 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=small} |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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 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)
- 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)
As per the above; I propose that only the following is included in this list:
- . Any crime that is stated as 'major' in at least one source (preferably 2), OR
- . Any crime that has earnt a nickname (e.g. Port Arthur Massacre - preferably with a blue-link), OR
- . 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
- . 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Someone please add Milosevic Murders [1] [2] & Homestead Murders [3] [4]. .@Photnart. ( talk) 04:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC).
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)
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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)
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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)
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)
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)
- @ Laterthanyouthink and @ Meters - I don't agree with the "blue links" argument. A lot of events (i.e. crimes) on Wikipedia don't have main articles written about them, but that doesn't automatically render them not notable. This is a really weak argument, in my opinion. It is actually rather arbitrary. Some of these main articles are not particularly long; they could practically be regarded as stubs. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 01:38, 13 January 2023 (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)
- 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. Without inclusion criteria such as those these types of lists become clothes hangers.
Meters (
talk) 02:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- @ Melcous - These rules are not yours to pick and choose. There is no precedent for removing sourced content from this list article due to there being no main articles for those entries. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 01:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed, if the article becomes too bloated due to an excessive number of (well-sourced) entries, then we can easily just split the list into different time periods, such as 1900s-1950s, 1960s-2000s, etc. We don't have to "trim" the list in order to make it look neater. If information is well-sourced and notable enough, then it belongs on Wikipedia. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 01:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
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)
- Apparently it has happened twice.And I will put the new source.
49.178.82.183 (
talk) 08:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- This is a contested edit, you have been undone four times, by three different editors, and you have been warned for edit warring.. Do not restore it. Discuss why you think this should be included in a list of major crimes, and wait for editors to reach consensus. Meters ( talk) 09:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- I mean the building was attacked twice..
49.178.82.183 (
talk) 09:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- PLease educate yourself as to the protocols of this project. And while annoying, offensive or whatever, these fires are not a major crime.
Nickm57 (
talk) 21:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- @ Nickm57 - As far as I can tell, there actually are no clear protocols for this project aside from the obvious Wiki-wide ones. There isn't a set of criteria at the top of the article. It's a free for all. So, if you wish to educate people, I suggest that you help to create such a set of criteria to make these apparent "protocols" clearer to everyone. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 01:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- PLease educate yourself as to the protocols of this project. And while annoying, offensive or whatever, these fires are not a major crime.
Nickm57 (
talk) 21:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- I mean the building was attacked twice..
49.178.82.183 (
talk) 09:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Although this was a politically sensitive event, I do agree that this case is not major, particularly because -- as you've pointed out -- the fire was put out very quickly, before any major damage could be done. Of course, if the fire had not been put out, then this could have easily developed into a major crime/disaster. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 01:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Father of 2 shot in the head while sleeping in family home 49.195.122.100 ( talk) 16:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I've seen quite a bit of discussion in the sections above about what constitutes a "major crime". In my opinion, many of the arguments are flawed, especially the "blue links" argument that asserts that an entry must have a main article in order to be considered notable. In my opinion, that's not actually how the WP:NOTABILITY rule actually works Wikipedia-wide.
In my opinion, what constitutes a "major crime" is largely arbitrary. But nonetheless, one of the crimes that I believe automatically qualifies as major is murder. It's a bit difficult to fathom that some people above (granted, from ten years ago) are arguing that murder sometimes doesn't qualify as a major crime. Listen, Australia is not the United States. Murder is not an everyday occurrence in this country. Each and every murder case has its own story. If it has been covered to a reasonable extent by the media, then it is notable enough.
Indeed, I personally believe that omitting certain heinous murder cases from this list (which has been the case for some time now, it seems) actually serves a propaganda purpose of giving the impression that Australia possesses less crime than it actually does. I do admit that Australia possesses relatively little crime compared to certain other countries, but there have been certain horrendous crimes committed in Australia that really need to be discussed on Wikipedia; if they don't have main articles, then they can easily be discussed in this list article.
I was actually shocked to see that some of these cases were entirely missing from Wikipedia up until recently. Just yesterday, I added several of these murder cases that I believe should have been included on this list years ago, despite not possessing main articles. Several of these crimes occurred in close succession with one another, and they were often discussed collectively in the media, highlighting a certain "trend" of crimes. This is especially with regards to the increasing rate of murders against women in Melbourne during the 2010s. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 01:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
As someone who has recently arrived at the scene, I am noticing a very concerning pattern of dictatorial behaviour in the edit history of this article that may warrant closer scrutiny. A lot of what some users are doing here is just not right. Gatekeeping "major crimes" for who knows what reason. A lot of this behaviour is reportable. Just saying. Anyway, I would appreciate some input here. Thanks. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 02:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- You want input? Fine. As someone who, in your own words, "has recently arrived at the scene" what gives you the right to arbitrarily overrule 13 years worth of discussion on this topic? Despite your claim that "There is no precedent for removing sourced content from this list article due to there being no main articles for those entries" there is indeed precedent. We even have a canned warning for this situation that reads:
Your recent edit appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline.
It's not written in stone, and individual list articles can develop their own less restrictive inclusion rules, but it's clear that consensus is that this list article should not include every murder case, and there seems to be support for not including crimes without a Wikipedia article showing their notability. - Your comments re "a very concerning pattern of dictatorial behaviour in the edit history of this article that may warrant closer scrutiny" and "what some users are doing here is just not right" and calling it "reportable" behaviour verges on personal attack.
- If we need to discuss inclusion criteria again, then let's do it. Pinging the named editors who have previously commented on the issue of inclusion criteria:
user:Nickm57,
user:Matt,user:Jwoodger, user:Silverhorse, user:BrianFG, User:220 of Borg, user:Callinus. user:Melcous, user:Laterthanyouthink. Meters ( talk) 04:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC) - redoing failed ping for User:Mokgen AKA Matt Meters ( talk) 04:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- If such inclusion criteria exist, then why are they not at the top of the article? After 13 years of discussion, wouldn't they be placed there by now? Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 04:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- The first discussion is from literally ten years ago. I'm not sure that it holds much validity given that it obviously didn't produce a definitive set of criteria. Furthermore, if we are actually going with the "blue links" criteria (not that I agree with it), then there are numerous entries across the article that don't have blue links, several of which have been here for a while but haven't been removed by you guys. Indeed, a lot of these main articles don't have a lot of information in them anyway. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 05:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Starting a discussion by saying that multiple editors' behaviour is "reportable" or "dictatorial", or leaving talk page messages calling this editing "
vandalism", is certainly not the most helpful way to get other editors to engage in a constructive discussion. That aside, I would again agree that having a blue link is the most helpful criteria for inclusion in order for this to be a meaningful article that is not bloated by every crime an individual source or police force calls "major" at the time. What I have previously removed includes additions of crimes that have
recently occurred, with perhaps one source (if any) and no linked article, which does not to me seem to suggest the kind of lasting
notability that we should be looking for. But like
Meters, I agree if we need to discuss the criteria again, let's do it - and do it constructively and civilly.
Melcous (
talk) 06:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- The reason I said that your edit looks like vandalism (well, precisely, "can be interpreted as vandalism") is because it actually looked like vandalism to me when I initially saw it. I've encountered vandalism in my time on Wikipedia before, and it looked somewhat similar, the only difference being that you did provide a reason in your edit summary, albeit a not very detailed reason and one that doesn't seem to be backed up by any sort of "protocol" (as someone has mentioned in a section above). Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 06:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Tbh I have never found these kinds of articles particularly interesting, and I don't know who the readership is. There are so many major crimes committed all the time, and an encyclopaedia cannot be expected to list them all. I think we need to go back to defining what the purpose of the article is before defining inclusion criteria. My view would be to stick to those which have at least one blue link relating to an article which is mostly about the crime - be it the incident, the perpetrator or the victim.
Laterthanyouthink (
talk) 00:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- We need to define what types of crimes are being listed in this article as well, because some of them are obviously quite different from another. Murder is one type of crime, but there are also bank robberies and drug heists listed in this article as well.
Jargo Nautilus (
talk) 04:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the constructive suggestion User:Laterthanyouthink - which might work as a sort of interim solution. However, I don't know how this older article, set up when WP was a much smaller place, can easily be made useful or readable without enormous effort. Nickm57 ( talk) 23:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- We need to define what types of crimes are being listed in this article as well, because some of them are obviously quite different from another. Murder is one type of crime, but there are also bank robberies and drug heists listed in this article as well.
Jargo Nautilus (
talk) 04:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Starting a discussion by saying that multiple editors' behaviour is "reportable" or "dictatorial", or leaving talk page messages calling this editing "
vandalism", is certainly not the most helpful way to get other editors to engage in a constructive discussion. That aside, I would again agree that having a blue link is the most helpful criteria for inclusion in order for this to be a meaningful article that is not bloated by every crime an individual source or police force calls "major" at the time. What I have previously removed includes additions of crimes that have
recently occurred, with perhaps one source (if any) and no linked article, which does not to me seem to suggest the kind of lasting
notability that we should be looking for. But like
Meters, I agree if we need to discuss the criteria again, let's do it - and do it constructively and civilly.
Melcous (
talk) 06:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- List-Class Australia articles
- Mid-importance Australia articles
- List-Class Australian crime articles
- Mid-importance Australian crime articles
- WikiProject Australian crime articles
- List-Class Australian history articles
- Mid-importance Australian history articles
- WikiProject Australian history articles
- WikiProject Australia articles
- List-Class List articles
- Low-importance List articles
- WikiProject Lists articles
- List-Class Crime-related articles
- Low-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- List-Class Years articles
- Low-importance Years articles
- List-Class Years articles of Low-importance
- List-Class history articles
- Low-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles
| This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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 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)
- 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)
As per the above; I propose that only the following is included in this list:
- . Any crime that is stated as 'major' in at least one source (preferably 2), OR
- . Any crime that has earnt a nickname (e.g. Port Arthur Massacre - preferably with a blue-link), OR
- . 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
- . 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Someone please add Milosevic Murders [1] [2] & Homestead Murders [3] [4]. .@Photnart. ( talk) 04:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC).
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)
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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)
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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)
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)
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)
- @ Laterthanyouthink and @ Meters - I don't agree with the "blue links" argument. A lot of events (i.e. crimes) on Wikipedia don't have main articles written about them, but that doesn't automatically render them not notable. This is a really weak argument, in my opinion. It is actually rather arbitrary. Some of these main articles are not particularly long; they could practically be regarded as stubs. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 01:38, 13 January 2023 (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)
- 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. Without inclusion criteria such as those these types of lists become clothes hangers.
Meters (
talk) 02:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- @ Melcous - These rules are not yours to pick and choose. There is no precedent for removing sourced content from this list article due to there being no main articles for those entries. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 01:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed, if the article becomes too bloated due to an excessive number of (well-sourced) entries, then we can easily just split the list into different time periods, such as 1900s-1950s, 1960s-2000s, etc. We don't have to "trim" the list in order to make it look neater. If information is well-sourced and notable enough, then it belongs on Wikipedia. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 01:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
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)
- Apparently it has happened twice.And I will put the new source.
49.178.82.183 (
talk) 08:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- This is a contested edit, you have been undone four times, by three different editors, and you have been warned for edit warring.. Do not restore it. Discuss why you think this should be included in a list of major crimes, and wait for editors to reach consensus. Meters ( talk) 09:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- I mean the building was attacked twice..
49.178.82.183 (
talk) 09:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- PLease educate yourself as to the protocols of this project. And while annoying, offensive or whatever, these fires are not a major crime.
Nickm57 (
talk) 21:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- @ Nickm57 - As far as I can tell, there actually are no clear protocols for this project aside from the obvious Wiki-wide ones. There isn't a set of criteria at the top of the article. It's a free for all. So, if you wish to educate people, I suggest that you help to create such a set of criteria to make these apparent "protocols" clearer to everyone. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 01:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- PLease educate yourself as to the protocols of this project. And while annoying, offensive or whatever, these fires are not a major crime.
Nickm57 (
talk) 21:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- I mean the building was attacked twice..
49.178.82.183 (
talk) 09:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Although this was a politically sensitive event, I do agree that this case is not major, particularly because -- as you've pointed out -- the fire was put out very quickly, before any major damage could be done. Of course, if the fire had not been put out, then this could have easily developed into a major crime/disaster. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 01:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Father of 2 shot in the head while sleeping in family home 49.195.122.100 ( talk) 16:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I've seen quite a bit of discussion in the sections above about what constitutes a "major crime". In my opinion, many of the arguments are flawed, especially the "blue links" argument that asserts that an entry must have a main article in order to be considered notable. In my opinion, that's not actually how the WP:NOTABILITY rule actually works Wikipedia-wide.
In my opinion, what constitutes a "major crime" is largely arbitrary. But nonetheless, one of the crimes that I believe automatically qualifies as major is murder. It's a bit difficult to fathom that some people above (granted, from ten years ago) are arguing that murder sometimes doesn't qualify as a major crime. Listen, Australia is not the United States. Murder is not an everyday occurrence in this country. Each and every murder case has its own story. If it has been covered to a reasonable extent by the media, then it is notable enough.
Indeed, I personally believe that omitting certain heinous murder cases from this list (which has been the case for some time now, it seems) actually serves a propaganda purpose of giving the impression that Australia possesses less crime than it actually does. I do admit that Australia possesses relatively little crime compared to certain other countries, but there have been certain horrendous crimes committed in Australia that really need to be discussed on Wikipedia; if they don't have main articles, then they can easily be discussed in this list article.
I was actually shocked to see that some of these cases were entirely missing from Wikipedia up until recently. Just yesterday, I added several of these murder cases that I believe should have been included on this list years ago, despite not possessing main articles. Several of these crimes occurred in close succession with one another, and they were often discussed collectively in the media, highlighting a certain "trend" of crimes. This is especially with regards to the increasing rate of murders against women in Melbourne during the 2010s. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 01:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
As someone who has recently arrived at the scene, I am noticing a very concerning pattern of dictatorial behaviour in the edit history of this article that may warrant closer scrutiny. A lot of what some users are doing here is just not right. Gatekeeping "major crimes" for who knows what reason. A lot of this behaviour is reportable. Just saying. Anyway, I would appreciate some input here. Thanks. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 02:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- You want input? Fine. As someone who, in your own words, "has recently arrived at the scene" what gives you the right to arbitrarily overrule 13 years worth of discussion on this topic? Despite your claim that "There is no precedent for removing sourced content from this list article due to there being no main articles for those entries" there is indeed precedent. We even have a canned warning for this situation that reads:
Your recent edit appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline.
It's not written in stone, and individual list articles can develop their own less restrictive inclusion rules, but it's clear that consensus is that this list article should not include every murder case, and there seems to be support for not including crimes without a Wikipedia article showing their notability. - Your comments re "a very concerning pattern of dictatorial behaviour in the edit history of this article that may warrant closer scrutiny" and "what some users are doing here is just not right" and calling it "reportable" behaviour verges on personal attack.
- If we need to discuss inclusion criteria again, then let's do it. Pinging the named editors who have previously commented on the issue of inclusion criteria:
user:Nickm57,
user:Matt,user:Jwoodger, user:Silverhorse, user:BrianFG, User:220 of Borg, user:Callinus. user:Melcous, user:Laterthanyouthink. Meters ( talk) 04:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC) - redoing failed ping for User:Mokgen AKA Matt Meters ( talk) 04:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- If such inclusion criteria exist, then why are they not at the top of the article? After 13 years of discussion, wouldn't they be placed there by now? Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 04:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- The first discussion is from literally ten years ago. I'm not sure that it holds much validity given that it obviously didn't produce a definitive set of criteria. Furthermore, if we are actually going with the "blue links" criteria (not that I agree with it), then there are numerous entries across the article that don't have blue links, several of which have been here for a while but haven't been removed by you guys. Indeed, a lot of these main articles don't have a lot of information in them anyway. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 05:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Starting a discussion by saying that multiple editors' behaviour is "reportable" or "dictatorial", or leaving talk page messages calling this editing "
vandalism", is certainly not the most helpful way to get other editors to engage in a constructive discussion. That aside, I would again agree that having a blue link is the most helpful criteria for inclusion in order for this to be a meaningful article that is not bloated by every crime an individual source or police force calls "major" at the time. What I have previously removed includes additions of crimes that have
recently occurred, with perhaps one source (if any) and no linked article, which does not to me seem to suggest the kind of lasting
notability that we should be looking for. But like
Meters, I agree if we need to discuss the criteria again, let's do it - and do it constructively and civilly.
Melcous (
talk) 06:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- The reason I said that your edit looks like vandalism (well, precisely, "can be interpreted as vandalism") is because it actually looked like vandalism to me when I initially saw it. I've encountered vandalism in my time on Wikipedia before, and it looked somewhat similar, the only difference being that you did provide a reason in your edit summary, albeit a not very detailed reason and one that doesn't seem to be backed up by any sort of "protocol" (as someone has mentioned in a section above). Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 06:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Tbh I have never found these kinds of articles particularly interesting, and I don't know who the readership is. There are so many major crimes committed all the time, and an encyclopaedia cannot be expected to list them all. I think we need to go back to defining what the purpose of the article is before defining inclusion criteria. My view would be to stick to those which have at least one blue link relating to an article which is mostly about the crime - be it the incident, the perpetrator or the victim.
Laterthanyouthink (
talk) 00:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- We need to define what types of crimes are being listed in this article as well, because some of them are obviously quite different from another. Murder is one type of crime, but there are also bank robberies and drug heists listed in this article as well.
Jargo Nautilus (
talk) 04:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the constructive suggestion User:Laterthanyouthink - which might work as a sort of interim solution. However, I don't know how this older article, set up when WP was a much smaller place, can easily be made useful or readable without enormous effort. Nickm57 ( talk) 23:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- We need to define what types of crimes are being listed in this article as well, because some of them are obviously quite different from another. Murder is one type of crime, but there are also bank robberies and drug heists listed in this article as well.
Jargo Nautilus (
talk) 04:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Starting a discussion by saying that multiple editors' behaviour is "reportable" or "dictatorial", or leaving talk page messages calling this editing "
vandalism", is certainly not the most helpful way to get other editors to engage in a constructive discussion. That aside, I would again agree that having a blue link is the most helpful criteria for inclusion in order for this to be a meaningful article that is not bloated by every crime an individual source or police force calls "major" at the time. What I have previously removed includes additions of crimes that have
recently occurred, with perhaps one source (if any) and no linked article, which does not to me seem to suggest the kind of lasting
notability that we should be looking for. But like
Meters, I agree if we need to discuss the criteria again, let's do it - and do it constructively and civilly.
Melcous (
talk) 06:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- List-Class Australia articles
- Mid-importance Australia articles
- List-Class Australian crime articles
- Mid-importance Australian crime articles
- WikiProject Australian crime articles
- List-Class Australian history articles
- Mid-importance Australian history articles
- WikiProject Australian history articles
- WikiProject Australia articles
- List-Class List articles
- Low-importance List articles
- WikiProject Lists articles
- List-Class Crime-related articles
- Low-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- List-Class Years articles
- Low-importance Years articles
- List-Class Years articles of Low-importance
- List-Class history articles
- Low-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles