Talk:Timeline of major crimes in Australia

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Azaria Chamberlain 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  New Crime Articles 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Incorrect details 

message: 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)
thread_title: Cook and the "first crime"

message: Someone please add Milosevic Murders  & Homestead Murders ..@Photnart. (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homestead Murders 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deaths of Karlie Pearce-Stevenson and Khandalyce Pearce 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Possible better look for this article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agreed. Without inclusion criteria such as those these types of lists become clothes hangers. Meters (talk) 02:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agreed, . 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  too.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: @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)

text: @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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Criteria 

message: This  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)
replies: text: Apparently it has happened twice.And I will put the new source.49.178.82.183 (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 3RR report made after another attempt to add this. Meters (talk) 09:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I mean the building was attacked twice..49.178.82.183 (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: @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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Sorry - not interested in discussing comments that I made to an edit warring IP who was about to be blocked, back in December 2021.Nickm57 (talk) 07:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  contested edit re Old Parliament building in Canberra 

message: Father of 2 shot in the head while sleeping in family home 49.195.122.100 (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jason Friend Murder 2002 Hoxton Park Sydney