Talk:Lindt Cafe siege/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Speculative tagging

As yet there are a number of speculative assertions being added I have removed them, those relating to hate crimes, terrorism and Islam please dont restore without something substantive to verify these claims beyond media filling the void of nothing Gnangarra 01:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Timeline

Recommend the creation of a Timeline section to relate sourced information as obtained in the order it is obtained, and with specific times reported; this approach is generally very helpful, especially as early and late information may or may appear to conflict until more is known. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Timelines are generally frowned-upon in comparison to paragraph form text. Given the item is up for WP:ITN nomination, adding deprecated format is not recommended. μηδείς (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you point me to that guidance? I would be interested to read it, as that seems highly counterintuitive in the case of a rapidly-developing and poorly-understood situation like this. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I've seen timelines used in articles being written in the midst of breaking events - and to good effect. Indeed, the media has commented on the fact that Wikipedia is a good place to go for information during a breaking event because we have so many editors monitoring many different news sources. Once the event has "settled down" (i.e. has ended) then editors get to work turning the timeline into paragraphs. I suggest this approach. Rklawton (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Concur. I wasn't suggesting that the article remain indefinitely in timeline format; only that it makes sense in a situation like this one. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Policy concerns

There are a number of people doing original research, and synthesizing within article and talk page about what is currently occurring. Please be mindful that we have policies against such actions along with policies about being neutral and verifying all content. Please ensure that all claims are back by sources not just personal interpretations. Gnangarra 04:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Support - numerous other sources exist for speculation. Wikipedia has a reputation for relying on reputable sources, and we should maintain that standard here. Rklawton (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, being unsure of policy, I do not think the picture of the hostages holding the flag would be appropriate either. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hostages escape

9News.com.au just reporting on-air that two hostages have escaped through the front door, and one from the back doorfire escape door. One of the escaped hostages was wearing a Lindt apron; all appeared to be male. Not yet reflected in Web-based reporting, so posting here rather than in the article. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

link-- http://www.9news.com.au/National/2014/12/15/10/00/Major-police-operation-in-Sydneys-Martin-Place Victor Grigas (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Two more hostage escapes, two females, oneboth appearing to be in a Lindt apron, per 9news live broadcast. Dwpaul ^Talk 05:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Confirm that! 'Eyeballed' all 5 escapes, especially last 2 on multiple TV channels. Looks like the @#%^* hasn't even locked the front door. (or is there more than one door?) --220 of ^Borg 06:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC) - "door" added. 220 of ^Borg

No confirmation on number of hostage-takers, though only one has been described (and some video images shown on media). Dwpaul ^Talk 06:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be the most incompetent hostage taker ever; or maybe he can't lock the door or the snipers will shoot through the door? Emigdioofmiami (talk) 06:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

220 - if one interprets the rather loose term eyeballed - where are the photos for the article? satusuro 06:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

There are some stills at the 9news link above, but I interpreted 220's comment to mean they watched live video. Dwpaul ^Talk 06:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@SatuSuro: 'Video eyeballed' perhaps? Yes, just on "on multiple TV channels" (as I said!). Need a pretty good tablet to zoom in like Channel 9 is doing. 220 of ^Borg

@Dwpaul: By "... more than one? ..." I meant door/s! Not the 'perp/s'. Self note: Must learn to write more clearly ...220 of ^Borg 07:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It (the article) is being continually corrupted from an encyclopedia article into some sort of social media event, so little is known, the level of assumptions made by most people currently editing this article are of people who do not understand WP:ABOUT, and not enough admins here to clean up/mop up on a constant basis. To talk about eyeball, one assumes located on site, watching tv or online reports is not eyeball. The article edit history is one vast rubbish dump of assumptions that do not match the reality, one only hopes it all finished soon, the edit history of rubbish is not what WP is about. satusuro 07:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Gunman's demands

It's worth noting that the NSW Police have asked media outlets to not report the gunman's demands, and those which have done so have retracted them http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/police-clear-martin-place-after-gunman-holds-hostages-at-lindt-chocolat-cafe-20141215-127824.html I'd suggest that we also not publish this information in line with this request, and in accordance with WP:V given that there will be no reliable sources on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Publication of demands

@Nick-D:, you removed the information on demands citing police requests for nonpublication and WP:V. Is wikipedia really in the habit of bowing to state demands for nonpublication? I'm not being rhetorical, I'm an infrequent editor and I'm not up on the politics, so I'm legitimately asking. Personally I feel it's worth finding verifiable sources and retaining the information. Jhugh95 (talk) 07:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Everything at Wikipedia must be verifiable. If all reliable sources retract or withhold this information (as they should if they comply with police requests), we do not have verifiability, hence the information should be removed from WIkipedia. Dwpaul ^Talk 08:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Aside from WP:V and WP:RS no longer being met concerning this material, I'd contend that we also have a moral imperative to comply with these kind of requests made by the police forces of democratic states during crisis situations. Wikipedia is also part of the mass media. Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll be on the lookout to see if any reputable sources retain the information, though I have a hunch they won't, and there really will be no way to establish verifiability.

As for moral imperatives, I completely disagree (especially since it's truly dubious that withholding the information would affect safety whatsoever), but that seems to be neither here nor there since there aren't any reliable sources, and it isn't worth arguing about. Apologies for the duplicate topic/redundant ping. Jhugh95 (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Support Nick D, Dwpaul - on this issue. This article has been dumped upon by eds who have no idea of WP:MOS, WP:ABOUT, there is a real need to pull in on conjecture and outright fantasies. The article needs to be pruned of anything that is not verifiable, and I would strongly suggest a limit on editing of this article now. satusuro 08:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

While I generally agree that Wikipedia shouldn't censor information, aside from verifiability issues, I think the moral dimension means we shouldn't publish anyway. There's no need for us to publish here—we may be able to publish the demands when it's over, but there's no rush for us to do so now, and we're not competing with news outlets to break the story—and we don't want to potentially disrupt the police operations. —sroc 💬 08:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Apparently CNN is ignoring the news embargo on the information concerning the hostage taker's demands. Dwpaul ^Talk 08:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

CNN is reporting a 3rd party news outlet is saying, but that party isnt reporting such information as such CNN claims are unverifiable. SMH article doesnt say anything Gnangarra 08:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"this sums the current event up really well [1] people should take a moment to read it. Gnangarra 08:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Demand

Various news agencies have reported that the armed subject has demanded the ISIL flag. I believe it's appropriate to put this into the introduction, to ensure the reader is aware that the most likely (unfolding) event is that the armed offender is an ISIL supporter. Therefore, this is being treated as a terrorist event, and not something else, like a robbery gone bad.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/15/world/asia/australia-sydney-hostage-situation/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

The fact is, we do know the motive... JT2958 (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

read WP:OR Gnangarra 08:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, tomorrow the ISIL motive will be all over the page :P JT2958 (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Your assumption of knowledge from shifting sources clearly fails to understand what WP:ABOUT - WP is not a blog or news service, [2] - you do not have a crystal ball as to what happens tommorow, and may I suggest that any editor might not have any idea of subsequent events or follow through issues as such on an article like this. satusuro 08:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I recommend Satusuro reads WP:ETIQUETTE, thanks. JT2958 (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Identified?

7.30 on the ABC (Australia) just reported that perpetrator has been identified, and is "known to police". Look out for reliable sources for this. --220 of ^Borg 08:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

7.30 is a reliable source. Expect a transcript on the ABC website soon. —sroc 💬 08:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

In the meantime, this tweet from 7.30 producer published on ABC News. —sroc 💬 08:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, hope media holds off until police have completed their work. We will have to have rock solid sources before naming 'him'. He has been described as "middle aged" which seems a bit unusual. Reminds self, wp:NOTFORUM --220 of ^Borg 09:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Be mindful of WP:BLP as well Gnangarra 09:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed! I wont be adding any names, too 'busy' here for me anyway. 220 of ^Borg 09:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

here's a reliable source stating that the offender is known to police. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 09:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Flags in response section

Can we get consensus whether or not to use the {{flag|country}} template in the international section.

Is it an unneeded clutter or an aid to help navigate the response section? I for one vote for. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

No. The other nations have basically nothing to do with the incident. If the information is pertinent, it should be in prose, without flags. —sroc 💬 09:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

No and arguement could be made in the current list state of that section but given that wont last much beyond the event where it'll be incorporated into actual prose its just unnecessary decoration as per WP:ICONDECORATION Gnangarra 09:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it's complete clutter Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate references

Several of the references are duplicated under multiple names. They should be unified by giving the name source a unique name= parameter, but every time I try, there's an edit conflict. Is there a quick way to do this (e.g., a bot)? —sroc 💬 09:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

let it go until after the event when editting settles down as some sources may get improved or altered as information changes. Gnangarra 09:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done. WWGB (talk) 09:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Massive thanks, WWGB! —sroc 💬 11:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Negotiation

Please add the following to the article. "Police have been in direct contact with the gunman and are negotiating with him.[3]" to the Event section. Please note that this is from the ABC News, which is a reputable source. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done —sroc 💬 12:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Timeline per SMH

The SMH published this timeline, which it may be useful to work into the narrative and/or to correct existing information. Dwpaul ^Talk 13:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is a timeline of events from earlier in the day.

• 9.44am: Man seen entering Lindt Cafe, carrying blue sports bag with gun inside.
• 9.45am: Police called to scene.
• 9:50am: Police clear area and cordon off Martin Place.
• 10am: Cafe staff and customers pressed against windows with hands raised.
• 10:02am: Hostages forced to hold up flag with Islamic script.
• 10:45am: Sydney Opera House evacuated.
• 11:20am: Prime Minister Tony Abbott announces national security committee of cabinet convened for briefings.
• About 1pm: Talkback host Ray Hadley claims to have spoken to a hostage who spoke under instruction of a gunman.
• 1:53pm: Premier Mike Baird says "we are being tested in Sydney today".
• 1:58pm: NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione says "at least one" armed offender is holding an undisclosed number of hostages.
• 3:35pm: Three people – one staff member and two others – seen running from cafe.
• 4:04pm: NSW Deputy Commissioner Catherine Burn says the number of hostages is fewer than 30
• 4:59pm: Two female employees of Lindt run from cafe.
• 8:20pm: Premier Baird and Police Commissioner Scipione foreshadow extension of hostage crisis into Tuesday. Scipione says the Lindt Cafe is the only building in the city police are now interested in.

Background

I suggest that the entire Background section is speculation and should be removed. There's no documented connection between the events of that section and the current situation. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Dwpaul ^Talk 13:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It should not be included unless and until reliable sources confirm that any of that is background to this situation. Melcous (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Dwpaul ^Talk 13:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Remaining hostages

Not sure how there are 10 left. Can't find it in source provided. Plus, 2GB has recently announced it as 25-29 after the 5 escaped. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 10:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

There are a range of figures being bandied around, with the NSW Police not releasing their figure. 25-29 is higher than anything I've seen suggested recently, and the ABC and news.com.au both say that the number of hostages is "unknown" [4] [5]. I have amended the article accordingly. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

On 7 news the police were quoted as saying there were less than 30 people so I'm guessing that people 25-29 from that. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"The Brother"

A few sources as well as the hostage videos available on liveleak have the perpetrator calling himself "The Brother" can this be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.157.207 (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

more details as to what sources are saying this. Gnangarra 13:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Nine News have just identified the gunman as Man Monis. They are showing a report on him now. —sroc 💬 13:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed by The Australian (apparently, but requires a subscription) and ABC News. —sroc 💬 13:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The Australian is behind a paywall please avoid this source and provide verifiable sources Gnangarra 14:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Reactions

I've removed the predictable reactions from the article. They're not just commonplace (if well-meant, etc) but they also fail to add anything of encyclopedic value. Since none of these countries appear to be involved one way or another (and even having a citizen there doesn't mean involvement at any meaningful level) we might as well add the reaction of every country, NGO, and other organization in the world. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the reaction of other countries in the world is noteable and should be included. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I accept that perhaps they're "predictable", however it is notable that this has received such international attention - an immediate comparison would be with the Canadian shootings earlier this year, which also received significant media coverage. Comics (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Well, then say that "the event received international attention" and be done with it. No, reactions themselves are not notable, unless they're special, one way or another, which none of these were. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The "international reactions" sections that appear in these breaking news articles are almost always a source of pointless contention and have little or nothing to do with the subject. If the reactions don't provoke an argument about where to draw the line, the inclusion or exclusion of the little flag decorations does. It would be a positive trend if they could be discouraged in the same manner as the trivia sections that used to be a plague before they were generally removed, and the "in popular culture" sections that are slowly being removed. Significant reactions that are integral to the event can be incorporated into the article body: otherwise, they're just padding. Acroterion (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The word "siege"

Use the word "siege" correctly. Some of the news media seem to think the hostage-taker is laying siege to something. In fact, the police are laying siege to the cafe and the hostage-taker within. The hostage-taking started first. The siege didn't start until the police arrived. Nurg (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. I suggest that the each paragraph in the article discussing a siege be edited to insert something like "Police arrived (perhaps at [time])." Terry Thorgaard (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Deaths

Not sure where CNN is getting its source from Australia's ABC for 2 dead and 3 injured. I've been watching ABC's 24 hr network for the past hour, and all they've said is that paramedics were giving CPR to some of the hostages. And "we have yet to confirm exact numbers" - exact quote they just said. 120.146.191.63 (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Update: they just said they have heard reports that 1, maybe 2 people have been shot, and reiterated that they're very careful only to publish what they're sure of. 120.146.191.63 (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noted this, too. Seven was also reporting two deaths, but not sure this was confirmed. Better wait for a better source. —sroc 💬 16:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I added the CNN ref, unaware that it was not consistent. Thanks - A Canadian Toker (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Two deaths are confirmed. One is monis.(mobile.news.com.au/national/martin-place-cafe-siege-police-storm-cafe-and-kill-gunman-sheik-man-haron-monis-report/story-fncynjr2-1227156241649). I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

NO! That's a report of a report of unconfirmed reports. News.com.au saying Sky News heard unconfirmed reports. WAIT FOR CONFIRMED REPORTS before adding any deaths. We are not in a rush to report this. —sroc 💬 16:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

SMH is now reporting: "Fairfax Media has been told that two people are dead, one of whom is the gunman, Man Haron Monis.". Nine News and Seven News are also reporting this live on air. —sroc 💬 16:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yahoo!7 report: "At least two people were killed and three others gravely injured as police stormed a Sydney café last night to end the terrorist siege. ... Seven Network reporter Chris Reason, who was watching from the Seven newsroom after being allowed back in as night fell, watched from less than 50 metres away as police stormed the café. Reason said the two dead are the gunman and a hostage. The hostage was killed by the gunman.". —sroc 💬 16:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

While it does seem quite likely that the reports on deaths are correct, probably also the reports that the storming happened after the hostage taker start shooting which possibly lead to the other death (which tallies with a possible intentional show down or fear of loss of control, perhaps at last in part precipiated by what we know for certain namely that several move hostages left not long before the show down), personally I would prefer to wait. It's clear that a number of sources likewise feel the information is still to uncertain report as definite.. Still I can't be bothered discussing it further and get the feeling whatever happens here there's going to be a large number of people who've never seen this discussion adding it to the article. So I'm also fine with just letting it be since it will be cleared up in the next few hours whatever the case. Nil Einne (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Sroc, please re-add the deaths, even as unconfirmed, as it's being widely reported. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

SMH reporting the deaths. m.smh.com.au/nsw/martin-place-siege-what-we-know-and-dont-know-about-lindt-cafe-hostage-crisis-20141215-127thz.html I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It may be best to let the dust settle, as AussieLegend says there are conflicting reports, but here are references for there being two deaths, including quotes of the pertinent details:

<ref name=7-tragedy>{{cite news|title=Sydney siege ends in tragedy|url=https://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/25772503/siege-situation-in-martin-place/|work=Yahoo!7 News|quote=Seven Network reporter Chris Reason.... said the two dead are the gunman and a hostage. The hostage was killed by the gunman.}}</ref><ref name=smh-blog>{{cite news|last1=Fallon|first1=Daniel|last2=Saulwick|first2=Jacob|title=Lindt Cafe hostage drama in Martin Place, Sydney: day two|url=http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/lindt-cafe-hostage-drama-in-martin-place-sydney-day-two-20141215-127suz.html|accessdate=15 December 2014|work=Sydney Morning Herald|date=16 December 2014|quote=Fairfax Media has been told that two people are dead, one of whom is the gunman, Man Haron Monis.}}</ref>

Remember, you need to include references, especially for critical details such as this. —sroc 💬 17:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been watching all news networks on free to air and Foxtel and it's amazing how contradictory the reports are. Some stations are confirming two deaths, while others, including Sky News, talk about "basically confirmed", which tells me there is still uncertainty. Channel 7 is reporting that there has been a third death. That said, I watched as two women wearing Lindt aprons ran out of the cafe while the Ch7 reporter said "they look like customers". Later a 7 newsreader actually said "the cafe is now bathed in darkness". This is typical of 7's reporting since this began so I'm hesitant to accept the third death. apparently there is going to be a press conference in 12 minutes at 5AM, so we should wait to see what happens at that. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Just watching the lead-up to the press conference. The media release issued prior to the conference reports the 50 year old perp, a 34 y.o. man and a 38 y.o. woman have been killed. Three people have been taken to hospital - a police office has a gunshot graze to the face, a 40 y.o. woman has a gsw to the leg and another woman has severe back pain. Another report says a woman has a gsw to the shoulder. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Police statement says "A critical incident investigation has been launched after three people died and four others were injured during a police operation in Sydney’s CBD this morning." 120.150.238.225 (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Details on hostages - BLP policy applies

We should be prepared now that the siege has ended for much more detail on the hostages to emerge. We will need to keep in mind that they are still protected by policy at WP:BLP (even any who may be deceased) even though this is not a biography, and that not all information released will be relevant to include here. Also that they are still entitled to privacy consideration as low-profile individuals. Dwpaul ^Talk 16:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

If they are just random victims, and that seems to be the case, then their identities are probably not germane to the article. Chillum 18:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Police-speak

The article needs a good-edit to eliminate police-speak, as highlighted by a recent skit on The Chaser's Media Circus where contestants had to describe an everyday situation with as many uses of phrases such as "decamped from the scene", "a person of interest of male genderage" etc. While not as good as even the losing entry on TV, it's getting close in parts. :-) Words like "perpetuator" are a prime example, gunman or even maybe hostage-taker are a lot better. We don't want to end up writing like police in the same way some television reporters were disparagingly highlighted by Stuart Littlemore in Media Watch as dressing like police some time ago.Alex Sims (talk)

I think the word you are taking exception to is actually perpetrator, a commonly understood word and appropriate when the subject is known to have committed multiple crimes (but has not yet been convicted of having done so). There is some merit to our using the same terms police (and the law) use here. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Why were international reactions deleted?

I don't see why the editor couldn't wait for consensus. Please undo the deletion. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems some one is completing trying to OWN this article. Would suggest them to take a step back  A m i t  웃   17:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Eh, look up on this page. We go through this with every single international incident; it's the same every time. Amit, perhaps a reading of WP:AGF will do you good. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
• It should not be deleted. I agree with Amit. Keiiri (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"International reaction" sections are a waste of space. A year from now readers will be interested only in what happened, not whether president X or prime minister Y expressed condolences. Wikipedia is not a news source. Akld guy (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Protection

This article should not have been semi-protected by over zealous administrators like AussieLegend. Just saying....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.213.191 (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You were obviously not here when an IP-hopping vandal made it impossible for any editor to constructively edit the article without semi-protection. Unconfirmed users can request changes here. Dwpaul ^Talk 18:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Normal procedure for sensitive news events that are still unfolding, particularly when new users who do not understand the project show up. Chillum 18:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That's sad - I added a lot of good info, with sources, before the page was locked down. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Do we need a section for the conspiracy aspect, the likelyhood of this happening the exact day budget update is due...? Thelen Shar (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Not unless it is discussed by some reliable source, and maybe not even then. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

What about the edit to Man's wiki page ~4hrs before the police stormed? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Man_Haron_Monis&oldid=638196522 Thelen Shar (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Wikipedia editors are somehow part of a conspiracy? In any case, the answer is the same. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

No, just find it odd that the edit removes some apparently innocuous information and a link to another muslim ? Anyway, we'll see how things go, might play in at a later date once people get over the shock. Thelen Shar (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracies? I think you guys are taking this too seriously. Keiiri (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Until and unless a reliable source can confirm this let us NOT add anything about conspiracies now. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Forget about the budget, this bizarre siege has taken all the media attention away from the release of the Senate's torture report.[6] Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

NSW Police YouTube videos

The videos titled "Deputy Commissioner Burn 4pm Martin Place briefing" and "Deputy Commissioner Burn 6.30pm briefing re: Martin Place incident" might be helpful for the development of the article. They are hosted on the official NSW Police youtube channel. I'm having trouble linking the channel because of a spam filter. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 10:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Another video has been released on the NSW Police Youtube channel, called "Deputy Commissioner Burn 11:00am briefing re: Martin Place operation" - confirms some facts of the operation, road closures, and Operation Hammerhead is in force. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikilink Western Distributor and Sydney Harbour Bridge articles

Please wikilink the Western Distributor and Sydney Harbour Bridge articles in the article's text, where it's talking about the road closures. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done —sroc 💬 03:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Perpetrator section

This section is almost as long as the full article for Man Haron Monis. Can it be trimmed down to the points most relevant to this incident? —sroc 💬 00:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Monis' sex crimes have no direct bearing on this incident and elaboration on those incidents has been removed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Deaths

We need to include if the dead were killed by the perpetrator or by the SWAT team. (When we find out through a reliable source, of course.) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The first death was the manager who attempted to wrest the gun from the gunman's hand. The second was a woman who suffered a heart attack. Sources are 32 and 33, the first is linked here. 71.57.107.254 (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Agreed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexfordummys (talk • contribs) 03:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The part regarding "manager who attempted to wrest the gun from the gunman's hand" hasn't been confirmed by reliable sources, I've only seen 9 News reporting it and other outlets citing 9 News. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarsOz (talk • contribs) 04:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Confirmation it is a ISIL/ISIS Terrorist Attack

Time to update the article with the fact this was an ISIL/ISIS linked terrorist attack by a lone wolf terrorist. This has now been confirmed by the demands Sydney siege over: Lindt cafe gunman forces hostages to appear in videos

" "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. "

ISIL Terrorist Attack Confirmed. 203.206.83.156 (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that this clearly links this to being a lone wolf, but possibly by only a sympathiser. Still, this might be useable as a possible source, especially with a collaborating source. Would you be able to provide a second source? --Super Goku V (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

living in Australia, this fact is not the most pleasant Lor^Chat 23:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That confirms nothing except that the perpetrator wanted the event to be perceived as an attack connected with an radical Islamist group, perhaps (and I speculate) to improve his image in the radical Islamist community (which was reportedly poor, and authorities have thus far denied evidence of any true connection). History is rife with examples of criminals and mentally ill people (arguably, Haron was both) attention-seeking by claiming connection with a larger movement. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"That confirms nothing except that the perpetrator wanted the event to be perceived as an attack connected with an radical Islamist group" And that DIFFERS from other ISIS/ISIL Terrorist Attacks, How? Unlike organisations like Al Qaeda and others which are well organised in planning attacks, ISIS/ISIL is an organisation that encourages LONE WOLF attacks by INDIVIDUALS. This is their mantra. The Flags and guns he took with him wasn't for a park picnic. 203.206.83.156 (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It is the encouragement part that cannot yet be established. Giving "credit" to the terrorist organization for inspiring the attack is one thing; claiming it to be their handiwork is another. I think the former is obvious, but his motives have not yet been reported by any reliable source. Until they are, we cannot state them here, and cannot implicate organizations as having ordered or assisted in the attack. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, this could still be a sympathiser. In addition, do you have a collaborative source to back up your claims? --Super Goku V (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

According to the Director of the International Global Terrorism Centre at Monash University, Greg Barton, although the authorities don't want to treat this as a terrorist attack, Islamic State is reaching out to these kinds of people, egging them on to show that they are heroes. [7] Would it be appropriate to put that in the article, credited to Barton? --110.20.234.69 (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The man follows the same ideology of ISIL but he has no links to them. The above inclusion request is not necessary. Vietcong nuturlizer (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

What's the difference between being an ISIS Sympathiser and carrying out a terrorist attack and being an ISIS Supporter and carrying out a Terrorist Attack. Also... what "links" are you expecting to ISIS? A membership card? This individual has recently converted to become a Sunni Muslim and has himself declared this to be a ISIS Terrorist Attack. Are you arguing the person who performed the terrorist attack doesn't have weight?203.206.83.156 (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I am arguing that to date, the only connections to the ISIS/ISIL movement are the ones already reported in the article based on reliable sources, and we should not manufacture more or better connections because you think they are self-evident. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia should say that the gunman was linked to ISIS until the police or investigators find a solid link. Also, I admire Wikipedia for being so up to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingeroscar (talk • contribs) 23:29, 15 December 2014‎ (UTC)

Individual Cleric was Shia, why would he want to be part of ISIL? ISIL has sworn death to all Shites — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.226.57 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 16 December 2014‎ (UTC)

all this original research is demonstrating is that had no organisational link as such inconsistancies would have been corrected by those groups as that is an important part of their reasonings/idology Gnangarra 03:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

"Monis is believed to have arrived in Australia as a refugee in 1996 from Iran, which is dominated by Shia Muslims considered apostates in Isil’s Sunni extremist worldview. He later converted to Sunni Islam and became a known opponent of the US-led military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq." He became Sunni.... Like Isis≈ 101.169.85.58 (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Calling it an ISIL terrorist attack implies a degree of orchestration not supported by any available sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm Curious... What level of orchestration do you think is required to be an ISIL Terrorist? Be specific thanks. Then we'll go through the available facts. 203.206.83.156 (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Provide sources, and the merits of the sources can be discussed. Wikipedia is not a forum.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I did, originally. I posted a link to a news story with the terrorist hostages saying quote-unquote: "" "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. ""

Rather than playing guessing games on what more information you want, I thought I would ask directly. I thought a direct declaration from the terrorist himself that he was performing an ISIS Terrorist Attack would suffice to at least get a sentence in this article. 203.206.83.156 (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You have not provided any source indicating that ISIL has claimed responsibility, or that it was involved in co-ordinating the actions of Manos. If I demand a flag of some group or nation, does that automatically mean my actions are those of the group represented by that flag? No, they are not. Find a better source, or stop.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

What if that Nation/Organisation called for followers to perform Lonewolf Terrorist attacks in it's name? Would you hold that organisation/nation responsible then. ISIS is a bottom up organisation, not a top down. Anyways I think you will get what you wish for in the following days as more is revealed regarding the hostage takers online activity lately.203.206.83.156 (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Your belligerent attitude to editing is disappointing. If sources become available, great. And the answer to your question is no. Drawing a conclusion from the separate statements in this manner is synthesis.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

ISIS?

ABC reporting possible ISIS link. NorthernThunder (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

where, ABC is also reporting about arrests being made elsewhere in Sydney not related to this story Gnangarra 02:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

the flag shown on the window is that of the Al-Nusra Front. Emigdioofmiami (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope, it is simply Black Standard. It is used by Al-Nursa, yes, but it is also used by many other Islamic groups, so it does not necessarily mean that the perpetrators are part of Al-Nursa. I would advise editors to make their own research into things, rather than directly thread it from headlines. PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 04:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

^^ Cite for the Al-NUsra link? All coverage I see says at most 'arabic writing' - A Canadian Toker (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

References already cited in the article clearly say it is NOT the Al-Nusra flag. Melcous (talk) 04:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - A Canadian Toker (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Which ABC, Australian ABC has been down playing any link between this man and overseas terrorism Smalltime0 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Clover Moore and Sir Peter Cosgrove

Please add the following to the Government responses to the attack. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The Lord Mayor of Sydney, Clover Moore, on the morning of 16 December, urged Australians to see this as a "one-off event", stating "we're an inclusive multicultural community and we need to deal with this together". Govenor-General of Australia, Sir Peter Cosgrove, released a statement sympathising with the families, commending the work of the police involved, and urging Australians to "unite in our resolve to protect what we value most - our way of life, our care and respect for each other".

References

 Done Lor^Chat 02:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but this seems to have been removed due to a copyedit on another part of the article - can we please try again? --110.20.234.69 (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The edit removing the information for reference. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 04:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done...Again! Lor^Chat 06:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

All injured hostages stable

Please add the following to the hostages section. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

NSW Police released a statement on the condition of the injured victims. All are stable, and one has been discharged from hospital.

References

 Done Lor^Chat 02:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but this seems to have been removed due to a copyedit on another part of the article - can we please try again? --110.20.234.69 (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The edit removing the information for reference. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done again! Lor^Chat 06:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Memorials

Some kind of mention is needed of the memorials being conducted, such as this service at St Mary's Cathedral, (right up the road from the cafe) all Commonwealth buildings having their flags at half-mast, and hundreds of people leaving bouquets and signing condolence books. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 06:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Name should be changed

It's no longer a crisis, the name should be changed to something like: 2014 Lindt, Sydney Terror Attack. Tshuva (talk) 07:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

WW2 is no longer a war but it's still called that. WWGB (talk) 07:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

the name of the article should follow policies like naming conventions the first thing it requires is that we use the name being used in reliable sources. Gnangarra 07:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No-one is calling it anything like "2014 Lindt, Sydney Terror Attack" in the media. The other common name for the event at this time, Sydney Siege, is already pointing here. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 07:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Archiving

Yep..This page is getting big. Can we get a Consensus on starting to archive this talk page? Lor^Chat 06:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Support Retartist (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done. WWGB (talk) 10:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Media response

Please start a "media response" section, similar to the one on the 7 July 2005 London bombings#Media_response page. A reliable source that could be used to start this section is here, from The Conversation. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope. We don't need one here just because there was one somewhere else, not unless there's anything noteworthy to document. —sroc 💬 00:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

There's already some information in the article about how early reports stated that the flag displayed was an Islamic State flag. The article I linked above covers other noteworthy aspects of the media response to the event. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

There were also false reports of the closure of the Sydney Harbour Bridge and of police blocking mobile phone signals. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 02:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hostages were forced to post demands on their facebook pages, and the deputy commissioner noted that police were monitoring social media feeds. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 12:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Transportation

Please add the following to the transportation section. Thank you. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"In the morning of the 16th of December, road diversions remained in place. Martin Place train station remained closed."

References

Not done: I'm pretty sure something along the lines of that has been mentioned already Lor^Chat 22:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it hasn't been. All the sources currently in the article about transportation were added on the 15th of December. There is nothing in the article about the current transport issues in the city.--110.20.234.69 (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Done Lor^Chat 22:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

this edit has wrecked the WP:INTEGRITY of the article, by removing the source used for the road closures on the 15th of December. The source at the end of the transportation paragraph only covers the 16th of December, whereas the sources removed covered the 15th. Please restore the sources that were previously in the article behind the road closure notices. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add "In the evening of 16 December, Elizabeth Street, Macquarie Street and Hunter Street were opened to traffic." after the information about transport difficulties in the morning of the 16th. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

References

The moment when Monis started firing

Not trying to do some WP:OR, but 7 hostages escaped and shots were then fired. This source says that one of the people "attempted to wrestle the sawn-off shotgun from Monis' hands after he began to fall asleep." This should at least be mentioned.

Also, it talks about a human shield being used. But this source says it hasn't been confirmed and could've just been a mannequin. Please add that it may have been the latter. 24.44.176.72 (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

In Hostages: "Johnson died as the result of a gunshot wound while trying to wrestle the gun from Haron." Perhaps the report that Haron was falling asleep could be mentioned, but I'm not sure what it contributes to the understanding of events. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: a mannequin, the reliability of HuffPost is often questioned, and unless a more consistently reliable source states this (and unless it is more than speculation), it does not belong here. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

agree here the Huffpost isnt an ideal source, at least wait until a major Australian based news source reports items. Gnangarra 03:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's another source for the mannequin. 199.249.227.190 (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of sources are reporting this and I have added it. μηδείς (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)  Done

"Johnson has been hailed as a hero on social media after reports emerged that he attempted to snatch the firearm away from the hostage-taker in the final moments before police entered the cafe." [8]

So what happened? If Johnson didn't grab the shotgun until the final moments, but police entered four minutes after a hostage was reported down[9], then where does the "gunman dozing" report come from? This isn't adding up and we should make sure of our facts. --Pete (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Perpetrator section 2

I think the sentence "Following the detention of his wife and children by Iranian authorities, he sought and was granted political asylum in Australia in 1996" maybe changed to "Following the claim of detention of his wife and children by Iranian authorities, he sought and was granted political asylum in Australia in 1996" .This section of article about Haron Monis shows the whole story for asylum seeking may not be true .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Start & end times in infobox

I have reverted unexplained changes to the start and end times in the infobox. (back to 9:44 a.m. – 2:44 from 9:30 a.m. – 2:31 a.m) In the start case the editor re-reverted with an explanatory summary, but was reverted back by another editor. Does anyone see any reason for this happening, is there any debate on this issue? The 'wrong' times aren't mentioned anywhere in the text. --220 of ^Borg 14:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Police response

Please add a police reactions sub-section to the reactions section, to contain the following:

"In response to the crisis, police announced an increased police presence in the CBD in the lead-up to Christmas, including a revival of "Operation Hammerhead".[10][11]"

Please note that the youtube channel is the official NSW Police youtube channel. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done. This is police spin, the siege is over, this is just about getting people back into the city. WWGB (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Even if it is 'police spin', this is a noteworthy reaction, and part of the consequences and aftermath of the event. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Heart attack?

The information that Katrina Dawson died of a heart attack seems refuted by a number of more recent (as in, late Tuesday) articles in, e.g., the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, which state that she was dead at the scene, from gunfire. I'm surprised the article hasn't been updated to reflect this newer information. Am I missing something? Moncrief (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope. As is typical, the wiki is using outdated sources, go ahead and fix it. ansh666 18:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet she wasn't shot. Since the reports say she was shot trying to shield her friend Julie Taylor[12] from bullet fire. However, in this photo[13] you can clearly see Julie Taylor in the final group of hostages to escape just prior to the first shot being taken. And since it's reported that the first shot was that which killed Tori Johnson, the whole 'she died saving her' thing simply cannot be true. - Wattlebird (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This type of speculation isn't helpful, and is definitely not what should be in the article. Really, as I stated above, until the police confirm anything, we should just state that two of the hostages died. ansh666 22:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yikes, Wattlebird. I assume good faith, but we are really not about making our own assumptions here that we're "willing to bet" on. We are only about confirmed facts with good sourcing. You might find Wikipedia:No original research helpful. Moncrief (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course I know it's original research, but it does bring real doubt into the story. What I should have said, and as ansh666 said, is we should remove the cause of death and just simply state that she died until something is officially confirmed. - Wattlebird (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham has condemned hostage taker Man Haron Monis, arguing that his poor mental condition was "obvious". Mrs Afkham said that Iran had repeatedly raised concerns about Monis - an asylum seeker from Iran - to Australian officials over the last two decades. She said that resorting to violence in the name of Islam was not acceptable.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-australia-30475711

Can it be used in the text ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be, as this (or the claim anyway) has real substance versus the usual statements from heads of state, etc. Also relevant at Man Haron Monis. Dwpaul ^Talk 22:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"Resorting to violence in the name of Islam [is] not acceptable," says the spokeswoman of a regime that whips, tortures and hangs people in the name of Islam on a daily basis. How ironic! 78.180.200.224 (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Raid on Droudis home

Please add this to the section on Man Haron Monis. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "After Man Haron Monis' death, police have raided a home linked to Monis, where his girlfriend Amirah Droudis lives.

 Done Different text and alternative The Australian source.

"On 16 December New South Wales and Australian Federal Police went to the Belmore home of Monis’ partner Amirah Droudis and removed property" --220 of ^Borg 22:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Actually I saw a news report that her brother said Haron and she were married. --220 of ^Borg 22:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --110.20.234.69 (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Hostage videos

The article says Two female hostages made contact with media outlets and relayed Monis's demands to them but we know that there's three four women. During the stand-off with police, three videos were released on YouTube, believed to be of three female hostages putting the gunman's demands to police. While being held hostage inside of Sydney’s Lindt Chocolat Café, Marcia Mikhael posted her crazed captor's demands on Facebook and was apparently forced to appear in a short video with three other women. You can see the videos here. And maybe we should include this screengrab or a similar one? (There's also apparently a fourth video but I can't find anything confirming it's legitimacy.)

Also, in this article, a hostage says in a call "...there was a very close and missed call by people escaping and we almost got shot in here however we're still alive and we're all well." I think this should be noted in the section about the five hostages escaping.

Please make these changes. Thank you. 24.44.176.72 (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the first one, I've changed the wording to Several hostages, because of varying sources. I don't think there's a definitive number here across all sources, and IIRC Ray Hadley for example claimed to have spoken with a young man; we don't know who contacted the other media outlets. Regarding the second, there's no need to include everything that everyone said; until a final timeline is put together (and assuming it's significant enough), we shouldn't put in anything that isn't easily verifiable. ansh666 00:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Flag Raising Image

The image of two hostages holding the black flag has been uploaded here: File:Sydney Hostage Crisis flag raising.jpg It is not a free image, it's a screengrab from the media coverage. Does it have a place in the article, and if so, where? --110.20.234.69 (talk) 09:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It has fair use rationale as a historic image being used to illustrate the event. If anything, it should be in the infobox, as it was originally placed. I'm not sure why the infobox image should be a picture of people spectating the event, rather than a picture of the event itself. PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 10:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Please add it back to the infobox. 199.249.227.190 (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}} was added to this section by User:24.44.176.72, not me. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Removed, by me.--220 of ^Borg 00:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Social media used to relay demands

Please add behind this sentence "Several hostages made contact with media outlets and relayed Monis's demands to them, but the New South Wales Police Force initially requested that his demands not be published." the following:

The social media profiles of the hostages were also used to relay demands.[14]

Thank you. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Trim

I believe the section entitled "Evacuations and closures" could use some trimming. Overly detailed. No doubt, precisely which streets were closed, etc., was of interest to local residents during the siege. It seems non-encyclopedic and overly detailed to keep on reflecting it now, however. --Epeefleche (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Skewed sentence in intro

The intro states: "The gunman, who had a long history of sexual and assault charges, and who was to be tried as an accessory in his wife's murder was described as having claimed 'political motivation'." While all the details in this sentence are more or less true, this seems to be connecting the facts in a way not supported by the sources cited. Also, from Haron's biography on Wikipedia, it seems inaccurate to say he had a "long history" of charges. Augurar (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I see someone has fixed this. Thanks Dwpaul! Augurar (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it mixed information about Haron known only much later with information about the (then unknown, at least to the public) gunman that emerged during the hostage event. I removed the information on his past legal issues from the lead, where it didn't belong anyway. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, and I've restored it. It is accurate and appropriate. Tony Abbott himself said this on live TV. Please stop whitewashing the facts. Viriditas (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Talking about fluff in the leading paragraphs... why the hell is "Illridewithyou" Twitter feed in there... I thought this was about a hostage/terrorist attack, not a twitter feed. While it shouldn't be removed completely, it should be put down in the media response section. 203.206.83.156 (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done. It was also copied from the "Community" section below - including the references, which as a result were duplicated. -- Chuq (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I restored a shortened version of the campaign, basically "supportive social campaign" and removed the news.com source while leaving the other two. I feel some balance is needed in the reaction, and it's better to say real people are supportive than to repeat the platitudes of politicians. If this tweeting all goes away tomorrow I don't oppose it being replaced with something better. μηδείς (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is actually about a hostage situation at a Sydney Chocolate Cafe. It's not about whether certain groups feel socially uncomfortable on a train. The comments from the Muslim community condemning the hostage situation belongs in the header. A Twitter campaign to make people feel socially accepted on public transport does not. It's related which is why it is in the response section, but it's got NOTHING to do with the Hostage Situation. You might as well link a twitter feed supporting the victims of this crime as it has more relevence. 203.206.83.156 (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You edit like an established user, but use an IP and don't choose to edit the article under your real name, so I wonder, how much weight should be applied to your political argument? μηδείς (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

IPs are human too! Respect them. —sroc 💬 07:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Returning to the original topic, the sentence is still in the intro and it's still a problem. The sentence structure implies that the gunman's claims of political motivation are false, as evidenced by his criminal history. This is known as improper synthesis. If we want to include this idea in the article, it needs to have attribution, something like "Commentators have dismissed Haron's claims of political motivation, noting X, Y, and Z." I have added a tag for now. Augurar (talk) 08:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Tagging in 'Community response' section

Following the incident, there were concerns[by whom?] over attacks on Muslims.[citation needed]. This is like suggesting that "The sky is blue" needs a reference! I would think the references at the end of this paragraph would suffice? -- Chuq (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, and I've just removed this drive-by tagging. Nick-D (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Categories

Considering that the article doesn't make the claim that this incident was a terrorist incident, rather the article makes clear the gunman had no known links to terrorists organisations, do the two terrorist incident categories belong? - Shiftchange (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• One can engage in lone wolf terrorism. The police, the article indicates, treated it as a terrorist incident. Epeefleche (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure but that doesn't mean a terrorism incident was confirmed just that the police were treating it as a potential terrorist incident. The categories can't stay unless we have cited statements by authorities that it was terrorism. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The police treating it as a terrorist incident seems to be more about the procedures etc they used as it unfolded. Since it ended, law enforcement and most media seem to have gone out of their way to NOT call it terrorism. I think the categories need to be removed unless and until we have RS confirming it as terrorism. Melcous (talk) 09:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. If this was a terrorist incident Monis would be described as a terrorist not a gunman. However this article states that "The police were loath to call Monis a terrorist." - Shiftchange (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Gives it too much 'weight' using terrorist, the guy appears more of a 'nutter'. Maybe the investigation will turn up some sort of manifesto to show what he was thinking, though his website gives clues (OR). The Police likely have to be prepared for a worst case scenario, and I think we'd be horrified to know what they were ready for, but that would be anything. At one time there was an infobox link to CBRN defense preparedness, here. Likely true they were prepared for that, but there was no WP:RS showing that. --220 of ^Borg 14:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's lone wolf terrorism, and then there's the nutter who thinks he's a terrorist (as opposed to thinking he's Napoleon). I'm not at all sure they're distinguishable. Rklawton (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

What Rklawton said. And to reiterate, the fact that he didn't have known links to terrorist organizations is irrelevant (though mentioned in the first post above), as he appears to be a lone wolf. Further, we have numerous RSs referring to the incident (where, of course, he requested the flag of a terrorist organization, etc.) as terrorism, as well as the PM, Tony Abbott "Australians should be reassured by the way our law enforcement and security agencies responded to this brush with terrorism." Epeefleche (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Accessory to violent crime resulting in death

Can we please have more information about the Australian justice system in this article? I am confused as to how someone who was an accessory to the murder of his ex-wife, who was stabbed 18 times and set on fire, could be walking the streets. Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Out of scope for this article. Suggest you take a look at Accessory (legal term) and the references attached to Man Haron Monis. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. How this man could be walking the streets of Sydney with his massive criminal history of violent, murderous crime, is indeed, within the scope of this article, and entirely relevant. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You're free to disagree, but neither the Australian justice system nor Haron's previous legal issues will be discussed (beyond being mentioned, as they already are) in this article, as they clearly have no direct connection to the hostage taking incident or its resolution. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

They clearly have a direct connection to the hostage taking incident, as the perp was released on bail. The circumstances of his release, based on his lengthy criminal record, and the failure of the Austrailian justice system to prevent his continuing crimes, is required in this article based on the most basic background information needed for the reader to understand the crime. The complicity of the authorities who were tasked by the citizenry to protect them is topical and relevant, as the government failed to enforce the law. I should note the failure of Australia's intelligence community is very similar to the failure of the American intelligence community, who had plenty of information on the suspect but failed to act. It is unimaginable to normal people that a man who was connected to the stabbing and burning of his ex-wife should be allowed to walk the streets. Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps another article is needed on the Failure of the Australian justice system to address this criticism, but that is not the subject of this article. I must say that given your editing history I'm surprised that you seem to not understand why this would be out of scope here. Dwpaul ^Talk 22:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Another article is not needed, as the information is topical and relevant here. Tony Abbott just went on television to say that the man was well-known by the intelligence agencies and that he had a long history of violent crime. Naturally, the reader must ask, why was he free to walk the streets? The circumstances involving the Australian justice system, therefore, are entirely relevant and important for the reader to understand. Another article is neither needed nor required. An encyclopedic discussion about who was responsible for releasing a man with a long, violent history of crime is required. Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

If a reader was to ask such a question, the place they should ask it would be Man Haron Monis, not here. Dwpaul ^Talk 22:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The question should be answered here, briefly, in a background section describing how a suspect "well-known to intelligence agencies" was able to walk freely on the streets of Sydney with a long history of violent crime, including the murder of his ex-wife. Viriditas (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Fine. Then I'll revert to the usual advice: If reliable sources (presumably Australian reliable sources) make this observation, it may be appropriate to mention here; otherwise, it will be editorializing by Wikipedia editors, which is WP:OR and is clearly not permitted. Dwpaul ^Talk 22:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Would this count? --110.20.234.69 (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It might, although rambling commentary (and this is rambling) on a morning talk show is not usually the best source for anything, as it can be tough to avoid taking things out of context (and, honestly, he didn't say much here that is quotable). Perhaps if this fellow writes a column he will be a little more eloquent and clear in his criticism, and that would be more useful. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how much there is to discuss about this. He wasn't as of yet convicted of any charges, other than sending some nasty hate mail a few years ago. He wasn't deemed a flight risk and given bail. The fact he was on bail can easily (if it hasn't already been) be slipped in. I don't see any reason this has to turn into a major discussion.Shauntp (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I had the sense the OP was looking for more than a simple statement that he was out on bail. ("The circumstances of his release, based on his lengthy criminal record, and the failure of the Austrailian justice system to prevent his continuing crimes, [are] required in this article ...") Dwpaul ^Talk 23:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I've created a draft article on the relevant bail law, Draft:Bail Act 2013, if anyone would like to help improve it. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The press reported the reasons for his being granted conditional bail. I have added the reference to the article by Louise Hall and Paul Bibby. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Machete

The Info Box indicates the use of a machete. I don't see its mention anywhere in the article. Am I missing it? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

At the cited ref: "Australian broadcaster Network Ten reported that Monis, seen wielding a shotgun and a machete ..." I don't known that it's been reported that he used it (other than for intimidation), only that he was armed with it (the intent of the infobox parameter). Dwpaul ^Talk 18:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I saw that. Shouldn't the machete then at least be mentioned in the article proper? I don't see it anywhere. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I added it. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dwpaul: I would be wary of anything reported by only one news source. I had a Google and couldn't find it mentioned anywhere else that wasn't copying Wikipedia. If you come across any other RS for this please let me know, Regards--220 of ^Borg 02:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)