Talk:Port Arthur massacre (Australia)

Chamber Blast Pressure

There's an awkward sounding sentence in the middle of the paragraph "Capture and prosecution" which reads: "Both weapons had suffered from massive chamber blast pressure,( a tactic used by todays armed forces so as it is unable to trace projectiles to a certain weapon) possibly from the heat of the house fire.". A little research suggests that this is probably a quote lifted from media and misunderstood in this context. As far as I can tell, over-pressured chambers are used to provide stability under sustained fire rather than foiling forensic analysis and the quote doesn't even mention which armed forces use it or how they do. There doesn't seem to be any articles on the topic on Wikipedia but I don't know the area at all well. Can we refer this to a firearms subgroup for assistance? 58.96.94.12 (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

What this refers to is ONE of the rifles being damaged by an overloaded round or similar effect. One of the references, possibly "A Gunsmiths Notes on Port Arthur" discusses the possibility of a round from a batch known to cause blown-up rifles. THis might be accidental or deliberate, but given the perps profile my bet is accident. A bore obstruction might do this too(eg jamming muzzle in dirt or a previous squib shot which failed to get the projectile out of the barrel.) I think some of the conspiracy sources imply that a specially over-loaded round was used to do this damage. Its essentially conspiracy nonsense.ChrisPer (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on disambiguation

Comment - I'm not saying the 1996 one is more important - I'm saying that it would be the article most likely to be sought after by readers. (See WP:DISAMBIG#Primary topic). Chuq (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That's hard to appreciate, but this raises the question of whether greater prominence should be given to events that happened in English-speaking countries on the basis that English-speaking readers are more likely to look at them. In any number of articles that have sections by country, for example, it is acknowledged that greater prominence should not necessarily be given to English-speaking countries. Shouldn't the same principle apply to problems of disambiguation, even though readers are more likely to refer to the English-speaking-country-related topics? Of course, in practice, because editors are likely to know more about English-speaking countries, those sections or articles are likely to be more complete. But that is a matter of lack of information on certain subjects rather than principle, and this needn't carry over to the organization of the encyclopedia. Joeldl 04:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Joeldl please read the Wikipedia:Naming conventions because what you are suggesting above is not the Wikipedia policy on naming pages. The policy is "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize". --Philip Baird Shearer 07:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that that has to do with deciding between two titles for the same topic, where it is the name of the article that is at issue. In this case, we're judging the relative importance of the topics and not the names for them. The name that English-speakers would most easily recognize is, in each case, "Port Arthur massacre" and is not in question. So what I'm talking about is not language, but whether the organization of the encyclopedia should take into account the greater interest English-speakers have for topics related to their countries. Joeldl 07:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Note a similar issue often comes up in Bill O'Reilly debates where the consensus is to keep it as a disambig even though the American is more likely to be linked to because it's considered that both have a high level of importance/notability Nil Einne 21:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Lüshunkou massacre" would be a better title for the other page, but if disambiguation is chosen, the titles should be something like "Port Arthur massacre (Lüshunkou)" and "Port Arthur massacre (Tasmania)" to make it clear that it's not the same place being referred to in the two articles. --bainer (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is that in English, it is more commonly recognized as Port Arthur and not Lushunkou. 132.205.44.134 22:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

While the name is a historical one for the location a person looking for information about an event associated with the first Sino-Japanese war would be able to distinguish the difference by name. Where as a person looking into the Australian one may consider an 1896 event to be associated with the same place as the location was PA penal settlement. Gnangarra 23:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Gnangarra here - if both articles are to be disambiguated, use geographical terms instead of dates. Since there is already a geographical term in the article name ("Port Arthur") people will assume that the dates are there because the location was the same for both. -- Chuq (talk) 05:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

How about "Port Arthur massacre (Lüshunkou 1894)" and "Port Arthur massacre (Tasmania 1996)" then? 132.205.44.134 16:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What's the point of both a location and date disambiguator? Generally articles disambiguation titles are only as specific as they need to be. -- Chuq (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Port Arthur massacre (China) and Port Arthur massacre (Australia) are sufficient to distinguish the two geographically. I know of a Port Arthur massacre that happened in China, but I have never heard of Lüshunkou, and that disambiguator wouldn't help me understand what the article was about. Dekimasuよ! 03:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if geographical disambiguators are to be chosen, I agree that China and Australia are the best ones. Joeldl 03:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

In determining people's opinions, I first considered the level of support for disambiguation of any kind, before considering what form that should take. Of the minority opposed to disambiguation, most relied on a Google search for their argument. However, searching Google Books or Google Scholar give rather different results: Google Scholar reports "Port Arthur massacre 1894" 612 times compared to 1,570 for 1996, and 1,490 for "China" compared with 975 for "Australia". These are not great differences, and the trend is even reversed at Google Books ("1894": 176; "1996": 111; "China": 583; "Australia": 228). I am thus unconvinced by the arguments that the 1996 event deserves primacy, thus requiring Port Arthur massacre to be converted into a disambiguation page. Of the disambiguation schemes mooted, appending the country is most popular, and the best. This article has been renamed from Port Arthur massacre to Port Arthur massacre (Australia) as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 08:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

From the Wikipedia article:

lifted the rifle to his shoulder and fired a shot at Mick Sargent, grazing his scalp and knocking him to the floor. Before Mick could shout a warning, the gunman fired a fourth shot that hit Mick's girlfriend, 21 year old Kate Elizabeth Scott, fatally in the back of the head. In a matter of seconds, the young man had claimed three victims.

From crimelibrary

lifted the rifle to his shoulder and fired a shot at Mick Sargent, grazing his scalp and knocking him to the floor. Before Mick could shout a warning, the gunman fired a fourth shot that hit Mick's girlfriend in the back of the head. In a matter of seconds, the young man had claimed three victims.

At least that part of the article is accurate. Most of it isn't accurate at all.

Phrases like "Before Mick could shout a warning" are not appropriate to the article anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 12:31 12 August 2007 (GMT).

Israelis Were Involved

Two professional assassins did all the killing. The reason was to push gun control laws. Wendy Scurr, Andrew MacGregor, and Stewart Beattie have devoted years to this. There is some question as to Joe Vialls (Ari Ben Menashe), that he may have been involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor Boris (talk • contribs) 11:42, August 4, 2007

Do you have multiple independent reliable sources for those claims? --Geniac 17:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The conspiracy claims are not based on good evidence and may be discounted. They were never based on credible evidence, but on the wishful thinking of a few of the people who did not like the gun control laws. Time has shown that the supposed objective 'to push gun control laws' has not been pushed as far as was possible with the level of public support at the time, and the laws made no practical difference to most Australians lives. The people such as John Howard, AIC criminologists and the police ministers who created the National Agreement on Firearms have curiously not made a habit of murdering people for weird political ideas, or pushed to remake society in ways that required disarmament, despite ten years in power to do so. Their track record is a good refutation of the so-called 'alternative' theories.

On the other hand, the late Joe Vialls has a track record that also speaks to the credibility of the conspiracy theories.

As a shooter and an honours graduate in science I am appalled that people keep pushing this nonsense despite having the opportunity to correct their false ideas. My research over some years led to a different set of ideas: that the shooter was Bryant and that irresponsible media coverage combined with his defects as a human resulted in his choosing to commit these crimes. ChrisPer 06:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Their opportunity to correct their false ideas? Could it be possible that the official cover story so lacks credibility, that anyone who takes a look at the facts can't help but reject it as the fraud that it is? You may be a "shooter" and fancy yourself as some kind of scientific thinker, but if you can't see that Bryant's defects are exactly what disprove the official story, then you're either a fool, a liar or both. Going to a shooting range and having a fascination with guns doesn't train anyone to do the kind of precision killing that was done on that day. And there is plenty of evidence, including eye witness testimony to support the fact that this was done by a hit squad and not by a single shooter with a pronounced intellectual disability.121.44.233.92 (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I can't persuade you as use language that is entirely pre-judging the evidence. 'Official cover story' to dismiss all non-confirmatory evidence. 'Fool, liar or both' seems to rule out YOUR opportunity to learn anything. Nevertheless as I pointed out above, events over the last eleven years would indicate that the conspiracy hypothesis is complete bollocks, because there is no credible motive, no credible perpetrator other than Bryant, no evidence that the supposedly mass-murder-planning John Howard has the kind of character that WOULD do this, no evidence that all the people at PA who saw Bryant carrying the guns and shooting people with them were lying, and no person who was part of a cover-up blowing the whistle in the media, despite the massive cheque they would get.

The Weimar Republic put the German gun laws into place many decades before the NSDAP took advantage of them. They relaxed the civil laws slightly for 'Aryans' who could be approved under Weimar legislation, which is logical when planning to enter your country into a racially motivated state of war.. but they amended the act and completely forbade Jews from owning any firearms. The laws were already in place for the Nazi government to inherit and actively utilize. So YOUR argument is a lot of bollocks. And with the fall of that argument, the bollocks regarding motive also falls. There's plenty of motivation to incrementally disarm a population when you are planning to remove sovereignty from that population. Or if you wish to impose the presence of a force which has no jurisdiction except through the treasonous actions of the acting government, contrary to the national constitution. All good motives for allowing such an incident to occur, or even to stage it. But you have to belittle me and bring John Howard into it, and you infer that my position is that he masterminded the shootings. You attempt to discredit me by making the asinine assertion that a belief in the possibility of a conspiracy is paramount to a view which equates Howard with Stalin, Mao or Hitler. His only role was in helping to legislate guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, costing the taxpayer over one half billion dollars in buyback programs. Perhaps John Howard doesn't have the kind of character to do this, but there are those with global interests who do and John Howard clearly demonstrated his willingness to bend over for all takers. Funny enough, those who have such a character don't even hide the fact that they have such ambitions and several of them make it plain that such 'happy coincidences' as Port Arthur make their work much easier. It isn't difficult to find this information in mainstream, credible news sources. You just need to stop looking at the ground. I don't know, how much would you care to wager that Australia will see FEMA or UN Peacekeepers in action on Australian soil in the next 15 years? Maybe worse. How about People's Liberation Army?

You simplify the issue to be persuasive for people who may not have a broader historical knowledge. You demean everyone's intelligence with your simplifications. And using language such as 'Official Cover Story' doesn't necessarily indicate pre-judgment. That evidence has been taken well into account, with all it's contradictions and unanswered questions. It was exposure to the official explanation of events which made me question the case to begin with. But then, like any person of actual intelligence, I've looked into all that tin foil hat kind of stuff just to be sure... you know, like eye witness testimony, including the informal testimony of someone who knew Bryant well and claimed that it wasn't him. (Of course, the exclusion of eye witness testimony which is non-confirmatory of the official explanation of events leads to suspicions of conspiracy). Pretend like you have some capacity to think for yourself. Stop assuming that people just pick a bunch of crap off of the internet, or the news and go with it the way you seem to. Oh, and just to address the eye witnesses who claim to have seen Bryant carrying the weapons, shooting people. There are at least two possibilities to explain that outside of the official claims. 1. He actually participated in the operation. 2. Someone was brilliant enough to get a floppy blond wig. It doesn't take a great stretch of the imagination to reason out that you'd want a patsy to actually be present at the place where he's going to be alleged to have been.114.78.162.241 (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Its really depressing, this conspiracy fantasy is a discredit to all the rest of us. 203.59.222.27 (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

'Witnessed events' section?

This section describes the personal experience of one journalist after the events. Its not worth having, if it has to be on Wikipedia create a separate article on 'Self-indulgent journalism' for it.ChrisPer 05:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct Template Use=Vandalism?

Why has user SatuSuro flagged my correction of the court references to follow Wikipedia:Citation_templates as vandalism...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.16.100 (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies - the level of vandalism on this article is incessant - if it was a correct - please feel free to reinsert - but a very good idea would be to put an edit summary - and even better create an account SatuSuro 13:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are the conspiracy theories even mentioned?

I am an avowed sporting shooter and consider myself active in politics; obviously I am against the draconian gun laws introduced in Australia following the Port Arthur massacre. That said, I have never, ever heard even mention of the possibility of there being some kind of conspiracy, regardless of the motivation, in all my life of living in Australia (with a prominent journalist for a father).

My question is, why are the conspiracy theories even mentioned at all in this article? I believe they are the very definition of fringe; you could claim conspiracies in a reductio ad absurdum fashion for just about any crime that has ever happened in human history. It is one thing for there to be open debate about 9/11 conspiracy theories (because they have been so widely debated and published), however surely Port Arthur is beyond dispute as to the incident itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriswaltham (talk • contribs) 18:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The reason they are mentioned is only because a significant number of the people editing this page in the past came here after exposure to conspiracy materials, and seem to want to incorporate that stuff. ChrisPer 07:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, to anyone who's interested. The monument to the massacre is, guess what.. a reflecting pool. And it reflects a tall pyramidal brick structure which is due East. What does that mean, huh?121.44.233.92 (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

BRYANT'S PURCHASE OF THE AR-15

In the 'Background' section I am removing the sentence which states Bryant purchased the AR-15 from gun shop owner Terry Hill. While Hill was questioned by the authorities with respect to Bryant's purchase, there was no proof that any transaction, legal or otherwise, occurred between the two men. Hill insisted that he did not supply Bryant with any of the firearms allegedly used in the shooting, and eventually all charges against him were dropped. If Hill is to be named as the supplier of the firearms allegedly used in the shooting then a reputable source needs to be cited. (Kwazimoto69 (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

Unencyclopaedic, poorly displayed

This article is very poorly written, about 90% of it is written as a first person narrative, which seems to be copied, or at least paraphrased from a single source, and then misrepresented as if it was proven fact, when it was merely an opinion. What actually happened at the Port Arthur massacre is a mystery, which nobody knows for sure. Presenting 90% of this article as if it was proven fact reflects poorly on Wikipedia.

Complete horse-shit. 90% of the article is from the COURT DOCUMENTS OF PRESENTED FACTS. You don't know what you are talking about.--Dacium (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There are some facts about what happened, and these should be included. Anything else that isn't fact should either be excluded, or else presented as for what it was - theory and hyperbole.

One fact that isn't mentioned is that John Howard was newly elected at the time of this massacre, and was behind in the polls after he introduced the unpopular GST against popular opinion (he had promised in 1995 that he would never introduce it). Gun law reform was something that the nation wished to happen (we didn't want to become as bad as USA), but no politician had been able to bring it in because of the powerful gun lobby. John Howard used this event to gain popularity. He claimed that the sole reason for the massacre was because of the ease of buying guns. This is clearly not true at all, and only the most gullible of people believed this. If it was so easy to commit such a massacre, that even someone of Martin Bryant's obvious incapacities was able to do it, then why had nothing like it ever happened before? This was more than double the next worst massacre. You can't explain that by gun law reform, because the guns had always been about. There is something more to this.

And that has what to do with the massacre? Absolutely nothing. There isn't a shred of proof the goverment or Howard was involved in any of this not one fact at all.--Dacium (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The most interesting element of this case, as with all of the most well-known mystery murders is the mystery component. This is barely mentioned here, and what is mentioned is mentioned falsely. It doesn't matter whether it was Freedom Fighters or Pauline Hanson or who said it. The most interesting elements are the facts of the case. Facts like the 11 hour stand off at the Seascape Lodge, the speed of firing, the lack of misses, the various audio and videotapes of the murders which indicate multiple shooters, at least at the Seascape Lodge. The timeline not fitting with the police version of events. Things like these are what would make this an encyclopaedic article.

Again, please true and source your facts. Not make up complete and utter non-sense. There is very little to no 'mystery'. 11 hour stand off so what? Lack of misses is bullshit - go look up how many times he missed, he missed all over the place, he was never able to kill anyone who was more than 2m away from him. No audio or video tapes show anything about multiple shooters, you can go down to the court and watch them if you want. The timeline is consistant. YOu seem to want to add facts that are just completely made up on conspiracy sites. How about you read the court proceedings and the official police documents.--Dacium (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an important article for Australians, and I am sure that I speak for all of us when I say that this article is a disgrace in its current format. It probably needs to be written again from scratch, with a more encyclopaedic tone, and focussing on facts rather than opinion. And try to remove bias from it as well. There's a lot of bias in the text there. As with all well known murder mysteries, not everyone believes that Martin Bryant was the murderer, and of those that do, there are a wide range of beliefs as to what happened. There certainly was never a confession in this case. Dyinghappy (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Why dont you point out what isn't fact. Just because people don't believe doesn't make it ture. The facts show with 100% certainty that byrant was the murderer. His prints and DNA were on all the guns, he was seen by 20+ witnesses killing people. YOU IDIOTS DON'T REALISE THAT THIS EVIDENCE NEVER NEEDED TO BE BROUGHT TO COURT BECAUSE HE CHANGED HIS PLEA TO GUILTY, SO THE THEY DID NOT HAVE TO SHOW THE EVIDENCE. YOu you idiots insist there never was any. If you can back up your claims with any sources at all then add them, but stop talking crap.--Dacium (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• This version looks more encyclopaedic to me. Why not write something more like that? More facts, less opinion. Dyinghappy (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Okay I was bold and made massive wholesale changes to the article, but only to the "alternative theories" section, which quite frankly was a bit nonsensical. There is a wide group of people who dispute John Howard's version of events (most obviously the 1/2 of Australians who do not vote for the Liberal Party) and calling that entire group of people "conspiracy theorists" is stupid. The case was questioned to huge levels, and it isn't appropriate to call these investigations conspiracies, nor is it appropriate merely to mention (and then ridicule) the people who made these investigations. As an encyclopaedic article, we should be focussing on what they discovered, not who they were. That is what is useful to people who might investigate the case, and use this article as a reference. Facts such as the massive suppression orders related to the case, the unconstitutional laws that were passed, the sheer improbability that the event had happened (yet it did), compounded by his proven severe intellectual disabilities (and inability to concentrate) are very relevant. There were also a few lies in the article, such as the suggestion that Martin Bryant confessed, or that he pleaded guilty, or that his lawyer knew why he did it. Martin Bryant fired his lawyer because his lawyer wanted him to plead guilty. I am not going to go in to the time lines, because so long as it is represented as "police version of events" it is fine to have inaccurate times. But Noelene and David Martin died the night before, was what the coroner's report said. And the Seascape fire was the day after. 3 days event does not equal a 1 day murder spree. We probably should fix that up too, but I don't want to tread on any toes. Dyinghappy (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Dyinghappy, while your criticisms of the overall style are correct, the 'alternative' investigations or theories are tripe. There is no reason to give them the respect of treating them neutrally. There are 37 wounded but surviving people besides those on site who were not shot, and their stories were collected by police. There is no reason to think that John Howard created a cover story, because the evidence is overwhelming that Bryant did it and acted alone. Your edits are based on counterfactual beliefs and will be reverted. ChrisPer (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

90% of google hits, the majority of discussion on this page. Anyway I won't tread on any more toes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyinghappy (talk • contribs) 04:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your participation, which remains welcome even if we disagree! ChrisPer (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

One fact that isn't mentioned is that John Howard was newly elected at the time of this massacre, and was behind in the polls after he introduced the unpopular GST against popular opinion (he had promised in 1995 that he would never introduce it).

The GST wasn't a factor in the 1996 election campaign. JH won a solid victory in that election, and in fact the GST didn't become law until three or four years later, after JH had fought and won the 1998 election based on the GST and there had been significant dealings in the Senate with the Democrats. Years after Port Arthur.

I'm familiar with all of the conspiracy theories, and frankly, they are rubbish. Bryant's marksmanship wasn't superb - it was crap, when you look at all of his shots. The only reason he shot so many people in the Broad Arrow was that he was virtually poking the rifle in their faces. I've been there and it isn't a large room. A child with a water pistol could have done just as well. It just goes on and on - trivial inconsistencies, easily explained, are seized upon as evidence of some vast conspiracy. Of the conspiracy itself, there is no actual evidence, no phone calls, no meetings, no nothing, and in the decade since, no leaks, no remorse, no revelations. Thousands of people and they all tell one story. The only ones saying different are those who weren't there.

Hard to see what Bryant could have gotten out of it if he was the stooge. He was wealthy already and most of his relatives were dead. What could he possibly have been offered for his co-operation? What could make up for loss of freedom for life? All he has to say is "I didn't do it, and here's how and why." But no, his initial attempts at denial after arrest were pathetic, easily disproven. If he hadn't made a guilty plea, he would have inevitably have been found guilty as witness after witness pointed their fingers at him and the forensic folk locked the case up tight.

I echo the comments on the quality of the article. It's pretty woeful. But at least, last time I looked, it reflected the reality. --Pete (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, Bryant's estate was under an administrative tribunal order. I could be wrong. But as to what gains there would be for him in being a stooge. There are none. Stooges aren't paid off for their services, they are set up to take all losses and that's all there is to it.114.78.162.241 (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite suggested - reduce and simplify

I propose rewriting, removing all the 'narrative invisible observer viewpoint' and simplifying the entry to be more encyclopaedic.

The "First he woke up then he had breakfast' level stuff is also potentially harmful in creating a model for imitation, and unnecessarily gives incentives to others and maybe offence to survivors by making the perpetrator more 'famous'.

I suggest adding links to better references if they can be found, such as the Bulletin articles and court transcripts, and removing the Alternative Theories to the Talk page. ChrisPer (talk) 05:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I read the court transcripts and wrote most of the article from what I could remember. I was hoping most people would eventually edit it away.--Dacium (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

How does one access the court transcripts? Are they available electronically? ChrisPer (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

They were available from ref. 4 (The Queen V. Martin Bryant), but the link is dead from here. try [1] I have also seen them elsewhere. Martin451 (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats where I read them originally myself, but I want to find a 'reliable source'. There are a number of documents on those sites that I would like to use as references if I could find the original source in a book, library or refereed article. ChrisPer (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories reduced in main article

At least two conspiracy theories about the massacre have been widely promoted by fringe groups. These theories have been dismissed as without foundation. The Government of Tasmania, the Tasmania Police, the prosecutor Damian Bugg and Bryant's defence lawyer John Avery have all dismissed the suggestion that Bryant was not acting alone, saying that the evidence simply does not support any of the conclusions reached by the theorists.[17]

In 2001, former One Nation leader Pauline Hanson caused controversy when she claimed that the Commonwealth had ruled out "a full investigation" when "a lot of people are asking questions" about Port Arthur.[18] The Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia stated that the claims were "ludicrous", and urged One Nation to change their position or risk being seen as influenced by extreme elements within the community.[19]

Time to downplay this. Its only notable for its persistent nuttiness. ChrisPer (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have reduced the conspiracy stuff again. The material I removed was not of itself conspiracy stuff, but made loose claims as to why this nonsense took hold. For instance 'because there was no trial' - of course there was a trial, but the perpetrator pleaded guilty which meant it was not a media circus. And as to all the claims about doubtful identification, as far as I can tell the conspiracies were off and running very early, and additional evidence was just twisted to fit the framework of the conspiracy nuts. ChrisPer (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"Of course there was a trial". No, there was not.

Bryant maintained his innocence for five months after the incident, right up to the first preliminary Hearing on September 30, 1996, during which he pleaded "not guilty". That first Hearing was suspended with David Gunson, Bryant's lawyer, resigning the very next day and being immediately replaced by John Avery.

In a possible conflict of interest, John Avery had been present during that first Hearing, because he had already worked on a related case against gun store owner Terry Hill, alleged by the Hobart police to have supplied Bryant with his firearms. Although that case against Hill was dropped due to lack of evidence, Avery was still present at Bryant's first Hearing.

A second Hearing was held almost two months later, on November 22, 1996, and this time Bryant pleaded "guilty" to all 72 charges. By pleading "guilty" Bryant never had a Trial. He had two Preliminary Hearings and a Sentencing Hearing, but no Trial.

Kwazimoto69 (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

We disagree about the meaning of the term 'trial'. Due process was followed, which means the hearings you refer to were the trial. The words 'no trial' to many mean "no extended circus laying out evidence for the papers and TV". His counsel Avery is a shonk, I agree. In this case he claims to have been pressing for a guilty plea for 'the good of the community' but there is no chance the outcome for Bryant would have been any better from a media circus. The idea of 'conflict of interest' seems to be wank. Avery was not a witness whose evidence would need to be un-corrupted, but a lawyer. Lawyers go to courts and do stuff all the time there for different people whose interests must be separated; to claim a lawyer has conflict of interest from being in an earlier hearing is silly.

The whole conspiracy thing is based on confirmation bias; start with the idea, and reframe everything in your mind to support it. Joe Vialls dropped out of fashion, but people were sucked in by his ALL CAPS INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE. What then follows is fifteen years of ignoring the evidence AGAINST the conspiracy idea. When Vialls was discredited, they became Scurr acolytes or whatever; fine people in many cases but caught in delusion. You can read up on the unconscious processes at work in a great book by Robert Cialdini, "Influence: Science and Practice". He refers to ideas 'growing supports' after the original reason we committed is taken away. Robbed of the initial reasoning our unconscious rushes into rationalising new reasons without realising that the fealing of unnaturally strong committment to the idea is a warning that your mind has been manipulated. This is the trick used by car salesman in the 'Lowball' technique. ChrisPer (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

When Bryant pleaded 'not guilty' in the first Preliminary Hearing the prosecution were then supposed to demonstrate that they had sufficient evidence to make a case against Bryant. That did not happen at the first Hearing, and it didn't happen at the second because Bryant was persuaded to plead 'guilty', thus negating the need for an actual Trial in which the evidence against Bryant would be heard. Yes, we disagree on the definition of 'Trial'.

An alleged copy of Bryant's Psychiatric Report, based on interviews conducted by Professor of Forensic Psychiatry Paul E. Mullen on 4 May, 1996, can be found here, and the summary of Professor Mullen's report is:

"In my opinion therefore this man is fit to plead, though he may require a little more assistance and a little more time in coping with the legal process than would a more intellectually able accused."

Bryant didn't get someone who would give him a little more assistance and who wouldn't spend time helping him cope with the legal process; he got Avery, a man who really churns my stomach. In an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald Avery is quoted as saying:

"I had nothing to offer [Bryant] in the legal sense. I never let him think I had anything to offer. There was no chance of a deal in the real sense; it was never put to him. I regularly said to him, 'You are going to jail for life and you are never going to get out'. In answer to your question, what did I have to offer Bryant? Sweet FA."

Avery admits that the evidence against Bryant was overwhelming but states in his very next sentence that Bryant was entitled to have his guilt proved. Except Avery defined his role as being "...to explain to him [Bryant] the implications - on himself and the families of the victims - of pursuing the not-guilty. He certainly recognised that pleading guilty would be seen to be a better outcome for everyone, including himself."

There is no evidence in support of the conspiracy theories, and there is no evidence that Bryant didn't commit these atrocities, but there doesn't have to be. Bryant didn't need to prove he was innocent; the onus was on us to prove he was guilty. Except rather than go to Trial with the apparently overwhelming amount of evidence we locked Bryant up for 5 months, and when he pleaded 'not guilty' we locked him up for another 2 months until he changed his mind and "confessed".

Professor Mullen attests that Bryant was fit to stand trial although he added that Bryant may require additional assistance due to his diminished mental capacity. In other reports it was estimated that Bryant's mental age in 1996 was that of an 11-year old. In other words, we locked up an 11-year old man-child for seven months, over half a year, until he finally agreed to do what we wanted. I don't see that as 'due process'.

Kwazimoto69 (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Pish and tosh, Kwazimoto. That half a year is expeditious for a murder trial. Given the evidence that Police had gathered but never had to present, his trial was a foregone conclusion. I myself would rather the evidence be in the public domain, but remember that we DONT have access to it because of that guilty plea. Yes, Avery sounds a complete prat who was acting not necessarily in the best interest of his client but according to himself, in that of 'the community'. Whether it makes any difference to the outcome, is debatable. Your characterisation as locking him up 'until he did what we wanted' is nonsense. He was always going to be locked up for the rest of his life, and just because you misname bits of the process based on opinion doesn't mean it wasn't formally correct in law. That formal correctness is what is called 'due process'. ChrisPer (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

---

I would agree if there was an article on the theories but there is not so something more than a short single line is warranted. The deleted material had no detail of the conspiracy theories so it has basically been deleted for a personal opinion that any reference to them at all is nonsense. What "loose claims"? They were reported in newspapers, supported by police statements and commented on by politicians. Who cares if there was a trial or not? It was a statement by the Premier of Tasmania dismissing conspiracy theories and it is obvious what he meant by "no trial". I had a friend who was there that day so took an interest from the start but I never heard any conspiracy theories "very early". Without references that claim is WP:OR. Wayne (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it because I considered it not to contribute to the article about the massacres; and the article has suffered from the past attention of conspiracy buffs to load it with their nonsense. I have no interest in disagreement for its own sake. In one other point, it may be obvious to you and me what he meant by 'no trial', but it doesn't make that assertion correct, or mean that the assertion will not be misconstrued by other readers. ChrisPer (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

From what I've read almost all the conspiracy theories stem from the lack of identification in conjunction with other claims (such as several of the victims being ASIO and the identity suppression etc). Obviously if the police had interviewed more people they would have got a positive ID from the majority of witnesses but they didn't do that because of the guilty plea. That the Premier of Tasmania commented on this makes it notable if it was not already and the text explains to the reader where the claims originated and why. The lack of identification is not a conspiracy itself nor is it a significant part of one. There is no actual conspiracy content so I can't see where the problem lies. Wayne (talk) 08:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Your position is not unreasonable, and I am not going to start a fight over it. My view is a bit different - I find the conspiracy material should be downplayed because it gets people deservedly tarred as nuts. However, your suggestion that police didn't interview enough people to get a positive ID because of the guilty plea seems odd - police interviews should be over by the time the court date arrives, by a long shot. We (and the conspiracy people) don't have access to the police interviews, except what they published or presented in court. The nature of SHTF means that witnesses conflict and get it wrong - thats how it goes, and the loonies siezed on natural variation and spun it up into far more than it was really worth. ChrisPer (talk) 05:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

How about adding a section called "controversy" for inclusion of evidence or testimony that is contrary to or calls into question official court accounts (without any sort of analysis or editorial), and putting all details of nutty conspiracy claims into a dedicated section? I feel this is likely to be a compromise which could keep the conspiracy nuts happier while not appearing to censor claims about questionable evidence (or giving excessive weight to a particularly nutty Facebook page).Miasmic (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

But why? The arguments for conspiracy stories are not rational. Its fourteen years after, and there has been no new evidence about the conspiracy theories. At bottom its nonsense, and has no place in the article. What we need is rewriting the article with less anecdotal stuff. ChrisPer (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Artistic Response - is this encyclopaedic?

Someone, presumably one of the authors or a person connected with these works, has restored the section titled Artistic Response. I deleted it because I considered it self-indulgent and not notable. THis article is about the massacre, not the appropriation of it by artists. One of the causes of massacres is imitation driven by the failure of life trajectory of the loser who perpetrates it. Media and pop culture TEACH them it is a way to huge 'fame'. This sort of section in the Wikipedia article is giving this grubby crime a significance it does not deserve.

The two 'artistic responses' were the play (2007) - ie produced ELEVEN YEARS after the event - and the symphony which according to the composer's Wikipedia page was inspired by the play. The impact in the rest of the country was probably a bit more important. ChrisPer (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Could this be any more poorly written?

I don't believe it could. Major rewrite necessary. --66.188.84.217 (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You are not exaggerating by much. Go for it. ChrisPer (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

More Official Sources

I think perhaps more references are needed directly from official sources. The majority seem to be from this one book,
Altmann, Carol (2006). "The Massacre. After Port Arthur". Allen & Unwin.
One thing that irks me is too many footnotes references. Multiple ones in one paragraph all pointing to the same footnote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.28.25 (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem is that the 'official sources' are not online or in many cases published - the court records lump a lot of them. The article should be substantially reworked. ChrisPer (talk) 06:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not very clear on why the article being cited to reliable sources should irk anyone. One can only cite to what is available. It would help, IP, to review WP:CITE, WP:RS and the points covering inline citations. It is frequently questionable whether all points in a paragraph are covered by a single citation at the end of it. Yes, the article does need more work. Before I worked on it, there were multiple errors and misstatements and questionable sentences. It can certainly stand improvement. 48kb of content with 23 total cites was woefully inadequate, and even with the addition of the one substantial source that I could find, is still under sourced. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Opposition to Gun Control Laws

The article contained two unsubstantiated claims which are demonstrably false. It said that Tasmania and Queensland were particularly opposed to new gun control laws. This is not true. The two states most opposed to new legislation were Queensland and Western Australia, as John Howard confirms in his autobiography, Lazarus Rising:

"Stricter gun control was not an easy issue, especially for the Coalition side of politics. There was plenty of support from the Labor party. The NSW Premier, Bob Carr, was a strident opponent of the free availability of guns and was to prove one of my strongest backers. The two problem states were clearly going to be Queensland and Western Australia, both of which had Coalition governments."

The article also asserted:

It should be noted that the Tasmanian state government initially attempted to ignore this directive, but was subsequently threatened with a number of penalties from the federal government.

Tasmania was not a problem state for Howard's gun control laws. Tony Rundle personally invited Howard to join him immediately after the massacre (to "associate myself with his government's response", as Howard puts it in Lazarus Rising) and they discussed Tasmania's gun laws at that time. Howard did not threaten Tasmania with any penalties; he didn't need to, because the Premier was already on side. I have edited the article accordingly.Sankari Suomi (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The article specifically states "notably" not "most opposed" and does not say "particularly opposed" as you claim. Rundle may have supported Howard but his party didn't. Only NSW supported gun control, Howard had to threaten the other states with penalties to get their support. Your claim that the sentence is "demonstrably false" is incorrect as you have based it on a misinterpretation of what it says.Wayne (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Slanting

I've pulled back a number of IP edits (like this} pushing the conspiracy theory by slanting the language and introducing unsourced material. This article is not the place for speculation and argument, but always welcoming in discussion on ways to improve the article. It'd be awful if we were seen to be complicit in covering up some "black-hat" government operation, but the sort of evidence raised in support is usually along the lines of a chain of speculations or some error in photo interpretation or something. For example, the involvement of professional shooters is often raised because so many of the deaths were headshots, ignoring the fact that you don't need telescopic sights and a steady hand when you shove the muzzle into their face before pulling the trigger. --Pete (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Its high time we started calling for psychiatric intervention. The 1980s saw the largest de-institutionalisation in history of people who desperately needed ongoing mental health care and this article shows it. ;-)

ChrisPer (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Have removed a long, unsourced and "slanted" section from conspiracy theories which has specific statements about his identification, including quotes, supported by none of the sources cited. The sentences before and after this remain and state the same thing without this vapour. I don't find any of this untruthful or even controversial, but if it's sourced from nowhere credible it shouldn't be here.

"Of the few witnesses contacted by police, only two positively identified Bryant as the gunman at Port Arthur, both having first identified him on 27 May, after the media had published his photograph naming him as the culprit. In their police statements, three witnesses, two of whom knew Bryant by sight, stated that they “did not recognise” the gunman as Bryant and a worker in the café later stated she had changed her mind because the gunman did not resemble the photographs published by the media." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.62.16.12 (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Not the deadliest killing spree in Australian history

It shows ignorance and offends Indigenous people to claim, as in this article, that the Port arthur Massacre was the deadliest killing spree in Australian history.

In 1838 between 60 and 300 Aborigines were murdered by police at the Slaughterhouse Creek massacre. In 1840 up to 80 were killed at Fighting Hills. In 1868, at Jaburrara, between 30 and 60 were killed. In 1886, in the Coppermine murders, 150 were shot by miners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.71.2 (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Fix it then.ChrisPer (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually its the definition of Spree killer that distinguishes this from those and many other events, though it could use a source to support/define the claim Gnangarra 15:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Memorial plaque missing a name?

If there were 35 victims why does the Port Arthur Memorial Garden plaque list only 34 names?

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1428/5113546498_c510a178e3_b.jpg

The name of Raymond John Sharp is missing, although his brother(?) Kevin Sharp is listed. Why is this? Plinuckment (talk) 09:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you talk to the people who are responsible for the garden and plaque. Editors here are few and not part of officialdom.

ChrisPer (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

WLRoss edit on far-right organisations in opposition to gun laws.

Moved from another section of this page: This is one of the worst articles that I have seen in Wikipedia. There is a very hard slant in the "Reactions" section where a completely unsubstantiated assertion is made that the US organization: the Christian Coalition, strongly opposed the imposition of tighter gun laws in Australia in the aftermath of the Port Arthur killings. I have edited out the comment, only to see it replaced, twice. Where is there given even a shred of evidence for this assertion? It is nothing more than an obvious attempt to smear the US Christian group in particular, the the US Christian right in general. 98.218.81.29 (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

WLRoss, your edit comment is: "ChrisPer. Your belief that the media exaggerated opposition is WP:OR. The reliable source provided supports the claim."

I dont think 'media exaggerated opposition to the laws'. I was aware that these far-right idiots grabbed media attention and were used by activist media and politicians to discredit the much larger mainstream opposition as though they were extremists.

Your source does not say what you thought it does. It clearly says not that the far-right organisations led the opposition to the gun laws, but that the far-right organisations used the controversy to make a push for support, and leading that push for support was the list of dodgy little groups you name.

Nevertheless I thank you for causing me to read that article carefully, because it is extremely helpful and informative. ChrisPer (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Correct number of injured?

This article claims 19 people were wounded, the History of Tasmania says 20, and the main article on Tasmania says 21. What is the correct number? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.215.127.205 (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

According to this document the following 21 people were wounded:

Patricia Gwen Barker, Gerald Pounds Broome, Graham Derek Colyer, Brigid Ann Cook, Peter David Crosswell, Robert John Elliot, Gaye Jeanette Fidler, John Graeme Fidler, Gordon Howard Francis, Douglas Eric Horne, Douglas Ivan Hutchinson, Pamela Kathleen Law, Yvonne Lockley, Carolyn Anne Loughton, Dennis Olsen, Neville Quin, Michael Robert Sargent, Thelma Walker, Linda Marie White, Caroline Susan Mary Williams, Simon Roger Williams

At least that's what I've counted. (Lord Gøn (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC))

$1.5m?

The Martin Bryant article says his inheritance was only $550,000? Neither figure seems to be sourced. Jpatokal (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)