Jump to content

Talk:Lindt Cafe siege/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Haron or Monis?

Repeat references were calling the gunman Haron until this edit by Dwpaul changing to Monis, citing: "Convention in sources now seems to refer to subject as Monis rather than Haron".

This was also changed by AnonNep in the article Man Haron Monis, although it is still sorted by "Haron" ({{DEFAULTSORT:Haron Monis, Man}}).

Is this shift supported by consensus? Not disputing it, just checking that the change is correct and not a Western bias to default to the last name (see MOS:SURNAME). —sroc 💬 12:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  • My rationale for the change was the Man Haron Monis page had been a Sheikh Haron page until this [1] move. As a result the 'old' information was Haron and the new information being added favoured Monis. Given that the main reliable sources were using Monis after the first mention of his full name it seemed that we should follow suit. I'm quite open on this one. If there is a reason as per MOS:SURNAME to use Haron we can easily change back. But we do need to settle on one. AnonNep (talk) 12:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Noted the diff between the two pages myself. Which is the surname? Is that what we should be using? --220 of Borg 12:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

If the resolution is to stick to Monis, presumably the DEFAULTSORT should change, too. —sroc 💬 12:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done Dwpaul Talk 13:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • While this is only one example, on the western bias concern, Al Jazeera[2] is also using (full name, first mention) Man Haron Monis then (subsequent mentions) Monis in their coverage. AnonNep (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• FYI Note that he has been using "Man Haron Monis" since at least 1999 see [3] which is a link to a NSW security licence register. No too many people by that name. This is not my wp:OR, but a link from a Guardian news story. [4]. --220 of Borg 12:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't really tell us which is his surname, does it? —sroc 💬 13:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
No, it doesn't does it? Damn Darn it! :-/ But I was more interested in how long they had used that name, while their BLP stayed at the old name or pseudonym.
This is a bit of OR, I fed other names in and it came back in first/middle/surname format, which is no guarantee that Monis is the 'surname'. Just noting it.--220 of Borg 13:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm reminded of the (possibly apocryphal) story of a hapless interviewer's question to Pink Floyd in the early days of the band: "So, which one of you is Pink?" I suspect that since apparently all three names were "taken" (in the sense of "given") names, most sources have opted to use the last of the three as his surname. Dwpaul Talk 14:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Is the only reason we went with "Haron" for a time because he was also known as "Sheikh Haron"? (That's mainly rhetorical.) —sroc 💬 03:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
When I started editing here, the biographical article on him still referred to him as Haron. Not knowing whether Persian names (though someone has said this does not sound like Persian to them, and claimed they would know) follow some convention similar to the Spanish convention of having two surnames, only the first of which is used in normal reference, I continued to do so (and "corrected" a few other editors' work) until I was able to get a sense of how the majority of sources were referring to him, so that the two articles would agree. When the bio changed, I made the global change here. Yes, I suspect it was vestigial from the time when the article referred to him as Sheikh Haron. Dwpaul Talk 04:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for that thorough explanation! Glad we got that sorted. —sroc 💬 05:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
"And by the way// Which one's Pink" is a line from Wish You Were Here (Have a Cigar). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC).

Requested move 18 December 2014

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn with unanimous opposition. —sroc 💬 09:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

2014 Sydney hostage crisis → Sydney hostage crisis – Per the discussion above, the year is unnecessary for disambiguation and omitting it provides a CONCISE and COMMON name for the event. —sroc 💬 06:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Support Oppose per nom Per below LorHo ho ho 06:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. There have been other Sydney hostage events, for example, 1984 Sydney bank robbery. Best to avoid confusion and keep the year. WWGB (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per WWGB, as I was unaware of the earlier hostage event, in which case either Sydney hostage crisis should become a disambiguation page or a hatnote should be included at 2014 Sydney hostage crisis. —sroc 💬 07:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I've added a hatnote for now, as people are most likely to be looking for this article right now. If this stops being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Sydney hostage crisis, that can be turned into a disambiguation page and the hatnote removed. —sroc 💬 07:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose as per WWGB. -- Chuq (talk) 07:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - To describe an event, there needs to be a name that can be used to identify it or describe the actions of the event. The event was a hostage situation in a part of Sydney. Since that is not enough to separate it from other events, the year should remain. Perhaps part of a redirect could be used by checking Special:WhatLinksHere that would identify the event without the year. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Inconsistency re Tori Johnson

From The Age:

But at 2am, more than 16 hours after the siege began, it appears the 12 remaining hostages seized their chance. Monis began to drift off to sleep. They dashed for the exit. Monis roused and started shooting. Tori Johnson, the cafe manager, attempted to wrestle the gun from him. Monis shot him dead, although Mr Johnson's wounds suggest he beat him severely before firing the fatal shot, one source said. At 2.03am, six of the hostages ran out a service door." [5]

But The Sydney Morning Herald now reports

In an exclusive interview with Fairfax Media, Mr Herat says son Joel told him Monis was not falling asleep just before 2am on Tuesday as previous reports have suggested, but was becoming increasingly agitated immediately before the first burst of gunfire rang out. "From what Joel told me initially, towards 2am Monis started to bring groups of people together in close proximity from where they had been dispersed throughout [the cafe]", Mr Herat told Fairfax Media. "And at that point in time, Joel and five others came to the conclusion that they were not going to survive until the morning if they did not do something. So I think him and Jarrod [19-year-old Jarrod Hoffman] basically came to the conclusion that they would bust down the door. And I know that Joel made sure that Harriette [Denny] ... got behind him and he said, 'You're coming with me', and basically made sure that all that group were ready to go when Joel and Jarrod broke down the door, it was a group of six in total, I'm not sure who the others were." This was the group that was seen on TV, making a break for safety, just seconds before heavily armed tactical assault group police stormed the cafe.[6]

The two stories are inconsistent, though there may be some journalistic interpretation going on. Perhaps this is what happened:

  1. Monis begins to doze off around two in the morning.
  2. Johnson, the cafe manager, notices this and attempts to seize the weapon.
  3. Monis rouses and beats Johnson, causing the wounds described.
  4. Monis is alert and agitated, moving the hostages around
  5. Joel Herat and others decide to make a break
  6. As they do so, Monis fires his weapon, causing the sniper in the building opposite to report "Hostage down, window two"
  7. Seconds later the police enter

Do we include both versions, or make a choice on one? --Pete (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Both Versions? You aren't still pushing your conspiracy theory line are you and how many new talk threads are you going to open to push it? Wasn't one enough? "Both versions" are consistant with Man Monis shooting dead Tori Johnson. Whether he was falling asleep or well awake is kind of irrelevent. The police entered after the terrorist struggled and shot Tori Johnson dead. You need to accept reality and stop with your constant conspiracy threads. 203.206.83.156 (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not alleging any conspiracy. I'm looking for accuracy amongst incompatible sources. The inconsistency is whether Monis was dozing or agitated. He cannot have been both. In any case, see below. --Pete (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Another source gives more details:

Lindt cafe victim Tori Johnson was shot dead in the final act of the Sydney siege, killed by Man Haron Monis as other hostages fled. Hostages held at gunpoint in a Sydney cafe for more than 16 hours were told they would be "dead in the morning", prompting them to smash a lock off a door and run for their lives. Sources have told 9NEWS Monis fired one shot from a sawn-off shotgun. Mr Johnson was shot in the head. AAP reported the gunman screamed at police: "look what you've made me do". Police are still trying to determine how fellow victim Katrina Dawson died, and are waiting for ballistic tests.[7]

This is reasonably consistent with my surmise above. --Pete (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Customers and employees

The wording "held hostage 17 customers and employees of a Lindt chocolate café" is ambiguous as to whether there were:

  • 17 customers and employees in total; or
  • 17 customers and an unspecified number of employees.

It would be clearer to say:

  • "X customers and Y employees..." (are these figures known?); or
  • "17 people..."; or
  • "customers and employees..."; or
  • "17 people – customers and employees – at a Lindt chocolate café"; or
  • "customers and employees – 17 in total – at a Lindt chocolate café".

—sroc 💬 03:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I personally don't think that we need to distinguish between them, though I wonder what others think. I'd go with "17 people", second choice being the first if/once those are known. ansh666 04:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I think sroc is seeing confusion where none exists. The statement "Angelina Jolie has six sons and daughters" is very clear, no-one but a pedant would argue that she has six sons, and also an unspecidfied number of daughters. Likewise for the Lindt Cafe hostages. WWGB (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
No one would say that when they could say "six children". My point is that the wording is sub-optimal; shouldn't we strive for clarity? —sroc 💬 04:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed with WWGB but if we have a source "5 employees and 12 customers" or the like would be fine. μηδείς (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
We have a source and I've added it to the article. —sroc 💬 06:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Please note there were actually 18 hostages - 10 customers and 8 cafe staff: the customers included: - 4 Westpac employees - 3 barristers (one of whom was Katrina Dawson) - an older gentleman who was there after visiting an eye doctor and was the first to eacape - a middle aged woman and her elderly mother, both of whom sustained gunshot injuries

Cafe staff included - manager Tori - one man and two women who escaped on the first day - two women and two men who escaped on the second day (Joel Herat, Jarrod Hoffman, Harriet Denny, Fiona Ma ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeia66 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

We have a multitude of sources verifying 17 in total and at least one source with specific numbers of staff and customers adding to 17. You have given no reliable source to contradict that. —sroc 💬 13:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Timeline

The article says:
At 2:08 a.m. on 16 December, between five and seven additional hostages fled from the building.
At 2:14 a.m., after hearing gunfire inside the building, heavily armed Tactical Operations Unit police threw flashbang grenades in and stormed the café.

The most recent account, supported by time stamped photographs:
At 2:03 a.m. a "very loud bang" was heard. Within seconds of hearing the bang, two male hostages ran from the cafe, Seconds later, another group of hostages emerged from the same door.
At 2:10 a.m. another identical loud bang rang out. The second bang was followed by a higher-pitched, sharper sound we now know to be a stun grenade, tactical police moved in within seconds.
There was no "gunfire" heard as that implies multiple shots. The two "bangs" heard were separated by seven minutes and although likely, it is only speculation that they were gunshots. Police have not yet revealed whether the hostages were killed by Monis, or were caught up in the crossfire, saying that they would not comment until an investigation into the shootings is over.Wayne (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I have footage from ABC News 24 which has a time stamp in the ticker. The police storming the building is most definitely at 2:14am by that account. —sroc 💬 13:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
For that matter, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLCtRgbQdaU. —sroc 💬 13:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Of the three sources cited for the 2:14 a.m. time, only one supports that time and that is the youtube video. Youtube cant be used a source and we have nothing to indicate that the timestamp is correct. The ABC reference says that the police stormed the building at 10:19 a.m. which is clearly incorrect. The Sydney Morning Herald reporter states his timestamps are correct. A reporter's cameras are his tools of trade and it would be unusual for them to have had an incorrect timestamp. Neither of the two sources for the 2:08 a.m. time support that. One says "shortly after 2 a.m." while the other doesn't mention a time at all. Wayne (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
The YouTube clip reflects the version that I was recording and watching at home as it happened and shows the timestamp of "02:14" as the raid began (the ABC News 24 timestamps are generally reliable in my experience). My recording started at 02:04 according to my DVR, just as after more hostages escaped, and the raid began at 9m49s into the recording. This is also supported by the timestamped photograph in the SMH report: "02:14:28am – Smashes glass from the front door can be seen as Special Operations Police enter the cafe". Thus: "At 2:14 a.m., after hearing gunfire inside the building, heavily armed Tactical Operations Unit police threw flashbang grenades in and stormed the café." —sroc 💬 15:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
The 2:08am time is clearly wrong – more hostages were emerging at least as early as 2:04am – and it is not supported by either of the quoted references, as you say. The ABC reference is from the USA so 10:19am Monday Eastern Standard Time (UTC−5) is actually 2:19am Tuesday Australian Eastern Daylight Time (UTC+11), which is incorrect anyway, so it's not a credible source for timing in any case. The 2:08am should be updated, certainly. —sroc 💬 15:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC) edited 15:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Page name change

The page should be renamed to 2014 Sydney Islamic Siege — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.70.104 (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of time to re-title the article once the facts are known. WWGB (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
2014 Islamic Siege in Martin Place is another — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.70.104 (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I would like to stress to people that the focus should NOT be on the religious or political motives of the perpetrators. Naming the page to something like "2014 Sydney Islamic Siege" would obviously paint Islam in a bad light. There is no problem with the current title. Unless, in a few days time, the incident is given a nickname, the title should NOT be changed to anything else. PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 02:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. The current title is apt and clear. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Nobody names a siege, or even a terrorist attack, after the religious persuasion of the perpetrator.Sadiemonster (talk) 08:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Lindt Hostage Crisis is another possible title.114.198.26.151 (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The information that the event occurs in Sydney is significant; the fact that it occurs in a Lindt property is not. The title is fine at this time. Dwpaul Talk 06:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The year should not be included in the name, except to distinguish against another event from a different year (e.g., World War I was not called that until World War II). "Martin Place (Sydney) Hostage Crisis" would be a better name, presuming "Martin Place" is a recognizable location to a significant number of people (e.g., Attack on Pearl Harbor). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:9680:194:F143:CCDB:730F:8240 (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Its not the only time hostages have been held in Sydney, but I think the current title is sufficiently succinct to identify this event to readers. Gnangarra 02:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Especially since 2014 is nearly over and (God, let's hope) there will not be another notable hostage situation in Sydney this year. "Martin Place" is (I believe) completely unknown as a location to nearly anyone not from Australia. I'm not sure those who work and do trade in Martin Place would appreciate it gaining the same association as Pearl Harbor has with disaster. Dwpaul Talk 02:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
If it is customary in Australia to track events by year (see "1984 Sydney bank robbery"), then so be it. But other Australian events simply are named with a geographic location and descriptor (see "Port Arthur massacre (Australia)"). The latter seems preferable, as the year is superfluous unless needed to distinguish from some other hostage crisis in some other year in the same geographic location (e.g., "2020 Sydney hostage crisis"). As to whether "Martin Place (Sydney)" or simply "Sydney" is used, the argument that referring to a more specific place creates an "association ... with disaster" is misplaced. If so, the current title associates the entire city of Sydney with "disaster". It will all come down to how significant this event is in the long run—an impossible determination in the present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:9680:194:F143:CCDB:730F:8240 (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Martin Place hostage crisis would be in line with Port Arthur massacre (Australia) and Hoddle Street massacre. 2014 Sydney hostage crisis is equally acceptable, in line with 1984 Sydney bank robbery. Being equally acceptable, I would stick with the status quo as there is no need to change. —sroc 💬 08:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

2014 Sydney's Martin Place hostage crisis

I'm not going to edit war over this, but "2014 Sydney's Martins Place hostage crisis" sounds odd and it doesn't match the article's current title. APK whisper in my ear 07:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree, 60.242.192.240 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for a day after edit warring re-adding "Martin Place", about ten times! --220 of Borg 07:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
S/he is really intent on changing the title. APK whisper in my ear 08:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
If it continues I will need to request temporary page protection. Dwpaul Talk 08:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I requested it. APK whisper in my ear 08:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Yep still at it. But it's getting reverted so quick I haven't been able to revert it myself! Semi protection would be a good idea. --220 of Borg 08:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Agree, on semi-protecting the article.--2nyte (talk) 08:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Done by Gilliam, as you commented! [9] --220 of Borg 08:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Gilliam: Please semi protect again, the IP is back full throttle. --99of9 (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Gnangarra did it this time [10]--220 of Borg 14:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not entirely convinced that the situation qualifies as a 'crisis' (apart from the purely psychological use of term as it may apply to those directly affected). It was a hostage situation perpetrated by one person on a relatively small number of people. This is Wikipedia, not the Daily Mail.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed - I don't think "crisis" is justified for such a short event. "2014 Sydney siege" should suffice. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
"2014 Sydney siege", with or without the 2014, would also better meet WP:COMMONNAME, I think. ansh666 03:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I rather like "Lindt Café siege, Sydney". Sardaka (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It is unnecessarily specific to refer to "Lindt café" in the title (and puts unnecessary focus on Lindt), not concise to use "Sydney" as a comma-delimited disambiguator, and the usage of "siege" is disputed. —sroc 💬 08:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Dropping "2014" from the title

I believe the event is fairly significant on it's own now. Also, there hasn't been a hostage crisis in Sydney before, so giving the year isn't necessary now. PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 08:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It is not (and was not) necessary to include the year unless and until there is a need to distinguish it from an otherwise similar article title.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed: the year is unnecessary (unless needed to distinguish from an otherwise identical title) and a more concise title would be in line with WP:CONCISE. Sydney Siege redirects here (but, oddly, Sydney siege does not exist), although there has been a dispute that siege is not the right word, despite that name being used in the media ("Sydney Siege" was, for example, the banner used on Seven News' coverage). "Crisis" seems like a misplaced buzzword but has been used before (e.g., Beslan school hostage crisis, Moscow theater hostage crisis), and there's a whole category of Hostage dramas. While Sydney hostage event would be more neutral, it's awkward phrasing. I think Sydney hostage crisis is the preferable title. —sroc 💬 04:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
These hostage crises are listed at List of sieges § Police sieges, by the way. —sroc 💬 05:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't like "crisis", but per WP:COMMON, it seems to have become the established term in many sources (a sad indictment on the media). So Sydney hostage crisis may be acceptable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggest closure

Significant time has passed and many links, both within and external to the Wiki, have been established to this page at its current title. There has been no consensus on changing the name (other than one unanimously rejected move proposal below, which perhaps should be moved here). I suggest this section (including above two subsections plus the moved section) be closed with a hatnote and future questions about changing the name be directed here. We could tinker with the name all day, but at this stage we would do more damage than good. If a different name becomes more consistently and universally used in our sources that otherwise agrees with page naming policies and encyclopedic practice here, we can reopen the discussion. Dwpaul Talk 15:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I concur. I started the other section when one title (Sydney hostage crisis) appeared to be gaining traction, but once it was pointed out that this title could be applied to at least one other subject, that became moot. I suggest closing this discussion. If someone feels strongly that another title is better later on, they can propose it separately.
If merging the other section from below, you will need to preserve the closure showing it was withdrawn; it may be easier just to keep it separate. —sroc 💬 15:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

"Two days after" image

I'm trying to understand the value, encyclopedic or otherwise, of this image (File:(1)Lindt Cafe siege two days later 014a.jpg) to the article. An image of a large red tarp dominates, with what is recognizable as the Lindt cafe behind it but almost entirely obscured (which is the point of the tarp). All it establishes is that the site still exists and that it is secured and blocked for the investigation, both of which can be assumed. Can someone enlighten me? Dwpaul Talk 15:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what more you want. Every picture tells a story.
  • It shows the cafe on a corner, better than any of the other photos.
  • The "tarp" actually looks more like a tent (of unusual construction), which I find Quite Interesting, anchored with ropes and possibly the large orange barrels. One could speculate that this provides a forensic barrier, and suiting and de-suiting take place within.
  • It is of interest the length of time that the forensic and SOC services take. Presumably there will be enquiries into the use of firearms by police which will require robust evidence.
Perhaps you want to propose that the picture be removed?
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC).

Corrections needed

The sentence "At 2:14 a.m., heavily armed police stormed the café following a barrage of flash bang grenades, after which further hostages ran from the building in two groups. The first emerged after the initial gunshots, while the second emerged after the following volley" is incorrect. The "after the initial gunshots" is 'orphaned', as there is no reference to any "initial gunshots", nor any "following volley". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalcourtier (talk • contribs) 01:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Biography

Since the gunman has his own article, it is not necessary to incorporate his biography into this one. I am starting to move that material to the Monis article. Readers interested in the gunman can easily go there via the link in the lead or the "See main" link in the body of this one. For comparison, the Port Arthur massacre (Australia) contains no section on the gunman, who also has his own article. The term "perpetrator" is also not appropriate, as it is euphemistic jargon, a form of legalese that is not used by the press or the people in Australia. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Good change, thanks Nick-D (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Machete

There is NO evidence whatsoever that Monis had a machete....Also, the event that occurred is still under investigation, and has not been confirmed as a 'terrorist attack' at this stage ˜˜˜˜Gilberticus Fyshius (talk) 08:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

George Street mis-linked

In "Evacuations and closures", Hunter, George, Elizabeth, and Macquarie streets are listed but George Street is linked to the King Street, Sydney page. I'm not familiar with Sydney and don't know whether George or King is correct. Akld guy (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed Definitely an error! --220 of Borg 19:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Machete

An early Fox News report during the siege claimed there was a machete, however this does not appear to have been confirmed by police or substantiated by any further reports. I have therefore removed the claim.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Number of hostages

The article currently claims that there were 18 hostages ("ten customers and eight employees"), however, this is directly contradicted by numerous sources including those referenced where the number of hostages is stated:

I believe that there was one source which indicated that there were 18 hostages, but it is not amongst the references used to support the current claim – or if it is, it has since been updated – and in any case it is clearly outweighed by the consensus of other sources already referenced in the article. —sroc 💬 15:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. —sroc 💬 16:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Now that all the hostages have been identified, the number seems clearer then before. Counting them: 1.Katrina Dawson, 2.Tori Johnson 3.John O'Brien 4.Stefan Balafoutis 5.Elly Chen 6.Jieun Bae 7.Marcia Mikhael 8.Harriette Denny 9.Viswakanth Ankireddy 10.Joel Herat 11.Paolo Vassallo 12.Fiona Ma 13.Jarrod Hoffman 14.Puspendu Ghosh 15.Selina Win Pe 16.Julie Taylor Plus the "17. (50/52) year old women and 18. (74/75) year old women." seems to make 18. So would counting overtake the sources?, they still seem to mention 17 but it looks like 18. Rump1234 (talk) 07:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Adding sexuality of one victim

I don't see how confirming a person's sexuality violates WP:NPOV. Why not add details about his longtime partner instead? --George Ho (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of NPOV, given that it wasn't a factor in this one event, it's just not relevant. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Nick-D (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
We'd have to have some much better reliable source mentioning he was survived by a partner to bring it up (and not just a boyfriend) than someone's own video. For example, two women were claiming to be the Miami Zombie attacker's girlfriend. But saying "The gay Tori..." is as offensive as saying "The straight Tori..." and we certainly don't need to claim him for any cause, identity, or ideology. I oppose going into detail on survivors of either victim per WP:AVOIDVICTIM, so I oppose mentioning this unless it is otherwise directly and weightfully relevant to the attack or its fallout. μηδείς (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
It is entirely unnecessary to state the sexuality of anyone involved.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Not only is their sexuality irrelevant, no aspect of the personal lives of the hostages is relevant. This article is about the event, not the lives of the hostages. There are other sites for tributes and information about them. Jim Michael (talk) 11:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

making 'field of flowers' a subsection of the community response

I have made the part on the field of flowers a subsection of the community response section, because where it was, above the in-the-moment announcements by Tony Abbott and Mike Baird, was confusing in terms of the timeline of events. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Dates

An editor recently changed all the dates to the US month day year format. WP:MOSDATE states, "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation." Australia uses day month year format. I have restored the correct date formats.

I have also restored some of the intervening edits. However, the extraneous information about Monis is unnecessary at this article, and is already found at the article about him.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You retained all the limited-importance info on him (the charges even if they didn't lead to convictions), and deleted much of the important material about him (the actual conviction, appealed, and then appealed again, where he did not get what he wanted at the High Court just days before the attacks, and the relevant details of what the elements were of the offense that he was convicted of). As to the date format, you were of course correct. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I fixed the dates that you botched, and I fixed other elements after that in the time I had available. In future, you might like to run date scripts separately to other substantial edits.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Article title

This article title is an odd one, and seems to reflect an international view of the event. Here in Australia it was generally referred to as the chocolate shop hostage situation. 2014 Sydney hostage crisis, the current title, implies that it was the only hostage crisis in Sydney in 2014 - which is simply not true. The very next day there was another one in Sydney that made nationwide news. I wonder if perhaps the article title should change, or at least we should have both alternatives. It makes it hard to search for it, and, given how huge this article is, that is a pity. KrampusC (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

"Here in Australia it was generally referred to as the chocolate shop hostage situation." It was actually widely referred to as the Sydney Siege. See the earlier discussion at Talk:2014 Sydney hostage crisis/Archive 2#Page name change. Even if there have been other sieges/hostage crises in Sydney this year and any of them were notable enough to have their own article, it is likely that this one would still be the primary topic for this title as the most well known and most likely intended article with this title; any others could be disambiguated as usual. —sroc 💬 02:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay fair enough. There is a hell of a lot of anger here so I don't think it is really worth it for me to contribute any further here. Perhaps we should add a controversy tag to this article so that people get fair warning before they get scared off. KrampusC (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, KrampusC, I hope you didn't interpret my comment as anger and I hope it hasn't deterred you; that wasn't my aim. Note the discussion at Sydney Siege nickname above, too. —sroc 💬 04:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes well I am just saying what I have heard on the news, seen on articles I have read and everywhere else. I have never heard of it referred to as the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis, and until today I didn't realise that Wikipedia had an article on it, because the article title is so obscure and so unlike what is used in the Australian media. I have seen it referred to as the "Lindy Chocolat Cafe hostage siege": [11], the "Martin Place siege": [12] and as the "Sydney siege" [13]. The section above was only using foreign (non-Australian) references so was irrelevant to how it is seen in Australia. Calling it the "Martin Place siege" is only relevant to people in Sydney, as people in Canada wouldn't know where Martin Place was. I am just saying that most people, when they are trying to find out more information about it, would not look for the title given here, especially given that, as I said, there was a major news article the very next day about another hostage situation in Sydney. Well, that one was only 5 minutes worth. A guy killed another guy and was shooting at police as they tried to arrest him in his house. Not quite the same level of media coverage, but it could have been, and a lot of people got the two confused. KrampusC (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
P.S. I wasn't saying you were angry. But I have had a lot of threats from people on this page, so I think that they are pretty angry. KrampusC (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
While I think "Sydney seige" is a more straightforward title, there is now a redirect from "Martin Place seige" as well as from "Sydney seige" so that should help readers. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Sydney Siege nickname

Sydney Siege seems to be the most common name given to this, so it should probably be mentioned somewhere (if not in the title). As an Australian,i haven't seen a tv network, radio station or newspaper that hasn't referred to it as the Sydney Siege. Here are some news sites too.

@Rump1234: Yes, I'd agree that most people wouldn't search "2014 Sydney hostage crisis" to find this article, but if somebody did search it here, it would redirect them to this page, as Sydney Siege is a redirect to this page. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 05:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Even with redirects, if it is better known by a more common name, it should be moved there.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
If people wouldn't search/call it "2014 Sydney hostage crisis" then why should it be called that here? Their was a discussion archived about this pages name before, but i don't think Sydney Siege or 2014 Sydney Siege was canvassed. Rump1234 (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
@Jeffro77 and Rump1234: 2014 Sydney hostage crisis is more technical and accurate, but 2014 Sydney siege is a bit more common (however, it's a bit broad, as it could refer to any siege in Sydney in 2014), so I'm not exactly sure what would be a better name for this article. I personally think that the current name is a bit better, what are your thoughts? -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that calling it a "crisis" is actually more accurate. It was certainly a crisis in the psychological sense of the word for the people directly involved, but the word is being used in a sense more akin to tabloid journalism. In an earlier Talk section (I think it was still during the event), I begrudgingly endorsed the current name only on the provision that it is the more common name. As already stated in my response above in this section, I fully support changing it to Sydney siege (with or without the year; I am undecided on whether it is required).--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I think 'Sydney Siege' would probably be the better name, as it is what it's most commonly called.'2014 Sydney hostage crisis' could also refer to any hostage 'crisis' in 2014, so i don't think it is any better than 'siege'. As for having 2014 in the title, I'm not sure whether any other notable event is known as 'Sydney Siege' for it to need the year. Rump1234 (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
@Jeffro77: When I said that it was more accurate, I meant to say that it's a bit more precise than just calling it a siege in Sydney that happened in 2014. I agree with your points (and Rump1234's), but I think that we should probably get opinions for a few more people before carrying on with a page move. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 15:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The 4 Requests made by Monis

There were 4 main demands/declarations made by Man Monis during the hostage crisis.

1. That an Islamic State Flag was brought to the Cafe 2. That there are bombs placed around Sydney 3. That he gets to speak with Tony Abbott 4. That this is an attack on Australia by the Islamic State

The first 3 have been listed... the 4th was missing so it's been added into the article.203.206.83.156 (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Terrorism box

Professional terrorism experts were spending a lot of media time expressing that this was not a terrorism incident, but a psychologically challenged individual hostage event - why the need for the oversized 'terrorism box'? satusuro 01:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I hope your argument doesn't fall into straw man. Any Islamist can be easily seen as terrorist. Any tan-coloured person from an Islamist country without Muslim background can be seen as a terrorist. Look, I'm not accusing you of racism or implying accusations. Yes, it's a lone-man hostage, but... what the heck. For god's sake, remove the incident from these lists. --George Ho (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
The term terrorism is frequently used as an inflammatory pejorative, and there are some who are trying to turn the acts of one lone nutter into 'Australia's September 11' (and no, I'm not exaggerating[14]). Per WP:LABEL, we should err on the side of caution when labelling events as 'terrorism'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support removing the box. 'Terrorism' implies some level of coordination by an organisation. Though the perpetrator appears to have personally endorsed ISIL, there are no sources indicating that the perpetrator was either in communication with or was acting under the direction of any terrorist organisation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support this was a person who had flipped out after losing an appeal against criminal conviction, this wasn't some ideological crusade to rid the world of those who don't follow the one true path. I saw many people early in this article refer to it being a terrorist attack because police responded as if it was, well thats how police respond to every hostage situation now. What I don't see in the article nor the sources is the accepted principles, events and endorsement that underscore every terrorist type event. We must ensure that Wikipedia doesn't create any misconceptions or false conclusions by the way in which we reproduce the facts of the event nor in how we categorise, template and link to other events. Gnangarra 03:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support removing the box. It is evidently a very complex situation both politically and psychologically. There is a good analysis (now among the references) which includes this: "To be terrorised is an emotion. Terrorism is something different. The ism is enormously important … It doesn't mean there's some political motivation; it means it's the dominant one. And in Mr Monis's case, we just don't know yet. It's clearly an element, but he was coming to the end of his rope with a variety of legal processes; there was clearly some mental instability." See: Feneley Analysis Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the template from the article, and I have removed the article from the template. Both per WP:LABEL.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Whoa -- Jeffro. And ... you also removed from the article itself the RS reference to the Australian Prime Minister calling the gunman a terrorist. What's that all about??? Epeefleche (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
As clearly stated in the relevant edit summary, I removed Abbott's description of him as a "terrorist" from the motive parameter of the infobox because Abbott's description of Monis as a terrorist doesn't constitute a motive. I did not remove Abbott's statement nor any related sources in th two places in the article where it is appropriately given as Abbott's view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
While that was also highly questionable (seriously -- you don't see how describing the actor as a terrorist is an indication of the actor's (terrorist) motive???), you also deleted it from the body of the article. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
You'll have to provide a diff for the claim you're making about something I allegedly deleted elsewhere, as I don't know what else you're referring to. The sources are still intact for Abbott's description of Monis as a terrorist. And no, it was not "questionable", because Abbott is not an expert on terrorism, and his personal view of Monis is not necessarily indicative of Monis' actual motive. A stronger source is required per WP:LABEL for asserting that the motive was terrorism.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
If you are referring to this edit, you are apparently ignoring the fact that I immediately reverted after realising I hadn't scrolled down to see that that there were additional changes and not just the infobox.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Professional terrorism experts were spending a lot of media time expressing" - Citations??? Heres a terrorism expert saying he WAS a terrorist [1]

Heres facts we do know:

  1. He recently converted from Shia to Sunni Muslim, the Islamic State Terrorists religion of choice
  2. He forced his hostages to hold up Islamic flags which he packed in anticipation of the attack and through his demands requested an Islamic State Flag be brought
  3. He DECLARED this to be made VERY CLEAR this was an Islamic State Attack on Australia through his hostages list of demands
  4. While he may have been mentally unstable, can you guys list the names of other Islamic Terrorists that ARE mentally stable?

The removal of the terrorist box I feel was done too soon, without much thought and probably for the wrong reasons and should be brought back. 101.168.42.163 (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. I am so glad the box and categories were removed, especially after this discussion was ignored. If this was a terrorist incident we would be hearing it described as such within the mainstream media. Instead the perpetrator is a gunman and the incident was a siege. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The very same article cited by the opposing editor above states:

Queensland University of Technology criminologist Associate Professor Mark Lauchs said it was important the siege wasn't elevated to a "terrorist attack" as such. Assoc Prof Lauchs said Monis was simply a deranged person running a hostage situation adding that if Monis wanted to kill on the scale Breivik did, he would have acted much earlier rather than draw out a long hostage situation. "This wasn’t a political act," he said. "I don’t think he even knew what he wanted. A terrorist act is usually defined as having a political purpose and extortion, he simply wanted attention." "This incident was not about religion and neither was it a terrorist attack, but given that perception by the paraphernalia Monis used.

The article says the other expert's view was that Monis acted like "a lone wolf terrorist", adding that he was "shunned in both Shia and Sunni circles". The source does not explicitly call the event terrorism.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree it was way to early. Especially by an involved editor. Who has !voted here. And who removed the in-article reference in an RS to the Prime Minister calling the gunman a terrorist. Trout-worthy. Epeefleche (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
As explained above, the other statement was only removed inadvertently as part of what I had not realised was a broader edit, including substantial incorrect changes to dates within the article, to which I turned my attention to fix. In the absence of strong sources specifically calling the event 'terrorism', my removal of the terrorism template was entirely justified per WP:LABEL.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support removal, despite what some people may want to believe. ansh666 21:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The Australian Prime Minister referred to him as a "terrorist", and to the act as terrorism. Epeefleche (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support removal. The article should (and does) talk about how the act was described as Terrorism by notable sources (such as the PM), but crucially the relevant experts do not classify it as such, and therefore we shouldn't either. Just because the guy wanted to claim association with a larger group - and thereby to make his actions more newsworthy/noticed - doesn't necessarily mean he has any actual association with them. No, this is a bloke with a shotgun who wanted attention. And he got it. That's about it. Wittylama 02:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The article reflects a number of people referring to it as terrorism (including senior public officials who presumably have more info that we have), and a relevant expert doing the same, and one associate professor saying "nay." And a number of RSs referring to it as terrorism. See here and here. Epeefleche (talk) 05:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The article cites some politicians who referred to the event as 'terrorism' and two experts. The two experts cited do not explicitly call it terrorism, at least not in any sources I've seen, which have Grant likening the actions to those of a 'lone-wolf' without any unambiguous quote from Grant, and Lauchs unambiguously says it wasn't terrorism. Google search results are not a reliable method of assessment; for example the second result for one of the searches is entitled, siege: Lindt Cafe hostage-taking unlike overseas terror attacks and goes on to elaborate how the attack doesn't qualify as 'terrorism'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the article quotes the Prime Minister of Australia, and officials of other countries, referring to it as terrorism. If you haven't read experts referring to it as terrorism, you haven't looked -- here are some experts.[15][16][17] Epeefleche (talk) 06:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Statements by politicians in layman's terms are not any more meaningful than the statements of any other layman. Of the sources you've suggested here, only the last is usable, and it is already in the article. The first source is from a tabloid paper known for exaggerating and even entirely making things up. The second source is an opinion column.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Seriously? The direct statement by the Prime Minister of Australia is "not any more meaningful" that a statement by you? Are you kidding? The PM, who receives counsel from all manner of experts. On the subject of the year for him. And who has access to all manner of confidential information that you do not have access to? Second -- please stop deleting the opinions of experts, such as Michael Wesley, Professor of International Affairs and Director of the School of International, Political and Strategic Studies at the Australian National University, who wrote that the attack "was very different from first-generation or second-generation terrorist attacks — but it was terrorism, and terrorism of a brutal and more unpredictable sort." He's an expert, and his opinion piece is acceptable as evidence of his opinion, and it was explicitly attributed in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. Epeefleche (talk) 06:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course. Just because Brandis called Gillard a notorious liar doesn't mean its a fact, likewise for Abbott and his descriptions. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Politicians and opinion pieces frequently (and deliberately) use loaded terms. The article about Wesley doesn't say he's an expert on terrorism (that is, he may be, but it doesn't say), and nor does the cited sources; relying on his other credentials is an appeal to authority.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is a tabloid that is generally not a reliable source, and if the individual in that source exists at all, it would be better to provide a different source quoting him. WP:Suggested sources advises, "generally avoid British tabloids such as the Daily Mail, Daily Express, The Mirror and The Sun". The Daily Mail article is also dated 15 December, during the siege, and cannot possibly represent subsequent analysis of the event.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support removal. According to sources connected with this article it's not an act of terrorism. Like user:wittylama said, if they don't consider this as terrorism then we shouldn't either.--Chamith (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/man-haron-monis-why-did-he-carry-out-sydney-siege/story-fnj3rq0y-1227159748676
  • Oppose removal. Monis's IS sympathies are clear, and the fact that someone is unstable does not mean they can't be a terrorist. I suspect Political Correctness is at work here. Sardaka (talk) 07:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes those categories do not belong and should be removed. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Debate and analysis

I'm a bit worried about the number of unattributed comments in this section. It's basically talking heads type material, so who said what should be clear to readers. More generally, I do wonder if it's too early to have such a section: as the full facts of what happened during the crisis are yet to be be established (or at least be publicly released) and the events of the lead-up to the crisis are unclear, it seems a bit premature - at the moment this material is basically people reacting to media coverage. Nick-D (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

It is intended to be a very short summary of the broader issues that were raised and considered at the time, as opposed to the facts as they are/become known. I would expect that the event itself will continue to inform future discussions as well as decisions, but it would not be necessary to detail all that in this article as it plays out. One article on one event cannot be expected to support it all. They are big issues. They didn't start with this event and they certainly won't finish with it. I am thinking that the best we can do is indicate that the relationship was noted at the time. Each comment is attributed and meant to be a good representation of them. Better ones might appear but these were made at the time. Results of specific investigations are a different matter. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Why was the SBS coverage removed?

During the siege, there was one source from SBS News covering the siege in the article. Since then, it has been removed, in favour of News.com.au coverage (which is already well-represented in the article). Currently, the only source from SBS is stuff covering Monis's hate mail. Surely including a variety of news outlets would help the article achieve a broad overview of the topic? --110.20.234.69 (talk) 02:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily - what matters is that the references provide a comprehensive account of what happened and its results, and are in line with WP:NPOV. Can you please identify the extra content which could be included based on SBS sources? Nick-D (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The SBS source about the doors being disabled was added first, then the News.com.au source as a supplement - for exactly the same fact. In the rewrites, the SBS source was removed, and I'm not sure why that was, because the SBS source was added first, and News.com.au is already well-represented as a source in the article. I would like to replace the current news.com.au source with the original SBS news source. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Sources written after the siege concluded (when the facts were a bit more settled) seem more useful to readers and reliable than updates written during the siege. As the news.com source was superior here and the SBS source apparently adds nothing new, I've reverted it back in. Nick-D (talk) 03:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

unproven facts stated in Wikipedia voice

I noticed some parts of the article state unproven facts in Wikipedia voice. such as "Early on, hostages were seen holding a jihadist black flag up against the window of the café, with the Islamic shahādah creed written on it in Arabic" Should read "xyx source reported xyx saw.......". authority: Please see the extensive discussion on sri lankan talk pages regarding war crimes allegation. Because in this circumstance the alleged perp was killed in the incident, we do not know if the facts are contentious or not. So in my opinion everything should read allegedly or xyx reported. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 16:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Statements do not need in-text attribution unless they are expressing the views of a particular source. The details you mention are generally accepted by multiple sources, so footnotes are sufficient. See WP:INTEXT. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
That is the problem. It's expressing the views of the source, and the only person who could contest it is dead. Therefore it would not be proper for it to be said in WP voice --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 18:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The fact that a flag was held up by hostages is uncontroversial; the incident was widely photographed. We don't include in-text attribution for undisputed facts, otherwise articles would become very awkward to read and maintain. I'm not familiar with the Sri Lanka incident you're talking about but I imagine that controversial war crimes allegations are a different matter. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
WP does not allow original research, the fact that you have provided a photo does not mean we can draw any conclusion from that. If the perp wasn't killed and this matter went to court, any issues raised by defence would make this a disputed fact. But because the perp is dead, we do not know if this is disputed and should not assume that is undisputed based on one POV --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 19:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
This is silly; the statement was cited to multiple references. We don't need a secondary source to describe what is depicted in a primary source like a photo. No one has stood up and said the banner actually said "Happy Birthday, Mom!" This is a pov discussion, not meant to improve the article. μηδείς (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree, this is an unnecessary discussion. Also, "allegedly" was added to the first sentence. No one is disputing the fact Man Haron Monis was the gunman. APK whisper in my ear 19:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably because the only person who could dispute it is dead. Also see states "His criminal history also includes a charge of accessory to murder relating to the murder of his former wife, numerous charges of sexual assault...sic" it should say possible murder or killing, because the term murder implies the killing was unlawful when that has not been established. see --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 19:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Whilst I am sympathetic to the effort to bring the 'innocent before guilty' principle to this article, there genuinely is zero controversy or alternative view being proposed about the elements being given the words "alleged" here... There ARE controversies about various parts of the topic, but not about who the gunman was... WP can only go on what is verifiable - and the name of the gunman is extremely verifiable and has absolutely no counter-claims. As such, I have reverted your inclusion of "alleged", that makes two people who've done it now. Please be aware of WP:3RR. Wittylama 20:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
If she was really murdered how could that be a "possible murder"? And he was charged with accessory to murder, it's different from an actual murder charge. And it's not original research. Original researches are fact, allegations for which no reliable, published sources exist. But in this case there are multiple sources to his criminal history.--Chamith (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Illridewithyou

I should point out that User:The Almightey Drill] has created a standalone article for the hashtag Illridewithyou that is approximately 3 paragraphs long.
I do not believe that the topic deserves to be a separate topic as, in my opinion, it can be wholly addressed within the Reaction>community section of this article (I originally created page as a redirect back to this page). The catchphrase is a fleeting phenomena that is deserving of WP's coverage, but, unless it manages to take on a life of its own outside the context of this particular event then it should live here.
Therefore, I propose merging the content of that article back into this one by placing the content within a new sub-heading under 'reaction>community>#Illridewithyou'.

As a side note, I suspect the emotive argument of the "fabrication or embellishment' of the discussion immediately preceding this one (between Almighy Drill and Jeffro77) is a factor in the creation of the breakaway article, given that the phrase "Jacobs later admitted to fabricating the story" also appears over on that article. Wittylama 20:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Wittylama: why not start a merge request, per WP:PM? ansh666 22:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
This does seem to violate WP:NOTNEWS (with some BLP violations to smear the creator thrown in for good measure - I've blocked the editor involved and had to revision delete part of the history of this page to hide blatantly defamatory material). Nick-D (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I think there needs to be a complete removal of the illridewithyou section. It has absolutely nothing to do with the hostage crisis situation(as much as some would like it to be be) and there is no evidence of any increased harassment or intimidation of muslims or otherwise on trains since the hostage crisis. It's got to go. 203.206.83.156 (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
the fact the hashtag was created as a direct reaction/response to the Seige means that it IS related. The fact that, among many other news reports both local and international, the U.S. President specifically mentions it in his condolence message means that it is worthy of inclusion. The Increase/decrease/no-change in harassment of Muslims on trains is immaterial to the notability of the hashtag. It deserves to stay as an element within this article whether you personally dislike the topic or not.
As for whether the article illridewithyou is worth keeping as a standalone article, I would suspect that the significance of the hashtag will die off quickly and be wholly associated with this event - and therefore it should be merged in to here. Wittylama 23:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Your claim that the creation of the other Talk section at this page inspired the creation of the article about the hashtag is entirely false (the section has since been rightly removed as a violation of WP:BLP, which I was going to point out had it not been removed). The article about the hashtag existed prior to the other editor's inappropriate claim.
The hashtag is directly related to this event, but probably doesn't warrant a specific section, just a paragraph within Reactions\Community. I don't see that the hashtag warrants its own separate article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I find it curious that both the originator of the illridewithyou, Rachael Jacobs, name was removed as well as the fact she is a Greens candidate so possibly pushing her own agenda. Why was this done? If the illridewithyou distraction must live here, it SHOULD at least attempt to pretend to be balanced. Also I think the banning of the previous IP edit was abritrary and not very Christmasy and he he/she had a point if you compare the original facebook post with the confession on fairfax by Rachel Jacobs. Most of the story was made up, there was no crying muslim victim running off a train. We know this because Jacobs admitted as much in her confession on fairfax. You don't have to like truth and reality, but people have to accept it.124.150.110.129 (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Rachel Jacobs... Greens Candidate for Brisbane. Facebook Page Deleted.... but not forgotten http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KDM12jXfQhAJ:https://www.facebook.com/RachaelForBrisbane+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au Is this a big secret, and if so... why? If we must mention a "woman from Brisbane" started a campaign and give credit to her, then for disclosures sake are we not allowed to mention she is also a Greens candidate for balance? Frankly I think the whole section should go because it's highly contenious and irrelevent to the hostage crisis as much as some would like it to be so.124.150.110.129 (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The story was not entirely "made up". The individual made a reasonable assumption about someone she actually saw and wrote what she wished she'd said. It is accurate to say she embellished or editorialised the event, but there is nothing to suggest she was just sitting at home and 'fabricated' the story. It is not appropriate to mention any political affiliation of the individual unless it has been published in reliable sources. Your 'witch hunt' is therefore both inappropriate and irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
No witch hunt. In the original version it was claimed that a muslim woman was in tears when she offered to walk with her. In the confession version on fairfax it was revealed Quote-Unquote "While the woman appeared to appreciate my gesture, we had both left defeated and deflated. What good is one small action against an avalanche of ignorance?" So there was no crying, tears of overwhelming joy, it was a fantasy. In fact the story even questions whether she was even a muslim. As to the political affiliation by a reliable source, that's not a problem. Here it is here[1] "Rachael Jacobs is a lecturer in Education at the Australia Catholic University in Brisbane. She was the Greens candidate for the seat of Brisbane in 2013." Let's add it back into the article for balance. No witch hunt here... just disclosure which for whatever reason you don't want to have happen.124.150.110.129 (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Apparently me not being aware of every source in existence constitutes me 'not wanting disclosure'. The Brisbane Times article is a suitable source for her political affiliation; the deleted Facebook page—which was previously given as the source for the claim—most definitely was not. Why didn't you just provide a valid source in the first instance? Hopefully you have learned a lesson about sources here. That said, I'm not sure that more than a sentence or two about the hashtag is required, and it isn't necessary to go into detail about it anyway—unless your main aim is simply to discredit someone? The coverage of the hashtag and its background as it stands in the article at the moment seems appropriate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

People interested in this discussion here should note that the illridewithyou standalone article had been nominated for deletion (by Jeffro77). Please comment at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illridewithyou. Wittylama 01:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC) As an addendum to this last point - the creator of the standalone article is currently blocked until the 24th for violating BLP policy relating to the "creator" of the hashtag. (And subsequently is being particularly uncivil on his userpage toward the admin. Wittylama 01:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

There's a discussion of the above at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive213#illridewithyou - is this really a violation of the policy? Nick-D (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I've had a go at reworking the #Illridewithyou section of the article to make it a more objective tone and also including a footnote which points to the critique of the hashtag. Furthermore, I've broken it off to a sub-section of the Reaction>community section given that is where it fits chronogically (before the "field of flowers"). I note that the AFD for the standalone illridewithyou article is leaning heavily towards merging that content back here, so I've made a start at that. Wittylama 13:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Another editor attempted to re-introduce judgements about the Facebook status that later inspired the hashtag. Such judgements are not relevant, because the story being entirely true, partially true, or entirely false has no bearing on the fact that it inspired the hashtag. If editors feel that the indiviudal's actions were inappropriate, they can start a blog or update their Twitter feed. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/how-illridewithyou-began-with-rachael-jacobs-experience-on-a-brisbane-train-20141216-128205.html

RFD

Two photos I uploaded for this article have been nominated for deletion by User: Eng.M.Bandara. The discussion pages are here and here. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 23:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

That editor has been blocked here as a Sockpuppet. More generally, they appear to be clueless about Australia's broad freedom of panorama laws. Nick-D (talk) 02:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Political smear

I have removed a paragraph about an attempted smear campaign about a politician who signed something three years ago for Monis, in his capacity as a representative for the constituency in which Monis lived. Whilst the underlying source may warrant a single sentence in the article about Monis, it has absolutely nothing to do with the event that is the subject of this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

While the material you removed is indeed overly breathless (especially considering this is BLP material) and somewhat inaccurate (my understanding is that Robertson passed the letter on as part of his basic duties as an MP rather than providing any particular "assistance"), his resignation should be covered given that it's - at least in part - due to this crisis. I do agree with the removal of the material pending better wording through. Nick-D (talk) 05:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
His resignation is due to the actions of Monis, and that merits inclusion in the article about Monis. It is only tangentially relevant to this article, and I'm not convinced that it warrants coverage here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I've never had my prose called "breathless"or a "smear" before! :-)
I have reworked the section to try to be more 'calm' and have re-inserted it at the very bottom of the article (diff). I would argue that this political resignation is a direct result of the political fallout around this event and therefore deserves to be mentioned within it. Perhaps what I've included is too long, and I'm happy for it to be shortened/summarised, but I believe it deserves mentioning. I've also moved this to the "debate" section (rather than the 'reactions > leaders' section) on the basis that, while it is about a "leader", it isn't discussing the "reaction of a leader to the event". Instead, it is part of the political debate after the event. Wittylama 16:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Definitely an improvement. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Bail Act 2013 Draft Article

Just in case anyone missed my previous notice on the topic, I have created and been working on a draft article on the topic of the relevant bail law here: Draft:Bail Act 2013. I would appreciate any help that could be provided, with sourcing, content, formatting, copy-editing etc. It isn't a perfect article by any stretch of the imagination, but it explains some of the history and features of the Bail Act 2013 and cites government sources, academic sources, and media sources to do so. Please keep the red link for the Bail Act 2013 in the Gunman section so that whenever the draft is assessed (in approximately a month, but could take longer) the new article on the law will be linked here automatically. Thank you. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I have added a WikiProject Australian Law template to it. Perhaps that will attract some specialist attention. I also made an attempt to structure it but that needs scrutiny to check the sequence of events. I am not clear what impact the hostage event had if the review had already happened and the bill passed in May. Or is there a review of the review? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
There was one review that created the law (creating a new law rather than amending the Bail Act 1978), and one review that has toughened up the new laws (and according to Hazzard, if they'd been in force already, it would have prevented the siege). In between, it looks like there's been a bill tidying up some old references to the 1978 Act. Thanks for your work on the draft, it's been really helpful to work out what needs clarifying. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
PS: If you create a Wikipedia user account, we can better help. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
After working on those excellent refs and its structure, I have moved it to mainspace. It is now linked from this article. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lindt_Cafe_siege/Archive_2&oldid=1136363059"