Talk:January 2017 Melbourne car attack

"Islamic terrorism"?

Just because an ice junkie with mental illness shouts Allahu Akbar while killing people does NOT make it a case of Islamic terrorism, despite what uninformed politicians and tabloid media may claim. We follow reliable sources. WWGB (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Him shouting "Allahu Akbar" is in dispute itself. I don't remember where I read this, but the "one unnamed witness" who supposedly heard him shout as much was outed as a liar? 76.64.142.227 (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia editors have this argument each time an incident like this occurs. (See for example, the Sydney hostage crisis). Obviously the police and media have stated that it is not Islamic terror, however, while that is the official view, the fact that there are obvious stylistic similarities between this incident and recent terror attacks, and a significant proportion of the population (alt/conservative right) simply see it as terror, the proper Wikipedia position should be to state the official version of events while mentioning the disputed and alternative (might we say, even refuted) version of events. This way we treat RS as the 'real' version, while not ignoring that the conservative media (call them what you will) have a different point of view, especially when their views are refuted . I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Pauline Hanson comment

I'm asking editors to weigh in on whether Hanson's comments (added by me, but deleted by User WWGB) should be included or not.

I had included it given Hanson's profile and the seeming similarities between this incident and other IsIs attacks. Instead of having an article have an appearance of whitewashing the incident, it's best to be seen as being completely NPoV and stating Hanson's claim and the police rebuttal for the record.

User:WWGB has stated something about Hanson not being from Victoria. I think Hanson's rise in Australian public sphere is not limited to her electorate.

Thanks, I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Same goes for this insensitive smartarse comment from a relevance-deprived minor politician. Seems these people believe any publicity is good publicity. WWGB (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Pauline Hanson's words were "I've just been told there has been a terrorist attack in Melbourne" after someone whispered something in her ear. This is not her labelling it a terrorist attack, she is immediately repeating what she (thought she was) was told. I don't think this is a considered opinion on part, and is not significant to include in Wikipedia. Leyonhjelm's comment was extremely insensitive, but not really about the incident, it was a comment about sloppy editing by a stressed social media operator at a newspaper office. "Open mouth, change foot". --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed "terror" text

Here's some text I think might strike a good balance. It is an RS and mentions the far-right view (and Hanson's comment), and the rebuttal by VIC officials.

According to some sources, immediately after the incident an Italian tourist told a reporter that he heard the driver yelling “allah akhbar!” A video of the witness interview was shared on social media leading far-right websites to reporting the incident as Islamic terrorism. One Nation leader Pauline Hanson told reporters, "I've just been told there's a terrorist attack that's just happened in Melbourne". After the deadly attack, police clarified that the man had no terrorist links. Victorian premier Daniel Andrews publicly stated that the perpetrator of the Melbourne attack had nothing to do with terrorism. "There are no links to terrorist organisations, no links to any other criminal activity, he is no longer a threat to the safety of law-abiding decent, hard working Victorians," Andrews said.

I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Unsubstantiated claims and assumptions

I have added a tag to the article's claim that the perpetrator *deliberately* ran down pedestrians, which is highly questionable (and should possibly be removed entirely) given that the incident occurred during a police pursuit. For that matter, the treatment of this issue as a terrorist attack (including using the word "attack" in the title, adding the Attacks_in_2017 category, listing the incident as a vehicular attack rather than a traffic collision, and linking to 2016 Nice attack, 2016 Berlin attack, and Vehicle ramming) is speculation that is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia, and should probably also be removed. - 124.150.31.252 (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It has been stated in many, many sources that the attack was intentional, most notably by his girlfriend (who was the last person to talk to him before he did it). The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Then it shouldn't be hard to provide a citation! However then it would still only be appropriate for the article to state that his girlfriend alleged that he stated an intention to deliberately run people down. There's little short of a guilty verdict would justify describing the incident as a deliberate attack. But anyway, now that charges have actually been laid, its much easier to choose an appropriate wording. I'll update the article to describe the charges laid. If you think the girlfriend's comments are noteworthy, I'd suggest adding them to the Perpetrator section. - 124.150.31.252 (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm also editing Timeline of events, as the reference given for the claim that the accused was on bail for violence-related offences does not actually back up that claim. A more recent article from the same source as the previously cited one now states that the bail was for driving offences, and actually indicates that this information came from court records. - 124.150.31.252 (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

"Driving offences"? The article says, "Charge sheets released by the court on Monday reveal Mr Gargasoulas was last year charged by police with reckless conduct endangering life and failing to stop when directed by police, related to an alleged incident in St Kilda on November 19. He also faces unrelated charges including car theft, intentionally causing injury and possessing the drug ice, related to alleged incidents that took place between January 20 last year and January 10 this year. He was on bail when he allegedly hit the pedestrians on Friday in a maroon Holden Commodore.". We could perhaps say "numerous offences", but "driving offences" minimised the seriousness. I'm guessing police opposed bail partly due to his record.

Sky news says he was on bail for assault charges.[1] But that news item is from the day of the attack so should probably be treated with caution. Adpete (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I've also removed the claim that it occurred during a police pursuit. It was a pursuit in some sense, but the coverage doesn't emphasise it (and the refs by the claim don't mention it). Adpete (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Removing the "allahu Akbar" comment

One unnamed witness means nothing. I've also read that said "unnamed witness" was found to have purposefully lied to the press. Probably a fan of the likes of Pauline Hanson! 76.64.142.227 (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Reports of claims made by one unnamed witness are definitely not reliable sources, as we learned in 2009. 124.150.31.252 (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I really CANNOT understand why actions of a guy with clear MENTAL ILLNESS should bother followers of particular religions? This has NOTHING to do with any religion The guy is sick and obviously suffering from psychological promlems. So the article must put LESS emphasis on the perpetrator's "multiple" religions. 95.6.112.57 (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

What was the driver wearing

Wikipedia article says: The driver, who was wearing nothing except red underwear and white shoes ...

But photos show him wearing a white t-shirt

See http://newobserveronline.com/melbourne-car-ramming-terrorist-muslim-kurd/ for explanation

Gargasoulas was fully clothed when he carried out the attack, and pictures of him in his underwear show clearly that his clothes had been cut off him by medical teams attending to him after police had opened fire to stop his ... attack.

Lol at your "source". Literally the only true things the "New Observer" post have to do with Palestine, and one can get the facts from a site that isn't run by clear-cut white supremacists and white nationalists. Lying refugee-haters is only the tip of the iceberg, as far as Europe-related "articles" go...

As far as the mentally ill driver in the Melbourne case goes, I seem to recall him looking shirtless in the video shot prior to the ramming. I can't remember for sure but it really doesn't matter if he was "shirtless" or if his shirt was cut off him, does it? 76.64.142.227 (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate capitalisation and spelling

Editor WWGB has reverted a number of what I believe are accurate corrections in the Perpetrator section. The Perpetrator's own written words, either as reproduced in Secondary Sources (in this case as screenshots) would seem to be the most accurate source for the capitalisation and spelling which should be used in the article. I will hold off further corrections until this issue can be discussed here. — JEREMY 04:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

This burning issue may be summarised as follows. The perp self-described himself on Facebook (the primary source) as "greek islamic kurdish" (lower case) whereas The Daily Mail (a secondary source) reported his claim as "Islamic Greek Kurdish" (title case). Facebook posters are often not concerned to capitalisation or presentation, or may be challenged by correct style. IMO we should follow the convention of using Title Case, rather than publishing the literal text, which only serves to belittle the author. WWGB (talk) 10:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

You've correctly identified my concern here: that we represent the perpetrator as accurately and in as unbiased a manner as we can. I'm sure we can agree that the most controversial issue here is whether or not this event had any connection with terrorism, and some secondary sources appear to have magnified any possible hint of a connection in order to push their judgement that there must have been terrorism involved. The perpetrator's Facebook posts are the only real evidence on which our readers can base their own conclusions about the issue prior to the trial. As such, it seems to me that it's our responsibility to ensure we don't inadvertently repeat the mistakes of the secondary sources in misrepresenting the (to quote The Age from the article) "rambling and often nonsensical" self-descriptions as more coherent, consistent or dogmatic than they actually are. Wikipedia:PRIMARYNOTBAD makes clear that someone's own website is an acceptable primary source for information about what the person says about himself or herself. In this case, I believe that it makes sense for us to use the perpetrator's colloquial capitalisation and spelling, rather than imposing a more journalistic or academic style, in order to avoid giving the impression that he might have been using some third party's formulation, and thus implying external influence not apparent in the original. — JEREMY 11:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• This about capital letters? Just use the correct capitalization and spelling. The Daily Mail is not a reliable source (see WP:RS, where there was just an RFC on the DM), but we don't need an RS to decide whether to capitalize proper nouns. Wikipedia generally doesn't source tabloids, which should alleviate some of the concern about sensationalism. If there's a dispute over which order to put the words in, I'd suggest putting them in the order found in the primary source. It's not particularly important what order they're in, and this is as good a reference as any; plus, it will avoid possible sensationalism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• First, get rid of "reported and reproduced in the Daily Mail". Just put the information. The ref itself establishes reported&reproduced. Next, either remove the quotes and use proper capitalization, or make it a direct quote of what he wrote on Facebook. MOS:PMC says In direct quotations, retain dialectal and archaic spellings, including capitalization. If it looks ugly in the paragraph like that, you could maybe consider pulling it out as a blockquote. It doesn't seem to warrant such a high profile as a blockquote though. Alsee (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Perpetrator's "multiple" religions and a suggestion

I really CANNOT understand why actions of a guy with clear MENTAL ILLNESS should bother followers of particular religions (Islam, Yazidism etc.)? This has NOTHING to do with any religion. The guy is sick and obviously suffering from psychological problems. So the article must put LESS emphasis on the perpetrator's "multiple" religions. His psychological problems caused the terror attack, not his multiple religions. 95.6.112.57 (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The perpetrator's mental state is not within our remit to judge; that must be left to the court system. What we can do is report his various (and apparently conflicting) claims to particular ethnicities and religions in as clear and accurate fashion as possible, and leave the readers to make of that what they will. — JEREMY 02:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Because if we go down that road, 95.6.112.57, then political zealots who believe EVERY Islamic terror attack is 'totally nothing to do with Islam' will whitewash history entirely. If we lived a thousand years ago I can't help but think the Crusades would be written off as a bunch of 'mentally ill people', and not religious lunatics. I'm almost positive the same people who pretend Islamic terror attacks are 'nothing to do with Islam' would try to justify and defend terror of yesteryear were they there too. Terrorism is terrorism. By default ALL religious loons who murder innocent people are mentally ill - no sane rational minded individual can think a mystical sky fairy gave them permission to kill. But to pretend it has nothing to do with Islam has become a hugely dishonest act, and why I've flagged this article as NPOV.

This won't go down the memory hole no matter how hard you flush, and I compel you to be honest on this issue and stop disgracing the victims of this man by apologizing for and defending his motives. What does it achieve to hide the fact he was religiously motivated and though he was doing gods work? His wife to-be, a Sudanese Islamic woman, is incredibly proud of him (not just for his conversion, but thinks he was doing gods work) and doubled down on Facebook on the issue. His numerous accounts on gore websites and activity on Islamic violence videos shows this isn't a new thing for him and was something he was fascinated with for a long while, too. Agendabender (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Linking to main article

Cult of Angels is synonymous for Yazdanism. Click on please. It is like "He is a Muslim and a follower of Islam". It would be nonsense since being Muslim already means being follower of the Islam. Also the statement is "According to Express Daily ...". But the information is from Daily Mail. It causes a mess. To sum up, the only thing i did is to linking the " cult of angel" to main article (Yazdanism/Cult of Angels) instead of writing it twice. 194.135.85.159 (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

You are removing direct quotes which assist the readers in making their own judgements about the Perpetrator's state of mind, and substituting an obfuscation which amounts to original research. I have little doubt that the "ANGEL OF CULT" part of what the Perpetrator claimed was a reference to whatever he'd read on wikipedia about Yazdanism in a Meth-induced state of excitement, and which led him to believe he'd received messages from God and was actually a Yazidi Kurd. That, however, is Original Research, and cannot be included in the encyclopedia. If you are able to provide a rationale beyond what you've stated above, please continue the discussion here. Until consensus is reached, however, there is no basis for your edit. — JEREMY 21:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Islamic conversion.

It appears he converted to Islam a year before the incident, his girlfriend, a Sudanese refugee, is a devout Muslim. He also has several user accounts under his monicker on gore websites that feature beheadings and murders. This is personal research, however we are at an impasse with information given that the mainstream media has still to this day actively hidden most details of this case, especially his Islamic conversion to a fringe cult that claims to be 'pre-Islam Islam' in fears of ties to terrorism. Australia's media has a tendency to withhold more information than it publishes, so I don't know how to proceed with no viable sources for this data to support my findings. His girlfriend actively mentions his conversion and freely admits it when questioned (I reached out to her to verify it after a lunatic rabble began flaming me for 'bigotry' because I merely pointed out his conversion and claiming I was 'lying' so figured straight from the horses mouth to be best.) but his religious conversion definitely seems to be relevant as he was shouting Allahu Ackbar during the period when he was doing burn outs, as I and many witnesses heard. 124.190.207.57 (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

WIkipedia:No original research. WWGB (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not original research, OP is correct. His Facebook page was a diatribe about Jibreel's instructions to him. Numerous news outlets covered this when it became impossible to avoid the sticky issue that this was another case of Islam and terror being united. I don't understand the hellbent efforts by some editors on Wikipedia lately to apologize for terrorism and try to defend Islamic terrorists exclusively. This isn't a place for politics, or political agendas. Wikipedia is about the facts, not what you want to try to hijack things into being. Kindly stop being dishonest and stop trying to meddle with facts and data to suit your whacky agendas. You guys are as bad as the right wing nutters on climate change pages. You have a vested interest in this? Then butt out. If you want to contribute to improving the accuracy of reporting of FACTS then muck in. 124.190.207.57 (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Mainstream media outlets have covered up the fact this guy was an Islamic convert, along with footage of him shouting crazy stuff about Allah and Jibreel at the scene. I am trying to get my hands on screen shots of his Facebook page before it was swiftly removed, almost every entry was about Allah and this guys planned 'war' against the world in Allahs name. He was set to marry a Sudanese Islamic woman, who seems to be the main reason for his conversion. She was very open on Facebook that his motives were religious and actually doubled down stating that he was doing Allah's work. She was very proud to announce that he was Muslim, and seemed almost offended that the media went to great lengths to hide his religious status and instead pretend he's 'mentally ill' (I would argue all religious zealots are mentally ill, to take a human life in the name of a magical sky fairy is textbook insanity!) but his religious status AND the overt national suppression of it in the mainstream media is the most notable element of this event, and having contacted two families who were directly affected by this we are utterly wronging the victims of this terror attack by marginalizing them by pretending it wasn't a religiously motivated attack. Agendabender (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Allah akbar

The article says "According to an eyewitness, Gargasoulas repeatedly shouted "Allahu Akbar", often linked to Islamic terrorism."

This isn't true. Watch Stefano: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RuUZYLMklo. He says he said "Allah Akbar". Yes, I know that this isn't correct Arabic, but why are we correcting it to make it sound more credible? Correctrix (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Really? More credible? The dude converted to Islam 20 months before the terror attack and was set to marry a Sudanese Muslim woman, he claimed Jibreel was talking to him. This is another textbook example of the enabling of terrorists by political fanatics, which is why 'the nothing to do with Islam terror attack of the week' is now an international meme. We are an encyclopedia. Take your POV and politics elsewhere. The guy was an Islamic terrorist, acting on behalf of his sky fairy of choice. Pretending he was just a mentally ill man is dishonest - ALL religious terror attacks involve mentally ill people, as no sane person could possibly think that there's an invisible fairy in the sky who grants wishes if you murder for him - and yet every single day hundreds die because of that exact reason. To remove all mention of Islam is utterly dishonest, intellectually, morally, and worst of all doing the encyclopedia a disservice. Agendabender (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Second Terror Attack at Same Place

Another terror attack that 'is totally nothing to do with Islam and just a crazy man' who happens to also be a Muslim occurred at the same place last week. This is the seventeenth attack in Australia by a Muslim terrorist that has been stripped of any reference of terror or Islam this year alone according to The Memory Hole that documents media bias and dishonesty, including instances of bias on Wikipedia and other crowdsourced media and encyclopedia outlets. I'm flagging this up as NPOV as long as the fact this man's motives are being hidden intentionally to push a political agenda. Agendabender (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

"Victoria's Chief Commissioner Graham Ashton said the man [Gargasoulas] had no links to terrorist activity." [2] So that's resolved then. WWGB (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad you're so dismissive of information. I wish I had that luxury, it must be convenient. I didn't say he had links to terrorist activity, this was Gargasoulas' first terrorist attack, generally terrorists only manage to get away with one case of mass murder before being caught. I am stating that a SECOND 'nothing to do with Islam' terrorist attack occurred on Flinders street by another Islamic terrorist who ran people down, then got out shouting about his 'nothing to do with Islam' god whilst armed and was confronted by police and forcibly subdued and arrested. Agendabender (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

If you are concerned about Saturday's car rampage, why are you tagging this article? WWGB (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

'Car rampage.' Those cars sure are dastardly smart, running down pedestrians and causing chaos all on their own. Like those dastardly 'truck incidents', am I right? Because vehicles don't have drivers.

I am flagging this article because -this- article has a point of view being pushed on it through the ongoing stripping of any reference to Islam or terror, two salient details of this act and it's copycat. Some of which appears to have been done by you. I don't understand what you hope to achieve, it's not deniable at this point. Agendabender (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows reliable sources. If they use the term "car rampage" [3] [4] [5] then I accept it is a commonly-used term. I also accept that if reliable sources report the chief cop saying it's not terrorism but just a nut case then that's OK too. I don't think the Earth is flat, or the Holocaust did not happen, or the moon landing was staged in a film studio, just because the loony left or fringe media want others to believe that. Rather than bludgeoning this page with your opinion, perhaps you could back that up with reliable sources? WWGB (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll get you one better and provide the court transcript for Crown v Gargasoulas when I fly down to Victoria for a case next week, I'll be in the same court his April hearing was in where he said repeatedly that he was Muslim, and that he was upholding 'Allah's laws', and that 'the Muslim faith is the correct faith' which was his motive to punish the 'dogs' who didn't agree. But I know that the same problem will occur that I have NPOV flagged this for. Someone will, on the sly, remove all reference to Islam. Again. As has been done systematically since this articles creation. Ctrl+F 'Islam' in the article ffs and tell me that's not a whitewash.

But in the interim let's just play your reasoning through here. You openly were aware he was a Muslim, inspired by terrorist videos online, and had shouted Allah Ackbar, and were in discussions above on the casing of said terms such as Islamic Kurd, etc. But choose to remove agency entirely from the person. This is like saying 'Wow, there sure are a lot of knives stabbing people these days.' - the purpose of an encyclopedia is to accurately note events. In 100 years if someone is wondering why so many of their ancestors were killed by these sentient trucks and cars, or historians wondering about the 31,860+ mass murder attacks in the last 17 years alone thought it was 'nothing to do with Islam' then how the hell does an encyclopedia have any value when it's just skewed by people wanting to insert apologetica and politics into things? Agendabender (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

NPOV: All references to Islam have been removed.

I am flagging this as NPOV. It appears that there is a couple of editors with a special interest in removing the fact that this man was an Islamic convert, I am not going to presume the reasoning for it but good faith cannot be assumed given that it is ongoing systemic removal of information that the media in Australia had already attempted to suppress. Numerous discussions above about casing of his religion were held, so it appears that these references have been removed on the sly to push an agenda. To make matters worse, a second terror attack occurred at the same place, the same street, just the other day. The media again hid the involvement of Islam, and avoided the 't-word'. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a political platform. We are to document the facts, and the fact of the matter is he was openly Muslim, and justified his actions as being divinely ordained. Removing salient details on the sly is dishonest, and doing a disservice to the project. Agendabender (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Removed WP:NPOV added by Agendabender. Agendabender has made unsupported claims in Talk that perpetrator had "activity on Islamic violence videos"; perpetrator had "converted to Islam 20 months before the terror attack"; "The guy was an Islamic terrorist" referring to perpetrator; that the perpetrator's Facebook activity was "almost every entry was about Allah and this guys planned 'war' against the world in Allahs name"; and that the perpetrator's girlfriend stated "his motives were religious and actually doubled down stating that he was doing Allah's work". No references to reliable sources were provided for this. Agendabender states that there is conspiracy by the media to not report that the perpetrator was an "Islamic convert" and that there is "national suppression of it in the mainstream media". No sources referenced. The "footage of him shouting crazy stuff about Allah" referred to by Agendabender was removed from the article in [edit1] and [edit2]. The police in response to the footage stated "VicPol reiterates that there is no evidence to support that this incident is terrorist related." and that "VicPol is aware of this video, however statements from dozens of other witnesses are not consistent with this report". Agendabender has made unsupported claims that "a second terror attack occurred at the same place". Police said in regards to the second incident that "At this stage counter-terrorism links is not something we are looking at in any depth. We certainly scan the horizon for links of that nature, however at the moment we are treating it simply as a mental health issue". The male was later charged with two counts of attempted murder and six counts of recklessly endangering life with no terrorism charges. No evidence to support NPOV clam.--Melbguy05 (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Help with Reversion of my updates with citation

Moved from User talk:Jmcgnh § Help with Reversion of my updates with citation

 – content discussion; belongs here

Thank you for mentioning that my previous edit of January_2017_Melbourne_car_attack did not have citation. I am new and found the citation from a news website. But if you look into the history of the page somebody called The Drover's Wife reverted my edit on 23 May 2018 claiming Gumshoe News was not an acceptable source referring to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources but I looked through Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources and could not find anything stating Gumshoe News was not acceptable. How can The Drover's Wife revert my edit. Do you have any advice please? It is possible that whomever The Drover's Wife is, is violating the Wikipedia Rules? Or why is Gumshoe News not acceptable? Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honestwitness (talk • contribs) 22:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Honestwitness: I remember looking at these edits a while ago. I've reverted them again. I'm in general agreement with The Drover's Wife that Gumshoe News is not a reliable source and, further, that these observations about the attack are completely incidental details that don't lead anywhere in the story as we should be summarizing it on Wikipedia.

I have the sense that you feel something has been left out of the story, that there is something more to be told, that the attacker was part of a larger group and that some conspiracy is at play. If you want to pursue your research in that direction, please feel free, but in the interim, as long as all that you have is this inconclusive, there is no value in adding it to the Wikipedia article. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Timeline removal - please discuss

46.208.236.243 If you disagree with something major in the article, it's always best to raise it on the talk page first, rather than remove it summarily, especially when it removes content that other editors have spent time on, including finding and citing sources. AFAIK there is no rule against including timelines in articles, if the subject matter warrants it. It is not my work you have undone in this article, but as an article already classed as C, you have reduced its value. The timeline seemed to be a useful easy-to-read source for those who wished to understand the course of events, and you have not replaced the content. Let's see what other editors think. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I created a new section Criminal Trial moving any prosecution information from the Perpetrator section and from the Timeline section. I also created a new section for the forthcoming Inquest. I would still keep the Timeline section for events leading up to the incident, incident details and for the condition of the victims afterwards for the same reason as Laterthanyouthink that it is easy to read.--Melbguy05 (talk) 08:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)