This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lindt Cafe siege article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Illridewithyou was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 December 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Lindt Cafe siege. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
A news item involving Lindt Cafe siege was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 15 December 2014.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
Lindt Cafe siege is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
I am editing Sydney siege inquest but am frustrated that the Guardian is no longer giving it's blow by blow account. So all I have is journalistic mush. If people have a better source please let me know. Or if anyone in Sydney would like to attend.
The inquest is, finally, getting to the point. Why was there absolutely no attempt to negotiate with Monis (which would have been likely to succeed). I has assumed belligerence ("We don't negotiate with people that call themselves terrorists.") but it now looks more like gross incompetence. Tuntable (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added a timeline to clarify events. Also negotiations, the key, IMHO. Tuntable (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a critical part of the story that the police decided to contain and negotiate rather than direct action. (They got that right, IMHO.). It is also a critical part of the story that no negotiation took place (many sources). But to say that their strategy was to Contain and Negotiate implies strongly that meaningful negotiation actually took place. So something needs to be added to qualified. I have added "In Theory" to do that. There might be a better way, but it needs something. Tuntable (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a separate article on the inquest, and much of the information recently added to this article, in my opinion, belongs there. This article is about the event, thus primarily about what actually happened, not later speculation on what should have happened (right or wrong as it might be). For example, I have just added to the timeline of events the escapes of the first 5 hostages - how can we have a timeline with things like what was or wasn't being communicated to negotiators (which has only come out at the inquest) and not include basic facts like that? I would also question the value of the timeline in general, but would be keen to hear what other editors think as to why it should be included. Melcous (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2014 Sydney hostage crisis → 2014 Lindt Cafe siege – There doesn't appear to be any consensus in the media or on Wikipedia about this being called the "2014 Sydney hostage crisis" - it's more commonly called the Lindt Cafe Siege: ABC, The Guardian, Australian Institute for Disaster Resiliance. Even the Wikipedia article on the purpetrator refers to the siege as the Lindt Cafe Siege. Crisis in an inappropriate term to describe this event, as it was a once-off, uncoordinated and 16-hour hostage taking, and wasn't an ongoing or prolonged event (> 24 hours), as the phrase crisis would indicate. If Lindt Cafe would be best left out, then 2014 Sydney siege would be just as appropriate. ItsPugle (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)—Relisting.~SS49~{talk} 11:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suport It's what everyone calls it. I don't even really see a need for the year to be included, although I could see that some people could find it useful. Life200BC (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=logo}
