Talk:Bondi Junction stabbings

Albo Review

Is it necessary to include Anthony Albanese’s X(Twitter) statement? 115.70.87.192 (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

He is head of government and surely a mass stabbing doesn't happen everyday in Oz. But better to paraphrase it for WP:QUOTEFARM reasons. Borgenland (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I guess so, after the press conference hopefully we’ll get more answers for this tragedy 115.70.87.192 (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

We should include his statement, as it is the subject of significant coverage. The BBC article is a reliable source, and the article accurately summarises what it says, so we don't need to directly cite or quote it. Local Variable (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah just making sure it’s needed or if it should be removed. 115.70.87.192 (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Police officer's gender

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Discussion moot given name since released, as pointed out by @SomethingForDeletion. Local Variable (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

---

There's an edit war brewing about whether to include the gender of the police officer who shot the alleged suspect. Per the essay at WP:GENDER, it is best we do not include it. It is not relevant. There is nothing unusual or out of the ordinary about it. In the words of GENDER, it carries the possible implication that the participation of the subject's gender is uncommon [or] unexpected. The better view is not to include it. We should establish consensus here, to stop the edit warring. Local Variable (talk) 11:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Seconded, putting the gender in there is completely unnecessary, looking back through the last 4 or 5 last massacres in Australia none mentioned the police-person's gender. Creepercast888 (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. HiLo48 (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

It should be excluded at the moment, it may or may not be relevant in the future, but at the moment it isn't. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it could be warranted if more comes to light. There are early reports the attacker may have been targeting women. If that turns out to true and verifiable sources back it up, there may be merit it inclusion. Local Variable (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

In retrospect, this turned into a somewhat pointless argument, given her name has been released, published in the media, and is now included in the article. Which was what was likely going to happen all along, I think police management just wanted the chance to consult with her before releasing her identity, but it was unlikely it was ever going to be kept secret permanently. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Massacre?

I see an editor has restored the category 'Massacres in Australia' to the article. WP:CATVER says: Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. I don't see any discussion in the article supporting the use of this category, or any of the sources characterising it as such, so I propose re-removing that category. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed. None of the sources refer to it. Local Variable (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

This may be a MOS:ENGVAR issue. There are many incidents with the same or smaller impact that are defined as massacres in Australia, including Greenough family massacre, Central Coast massacre and a very similar incident the Strathfield massacre (as examples). If you're coming at this from a different cultural perspective you may be inclined to feel a very normal word here is not applicable, when in our vernacular it is appropriate. It does not make sense to not have these incidents in the same category. -- Rob.au (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I should have added an example article - here is one: [1] - sorry it is paywalled but is headlined "Stabbing at Westfield Bondi: Killer behind massacre known to police" and in the body states the attacker "killed five women and a man in the massacre before he was shot dead by a lone female police officer." Or an alternative non-paywalled source [2] also uses "massacre" in the headline. "Mass murder" is also used by some major sources [3][4][5] - my understanding is that the only difference between the English definition of "mass murder" and "massacre" is that the latter is indiscriminate. The indiscriminate nature is covered by many sources. -- Rob.au (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Rob.au, thanks for that enlightenment. So to satisfy WP:CATVER we probably need to see it described as a massacre in the article and supported by sources describing it that way. We currently do not have that.

I would say that the word implies more victims than we have here, perhaps into the hundreds, if not thousands. But I bow to your better understanding of the way it's used in Oz.

This then begs the question as to whether we need to move the category Massacres in Australia into a different place in the category tree, and not mix it with categories using a different definition of the term 'massacre'. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The articles in the massacre category seem to focus on willed criminal acts by individuals intending to cause mass harm, instead of something like a psychotic rampage. That probably explains why the media is avoiding that term for now. We have no idea what this attack was motivated by, if anything. The category inclusion seems inappropriate for now, but that may change with time. At the moment that category conveniently captures a lot of articles with massacre in the title and I think should be left as is. Local Variable (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Definitely "massacre" absolutely does not imply "into the hundreds" in Australia, and is commonly used for smaller events per numerous examples already given and indeed there's many more on WP that don't reach that bar. It seems news.com.au for one has now settled on this term for this incident as it's appearing in multiple new articles this morning [6] [7]. It might be that in time the category name should be updated (though I'd avoid rushing into that in the middle of an unfolding event) - but my main point remains, being that WP:COMMONSENSE means it makes utterly no sense to exclude this article from the category to which it very obviously belongs. Rob.au (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry not sure why the links did not appear (not used to using the app). Rob.au (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Late to the discussion, from a media terminology standpoint "mass stabbing" immediately describes the point and draws specific attention, so alongside implication of the word "massacre" headlining shouldn't be used to attempt to satisfy WP:CATV. Instead using the definition of mass murder under from the Australian Institute of Criminology, a massacre has a "threshold of four or more fatalities", as employed within List of massacres in Australia, and also the description in article content. Kak101 (talk) 06:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

As a side note, @49.186.97.193 has changed the lead sentence and infobox title to refer to massacre. I would revert this were I not at my WP:3RR limit. I suggest someone reverts it, it should reflect the article title and the page has not been moved (that move should be discussed as it will be contentious). Local Variable (talk) 06:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

death count

I don't think this was the deadliest attack since the January 2017 Melbourne car attack, considering both resulted in the death of six victims. The article in place should be either Cairns child killings or Childers Palace Backpackers Hostel fire; or a rephrase of the head paragraph. Regardless, all these incidents are huge tragedies and I regret to have potentially downplayed any of the crimes committed and persons dead or injured. Josethewikier (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The year was based on sources cited. Borgenland (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Does one include intra family killings? Arson attacks? Arguably the most recent more deadly similar incident is the Port Arthur massacre. See List of massacres in Australia. 18:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps this is an engvar issue but to me, "deadliest since" clearly includes something that was as deadly. To give a loosely related example, the media and police in NZ often talk about how this is the worst Easter weekend for roads deaths since year X or maybe even deadliest since year X. I'm fairly sure year X might very well have had the same number of deaths. Nil Einne (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

really? thanks for the clarification if that is the case. English grammar isn't something I'm the very best at. Josethewikier (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Reactions pointless.

I submit that the Reactions section contributes nothing at all to the article. All the reactions are entirely predictable. Most are completely irrelevant. And it doesn't mention mine.

Unless a good reason to keep it is provided, I shall remove it. HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd probably hold off culling it completely for now (and I'm not just saying that because I just tediously changed all the Tweet refs). At least some warrant inclusion under a reactions heading. Also it bespeaks the worldwide notability of the incident. We should probably get guidance from similar articles, such as Lindt Cafe siege, which include reactions. I agree it shouldn't dominate the article. Local Variable (talk) 04:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

It's currently the article's largest section. HiLo48 (talk) 06:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

There was a pretty substantial cull of premier statements by @InedibleHulk (which were definitely unnecessary). We definitely need the Australian PM and NSW Premier's reactions, and I'm inclined to keep a concise summary some of the international reactions (US President, UK monarchy, Pope). Local Variable (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Tweets (or whatever we're supposed to call them now) have always been fine supplemental sources, but in this context, everyone and their dog can tweet the same thing so I think it's good to go by what the secondary sources feel stand out. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I mean, if we're going to keep doing Reactions at all. I have absolutely no problem with no longer doing Reactions. It just encourages us to do them again later. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Object due to recency to event and necessity. Reactions is the easiest section to collate sources for and write about, especially due to the fact the stabbings occurred only 24 hours ago. As more reports and articles are released, and the full timeline of the stabbings is set out, the other sections will be expanded. Re-evaluation can then occur. I agree it currently forms a large part of the article, but that shouldn't entail removal. Aftermath and responses are always necessary components to recent historic events as they set out scale, international impact, community impact. We should follow consistency to other similar articles, with most containing, 'Reactions' or 'Responses'. Kak101 (talk) 07:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says we should not follow what other articles do. Almost all the reactions listed are completely predictable, and tell the reader nothing of value. HiLo48 (talk) 07:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has to be seen in context, it's an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, to avoid discussion getting sidetracked into other similar articles. Almost all disaster articles have a reactions section, which reflects a prevailing view that it's an appropriate thing to discuss in an article. This article would be an anomaly or outlier if it didn't have a reactions section.

I've cut down the section a bit more, and I think it's okay now, particularly given the other sections will expand in the coming days. Local Variable (talk) 07:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

It still concerns me that almost all the reactions listed are completely predictable, and therefore tell the reader nothing of value. If someone had said something a bit out of the ordinary, that would be worth mentioning, but right now it's a big yawnfest. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I think Cauchi’s family reaction is worth mentioning. Most mass killing, murder etc. pages do have a reaction section, so it would be more neat if there was conformity to the pre-established structure. If it really is redundant I guess we could put Cauchi’s family’s response under perpetrator? Derppster (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with HiLo that the section adds nothing as the reactions are stereotypical and predictable. I support its removal. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Dawn Singleton age?

According to the article she was born in 1998 which would make her around 26 years old, not 35 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Singleton_(Australian_entrepreneur) MrHandsEnumclaw (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if late but media are now saying 25 https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/crime/millionare-businessmans-daughter-named-as-bondi-stabbing-victim/news-story/977156fdccdb75250522f15432b9d4d0 Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Would anyone miss the "2024" in the title if it were gone?

I think Bondi Junction stabbings is available, tidier and more commonly used, but figure I should ask. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Most articles about mass casualty events include the year. 115.70.87.192 (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but every other massacre in Australia doesn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

That is, every other one except the 1804 Risdon Cove massacre; how sooon we forget, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Of course, if you'd rather not think of this as a "massacre", there's also only one other titledated murder in Sydney (the 2019 Sydney CBD stabbings). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Falsely accused man

I won't link due to BLP concerns, but anyone who was on Twitter would know that as well as people trying to blame this attack on Islam, others were trying to blame it on Jews, and they chose a slightly similar-looking man with a very Jewish name to bear the brunt. This name was shared by Seven News, as well as by The Skwawkbox, a British far-left website that is refusing to retract its "article". Coverage of the scandal, including responses from the falsely accused man, is covered in News.com.au, the Australian and the Brisbane Times.

Is this subject notable enough to be included in the article, as long as it is brief and does not mention the innocent man's name? Unknown Temptation (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Tangentially related but we should be blacklisting Skwawkbox links on Wikipedia if true. Bremps... 17:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Security guard nationality

@Gianluigi02: and @WWGB:. Please be mindful of the three-revert rule. @Gianluigi02: You added this back a number of times after it was removed without leaving an edit summary. It would have been better to come to the talk page and gain consensus: see the bold, revert, discuss cycle. At this stage, it's not obvious to me why we should refer to the country of origin of an Australian national. Why is it relevant where he was 'originally from'? Local Variable (talk) 12:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

the added articles said he was from Pakistan but did not mention dual citizenship or that he had exclusively ancestry. If so, you can proceed to edit. Gianluigi02 (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Could we just not mention his ancestry at all? I don't think readers are going to care. Local Variable (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, Tahir resided and worked in Australia on a refugee visa prior to his death. His country of birth ("ancestry") is not relevant to his status as a victim. WWGB (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I only mentioned it because in every article about an attack, if a victim is a foreigner or holds dual citizenship this is specified in the victims section of the article. Gianluigi02 (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Gianluigi02: "Every article"? Please indicate even a few articles where this occurs. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

look at the 2018 Strasbourg attack for example. It was specified that one of the victim was a French-Afghan man, and another a French-Polish. Gianluigi02 (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The news articles are mentioning it, but they are news articles and not encyclopedias. We don't cross into obituaries and memorialisation like they do. It's hard to see how it's relevant at this stage, and it looked like we were giving the fact undue weight the way it was expressed. Local Variable (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it is irrelevant in this article, so should not be included. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)