Talk:Timeline of major crimes in Australia

Untitled

i am the mother of the second person murdered by leonard leabeater, robert steele and raymond basset. i see it has been posted as 30th march 1993. the killing spree started before this date, but the seige took place at that date. there is one mistake with this information you have listed on your site. i was told it was CANGAI not Calgai as you have listed it in your pages. the siege took just over 16 hours, and they also kidnapped 4 children. 2 of the murderers are dead, at their own hand, and the last one is still serving time in jail, in queensland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.212.156.93 (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Azaria Chamberlain

Recently an editor removed the Azaria Chamberlain entry in the list, there was an enormous criminal investigation. I believe it should stay however to avoid getting into an edit war, I think some feedback would be appropriate. On one side there was a conviction and criminal investigation and on the other side there was a subsequent acquittal.The edit in question is 9 January 2010, I look forward to the feedback of other editors. Matt (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why it was removed either, since the article Azaria Chamberlain disappearance is well sourced. I have restored it. Jwoodger (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand why it was removed and the reason I have invited this dialog is I recognised the potential for an edit war which is non productive.Matt (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, upon closer inspection I cannot agree that this listing can be shown on this page as a "crime". If the page was dealing with criminal investigations - then fine. But there was nothing proven categorically that a crime was committed. Jwoodger (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that feedback that was an angle I had not considered, I was looking at it from the conviction acquittal viewpoint from that viewpoint it was once considered a major crime had been committed even though proof may have been missing, and the subsequent acquittal, a crime has no longer been committed. I hope a few more opinions will be heard, so that a clear picture emerges.Matt (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

From a legal point of view what happend was not a crime, as it was proven in 1986 that the child was taken by a dingo. So that was the reason why i removed it from the page but if people what to reverse my edit so be it, i not going to have an edit war over it (Silverhorse (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC))

I am glad to get your feedback, I hope you can see where I am coming from that it could be problematic and by having this dialog it creates some sort of agreement amongst concerned editors which is currently delete and makes future editors job easier because sure as eggs, if deletion is the course taken then someone will come along and put it back, this discussion can then be referred to.Matt (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Further to Silverhorse's comments, from 1980 until 1986 it was a major crime, then from 1986 onwards it stopped being a major crime, and I am inclined to think that it could be included in a timeline. The third coroners inquest found the cause of death unknown I am not sure in legal terms where this leaves things, someone else may know that.Matt (talk) 04:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Based purely on the title of the article I am inclined to argue that anything not absolutely specified as a crime should remain off the list. This also means current entries, that are later found to not be a crime (an accident or other tragedy, etc), should be removed. By including anything that was only considered a crime at a point in time could open the flood-gates for many more entries to be listed, and cause confusion and possible BLP issues. Jwoodger (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Another one

Ok, here's another one:

• 7 December 2003 - Daniel Morcombe disappears, believed abducted, while waiting for a bus on the Sunshine Coast, Queensland.

Should this one stay, given that there is no definate proof a crime has been commited? There is an investigation, suspects, theories, etc - but no definate outcome. Thoughts? Jwoodger (talk) 12:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I was bold and removed it anyway - he disappeared; that's all that is known. Jwoodger (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone will probably put it back, I like your boldness, you are perhaps a tad impatient, by leaving this article in place for a few days, it gives other editors a chance to make a decision and provide feedback here after reviewing the said section/entry. That said keep up the good work, this article is in need of cleanup.Matt (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fair enough - Yes, I know I can be a little impatient at times. Will do in the future :) Jwoodger (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

To other editors of this list

While I believe that what is a "major crime" is subjective, would it be possible for us to work out a proper definition with regards to *this* list. Should it be limited to Australian crimes that were newsworthy enough to be reported nationally and to have their own Wikipedia entries (or have the potential to do so). I fear this list could become unmanageable if we attempt to document every violent crime that makes the papers. Thoughts? BrianFG (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree: I am inclined to argue that entries should only be present if it links to another existing Wikipedia article that is well sourced. If not, then I can't really consider them major notable crimes - e.g. "15 March 2004 - David Lionel John Coulter smothered and strangled his 11-year-old second cousin Hannah Richter at her home in Sydney"; sure it was a crime, but it doesn't merit as a "Major" crime in the same way as the Port Arthur massacre was. Jwoodger (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There is possibly a couple of exceptions to this, like the Cangai siege, about which there is no linked article but which was a major crime of its day featuring live TV coverage. But overall, my belief is that this list should only link to crimes covered elsewhere on Wikipedia and not every shocking crime on the news.BrianFG (talk) 04:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess certain situations like that might warrant it's only article perhaps, especially if it earnt a nickname. I guess it would be good to go through some of the entries that don't link to a person or event detail page and perhaps remove them - there are plenty of examples that were entered because of recentism, but are mostly minor news events now (such as the example I cited above). Could the Darwin shopping mall bombing be an example of this? Would we expect to see this as a 'Major' crime in several weeks or months? Jwoodger (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think anything involving a bomb in this country is pretty major; plus there was more than a dozen people injured and I would say it will remain a major part of Darwin's history and folklore for a long time. I'm more inclined to remove some of the murder cases listed (including a couple I added myself). In encyclopedic terms, many of them aren't particularly important.

I understand it's tough to trim stuff you have added previously; but I guess it may be the best policy. As for the Darwin bombing, I guess it was a unique enough event for it to be mentioned - time will tell on that one :) Jwoodger (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

As per the above; I propose that only the following is included in this list:

1. . Any crime that is stated as 'major' in at least one source (preferably 2), OR
2. . Any crime that has earnt a nickname (e.g. Port Arthur Massacre - preferably with a blue-link), OR
3. . Any crime that is referenced in any source published at least a year after it occured (to indicate it was memorable and hence notable), OR
4. . Any crime that is referenced in relation to another crime (for example, news articles may report catch phrases such as <insert current crime> brings back haunting memories of <insert old crime>, etc)

Any thoughts? Cheers Jwoodger (talk) 07:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds solid to me BrianFG (talk) 07:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable Matt (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

@Jwoodger: 6. . Any crime that has an existing, correctly sourced Wikipedia page. (possibly this is obvious but...) - 220 of ^Borg 03:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Recently I added an item which was sourced as a "Major crime" (hence satisfying point 1 above), but it was removed by an IP editor. The article is Timeline of Major crimes, and a source said it was a major crime. Perhaps that is not enough? What should be a further threshold? Or should I put back in the entry? (here)? Jwoodger (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

And here is another "major crime" as mentioned by the source, should it get put in too (http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/adelaide-disappearance-a-major-crime/story-e6frfku0-1225943418447)? Jwoodger (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

New Crime Articles

Recently the Herman Rockefellow page was deleted per wp guidelines, although I made a keep recommendation it was poorly argued per various wp notability guidelines. I believe this case will go on to be one of strong public and media interest and ultimately notability. It is the sort of case about which a book or video documentary will be produced. I have found that there appears to be an aversion by some editors to crime related material, and there is often a deletion tag placed on new articles very quickly. This was my experience with the Betty Shanks Murder, a deletion tag was placed on it very quickly, anyone familiar with Australian crime history knows the significance and notability of this case. I do not believe every criminal, victim or criminal act is worthy of a page however, the way the guidelines are established need to be understood so each case can be argued. I would suggest any crime related afd's that come up in the future, that a link to the discussion be posted here and also for reference as to why articles are deleted, have a look at Herman Rockefeller Deletion discussion the discussion is enlightening.Matt (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect details

I've had a look at several news reports on the Lauren Huxley case of 2005 - None of them mention that she was raped. Could we get validation/removal of this detail please. Edit: It doesn't appear that she was set alight either - The house was set on fire and she was doused with petrol but not set on fire. Validation please. G2sean (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Cook and the "first crime"

I've reverted the anon edit recently added that stated "Captain Cook lands in Sydney Cove and illegally claims the land as British territory under the terra nullius provision, a claim that was later disproven with the 1992 Mabo ruling. The ownership of the land is still in dispute today." The claim it was a "major crime" needs verifiable supporting evidence, like much else on this page. I also think this statement hardly does justice to the complexity of the issue raised by the Mabo ruling. Anyway, it would good if the anon user could expand on why its relevant here on the talk page.Nickm57 (talk) 06:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Homestead Murders

Someone please add Milosevic Murders [1][2] & Homestead Murders [3][4]..@Photnart. (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC).

Deaths of Karlie Pearce-Stevenson and Khandalyce Pearce

I'd argue that the recent linking of the Deaths of Karlie Pearce-Stevenson and Khandalyce Pearce - and the fact that the killer used identity fraud to take out money from the dead mother's accounts warrants inclusion as a "major" crime.

Not sure if anyone has explained what constitutes "major"? -- Callinus (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Timeline of major crimes in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://bigpondnews.com/articles/National-Regional/2012/02/29/Double_murderer_may_die_in_jail_723921.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Timeline of major crimes in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090915193110/http://www.police.qld.gov.au/News+and+Alerts/rewards/s/shanks.htm to http://www.police.qld.gov.au/News+and+Alerts/rewards/s/shanks.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Possible better look for this article

There are some suggestions to make this article look better. 1. Currently its divided into 2 parts (when looking in the simplest sense): The crimes followed by something else (see also, citations, references). The crimes section has 3 sections, one for each century this article covers (19th through 21st). Out of these 3, they have sub sections (1 for each decade in that century when there was a major crime in Australia and is listed here). I think it's confusing if there are no sub sub sections for the individual years (should be included). 2. A table or tables may further help clear up any confusion. Thanks!211.27.126.189 (talk) 12:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

I have removed a number of items on the timeline in the 21st century as it has appeared to become a repository for news items as they happen. While every murder is tragic, unfortunately they do not all meet the kind of criteria that has been proposed previously for this list of 'major crimes', particularly those that are unsourced and have no links to other articles. Are there other editors interested in re-visiting the question of establishing some criteria for this list? Melcous (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I was just thinking that, as I was adding a source to the loop latest addition just because I was notified of a change, and wondered if it really belongs in this list at all. As per the discussion above ("To other editors of this list"), I suspect that there are a few more which don't fit those criteria. It's a fool's errand to attempt to list every crime referred to as a major crime by police which happens to be cited somewhere. I'll look more closely when I find time to focus on it. Feel free to cut, or if in doubt post here and we (and hopefully others) can discuss. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Without inclusion criteria such as those these types of lists become clothes hangers. Meters (talk) 02:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I recently trimmed List of Australian criminals to cut it down to only blue-linked articles. Maybe a bit more than we need here.... Meters (talk) 02:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC).

Agreed, Meters. I've just revisited this article and, as per discussions above, think that it warrants a severe slash and burn. There's a lot of dross in it still. What may be technically a "major crime" in policing and may momentarily hit the local headlines is really not justification for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. I'm all for removing (at the least) everything that is unsourced, unless blue-linked. (May as well @Melcous: too.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

contested edit re Old Parliament building in Canberra

This [5] edit has been undone four times now. It no longer contains the WP:POV description of the protestors as "savages", but it still does not appear to be a major crime. A door was "briefly set alight" at the Old Parliament House. No-one was injured. Meters (talk) 08:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)