Talk:2019 Sydney stabbing attack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Name of the alleged attacker[edit]

Hey, DeFacto, I thought if the police had named the suspect we were allowed to include it? That's why it took a while to get the name on the Baerum mosque shooting article, because they withheld the name for a while even after media named him. But here, the media reports the info is from police, so... no? Kingsif (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME doesn't make an exception for people named by the police. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
That says: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured", "seriously consider" isn't "should", does this mean it goes to discussion? Either way, if you think policy says no suspect names (though there is an infobox param for 'suspected perpetrator', suggesting we're allowed to include names without a conviction) there are lots of attacks (three others just this month) where you might want to go remove the names. Kingsif (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
There might be cases, for well known people perhaps, where the use of that infobox parameter might be appropriate. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
The suspected perpetrator is no longer relatively unknown. He is named in every major media outlet. This horse has bolted. It is standard across Wikipedia to name a susperp once revealed. Heard of Brenton Tarrant? WWGB (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
WP:BLPCRIME defines who it applies to as: This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. Hence, regardless of what happens elsewhere, we have no reasonable excuse to name him here. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
He has been named by multiple media outlets. There's no reason not to name him here.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Policy would be a reason. Kingsif (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Clearly, policy does not say he can't be named.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree. The policy WP:BLPCRIME says that editors must seriously consider not including material that suggests the person is accused of having committed a crime. The rule does not prescribe prohibition. In the case of Ney, his name has been published in numerous media outlets around the world. He is no longer unknown. There is no reason not to publish his name. WWGB (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
What we need then is a convincing rationale to justify how including the name would improve this article. Remember, the reasoning that "we did it in another similar article" or "because some news media has published it" does not cut the mustard. Our driver should be the quality of this article per the WP policies and guidelines, and they include presumption in favour of privacy, WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NOTNEWS. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Because if we don't it won't come up in the google infobox when you google the stabbing and people won't read the article because they think it's incomplete or inaccurate? Kingsif (talk) 07:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

NOT NEWS[edit]

I do not think this event fits our inclusion criteria for notable events. The primary news coverage this is getting is from BBC, The Guardian, and The Sydney Morning Herald. The two minor news stations (The New Daily and NSW Police Media) are both local. Per WP:PERSISTENCE "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable." Even WP:INDEPTH says "The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing." Is there an "analysis that puts events into context", or is this just routine reporting about what occurred during the event? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

As this is a current event analysis is on going. Simmo86 (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

As this is a current event analysis is on going. Simmo86 (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

It's been one of the main stories on NZ 6pm news for two nights straight.  Nixinova T  C  06:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
It has received a lot of coverage in Australia. I think it is more than a burst of news reports. Murders are not common in Australia.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, getting a lot of coverage in the UK. They stopped the news when it happened to have a breaking announcement, and it dominated the evening news, too. Kingsif (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I think you guys are missing he point though, events that unfold after an attack are routine in terms of reporting. You know there are going to be condolences, you know they are going to try to get into on the attack. These things are not unique to this one attack event, does for example the attack have an impact? Are there any laws proposed to counter this act of terrorism? Where does this attack fall compared to others of a similar nature, and are they being compared in the news? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
The media coverage of this is well beyond that of most violent crimes, and includes coverage in several mainstream media sources in both Australia & the UK, as well as coverage in some other countries. Jim Michael (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I think if you also consider that attacks with guns are uncommon outside of the US it puts it more in a correct perspective. On a US scale this is nothing. But a global scale it is big. Kingsif (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
It was a knife, not a gun.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
That was my point, but now I see how only reading the first sentence could make it unclear. Dude, seriously, you didn't understand from the second sentence? Let me rephrase: in a country that doesn't have the US's gun problems, a stabbing with even one death is a sufficient attack threshold to be notable. If you think this isn't notable, you've probably got too many US shootings that naturally have big death rates bouncing around your mind. Kingsif (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I misunderstood your comment. According to this, Australia has about 100-200 homicide incidents a year. The majority involve a knife or another sharp incident. Such an incident is clearly not uncommon in Australia. I think the media interest in this was because of the unconfirmed suggestion it was terrorism. I am neutral on the question of whether it is notable enough.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
What makes this notable is not that someone was killed, it's the suspected killer's actions in the streets of the city centre of Australia's largest city soon afterwards, and his unusual & high-profile citizen's arrest before the police arrived. It's Australia's most reported crime story of the year. Jim Michael (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Stabbings are common, and Sydney's CBD is a high crime area.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Describing something as a "high crime area" is usually in the context of pickpockets and drunk and disorderly. Not a guy covered in blood with a knife running down the streets screaming. Kingsif (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Similar incidents are not unknown in Sydney.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Most places have some attacks at some point, especially the biggest city of a country. Doesn't mean they're not remarkeable when they happen. Kingsif (talk) 09:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

RFC Sex worker vs Prostitute[edit]

Instead of constantly swapping the terms out, let's discuss. Shall we describe the deceased woman as a sex worker or a prostitute. WP:BLP applies. Kingsif (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinging the last few, though there's a trend, sorry guys: @, WWGB, and Slazenger: and @2605:8D80:421:A4B2:CD8:7B7D:2C1B:CB2A:. Kingsif (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources refer to her as a sex worker. We follow them. WWGB (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Was just doing anti-vandalism passes; wasn't vandalism and I believe was in good faith, however sex worker is the appropriate term for encyclopedic value - it leads to the profession. Using the term prostitute leads to the article for prostitution, the act - not the profession. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 22:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Sex work is a much broader term - why be vague if we know that she was a prostitute rather than working in one of the other fields of the sex industry? We wouldn't describe someone as a catering worker if we knew his/her specific occupation, nor describe someone as a scientist if we knew which field of science (s)he is in. Likewise if a stripper or camgirl were murdered, it's unlikely that she'd be described with the broad term sex worker - we, as well as the media - would specify. Jim Michael (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The vast majority of the media DOES describe her as a sex worker and therefore so should we. WWGB (talk) 02:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)