, this will even justify an independent article, let alone be covered within an article. Local Variable (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

How does mentioning the completely predictable public response add anything to the article? (Don't talk about other articles.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

It's completely relevant to discuss reactions for the reasons I gave above, they are the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources and therefore appropriate to include. The view that they are pointless is a personal one. Rather than evaluating their importance ourselves, we should instead be doing is seeing whether the reactions are the subject of coverage. If they are, they are suitable for inclusion. Remember, we summarise sources, we don't do our own analysis or synthesis. If the media is publishing the reactions, even if you think they are typical or to be expected, some coverage is appropriate. It's then a question of degree.

Also, it is relevant to consider established consensus in that virtually every article of this type as has a reactions section, so the view to the contrary is against the grain, there should be a good reason for that, there is not. The reason reactions are covered is that typically in an article of this type there will be extensive media coverage about reactions, so that is it is notable and worthy of inclusion. Local Variable (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Your comment is in very bad faith. I DID give reasons, far more than a personal opinion. I have written those reasons several times. I don't want to write them again. Just stop lying about my position!!!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

So in a nutshell, a reactions section would only be notable for you if the public started behaving in a way totally unexpected of such events (ex. dancing, high-fiving the assailant?) Borgenland (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous, completely unhelpful comment. HiLo48 (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a valid point. To avoid doubt, the claim my comment was in bad faith is emphatically rejected. The word "pointless" appears in the section heading. WP:AGF. Local Variable (talk) 07:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have now completely MISSED the point. YOU said "there should be a good reason" AFTER I had given clear reasons. You may disagree with the reasons, but implying that I had none except personal opinion was just plain wrong!!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

It's still the biggest section. HiLo48 (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

It's perfectly legit to cover reactions. Whether they're predictable or not makes no difference. Plenty of things are predictable, but that doesn't make them insignificant. Sardaka (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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.

Would anyone miss the "2024" in the title if it were gone?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Move request initiated below. Please continue discussion there. Local Variable (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

---

I think Bondi Junction stabbings is available, tidier and more commonly used, but figure I should ask. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Most articles about mass casualty events include the year. 115.70.87.192 (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but every other massacre in Australia doesn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

If you check the List of massacres in Australia article (which is a more comprehensive list than the Category page), several other articles include the date, most recently the 2019 Darwin shooting and the January 2017 Melbourne car attack. SabreOnYouTube (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The Melbourne one has a specific timeframe because of the need to disambiguate from December 2017 Melbourne car attack. The 2019 Darwin one is conspicuously an odd one out on the list. The only other article with a year is the 1993 Cangai siege and all the rest have no year. The clear standard style in these Australian incidents is not to have it. -- Rob.au (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

That is, every other one except the 1804 Risdon Cove massacre; how sooon we forget, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Of course, if you'd rather not think of this as a "massacre", there's also only one other titledated murder in Sydney (the 2019 Sydney CBD stabbings). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Get rid of it per WP:COMMONNAME - it doesn't appear in any of the sources and isn't need 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). 19:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Lindt Cafe siege doesn't have a year, why does this? Of course, that incident differs in various ways from this one, but it isn't clear what relevance any of those differences have to the question of whether the article title should include a year. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 04:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but I'd support Bondi Junction Mass Stabbing. It's weird having it pluralised, the media aren't doing that. Local Variable (talk) 10:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Really? You might look at [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. It's pluralised because more than one person was stabbed. WWGB (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, there's variants either way. A more pressing problem is consistency with other articles, which use 'stabbings' plural. Leaving that aside (since it doesn't really matter), I do think it's appropriate to drop 2024 from the title now. If it stays as is, the lead needs a rewrite, in accordance with MOS:AVOIDBOLD since it's redundant to say 2024 stabbings occurred ... on a date in 2024. It's not a solution to drop 2024 from the lead because MOS:BOLDTITLE provides the full article title be used. Local Variable (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

How's this look? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Excellent. HiLo48 (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

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.

Link to Category

I created the link to the Category by putting the box in the bottom right-hand corner. Then someone changed it to the in-line format. I think the box is the better way of doing it because it stands out and people can see it easily. The in-line format doesn't stand out and it's easy to miss it. I think we should go back to the box format. Sardaka (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

If no-one objects I have no problem with it. Pabsoluterince (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sardaka, which category are we talking about here? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

See Special:Diff/1219034436. I don't really mind but marginally prefer the inline version ({{commons-inline}}) because it doesn't leave a gaping space. The box is good when it can float to the right of a lengthy external links section, but this page has no external links so it leaves a large gap. Local Variable (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, the Commons category. I agree with Sardaka - I think the bottom-right box looks better. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

death count

I don't think this was the deadliest attack since the January 2017 Melbourne car attack, considering both resulted in the death of six victims. The article in place should be either Cairns child killings or Childers Palace Backpackers Hostel fire; or a rephrase of the head paragraph. Regardless, all these incidents are huge tragedies and I regret to have potentially downplayed any of the crimes committed and persons dead or injured. Josethewikier (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The year was based on sources cited. Borgenland (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Does one include intra family killings? Arson attacks? Arguably the most recent more deadly similar incident is the Port Arthur massacre. See List of massacres in Australia. 18:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps this is an engvar issue but to me, "deadliest since" clearly includes something that was as deadly. To give a loosely related example, the media and police in NZ often talk about how this is the worst Easter weekend for roads deaths since year X or maybe even deadliest since year X. I'm fairly sure year X might very well have had the same number of deaths. Nil Einne (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

really? thanks for the clarification if that is the case. English grammar isn't something I'm the very best at. Josethewikier (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

In my mind "The deadliest since X" would mean more deadly than whatever occurred in X. If they were equal it would be "as deadly as".

The suffix -est, (e.g. deadliest) means most. Deadliest since, greatest since etc. means that this overtakes the previous "deadliest" incident.

Agreed -est means most. Deadliest since, means that it is the most for the time range, so Deadliest since 2017, means that it is the most since 2017, and implies that there is an as deadly or even more deadly attack that took place in 2017. In this case, since there were 6 deaths in both cases, deadliest since is accurate if there was no event as deadly in between. Fileyfood500 (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the time range is inclusive, and is not exclusive, and would be akin to saying "the most deadly attack since "xyz attack"" I don't think it could mean "as deadly as" IMO. Otherwise if its exclusive, and not including the attack that took place in X year, then if no attack ever occured in that time frame, any attack would be the deadliest since, which I don't think is the case (and most I think would I agree) KarmaKangaroo (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Generally when referenced in Australia, massacres are measured by total number of dead (generally including the attacker, if they die) KarmaKangaroo (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Reactions again - It's far too big

It's STILL the biggest section, and growing! (See the previous section on this matter above.) I just removed some news ticker style content fromUser:Borgenland, with an explanatory Edit summary, and he quickly restored it. The section should be retitled "Everything that happened after the event, going on forever". HiLo48 (talk) 06:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It is a relevant statement from the mall. From the looks of it, your real beef with the aftermath is primarily WP:IDONTLIKEIT, particularly your prejudice against "predictable" reactions and the absence of coverage about yours which you openly admitted in an earlier section. If would be better for you to seek content dispute resolution rather than trying to obstruct information that contributes to comprehensiveness of this article. Borgenland (talk) 06:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It would be better if you stopped talking about me, and discussed what I wrote, here and above. We really can't have an article where the biggest section is Reactions. Note that I am not any more concerned about your recent addition than everything else there. Please don't take it personally. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

A mall implementing increased security over the attack is indeed relevant, and we can't leave readers guessing about what happened to the mall after, particularly since similar attacks on shopping centres have resulted in much worse. In a compromise though, I am open to removing the police control. Borgenland (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder of WP:CON LouisOrr27 (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. @HiLo48, I'm afraid this view isn't shared by many others. The following are relevant and suitable for inclusion:

1. The head of state's reaction.
2. Day of mourning and prominent locations lit up.
3. Premier's reaction and interaction with Queensland (where perpetrator was from).
4. Comments from prominent world leaders.
5. GoFundMe campaign.
6. Community responses.
7. The perpetrator's family reaction (absolutely important, the subject of very widespread coverage).

All of these are the subject of significant coverage, are relevant to the article, and should be included. Wikipedia takes its scope of coverage by reference to what is published in reliable sources. The reactions are covered by numerous reliable sources.

It's not really surprising the reactions section is becoming longer. The attack was fleeting, it only took half an hour or so. The response to the attack will be greater. It's no surprise it's a big section. Local Variable (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NOTNEWS, especially the bit that says " Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." The word "enduring" is there for a reason. HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I completely disagree considering for some events there are whole pages relating to reactions, see Reactions to the Manchester Arena bombing & Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks obviously these event's were much larger but it proves that reactions are notable enough. LouisOrr27 (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

That's an argument against the inclusion of this article. The scope of coverage of the article is an editorial decision made by reference to consensus. I emphasise again that the reactions section is subject of significant coverage, notable, and there's no reason to not include it. Local Variable (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not arguing for not including a Reactions section. HiLo48 (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Are there particular points on the list above you think shouldn't be included? Local Variable (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

2, 4, 5 & 6. HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Not all incidents get to result in a crowdfunding movement (for a Baby that was stabbed) and big monuments lit up and have days of mourning declared. In some countries including mine, six stabbings (or even a shooting) would be an ordinary work day. Furthermore, community reactions actually make the article more notable and due because it highlights the impact it had on the wider public. If it were to be removed it would only harm the article’s enduring significance, comprehensiveness and notability by excluding the reactions of wider society and limiting it to a bunch of politicians and the perpetrator’s family, in addition to subjecting editors to more grave accusations of WP:CENSORing and excluding reliably sourced and notable displays of public opinion. Borgenland (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Are they really notable? HiLo48 (talk) 04:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

It is, much more so that that the public's reactions are unpredictable and more spontaneous than politicians expressing condolences. Plus, if you believe that a crowdfunding for a baby is not notable then maybe we should omit mentioning that the baby was injured so that no one else would have grounds for including the entire thing, which again would compromise the article's notability. As for world leaders, you can see that only a limited number expressed condolences. If someone were to make a flag soup of 196 countries then I would have agreed with you on reducing 4. Borgenland (talk) 05:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Suggesting we should omit mentioning that the baby was injured is just plain stupid, provocative, and confrontational. You are not discussing this rationally, and therefore not changing my mind. HiLo48 (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

It is no more provocative or stupid than trying to omit extraordinary reactions to extraordinary events, which you have been proposing this entire time. Borgenland (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they are. And your comments within this talk section are in some cases inappropriate and boil down to you don't like it. To suggest a day of mourning not be included in this article is just absurd. You've made it clear that your opinion is unchangeable, so not sure why you're continuing on. KarmaKangaroo (talk) 09:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Also opposed. National day of mourning is significant as is the community's reaction to the event. International reactions demonstrates worldwide significance. I'm not sure this argument is going anywhere, the consensus is against any significant reduction. Local Variable (talk) 10:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

You're not actually discussing what I wrote, just repeating the argument in favour. So you're not changing my mind either. HiLo48 (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Neither do your even irrational, dismissive and exclusivist arguments that lack common sense, prefer making the public look ignorant of this incident and would only get reverted by other interested editors. Borgenland (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Argument by speculation is weak argument. But I give up because I am outnumbered and feel I am being being bludgeoned. Not that outnumbering someone is NOT consensus. HiLo48 (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't need to change your mind, WP:CONSENSUS does not require everyone agree. You are welcome to a different opinion, but consensus is against any significant changes at this stage. Local Variable (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

RE: Defender (infobox)

Can someone explain the use of the defender perimeter on the infobox? To me it seems unnecessary as although Amy Scott was the one who killed Cauchi, she was not the only one attempting to stop him. LouisOrr27 (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I don't really think that's the intended use of that parameter. Scott is mentioned several times elsewhere in the article, so she gets plenty of coverage. I'm going to boldly remove that from the Infobox. HiLo48 (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. It is unsuitable for inclusion in the infobox and it shouldn't be re-added. It looked very odd. She isn't a defender, she is a police officer who was first on the scene. Local Variable (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Natural defenders would be the security guards, like Faraz Tahir. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but he shouldn't be added either because it would create confusion. Local Variable (talk) 04:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

That's likely the case, yes. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a word that just isn't used for anything like the purpose it was used for here in standard Australian English. It made me think of a footy team. HiLo48 (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Addition for the article?

I gone to St. James today and went to the Westfield mall. The big panel thing seen throughout the mall had a message which said something about commemorating the people who have died in the Bondi Junction stabbings. Is that an addition image that I can take and add to the article, or is it unnecessary? Shanshansan (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2024

In the Reactions section, change "Sympathies were also expressed by Australia's head of state, King Charles III, Queen Camilla,[66] Prince, Princess of Wales,[67] Pope Francis,[68] and French President Emmanuel Macron, whom he praised Damien Guerot and Silas Despreaux for confronting Cauchi"

to

"Sympathies were also expressed by Australia's head of state, King Charles III, Queen Camilla,[66] Prince, Princess of Wales,[67] Pope Francis,[68] and French President Emmanuel Macron, who praised Damien Guerot and Silas Despreaux for confronting Cauchi" I am become (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Done with a minor tweak. Borgenland (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Re: Bollard

Do people actually use the term "bollard" in regular speech? Viriditas (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does. It's not a redirect, so it must be regular speech to somebody. It's quite common in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Those objects that are often placed between pedestrian areas and roads to separate vehicular traffic from pedestrians; I have no idea what else you can call them, other than a "bollard". Fork99 (talk) 04:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

It looked to me like the bollard he was fending the perpetrator off with was one of those moveable posts with a heavy base - the sort you see a line of, spaced out with a rope along the top to cordon off an area or denote queue lines, etc, as seen in stanchion? But yeah, the media reports immediately spoke of bollard and we do use the term. JennyOz (talk) 05:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Here's an Australian ad for such bollards. HiLo48 (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

It looks like he used a stanchion from a movie theater, not a bollard. In the states we would call this a post stanchion. I wonder if it was a post stanchion from the Event Cinemas tenant, from a coffee shop, or from a bank. Viriditas (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

This Australian has heard of the word stanchion, but would never use it. It's just not a common word in Australian English, which I presume is the version of English we're using in this article. HiLo48 (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

In Australian English, a stanchion is for example something that holds up electrical catenary wires to power electric trains. It implies something structural in some way. A fixed or movable post for various purposes including protecting objects and people from vehicles, providing access restrictions for vehicles or for holding up queue management systems or temporary restrictions around a hazard is a bollard. You would simply never in any context describe these objects as a stanchion in Australia (if you wished to be understood). That's why the person wielding the bollard was dubbed "Bollard man" and not "Stanchion Man". -- Rob.au (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

This made me laugh out loud. Thanks for this. Viriditas (talk) 08:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Whether it was or not, I would argue the vast majority of Australians across demographics would call it a bollard. In Australia a bollard describes both permanent and movable "poles" that prevent access, or separate pedestrian areas from cars, or are used to prevent or at least show no access permitted by people to areas, such as those used with a rope that would be "technically" a "stanchion". "Stanchion" is just not common vocab in Australia at all; to the point where stanchions are generally advertised by manufacturers as bollards. KarmaKangaroo (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Understood. Just trying to figure out my own confusion. Viriditas (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Source 11

The entry makes a claim about gunshots, but the source provided, 11, says no such thing. 147.78.4.122 (talk) 10:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

It is in the bottom, but was paraphrased into the version in the article to void copyvio reversion. Borgenland (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Borgenland "Inspector Scott shot Cauchi and he died at the scene. Police have not said how many shots were discharged but some witnesses say they heard three shots.

Shopping attendants lock down their stores with customers still inside and some help shoppers escape out exits in the back of storerooms.

By this stage, heavily armed police are at the scene and searching the area."

Nothing about gunshots compelling shopping attendants to do that. By that point most people had fled anyway, according to the article. The off duty officer was only inside because people had already fled outside and told her what was happening. Perhaps you misunderstood and causally connected two sentences that are from a timeline of events. Nowhere does it say one led to the other though. 147.78.4.55 (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20240413133128/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-13/how-the-bondi-junction-stabbing-spree-unfolded/103705200.

It is about this time that other shoppers, some unaware of the stabbings, hear the gunshots. Some panic, fearing there may be an attacker with a gun, and flee. Shopping attendants lock down their stores with customers still inside and some help shoppers escape out exits in the back of storerooms.

This was the version at the time it was published Borgenland (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Borgenland Well that also doesn't say what you interpreted it to mean. Also that's not the version now, and so the source doesn't verify that claim in any form. I don't see any reason why it should stay, based on that. Happy to hear reasons of course, but as of right now it seems to be cluttering up the page with unfounded speculation. 147.78.4.81 (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The officer was not off duty - indeed she was in uniform. The officer was not "only inside because people had already fled outside and told her" - she was nearby attending to routine duties and responded to a radio call. She was directed by members of the public when she arrived at the centre. (Side note - probably not good to refer to sources by number as this changed - source 11 is now about buses - I'm guessing you're talking about what's currently source 9). That particular source is a very early source - more recent ones like https://www.smh.com.au/interactive/2024/bondi-junction-timeline/index.html however do indicate that there was confusion in the centre - while some people knew, others were oblivious and for some the gunshots alerted them. It also claims the building's evacuation alarms sounded after the gunshots (which would be consistent with some being oblivious at that time). -- Rob.au (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

General Queries:

"Officers from the NSW Police Force were called shortly before 4 pm" ? a. that's almost 40 minutes after the attack started b. CCTV footage from a cafe shows Inspector Scott around 3.35pm. Multiple reports say the perpetrator was killed before 4pm. Seems like authorities were called not long after 3.20pm.

"Tourist"? Pikria Darchia lived in Sydney (Maroubra) and had studied at TAFE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.181.222.182 (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Just in relation to the first point - Scott was already at the centre when the attack started. The article needs to be clarified since I can see how you were confused. Local Variable (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Based on how I read the sources, the possible delay may have been because more general panic and probably more calls to police occurred when people heard Insp. Scott opening fire rather than the stabbing itself. As for Darchia, there were hints that she was in Oz longer than a tourist visa would allow but with no hint of irregularity. However, there is still confusion over whether reliable sources exist for her actual status in Oz. Borgenland (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Multiple reports say Inspector Scott was supervising liquor license checks nearby when calls came in about the stabbing, which is why she arrived quickly. There's an image of her walking into the centre by herself also.

Admittedly, precise times won't come out until the inquest but this article seems more reliable than most of the ones out there and matches the cctv that leaked: emergency calls came in by 3.30pm, perpetrator was dead by 3.45pm, attack lasted 20-25 mins max.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/how-the-terrifying-bondi-attack-unfolded-floor-by-floor-20240414-p5fjp1.html

For Darchia, the link cited here doesn't say she was a tourist? Just that she was a Georgian citizen/national in Sydney. "Tourist" is the addition/assumption best removed imo. 111.220.48.51 (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Removed. Local Variable (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Another SMH timeline has appeared at [18]. It's not very detailed (it's more storytelling then forensic), but they've now narrowed in on the attacker re-entering the centre for the last time at 3:20pm and the shots being fired at 3:38pm. It doesn't have a specific time that Scott entered the building, but she certainly entered in response to calls after the attack started. It doesn't seem like she was in the centre for very long, but it does describe some people being aware of the attack and others being oblivious at that time. As for Darchia, I've also removed the "tourist" label at least once - this is clearly incorrect per multiple sources. The section on fatalities is horrendously inconsistent in level of detail. For some things at this stage I'm inclined to let facts settle a bit but it's pretty problematic to have some people reduced to their nationality or the fact they were a mother, or nothing other than their age, while others have occupation (and it seems this section has been subject of extensive editing, because I've seen details come and go from it). -- Rob.au (talk) 08:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, this article is admittedly hard to source reliably at the moment; early media reports in particular contain errors and speculation. I just noticed some mistakes that seemed egregious, like Darchia being a "tourist" and police being called "shortly before 4pm". Footage shows Inspector Scott entering Westfield alone at street level (Level 3), then performing CPR on a victim in the Chanel store (Level 4), then running after the attacker (Level 5), before shots were recorded on CCTV at 3.38pm. That sequence of events, even in a fast-moving incident, indicates that police received calls not long after the attack began around 3.20pm. Agree about victims' biographies. 49.181.222.99 (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand the layout of this centre may be confusing to those unfamiliar with it. The entrance used by the first police officer is actually on Level 4 near Uniqlo (there is imagery of her entering there). There is also footage of her running along Level 5 with members of the public behind her (at least one armed with a chair/stool). The location she runs through in this footage is away from the top of the escalator outside Uniqlo, the footage showing her running along the south side of the first void space on that section, past the juice kiosk, past the curved rear historic frontage of the Eastern (hotel/pub), then turning left towards the enclosed bridge. The location of the deceased attacker was just before that bridge. Multiple sources say she pursued and engaged with the attacker first, but remained in the centre for hours, which is where other images of her come from. At the speed she was moving in the videos (in the sections covered by video), from that entrance, up that escalator, along the walkway and left to the engagement with the attacker could have easily happened in the space of two minutes. I'm not going to put this level of detail in without WP:RS, but I've seen no evidence that contradicts this. The timelines published yesterday are consistent but light on details about times. -- Rob.au (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, that does make sense. Not suggesting editing the article either, especially as narrowing down timings often involves intrusive/disturbing images or footage. The alarm sound & evacuation notices on e-billboards are a reasonably good guide to before/after the actual attack; they seem to have triggered around or at the time of the shooting and can't be heard/seen before this eg. bollard man, the chase etc. 49.181.222.99 (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The balance of detail looks fine to me. Two deceased worked in the centre, two were visiting from overseas and one surrendered her baby. Jade Young may have no further detail, but the article does not benefit from reporting that she was "an architect from Bellevue Hill". WWGB (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

One of the people described as "a retail worker in the shopping centre" actually worked for an online clothing retailer as an e-commerce assistant. [19] She didn't work at the centre. -- Rob.au (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The BBC reports ""Ms Singleton ... was working a shift in a retail store when the attack began". Perhaps she had two jobs. WWGB (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

If you read the whole article you can see the BBC has clearly made the same error, naming the store "where [she] was working". Given that company is not a physical store and has no outlet in the centre, this statement is self-evidently incorrect. We also know from multiple sources that she was attacked in the Channel store. There is no source that says she worked there. This source [20] says her fiancé "knew Ms Singleton was in the centre shopping". Rob.au (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, all the people killed were residents of Sydney and none were visitors, at least three (Cheng, Darchia, Tahir) held foreign nationalities also. Ms Singleton was employed in e-commerce (White Fox) but was shopping in the Chanel store at Westfield, as was Ms. Cheng, when attacked. 49.181.222.99 (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Archive

There are two archive pages of this talk page.

• Talk:2024 Bondi Junction stabbings/Archive 1
• Talk:2024 Bondi Junction stabbings/Archives/ 1

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

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

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

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

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 attack, where the majority of victims killed and wounded were women, aroused nationwide discussion regarding gender-based violence, with great attention to the rates that women are killed by men, and potential gender-based motives of Cauchi.

Following the subsequent 2024 Wakeley Church Stabbing, there was discussion questioning the definition of terrorism, induced after the "religiously motivated" Church attack was considered a terrorist incident, while the alleged "obvious" targeting of women was not. Furthermore, because the attack was related to the mental health of Cauchi, there has also been criticism of Australia's mental health system, and discussion on how to better support mental health, specifically for men.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by EyeofHorus13 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thank you! I will look for such to summarise. Much appreciated. EyeofHorus13 (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Hello! Thanks for the advice. I've changed some wording, would you say to also remove the part about Wakeley/definition of terrorism?. EyeofHorus13 (talk) 08:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended content

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

References

Requested move 15 April 2024

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: moved. Consensus to move. While editors are correct that NCWWW says to include the year, the same naming convention also includes NOYEAR which says that the year may be omitted when there is a consensus that it is not necessary.

However, the arguments for including the year were strong, and it may be appropriate to revisit this in the future. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

---

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)

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)

This is so it's listed at WP:RM/C LouisOrr27 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Support - Its a big event and doesnt need the year Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Support per @DeFacto. Local Variable (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Support it's the only widely-known stabbing event in Bondi Junction... yet. RPC7778 (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Support per WP:NOYEAR J2m5 (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Support per WP:NOYEAR Erin1973 (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Support per WP:NOYEAR Fileyfood500 (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Support: WP:NOYEAR seems conclusive here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Support It's not hard for me to tell which one's the historically only one. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Support unless there have been other articles about other stabbings in Bondi Junction

(Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 12:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Support per WP:NOYEAR; no other stabbings have happened in Bondi Junction. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Support LibStar (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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) Also feel free to tell WP:ERRORS about the move, they're pretty understanding. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC) 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) 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) It's because redirects from anywhere on main page are not allowed per WP:MPNOREDIRECT. JennyOz (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC) Fair enough. It should be off the main page soon. Local Variable (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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.[21][22] 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)

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)

• 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.[23][24] 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  @Local Variable: Did you want to strike your ealier "support" !vote in the interim?—Bagumba (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Done. I'm yet to come to a firm conclusion. Local Variable (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• 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)
• Oppose per Amakuru. Whilst it is hard to ascertain what will be the common name of recent events in a future year, I am convinced that keeping the current title is still currently helpful per WP:GLOBAL, especially for those coming from a worldwide perspective. There is WP:NODEADLINE to change a title, if in the future a different common name is established a move could occur then, but currently I find the event including a year to be more likely to be used after this year. Happily888 (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  How is keeping the year in the title "currently helpful per WP:GLOBAL, especially for those coming from a worldwide perspective"? How is having the year in the title actually going to help a non-Australian reader? It tells them it happened recently not long ago, but the article body can do that just as well, how are they benefited by having it in the title? SomethingForDeletion (talk) 08:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  I've really tried, but I really cannot understand the WP:GLOBAL argument at all. It's been cited twice, with arguments that are essentially opposite to MOS:ENGVAR saying naming conventions need to have a global focus because... not having the year might be confusing somehow to a foreign reader? How this might be so is not reasonably articulated, and more to the point, this is not even close to what the WP:GLOBAL essay is about. -- Rob.au (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose While I initially did support this, I'm finding it harder to justify given Amakuru's opposing rationale. This event does not have the extent of notoriety surrounding it such that the year unnecessary to place the event in a temporal context. The examples given on WP:NOYEAR aren't particularly helpful. That's not surprising, those are clear cut examples where consensus is clear. We are nowhere near that territory with this article. This event, while gripping the nation and subject of enduring coverage, just marginally falls short of warranting an article title absent the year. It's a very marginal decision in which reasonable minds may differ. Local Variable (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

There is clear consensus for the requested move. It is time to close the discussion and move the page. WWGB (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

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.

Motive section

Given there are motive sections on the info boxes for other mass killing events, shouldn't there be one for this? Ceteris paribus, because there was controversy over the motive, imo. Phil of rel (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Is there are source which suggests what the motive was? LouisOrr27 (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The Coroner is holding a legal inquiry to try to answer those questions. To the extent they can be answered, the Coroner will do so. However, that process is likely to take a year or more. So come back next year or the year after for the answers you seek. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)