Jump to content

Talk:Lindt Cafe siege/Archive 3

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

Terrorism template and sources

Re: the old template argument: there was no consensus regarding the designation of the siege as a terrorist attack (and whether Monis was a terrorist or not). Initially, the editors supporting the template removal simply removed the template (and references to the attack on the template itself as well as the terrorism in Australia article), the other editors voiced their objection but no consensual conclusion was drawn. I'd like to propose a compromise. I had recently seen one editor draw a difference between fact and opinions regarding the attack. Opinions belong in the debate section while the fact that the NSW police treated the event as a terrorist attack should take precedence in this discussion. That the event was treated as a terrorist attack by the police warrants the inclusion of the template. But because the absolute designations have been debated by experts, the event should not be included in the box. In addition, I have placed the reference to the event in the main terrorism page under "Debated events." I hope this seems fair. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Your characterisation of what was removed and why is misleading. Inclusion of the template is not merely at the whim of editors, and removal at the time was because of what was available in reliable sources. Additionally, assumptions by police during an event are not a determination that an event is a terrorist attack. That said, whilst your reasoning is flawed, other more recent sources probably justify the substance of your compromise—that is, inclusion of the template, on the condition that is placed adjacent to the Debate section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I also agree that the approach the NSW Police used to handle the crisis is not a particularly good way of considering how to consider it after the event. Nick-D (talk) 05:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course during the event everyone, including the authorities, was unsure of what was happening and why and whether or not anyone else was involved. They had to do the best they could, which seems to mean treating it as if it was terrorism. As I said before, it has turned out that the "causes" and motivations are politically and psychologically complex. As it turns out, he was acting alone, he was not supported by anyone but probably would like to have been. It cannot be known. In this state of ambiguity, leave the box out. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
It certainly shouldn't be put at the top of the aritcle. But there seems to be sufficient discussion in reliable sources to put the box in the Debate section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
If you are wondering if it was a terrorist act - both ISIL and Al Qaeda are praising his acts and telling others to emulate them. http://www.9news.com.au/national/2014/12/30/11/31/man-monis-praised-in-isil-magazine Should be added to the article carefully. Legacypac (talk) 07:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Jihadist flag

I don't think this gun man had a jihadist flag like, for instance an IS flag, but rather a shahada flag which is an everyday symbol for all Islamic people. It means just there is no deity except God and Mohammed was his prophet. I know the gun man asked for an IS flag but none was provided and it was never displayed as part of this siege. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.146.217.62 (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It's fairly clear from sources that the intended purpose was for the flag to be considered jihadist. The IS flag certainly isn't the only jihadist flag, or the only flag used for that purpose. However, it may be possible to clean up the wording so that the article does not suggest that the shahada is always 'jihadist'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Removing the one word removes the idea of universality - it is now more neutral but still conveys what we understand to be the gunman's intention. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I have amended both instances in the article. The target article (Black Standard) may also need clarification, as it currently has a section jihadist black flag that gives the reader the impression that the shahada flag is exclusively a jihadist flag. For that reason, I have removed the parts of the links that refer to that possibly misleading section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

two more useful analysis references

As much as a note-to-self as it is an FYI to other editors, I've come across two more pieces of analysis in the SMH by two of the calmer and more thoughtful opinion writers in the local media. Especially now that the "debate" section of this article is getting filled out nicely I think it is important that these two pieces get referenced at some point:

Wittylama 00:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Bandwagon

It is the last day of the year and regrettably, it seems we have to add more about terrorist organisations jumping on the gunman's bandwagon. First he jumped on theirs, then they (eventually) jumped on his. It's a noisy bandwagon that they seem to be driving around in circles. It also seems like another blow to the dignity of those who were caught up in the events because they wanted a cup of morning coffee, or in Dawson's case, chocolate. As one of the editors trying to keep this article calm, accurate, informative and respectful, I pruned the bandwagon section (that is, the section about the approval of terrorist organisations) quite hard in order to try to keep it concise and the whole balanced in terms of section lengths. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Date of bail act amendment

The given date of 28 January 2015 for the amendments to the Bail Act 2013 to come into force is not included in the source at the end of that paragraph, Stricter bail laws would be an assault on our rights, it only says January. Where does the date of the 28th come from? --110.20.234.69 (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Changed to what ref said. If you find the specific date, add it. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

"Motive" is contrary to the FACTS

The women speak quickly as they relay the demands of the gunman in videos posted to social media. Man Haron Monis has held them and 15 others captive in the Lindt Chocolat Cafe in Martin Place.

Forced to do his bidding, they talk to the camera, standing in front of a black and white Shahada flag held up by another person behind them, who remains hidden by the fabric.

In voices that are clear but betray the terror of the situation, they talk of bombs and Islamic State. They are made to call Monis "the brother".

"This is a message to Tony Abbott," says one.

"We're held here hostage and the brother has three requests. One is to get an IS flag and he will release one hostage.

"The second is for the media to inform the other brothers not to explode the other two bombs which are also in the city. There are four bombs altogether here.

"The third is for Tony Abbott to contact the brother via live web, somehow, and he will release five hostages.

"We don't understand why these demands haven't been met yet. They are not unreasonable. He is only asking for a flag and a phone call."

A post on one hostage's Facebook page at 5.27pm, more than seven hours after the siege began, repeated the "small and simple requests".

"He is now threatening to kill us," the post read. "Please help. Please share."

Another woman stands before the flag and a cafe poster that refers to "the love of chocolate".

"Hello everybody," she says. She gives her name - which Fairfax Media cannot make out - and introduces herself as "one of the many hostages here in the Lindt cafe at Martin Place".

The demands in this video are slightly different.

"One is to send an IS flag as soon as possible and one hostage will be released," she says.

"To please broadcast on all media that this is an attack on Australia by the Islamic State. And number three is that we need Tony Abbott to contact the brother on a live feed and five hostages will be released.

"Most importantly there are three bombs at George Street, Martin Place and also Circular Quay. And in order for those not to be ignited, we need these three things to be met as soon as possible." See: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-siege-over-lindt-cafe-gunman-forces-hostages-to-appear-in-videos-20141216-127wgy.html

NOW... notice the part thats missing from these demands? Absolutely anything to do with the claimed "motive". Somebody has attempted to do a bit of original research and invent their own reasoning behind why he performed this hostage situation without actually being backed up by the facts and actually contrary to the facts we have at hand. Using the Prime Minister of Australia, Tony Abbotts own words the motive should be changed to "Political Motive" which are backed up by the actual facts.203.206.83.156 (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Pasting the entire news article is probably beyond fair use and may constitute a copyright violation. Aside from that, the article you've posted contains only a claimed motive that was found to be a lie. It was claimed that bombs had been placed, but none were found, and there is no evidence that Monis actually was working with the alleged "brothers". This supports what analysts have confirmed as Monis wanting attention.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

mandatory inquest

Regarding this edit, which asserts that "Statement NOT verifiable in Citation given". The reference says in the antepenultimate paragraph:

An inquest is mandatory under the Coroners Act as these deaths occurred in the course of a police operation.

I don't see how that could NOT support the article statement. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Given that the editor responsible has apparently retired, so probably won't respond here, I've removed the tag. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Seriously?! I stated fairly clearly in my edit summary two weeks ago: "Second sentence of paragraph 5 of cited source: "An inquest is mandatory under the Coroners Act as these deaths occurred in the course of a police operation."[1] The source couldn't be more direct. The editor's entire editing history was about a week, yet he knows enough to add a 'retire' template to his User page? Given this knowledge of Wikipedia, it is fairly reasonable to conclude that the editor has multiple accounts (i.e. User:BXT888 is a sockpuppet of User:BT80) and was simply intending to be disruptive.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
In case it's not blatantly obvious, the user's modus operandi is to simply start a new username, so the editor's supposed retirement of both socks and probably other accounts cannot be taken at face value.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
As anticipated, the editor did return. His further activity at User talk:BXT888 and User:BT80 have further confirmed sockpuppetry.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
You are all full of accusations aren't you ? Where is your proof that I am a Sockpuppet ? Do you no what Defamation is ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BXT888 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
There is enough overlap and similarity in the edits that Jeffro77's allegation is in good faith. —C.Fred (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The only reason I am not going to make a claim under Wikipedia:Libel is because my email accounts are under my real life name. Just because something is "similar" doesn't make it fact that the same person wrote it. You are fabricating non existant evidence. I want to see proof that I am both of these people that would hold up in legal proceedings.
I want this part of the Talk Page permanently deleted from history as these are ALL unsubstantiated claims based on manufactured false evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BXT888 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. I'll request a WP:CHECKUSER if you really really want, but it would be a waste of my time, and would result in you being permanently blocked. Is that what you want? (Although you may also be blocked for making legal threats.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I suggest you and ALL of your abusive mates on Wikipedia have a long in-depth read of: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers,Wikipedia:Assume no clue, Wikipedia:Civility & Wikipedia:Assume good faith. You ALL need to learn some respect, as not everyone knows 100% of the ins & outs of the Wikipedia system. I am now moving on with my life. Good Luck with keeping Wikipedia a viable website, if you treat everyone this way. If you want to ban me, be my guest. I want to be banned. I would also like EVERYONE who treated me like trash, including yourself: User talk:Jeffro77 & User:Mitch Ames in this thread to be permanently banned. The only person who I would like to see banned, but NOT permanently is User:C.Fred for treating me the same as User talk:Jeffro77 &, User:Mitch Ames but not being as abrasive with how I was treated as a newcomer. BXT888 (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
You're not a newcomer. You have a good knowledge of templating and other specific aspects of Wikipedia. Bye now.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hatnote

I propose that the redirect Sydney hostage crisis be changed to a disambig page. "Sydney's 1984 'Dog Day Afternoon'" was a previous title for the other hostage crisis and was renamed after a 2012 RM. 1984 Sydney bank robbery should then go to the See also section. Moondyne (talk) 11:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Is the 1984 Sydney bank robbery also commonly referred to as a "hostage crisis", though? Otherwise, 2014 Sydney hostage crisis would still be the PRIMARYTOPIC for "Sydney hostage crisis" and the hatnote is sufficient to redirect anyone who happened to be looking for the other. However, if you wish to pursue this, it should also be raised onmthe other article's talk page. —sroc 💬 11:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes; the lede starts "The 1984 Sydney bank robbery and hostage crisis ..." and a disambig page would help the reader. The word "hostage" is used 3 times in the opening paragraph. I raise it for discussion here as it affects this article more than the other. Your note there pointing to this discussion will suffice. Thanks. Moondyne (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the hatnote more than sufficiently helps the reader without unnecessarily delaying readers expecting last month's event. Anyone looking for the 1984 event would expect "Sydney hostage crisis" to refer to the recent one which is most prominently in the consciousness of most; I suspect many would not even be aware of the 1984 event, but those who do would certainly also be aware of the 2014 event. —sroc 💬 15:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
That view smacks of WP:RECENTISM. Is there any evidence that one is significantly more notable than the other, given a long-term, historical viewpoint? Remembering that 1984 was a slightly gentler time, I recall the 1984 event. Moondyne (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I would think the 2014 was reported much more widely than the 1984. I wasn't aware of the 1984, but perhaps people from Sydney would have a greater awareness of it. Note that the 1984 event article has a total of 6 references, all based on Australian sources; the 2014 event article has 172 references, including many from overseas resources, suggesting that it was much more widely reported. I suspect that readers (from outside Australia, in particular) would be much more likely to know about the 2014 event than the 1984 event. Besides, RECENTISM is more about balanced coverage; we're not talking about putting less prominence on the 1984 event, but what is the much more likely that readers finding "Sydney hostage crisis" would be looking for the 2014 event, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. —sroc 💬 11:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Terrorism

As we know, this article has a fair amount of edit warring over whether this event should be classified as 'terrorism': in the Categories, with the inclusion of Template:Terrorism in Australia, and in the prose. Given that new news about the topic is now slowing down (with the notable recent announcement that "for insurance purposes"), perhaps its time to revisit and confirm the consensus about this issue....
For what it's worth, I have just now:

  • moved the 'terrorism in Australia' template down to the 'designation as terrorism' section - where it can at least be seen in the context of the public debate about IF this event is terrorism.
  • removed this article from the list of terrorism incidents that appears in that template.
  • removed the 'terrorism in australia' and 'terrorist incidents in 2014' categories (as per the previous consensus on this talkpage)
  • removed the equivalent articles from the 'see also' section.

I am happy to reverse these changes if this is what we agree on, with civil debate - but for the moment I think these edits represent the existing consensus here.

Perhaps we can have this discussion here, now, once and for all, about how we should deal with this article - with reference to Wikipedia's established policies. Wittylama 11:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I think inserting the 'terrorism related categories' and Terrorism in Australia page into the 'See also' section should be done because it was declared a terrorist attack, yes it was declared for insurance reasons but it was a terrorist attack by definition. (137.147.34.25 (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC))
Much of the earlier discussion centred on whether Monis was an ISIL-terrorist. [2] Probably 'Not'
Australian expert, Barton > 'lone-wolf terrorist' [3] US expert, Stewart, > 'terrorist' [4] Police > 'terrorist attack' [5] Age columnist, Szego > 'lone-wolf terrorist' [6] US expert > 'retail terrorist' [7] Australian expert, Jones > 'Lone wolf terrorist' [8] SMH columnist Feneley > 'terrorist' [9] Hockey > 'terrorist incident' for the purposes of the Terrorism Insurance Act [10] (Plus more expert opinion > 'terrorism'. Plus under Australian law > ‘terrorist act’ [11] ) It was terrorism. 210.11.218.130 (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Cherry-picking sources that do call it terrorism, to the exclusion of those that say it wasn't is misleading and therefore inappropriate. This is especially the case where sources are not experts, sources based on incomplete information during the event, sources that are deliberately sensationalist, or where sources use the term in a special context (such as Hockey's assessment for insurance purposes). Per WP:TERRORIST, an incident that is disputed as 'terrorism' should not be stated as 'terrorism' in Wikipedia's voice; instead, it should only be stated as quoted. This precludes categorisation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes to what Jeffro says. Also, we do need to be careful not to be re-writing history. An attempted summary of this: at first they didn't know what was happening, so they decided to act as if it were terrorism just in case; then it became clear there was no affiliation, support or planning and the gunman was angry, had a confused agenda with to some extent, a personal set of grievances; subsequently, terrorist oganisations tried to claim him via their approval (see "Bandwagon" section above); and then it was declared a "terrorist incident" for the purposes of insurance.
Insurance declarations are usually the other way around: that is, for the purposes of insurance, accidents are declared not to be accidents; floods are declared not to be floods. So now we have a case that both is and isn't terrorism. Consensus at the time is that it wasn't and then it became so later in spite of the facts. I think if the infobox has to go in, a good compromise is that it be where it now - that is, at the bottom of the page, near the "Debate" section (even though insurance determinations never were part of any debate), where it can perhaps usefully provide context; rather than at the top of the article, where it would look like it was unequivocal. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Dawson struck by police bullet....

Probably a reliable report. Add it in? or wait for coroner's report? Will be a long time coming.....

"Martin Place siege victim Katrina Dawson struck by a police bullet, investigations show". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 10 January 2015.

Regards, Ariconte (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added it - the sourcing is reliable, and this has been reported earlier [12]. It's very sad. Nick-D (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
We seem to have the three deaths sorted out. Monis killed Tori Johnson, the cops killed Monis and Katrina Dawson. We don't know the times - there are contradictory reports. We don't know the details of those wounded. But with 27 rounds fired and only a quarter of them hitting Monis, there must have been a lot of police bullets bouncing around in there. --Pete (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
No such thing has been "sorted out": the coroner's inquiry which will establish the facts has yet to even begin. Leaks reported in the media shouldn't be presented as facts. Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
In that case, most of the article is material of that nature, with our sources being the media, and few (if any) official reports published. I notice that there was no denial of the report on Dawson being the victim of police fire and it has since been reported around the world. Is there any reason to be coy on this point? Perhaps this should go to RSN if there is any doubt as to the accuracy (of the report, that is). --Pete (talk) 10:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Skyring. There is no dispute in reliable sources about this point - it's been widely reported in reliable sources around the world with no denial, and I don't think anyone's arguing this point. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
On checking the source, you are both correct and I'm mistaken - the source does present it as being something which definitely happened. My memory was that it had included provisos, but this was a mistake. I've half reverted myself: the implication that the police had given a misleading cause of death doesn't seem sustainable, especially as gunshot wounds often lead to death through shock and heart-related issues rather than the wound directly. It's all very sad. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I think that police mistakes and cover-ups will turn out to be a big part of this story. Everyone makes mistakes, and police at all levels are merely human, especially in tense conditions. But we expect police to set an example for honesty, and I'm not seeing that here, where misleading statements and spin were part and parcel of the aftermath. Saying that a victim died of a heart attack, when in fact she was killed by police gunfire, is deceptive. --Pete (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately it appears to be true that Dawson was struck by police fire, according to reports of the first day of the inquiry.

“Ms Dawson was struck by six fragments of a police bullet or bullets, which ricocheted from hard surfaces into her body ... one bullet struck a major blood vessel, she lost consciousness and died shortly afterwards,” he said.(Counsel assisting the coroner, Jeremy Gormley SC), Sydney siege inquest: Lindt Cafe deaths investigated. The Australian, 29 January 2015

220 of Borg 17:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Mamdouh Habib

Some controversy about offers of help during the crisis. Worth noting? http://www.smh.com.au/national/sydney-siege-mamdouh-habib-claims-he-could-have-stopped-hostage-deaths-20141230-12f230.html JohnAugust (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Academic sources

There's starting to be academic-quality level sources being published about the siege. Here's a Google Scholar search for "Sydney siege" since 2014, but I came across this article in Informit while researching the Bail Act 2013, which seems to explore the 'why is this guy on bail' reaction to the siege:

Hope this helps. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Different image for Monis?

On the talkpage of Monis' biography I've suggested that we should replace the Fair Use image of Monis with a different, more Neutral, portrait photograph. Please leave your comments over there. Wittylama 12:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Flag raids in the gunman section?

Why is the information about the flag raids in the gunman section? --110.20.234.69 (talk) 06:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why it would be there. I've moved that sub-section to be the last part of the "events" section now. Wittylama 13:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

What happened to the Coronial Inquest?

It started several weeks ago, it seemed like there was some sort of session, then all went silent.

Does anybody know what the process is? When/if the hear from witnesses? When/if they deliver a report? Would be good to add.Tuntable (talk) 06:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


- Coronial inquests are lengthy processes, especially one this large. It continues agin in May. The final findings won't be until the conclusion of the inquest and are probably several months away as is normal. YEPPOON (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Structure of the "Debate" section

I just thought I'd write her to keep people abreast of recent changes to the article.

Recent edits by Bachcell to the "debate" section of the article (see the diff here) have restructured the text in order to - and I will quote his/her edit summary directly - "break down into two main views - terrorists and apologists who pretend it wasn't". While the text itself was mostly unchanged, the reformatting of the section (which includes several "debates", not just about terrorism) into an "us vs. them" tone that decreases the quality of the article and decreases the understanding we can give our readers. Instead, it was turned into a series short of sub-sections with loaded headings such as "lone wolf terrorism" and "doubts" which undermines NPOV - as per WP:STRUCTURE). Therefore, I have restored the article to the pre-existing structure which deliberately integrates the various arguments. I retained a couple of the copyediting changes as well as the moving of the "government declaring as terrorism for insurance purposes" sentence to the top of the first Debate section (see the diff here). As this left the "resignation" as the only sub-section underneath "political consequences", I also moved that into the "law and policy" section and renamed it "law and politics".
I hope that people here concur with these adjustments and their adherence to policies on Neutrality, particularly WP:STRUCTURE and WP:Weight. Wittylama 20:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the restructuring into "terrorism" v "doubts" was unhelpful and potentially non-NPOV, and concur with your reasoning on re-integrating. Thanks for your work Melcous (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
At the time, the majority of Australians did NOT regard it as terrorism, while the majority of people from USA *DID* regard it as terrorism. I think that the current view is that the majority of people from anywhere in the world currently recognise the facts drawn from the investigation that this was definitely not terrorism. All that people like Bachcell are doing are quoting from people who got it wrong early on without having access to all of the facts that are currently available. If those same people that Bachcell et al were quoting from were interviewed today, undoubtedly they would now say that they were mistaken and that it was not terrorism, as it so clearly wasn't. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I have added quite a bit to this section, to make the issues clear.Tuntable (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

This article's listing in the "terrorism in Australia" template

Based on the consensus here that this article should NOT be categorised as "terrorism", I have also removed this article from Template:Terrorism in Australia. However I was reverted by an anon editor on January 21, March 30, April 1st and 2nd. Each was the only edit that the IP address had ever made (1, 2, 3, 4). The first three times revert was made with no explanation and the fourth time it was simply "It was declared as a terrorist attack". Each time I edited I left a clear explanation for why I was removing the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis from the template and a request to discuss. (See the full template edit history here). Given that each of these reverts using the same "undo" function (not something a newbie would necessarily know about) and each of the IP addresses geolocates to Melbourne, I can reasonably assume that this is not four different people but the same person hopping IP addresses. Now that I'm pushing up against the WP:3RR I'd appreciate if someone else could look into this. Wittylama 14:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Correct. The consensus is that it is not terrorism. Indeed, the treatment of Monis as a terrorist may well have led to the two deaths, which I believe is the important part of this story (completely overlooked by mainstream media). But I do wonder about the template -- people would expect to find it there, although it should then be noted very clearly in the article as a non-terrorist attack, but that in itself would lead to dispute. So Witty's edit is good. (It will be interesting what the Inquest eventually produces.) Tuntable (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I've just been reverted, again, by an IP with the edit summary "There is no need to engage in discussion..." Perhaps an admin could return it to consensus and semi-protect the template? Wittylama 15:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
..and again, by another anon, using the same 'undo' method but with no previous editing history on that IP address. I've now requested the template be marked as semi-protect (here's the diff). Wittylama 15:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The template has now been semi-protected. I've remove the link to this article again and left a hidden comment in the code to ask people to read the talkpage (there and here). Wittylama 14:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Having read this, I also removed its linking in the "terrorism portal" Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Joe Hockey has listed the event as a terrorist attack ([13]) for insurance purposes. The justification for this may be contestable, but the government designation of this act as a terrorist act, while debated, is WP:VER and should be documented by the category.-- Aronzak (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

This certainly is a reliable source, and an important fact to cite in the article - which is why it already is. See the two footnotes in this section: 2014_Sydney_hostage_crisis#Insurance_claims (one of which is the one you cited, the other to a federal government website). However, this does not "outweigh" the approximately dozen other reliable sources that are cited in the section 2014_Sydney_hostage_crisis#Designation_as_terrorism. This seems to me to be the correct balance - see also the policy on Due weight in retaining Neutral Point of View. Wittylama 22:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The police certainly treated it as terrorism. As did officials. Australia’s top spy boss Duncan Lewis the Director-General of Security of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation said of Monis two months after the event: "He said at the time that he undertook the siege that he was inspired by ISIL. Had the flag, all of that sort of thing. Yes, I think he was a terrorist."[14] Prime Minister Tony Abbott said there were lessons to be learned from this "brush with terrorism".[15] Many RSs have referred to it as terrorism.[16] Others have debated whether it is lone wolf terrorism, or terrorist-organization-inspired terrorism, or terrorist-organization-directed-terrorism, but the dispute has largely been about the type of terrorism. Even lone-wolf terrorism is terrorism, and nobody disputes that he declared allegiance to a terrorist organization, or that the Prime Minister and head of ASIO declared it terrorism. There is RS support for it being treated as terrorism and highest-level-government support, so while not exclusively viewed that way, for cat purposes it should be reflected inter alia as terrorism. Epeefleche (talk) 06:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Late comment -Duncan Lewis is not independent of government decisions about ASIO's funding - which have a political component. A coronial inquest will be sufficiently independent of government and sufficiently thorough that it should more compelling answers to the question. Note that a coronial inquest is independent of the political process, and funding decisions about Australia's anti-terror agencies, that the PM, the treasurer and the ASIO chief are not independent of. -- Aronzak (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Epeefleche. I've now added the first ref you linked to (the Daily Telegraphy "exclusive interview" with the ASIO boss) into the designation as terrorism section (here's the diff) as this was not mentioned elsewhere and is quite an important statement. With regards to the "brush with terrorism" quote, that specific article (and quote) is already referenced in the article.
However, the third source you cite is also the Daily Telegraph, [very questionable as a reliable source on any topic] with made-up statistics like "The hostages found themselves the victims of roughly million to one odds, terrorised by a maniac desperate for attention." - so I dispute that this can be used to justify the claim that "Many RSs have referred to it as terrorism."
I disagree with your characterisation: "but the dispute has largely been about the type of terrorism", and I think the article (particularly the "debate" section) bear this out. Some of the journalism at the moment of the siege talk about terrorism, and politicians (and the head of ASIO) have classified it as such since, but the secondary sources that are referenced - the actual analysis rather than the primary source reporting - err very much towards a classification of deranged-man-with-gun. Over the next year or two there will no-doubt be several books and journal articles published on these events, and the media/police actions that surrounded them. IMO the WP article should definitely try to take these into account.
By comparison, see Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia) article (particularly the "Motivation" and "analysis" sections). I think it is a sign of the times that we are debating the word "terrorism" so heavily because the gunman wanted the most possible attention for his violence, but the Port Arthur massacre article doesn't use the word terrorism once, even though it's clear that the gunman there wanted attention for his violence too. Wittylama 10:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Just as an aside, it is universally agreed that the Port Arthur massacre was terrorism, it is just that we didn't use that term as frequently then as we do now. Even conspiracy theorists, for all 3 major versions of the conspiracy theory, all conclude that it was terrorism, as does the official story. Yet it isn't mentioned in that article (even though it should be) and it is, oddly, mentioned here. What a different 19 years makes to how the world is perceived! Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
What we have here is a case of politically motivated whitewashing and synthesis of a "consensus" when there is no global consensus between counterjihad and anti-islamphobia pundits, and the Australian government has officially declared it to be a terrorist incident for insurance purposes which for some reason doesn't count under this self-declared consensus. Under NPOV and OR, 1: in the presence of one or more views, both have to be presented, 2: it is synthesis to conclude on the basis of weighing two sides that one has "disproven" the other. For the purposes of inclusion under a terrorism category, there would be no terrorist incidents if editors were able to conclude on the basis of even one "reliable source" that Major Hasan or the Sydney gunman was merely a cover story. The 2009 Fort Hood Hood Shootings have firmly been established as an Islamist inspired terrorist event even if the current administration for political purposes has not acknowledged anything beyond a criminal workplace violence incident, and most high profile "workplace violence" incidents look suspiciously like Islamist attacks committed by people with different or no apparent political motive who might be working towards the same destabilization goals. Bachcell (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
i dont understand how this is not fully labeld as islamist terror attack. yes there are "experts" and journalists who say several things like he was just deranged and wanted attention and so forth but these are merely side notes. arent all islamists somehow mentally deranged, at least according to those who say they are extremists regardless of their ideology? that is just pure bias. facts are the attacker in this case was a radical islamist with alliance to isis and who forced people to pres the jihadi flag on the window. the attack had an islamist backround, that the hostage taker had other problems, fine this can apply as well but only on focusing on this and hence concluding it was no terror attack and that the australian government only classified the incident as "terror" for insurance purposes is just false. this is wikipeda and not a blog of people comming up with some strange views and forcing people to focus on it, because somehow somewhre some little truth is in there. it is ok to mention the different viewpoints but it is wrong to say something like this "officially declared it to be a terrorist incident for insurance purposes" since it implies that the MERE purpose to put this incident to the terror category was of financial reasons, which in fact is wrong. Joobo (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Due to the fact that a couple of days have passed and nobody tried to engage into the discussion again, i raise the above mentioned points once again. Bevore someone claims and alledges that this particular incident was no islamist terror attack, for whatever arguable reasons, i want to know what is to say about the alliance between the hostage taker and islamist terrorist group/s and especially what the purpose of the jihadi flag has been. these points were not elaborated or explained here at all until now. greetingsJoobo (talk) 09:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

To ensure that this discussion doesn't happen in an echo chamber, I'm going to ping everyone who has edited this page 10 times or more (based on [17]): Dwpaul, Jeffro77, Sroc, 220 of Borg, Nick-D, Gnangarra, Skyring, Whiteghost.ink, Epeefleche, Lor, WWGB, Tuntable, Viriditas and Ansh666.
The question at hand has been debated on this talkpage before and at length... Whether, and how, this article should be classified vis-a-vis Terrorism, both in this article and more controversially, in Template:Terrorism in Australia. I draw everyone's attention in particular to the discussion in the 'back and forth' edit summaries and on the template's talkpage.
The tone of some of the discussion/edit summaries (both in this article and the template) has sometimes become quite aggressive[18], partizan[19] or simplistic[20], so I think both articles need to have a cup of WP:TEA and discuss it properly without resorting to insults or "with us or against us" rhetoric. Wittylama 14:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I see an IP user has added it to the template again: "the whole point of the template is to have articles people will be looking for – it might be your personal that this wasn't terrorism, but it is an event that most people would associate with it and query why it's not there". I am sympathetic to the argument that, despite disagreement amongst conflicting sources, readers may expect to find this event listed in the Terrorism in Australia template. I noted just a few days ago that it seems contradictory to include the template in the article without including a link to the article within the template, although I can understand the rationale to some extent. I also note that the event is not mentioned in the article Terrorism in Australia. To my mind, there ought to be some consistency: if this event is not listed in that article and template, then the template should not be used on the event's article, although it may be useful to include a link to the Terrorism in Australia article for readers who may be interested in that subject (where they will find the infobox listing the relevant events). —sroc 💬 14:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
calling something Terrorism for insurance purposes doesnt make it a terrorist act, what it does is enables insurance companies to avoid paying out on claims. The flag debate raged early on it isnt a flag of ISIL or related to ISIL activity. The Daily Telegraph is a sensationalist news outlet who is known for its bias and dramatisation of stories to suit the political agenda of the LNP, any sourcing relying on it should be questioned while using it as the primary reasoning should be avoided. Gnangarra 23:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
That's pretty obvious. This discussion ended on Wikipedia 6 months ago, and in real life it ended 2 or 3 months ago with the coronial inquiry declaring that the reasons for the attack were in relation to a court case, and, while manipulative, did not fit any definition of terrorism. That should be the end of the discussion. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
First of all the point that this incident was only labeld as a terror act for insurance purposes is probably not quite true. It might be a factor as well to some extend but is for sure not the 100% only reason. Furthermore it is not about a particular "isis" flag but an islamic/islamist flag. that is what matters. i still dont find any smart conclusion by wpedians here why the hostage taker used this way for achieving something if not an islamist backround, at least not what i can read right here. there, to me at leas, is no other conclusion for the islamist flag the attacker used, than an islamic extremist backround. you just dont do something like this if you only want to "rob" this place or have another intention. Maybe i do not have enough information, but if so please provide here the link/s that clearly show evidence about the incident that its backround is definetly NOT an islamist one. Joobo (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
islam =/= terrorism having a flag also doesnt make a person a terrorist <original research>if this was a terrorist incident then there would have been a much worse with a lot quicker resolution</original research>... The whole point is Wikipedia doesnt draw conclusions nor conduct original research so for this to be called a terrorist act it needs to be sustained by the information provided in multiple independent reliable sources and not based on the opinions of editors. Gnangarra 04:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hard to see it as terrorism, unless you see the gunmen as being agents of state-sponsored terrorism, deliberately aiming to enforce their dogma at all costs including the deaths of members of the public. --Pete (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the gunmen as acting independently. I think they went in with a plan, and were willing to inflict injury and death. --Pete (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Either constitutes terrorism. Epeefleche (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
So you see the actions of the gunmen in this incident as terrorism? --Pete (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes. In accord with Australia’s top spy boss Duncan Lewis, the Director-General of Security of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation ("Yes, I think he was a terrorist." And with Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who said there were lessons to be learned from this "brush with terrorism". And with the many RSs that have referred to it as terrorism. Epeefleche (talk) 05:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Has Lewis identified which of the shooters he thinks was a terrorist? --Pete (talk) 07:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
One perp is discussed. Monis. And that is whom he states is a terrorist. Epeefleche (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
"Perp"? Do you have a source for that? --Pete (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Have you read our article? In addition, you might read "ASIO boss admits Lindt Cafe gunman Man Haron Monis was a terrorist", and the other articles covering the statement. Epeefleche (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Where does Lewis use the word "perp"? And he's only talking about one of the gunmen. Others caused more death, wounding and destruction than Monis. --Pete (talk) 06:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Epeefleche & Joobo: It appears to me that your argument is based on the premise that because the PM, ASIO director, and the Daily Telegraph call it terrorism then therefore it is. And the corollary premise is that anyone who disagrees with this assessment has to prove it was not terrorism.
I would argue that while the PM and ASIO director are certainly notable sources (which is why their opinions are prominently included in this "debate" section) they are not neutral sources - and furthermore the Daily Tele is neither (a popular nickname for it is "the daily terrorgraph"!). For the same reason that some have argued here that there's a political/ideological motivation to not call this terrorism, then it is also true that these three sources have a political/ideological motivation to try their hardest to call it terrorism - and we must try to balance this as per WP:Weight. As, as for the claim that the burden of proof lies with those arguing it should not be classified as terrorism... that's incorrect both epistemologically and also legally. See [[Philosophic burden of proof and Legal burden of proof. Wittylama 10:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Witty -- rather than go with the POV of a wp editor, we tend at wp to go with official statements of government officials and statements of RSs. You might argue that US and Australian government courts that convict (living) terrorists are not "neutral" -- but that is irrelevant; if they convict a person of terrorism, we reflect the person as such. When the person has been killed, and not tried, we do the same on the basis of statements of government officials and RSs .... otherwise, Osama Bin Laden and the 9/11 hijackers would not be categorized as terrorists. Which of course is not how Wikipedia works. Plus, as pointed out above, there are many RSs that -- along with the Prime Minister and the head of the agency in a best position to make the determination -- have also reported the act as one of terrorism. But, of course you've done your google searches, and are aware of this. I see very little substance in your comments -- if wp accepted them, which it clearly does not, we would not have any people in the terrorism cat. That's of course, not how wp works at all, and a non-consensus view. When closing debates such as this one we don't give weight to those views that are in conflict with wp guidelines and practices. Epeefleche (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Isnt ASIO the same organisation which in December also assessed him as falling well outside the threashold for inclusion in counterterrorism investigations. So many assessments so hard to decide what is true... maybe should wait for the NSW Coroners investigation % report to be publish before putting labels on things we dont have sufficient information about nor the ability to obtain. Gnangarra 00:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
He wasn't known to be a terrorist until he committed an act that the ASIO states is terrorism. That's not unusual. We have many murderers who aren't known to be murderers until .. they commit murder. We don't feel a need to wait a period of time after, say, 9 11, to mirror what the government and RSs say -- that the 9 11 hijackers were terrorists. We already have his words, his actions, the PM statement, the ASIO considered well-after-the-fact statement. As with the question of where Obama was born -- if we find out later that there is new information, we can revise the cat ... WP is quite facile, in that regard. (And unlike Obama, there is no BLP issue). Really -- we have more than sufficient information. The suggestion that we don't is not in like with the facts. Epeefleche (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Monis was assessed by ASIO and consider not to be a terrorist nor someone likely to be involved with a terrorist incident, as I said we should wait for the outcome of the NSW Coroners report because as Wittylama has describe they will be able to access all information and question everyone before drawing any conclusion. Gnangarra 12:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Note, if interested, a related discussion about the IP editing the template can be found on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IP 115.166.47.100 and Template:Terrorism in Australia. Khestwol (talk) 07:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Note Today was the first day of the official coronial inquiry into the events. There will be a LOT of reporting on this, with a lot of new facts to add. Crucially, this will be sources from expert-witnesses to the inquiry, not "heat of the moment journalism". I would argue that these will be the best quality sources for us to use in WP to help answer the questions we've been debating here because they are formal, considered, will be from all relevant points of view and will have the benefit of hindsight.

To wit, they're basically dealing with exactly the same thing we're debating here:

"This is not a normal investigation — it is grappling with questions of national significance," New South Wales state Coroner Michael Barnes told the court. "Was Monis a so-called lone wolf prosecuting an ISIS-inspired terrorist act, or was he a deranged individual pursuing some personal, private grievance in a public manner? They are real questions we must try and answer if an explanation for the siege is to be forthcoming and strategies to avoid a repeat are to be developed." (quote via ABC (USA)

-- Wittylama 09:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

This sounds very promising. i am confident to gather important information of this if a report is done. However i would still add a point here, Epeefleche said "...otherwise, Osama Bin Laden and the 9/11 hijackers would not be categorized as terrorists. Which of course is not how Wikipedia works". And i can fully agree with this. the accusation that it would be original research to label it as terrorism etc. is just wrong. as i already elaborated in another talkpage with another user very detailed it is not about some doubts that some people spread about certain incidents as lets say 9/11 it is about the facts and the most logical conclusion. and facts simply are that monis was known to be an islamist, a perosn with extreme religious views, and possible connections to others from this range. actually it is the other way around, original research would mean to conclude he was only deraged and not terrorist, though at the moment all points point out to the other direction. this pattern could be applied to all arguable terror incidents, since some strange things always occur. i remember the charlie hebdo attacks when conspiracy theories came up because they wondered how quick the french investigators knew who the attackers were because one of them left his phone in the stolen vehicle that they left behind. and many people doubted this. but this are merely side notes. as well as it is here in the sydney siege. when a person that is known for extreme religious views, takes several, to him unknown individuals hostage, and even forces them to press a jihadi(please correct the name if wrong) flag against the window--> then one NEEDS to conclude the most obvious. and this is not about quoting certain newspapers, we dont have to quote anyone neccessarily, but display an overview on the situation and conclude by the facts. that is it. i can understand if many muslim people have problem with islamism and are very keen to avoid any further danger or pain to others done by people doing this in the name of their god. but this emotional behavior as good as it is intended has no place here on wikipedia. wikipedia is a factstation nothing more. and facts are that a hostage situation ALWAYS is a terror atttack, if not combined with for instance a bank robbery or similar. and facts are that the hostage taker was known for his religious believes and extreme views and even behavior. this is 1+1 nothing more one doesnt need some biased news tabloid. greetingsJoobo (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Who did the shooting?

We know Monis killed Johnson and the police killed Dawson. But then the article goes on to say

Three hostages were wounded during the raid: Marcia Mikhael, who was shot in the leg; a 75-year-old woman, Robyn Hope, who was shot in the shoulder; and her 52-year-old daughter, Louisa Hope, who was shot in the foot

So who shot them? It would would seem unlikely to be Monis got all of them. If the four of the five people shot were by police that would be worth knowing.

Also, a bit more on Monis's weird demands and why they were denied seems in order if known. A chat with the prime minister hardly seems like giving into terrorism. Tuntable (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually we know, from the enquiry:“No shot fired by Mr Monis, other than the one that struck and killed Mr Johnson, struck anyone,” Mr Gormley said. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/sydney-siege/sydney-siege-inquest-lindt-cafe-deaths-investigated/story-fnqxbywy-1227200443586. I shall add it.

Pretty amazing. 5 people shot by stray police bullets (Dawson, three hostages, plus policeman.) The police must have run amok, shooting at anything that looked like it was moving. One stray bullet is a bit careless, but FIVE!

Apparently they fired 27 high calibre bullets into the small concrete room during the raid. 27! What were they firing at? Ghosts? Five bullets hit Moris, so the police must be awful shots if they missed 22 times! It is surprising that more people did not get killed. More information as to how they fired more than a couple of bullets in that enclosed envirodnment would be good.

Also added the negotiation notes, it would seem obvious to use people trusted by the gunman if available. It would be very interesting to know how the police negotiations were carried out. I suspect very crudely "We do not negotiate with terrorists, give yourself up, full stop." But Monis is dead (shot 5 times!), and dead men tell no tales. Tuntable (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


Sad to read so much speculation above from people with no experience in hostage situations or police operations.

Monis was hit 13 times, twice in the head and 11 times in the body. Those wounded were wounded by fragments of ricochets, they weren't shot by police per-se. http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/news/16101-inquest-reveals-barrister-katrina-dawson-killed-by-police-bulletYEPPOON (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Quite possibly true. But in that case what were the Police shooting at? They must be awful shots to have missed 20 odd times at such close range. No, they just liked the sound of their big guns going off. There must have been ricochets going everywhere. But the real story, IMHO, is that the no attempt was made to negotiate with Monis, nor even to talk to people like Habib that could give them insights as to Monis's character and motivation.Tuntable (talk)
Well said. Is there a way to get this into the article? It is incredibly relevant that the shooter was not the person primarily involved in the deaths and injuries = it was police. While there is an argument (and perhaps even a valid one) that police had no choice but to fire (certainly if they were incorrectly informed that this was a terrorism incident), it is certainly notable that only 1 hostage was killed by Monis, the rest by police by crossfire. I think that future readers of this article would be very interested in that fact. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
My bad. I note that it is in the article already, in the lead paragraph no less. Even still, I wonder if we should be using the term "culprit" rather than "gunman" as he only fired 1 shot, so his having a gun was somewhat irrelevant to what happened. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Mister Sneeze A Lot: Regarding "culprit" vs. "gunman" I would argue against changing it for three reasons: 1) because all the sources during and after the siege (before and after he was identified) use the word "gunman" which makes it the most common name, and 2) because we've already successfully debated changing it from the more generic and american-style "perpetrator" to "gunman", and 3) because this is a man who stormed in to the cafe with... a gun. In parts of the USA that's not remarkable, but it certainly is in Australia. I would argue that regardless of how many times he fired it, that makes him a man-with-a-gun a.k.a. gunman. Wittylama 09:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Wittylama: I agree that use of guns in Australia is pretty rare. Even organised crime don't use them very often! People get stabbed to death here. While I am sure that that happens in USA too, the culture is very different. My suggestion for the use of something other than "gunman" was based on reports I read that he actually didn't have a gun at all and didn't shoot anyone, that all of the shots were fired by police. If he definitely had a gun, and we are 100% certain of that, and also 100% certain that he definitely shot and killed someone, then I agree that "gunman" is reasonable. But I would suggest that if there is any doubt in the future about whether a) he had a gun or b) he used it that we should consider changing the name to culprit. I agree with you that perpetrator is inappropriate, as this is an Australian page and perpetrator is more in line with US speech. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
With regards to whether he had a gun, as far as I'm aware, there zero reports conflicting with the statement that he was armed with a shotgun. The article currently gives 4 footnotes for this statement (second paragraph of the Hostage-taking and negotiations section) and the fact of him having a gun is crucial to the explanation of how the whole siege happened. If you have a reliable source that conflicts with that, that would be interesting to read/include but frankly I can't see how the whole thing could have happened at all if he didn't brandish some kind of weapon to start with...
With regards to whether he fired the gun, there are conflicting reports - as seen in the second paragraph of the Raid and end of siege section. There is an argument that he didn't fire the gun at all, but this is one of several theories. However, I would argue that this is immaterial to whether he should be classified as a 'gunman'... If you were to try to rob a bank with a gun, whether or not you fired that gun (or even if it was a real/fake gun) would not make a difference to the criminal charge you would receive - "armed robbery". He had a gun, was threatening to use it, and quite probably did - either as a 'warning shot' or to kill one of his hostages. Wittylama 13:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Wittylama, above you say Monis should be described as a gunman because (and I quote) this is a man who stormed in to the cafe with... a gun. With respect, he didn't. He walked quietly in, and only fired one shot, many hours later. The gunmen who stormed the cafe, killing two people and wounding others - including one of their own number, shot in the face - were the police. They fired 22 times, and we have conflicting reports in our article of how wildly they fired, with some saying fifteen rounds missed Monis and others saying nine.
  • stormed the café, firing 22 shots,[52] seven of which struck Monis
  • It was also unclear why 22 shots were fired by police, of which 13 hit Monis
Wikipedia is intended to supply facts to interested readers, not to confuse them or to push some particular point of view. --Pete (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, if we don't call him a "gunman" (despite the fact he definitely was armed with a gun), and we've already decided against the american styling "perpetrator", what would you suggest instead - Hostage-taker? Offender? Wittylama 09:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I think you missed the point there, Lama. Have a nice day. --Pete (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Flag raids - same information is in 'events' and 'discussion' sections

The information about the flag raids is duplicated in the events section and the discussion section. Why is this so? --110.20.234.69 (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Because they are both an event and a controversy. I'll tweak it. But articles are never perfect, and it would take a lot to restructure.Tuntable (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Inquest

Just some thoughts on the information that has been added so far by Tuntable "documenting the inquest" after 2 days of testimony. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and so the level of detail seems to me excessive and unhelpful - and in particular I wouldn't have thought that the names of witnesses meet notability criteria. We probably won't know what is relevant information for some time, but that's ok because we are not under any time pressure in writing an encyclopedia. So it seems to be better to wait to know what is relevant rather than include everything that is said. I would suggest the broad facts that the inquest is happening and the kind of information that is being received are probably all that is necessary in this article at this stage. Obviously findings of the inquest at a later date, (even possibly a separate article on the inquest itself?) will be issues down the track, but not much else for now. What do others think? Melcous (talk) 02:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

At the moment I am just summarising the key facts as they arise. It may well be good to restructure and possibly reduce it later, and it will probably become too big for its current location, and might, possibly, justify an article on its own. But I think that the inquest is vitally important to this article. As to the names of witnesses, notability is mainly about creating new articles, knowing who said what is an important reference point -- if something is worth hearing about then it is worth knowing who said it. Knowing Monis's state of mind before the siege is central to the debate as to whether this was terrorism. Tuntable (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I think that the inquest is significant enough to warrant its own article, and then we can have a degree of control on what is put there, without confusing this article. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Some as it pertains to Man Haron Monis belongs in the article on him. The stuff on being a member of an outlaw bikie group, promoting himself as a "1%er", molesting women by saying they had to be naked to receive black magic massages, and telling women to submit to sex or he'd put a black magic curse on them - these are all coming out of the inquest. -- Aronzak (talk) 06:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't know why we have a separate Monis article as he is not notable apart from his final act of madness. The inquest is only interested in Monis as it pertains to the event. It is very difficult to split information between Monis and the Seige, and pointless IMHO. Tuntable (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
BTW Those Guardian pages I am citing are the only source I could easily find with reasonable detail that did not just cherry pick sensational facts. (I certainly do not have time to wade throught the full transcript.) Tuntable (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Melcous that the level of detail in the "people that knew monis" section is far too much for what is relevant for this article. It's a day-by-day account of who said what at the inquest. I'd suggest that the paragraphs be divided up and integrated into the relevant parts of the biography article. Then, in this article, all we need give is a summary of each week at the inquest. In this first week's case, it would be a summary along the lines of "week one of the inquest interviewed people from different parts of Monis' life and found him to have a history of paranoia, social isolation and psychiatric illnesses" (and then give a couple of examples). The level of detail however, (e.g. that he wore a strange suit to court in 2011) is not pertinent to THIS article, and would be a stretch even for the biography article.

It is true that "The inquest is only interested in Monis as it pertains to the event." however the inquest is producing 1 report - while we have multiple different articles that are relevant (including but not limited to this article, the biography, and other articles of more broad scope like the Bail Act, and Islam in Australia. As a result, the information arising from the inquest may be relevant to those articles but not necessarily relevant to include here. Wittylama 19:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Inquest as a separate article

I'd like to start some discussion as to whether or not we can get consensus as to whether the inquest should have a separate article or not.

I for one think that it definitely should, as I believe (1) that it is likely to be relevant into the distant future and (2) it has far-reaching consequences far beyond the consequences from the hostage crisis itself.

Is there consensus to create a separate article now, or do people prefer to wait? Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Just looking through the various articles covering it, it is getting the same kind of coverage as the Trial of Oscar Pistorius got, or similar high-level trials, and also I note in one of the pages from the Sydney Morning Herald [21] where they say "This is the biggest hearing in New South Wales history". If that is true, then this DEFINITELY warrants its own page. If it isn't entirely true, then it still probably warrants its own page just because people are thinking of it like that. I am going to be WP:BOLD and create the article, and, once I have created it, I am going to move over all of the information that we have here over to the new article. If I am wrong (which I don't think I am), it can be merged back into this one. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm cautiously in favour of creating the inquest as a separate article. You're correct that it has lots of reliable source coverage and the details that already exist in this article are more than necessary - implying a breakout article is warranted. My main concern is that the new article become too much of a 'day by day' reportage of the inquest (wp:NOTNEWS). I note that the "trial of Oscar Pistorius" article you mention is indeed a 'high level trial', BUT the crucial difference is that there is no separate article for the event itself. Our case would be different in that we're talking about having separate articles for the crime and the inquiry into it. The only other article I can find that is specifically about an inquest is Ashley Smith inquest and it too is a standalone article. Other notable inquests are merely sections within the article about the person or the event e.g. Death of Ian Tomlinson#Inquest and John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan#Inquest). So... I'm cautious, but like you say, we can always merge content later if we change our minds. Wittylama 14:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Similarly to Witty I'm cautiously open to the idea. I haven't done much digging, but some quick glances seem to show that there are some separate articles on inquiries in other countries including inquiries into 9/11 in the US and the phone hacking scandal in the UK (the latter of which BTW might be a useful model on the level of detail to be included?) But I also share the concern that the problem I have suggested above, which is that the section has too easily become a day by day reporting of everything that is said at the inquest (and therefore violates WP:NOTNEWS) would only be magnified in a separate article, as it is very difficult to know what evidence given will be relevant until later. So I'd say yes, User:Mister Sneeze A Lot, be bold and create it, but be aware of the potential issues, and we can see where it goes from there. Thanks. Melcous (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Go ahead, I've been trying to update details on Man Haron Monis on the basis of topical/chronological order - if this gets split to grow it can later be condensed and merged in if it isn't appropriate. -- Aronzak (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure that the inquest deserves a separate article, but it was certainly growing to big for its current position. I was thinking of a sub article, (2014 Sydney hostage crisis/inquest), as the detailed chronology was mainly notes for those more interested in it, and to help us/me with the summation later. In any case I do want to summarize it and put summaries in appropriate places. I am also not sure about having a separate Monis article, but Monis himself would be pleased to have achieved Notability on Wikipedia.

I have private correspondence that indicates that the inquest will indeed be investigating deeply, and not just glossing over the issues, and thus be a hot topic. Hopefully it will redefine the way that police focus on terror, but that may be optimistic. But the focus should be on what the inquest determines as opposed to the process itself.

But let's leave the split, and revisit once the inquest is over. It provides a good place to put the day by day accounts for the time being at least. Tuntable (talk) 02:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

We can certainly revise what Tuntable has written to see if it should be summarised further, but I note in the comparable Trial of Oscar Pistorius article that people were adding daily summaries, usually about 2-3 lines per day, and then summarising it further elsewhere in the article. I think that that would be a reasonable approach in this topic too. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Vote: Should this be Terrorism template

(As the previous consensus was no, I am removing the tag in the meantime.)

  • Not Terrorism. All the evidence points to mainly being a custody battle, combined with a psychological issue, with the ISIS connection being entirely secondary. Monis did not even have an ISIS flagTuntable (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
1) I'm not keen on the idea of voting to determine if something is, or is not, terrorism. I would prefer for a consensus to emerge from reasoned debate and from Reliable Sources rather than a popularity contest, particularly given the topic at hand. As I mentioned above, the coronial inquest has just started and will be running for many weeks. I believe the facts and analysis that arise from that will be the most valuable to us for adding footnotes and building the article.
2) I also think that the consensus outcome on this article should also be applied to how this topic is dealt with in Terrorism in Australia and Template:Terrorism in Australia - both of which are having parallel discussions to this one. Wittylama 11:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait for the coronial inquest to reveal findings - this will be sufficiently independent of government and sufficiently thorough that it should more compelling answers to the question. Note that a coronial inquest is independent of the political process, and funding decisions about Australia's anti-terror agencies, that the PM, the treasurer and the ASIO chief are not independent of. -- Aronzak (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Certainly we can review the decision later. But the issue has been raised as to whether to incude the template now, so needs to have at least an interim solution.Tuntable (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Include in template and article. Most readers will query why this attack has not been included on either page. We should include based on reader expectations, and then they can find their way to the main article and form their own views. 124.148.222.41 (talk) 06:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Please create a (free and anonymous) Wikipedia ID if you wish to participate in talk page debates. It adds to your credibility.Tuntable (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
      • No you're wrong, I'm allowed to participate in any discussion on Wikipedia. 124.148.222.41 (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
        • In fact you're both correct.... You don't need a user-account to contribute (to articles or to talkpage discussions) but signing-up does add to the users credibility (as well as making it easier to contact you and gives you added features like a watchlist). Wittylama 07:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes - debate aside, until the inquest confirms either way, the default definition should be the government's legal one. The incident was a terror attack for insurance purposes. It seems there is some sort of social and political motivation to regard it as a non-terror attack regardless of the law, but until this hunch is verified, all the tiresome classification debating does is muddle the matter. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Abbots remarks

The article quotes Abbot, from http://www.inquisitr.com

"[Man Haron Monis] had a long history of violent crime, infatuation with extremism and mental instability...As the siege unfolded yesterday, he sought to cloak his actions with the symbolism of the ISIL death cult.".

The ref is OK, but this just does not sound like anything that our beloved PM would say. I'd expect something like "this shows the need for all of our terror legislation...". Any further reference would be helpful. I have marked it as dubious.Tuntable (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

ABC News and The Guardian both quote Abbott, and this ABC piece includes the video of Abbott's speech - 0:40 is where it starts. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Conflicting information

In the " raid and end of siege" section the first paragraph ends saying he was struck with 7 bullets while at the end of the section it says 13. In the "police weapons and tactics" section it also says 13. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.33.96.138 (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Category- ISIL tags

People are adding ISIL stuff. There's been no 100% consensus on talk about "terrorism" or "islamism" let alone ISIL. I'm removing the ISIL tags unless someone gains consensus that this is "ISIL inspired" or "ISIL planned". Currently the evidence of either is conflicted. -- Callinus (talk) 11:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

False Flag

I don't know if the possibility of a 'false flag' was ever discussed? .. searched in the discussion archive here but didn't find anything The whole story smells suspicious - for me - there must have been reports on this also discussing this angle .. --Ebricca (talk) 11:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on 2014 Sydney hostage crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Question of which rifle to use

The expert? McAlister was questioning why the police used guns they train with and not guns they never train with for the raid? Is such a silly question worth mentioning in the article? (note I do agree the use of 223 round in such situations is absurd when they should be using 9mm rounds maybe this is the point he was trying to make?) --Thelawlollol (talk) 06:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Thelawlollol: The controversy is well-sourced, accurately describes what McAlister said (so we needn't speculate on what he meant), and was discussed in multiple cited sources so is notable. General Ization Talk 02:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

As in the one reference? the claim in the article is miss leading I hope, I hope he was saying the police should have been trained with a 9mm rifle and not claiming what he is quoted as saying in the article that they should have used rifles they are not familiar with and not have trained with. But maybe thats his bad idea care to supply a link to what he actually thought?--Thelawlollol (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lindt_Cafe_siege/Archive_3&oldid=1136909101"