Talk:Hoddle Street massacre

message: :Image:Julian knight.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Julian knight.jpg

message: Loooks like this was made as an accident, '...for the bloodiest massacre in Australian history since the Sydney Milperra massacre in September 1984' ... in short 3 years! I highlighted this whilst trying not to lose its magitude. Antimatter31 (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The comparison is not really encyclopedic - more like a journalistic type phrase. (I recently removed a similar comment from Whiskey Au Go Go fire.) Given the two events had similar death tolls, and were just three years apart - plus the later event was 23 years ago - the comparison doesn't really serve much of a purpose. Also, the death toll was far surpassed in the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, which also makes the comparison meaningless. Format (talk) 07:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Oxymoron

message: With the fairly low number of seven deaths, I don't understand how this incident can be described as one of the "bloodiest massacres in Australian history". According to List of massacres in Australia, there were two massacres in which about 300 died in each. Is this one of the "bloodiest massacres" against non-Aboriginals? Even if the timeframe is restricted to the late 20th century (a fraction of "Australian history"), it still ranks #5 of 6 "massacres". Boneyard90 (talk) 08:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the judge showing his ignorance or prejudice. - Snori (talk) 09:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyperbole? 

message: I cut a section about possibly "valid" motives. I suspect this page may be being edited from within Victoria's prison system...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.139.183 (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  motives 

message: the massacre was featured in series 2 episode 2 Owen1984 (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Newsreader