Talk:Lindt Cafe siege

Sources for the Inquest

I am editing Sydney siege inquest but am frustrated that the Guardian is no longer giving it's blow by blow account. So all I have is journalistic mush. If people have a better source please let me know. Or if anyone in Sydney would like to attend.

The inquest is, finally, getting to the point. Why was there absolutely no attempt to negotiate with Monis (which would have been likely to succeed). I has assumed belligerence ("We don't negotiate with people that call themselves terrorists.") but it now looks more like gross incompetence. Tuntable (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I added a timeline to clarify events. Also negotiations, the key, IMHO. Tuntable (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Contain and Negotiate

It is a critical part of the story that the police decided to contain and negotiate rather than direct action. (They got that right, IMHO.). It is also a critical part of the story that no negotiation took place (many sources). But to say that their strategy was to Contain and Negotiate implies strongly that meaningful negotiation actually took place. So something needs to be added to qualified. I have added "In Theory" to do that. There might be a better way, but it needs something. Tuntable (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a separate article on the inquest, and much of the information recently added to this article, in my opinion, belongs there. This article is about the event, thus primarily about what actually happened, not later speculation on what should have happened (right or wrong as it might be). For example, I have just added to the timeline of events the escapes of the first 5 hostages - how can we have a timeline with things like what was or wasn't being communicated to negotiators (which has only come out at the inquest) and not include basic facts like that? I would also question the value of the timeline in general, but would be keen to hear what other editors think as to why it should be included. Melcous (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 7 June 2020

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 to Lindt Cafe siege. (closed by non-admin page mover) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

---

2014 Sydney hostage crisis → 2014 Lindt Cafe siege – There doesn't appear to be any consensus in the media or on Wikipedia about this being called the "2014 Sydney hostage crisis" - it's more commonly called the Lindt Cafe Siege: ABC, The Guardian, Australian Institute for Disaster Resiliance. Even the Wikipedia article on the purpetrator refers to the siege as the Lindt Cafe Siege. Crisis in an inappropriate term to describe this event, as it was a once-off, uncoordinated and 16-hour hostage taking, and wasn't an ongoing or prolonged event (> 24 hours), as the phrase crisis would indicate. If Lindt Cafe would be best left out, then 2014 Sydney siege would be just as appropriate. ItsPugle (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Suport It's what everyone calls it. I don't even really see a need for the year to be included, although I could see that some people could find it useful. Life200BC (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• Move to Lindt Cafe siege. No reason for the year. Andrewa (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2020 (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.