Talk:2024 Bondi Junction stabbings

Requested move 15 April 2024

2024 Bondi Junction stabbings → Bondi Junction stabbings – Only one notable mass stabbing to happen in Bondi Junction LouisOrr27 (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 16:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

This is already the subject of an open discussion at #Would anyone miss the "2024" in the title if it were gone? above. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

This is so it's listed at WP:RM/C LouisOrr27 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we should keep the current title, in accordance with most other recent articles related to mass stabbings such as 2024 Wakeley stabbing, 2024 Rockford stabbings, 2024 Ottawa stabbing, 2023 Nottingham attacks, 2023 Annecy stabbing. There is also one article which doesn't keep the year: Crépol stabbing Mapgenius (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment 'Crépol stabbing' is a redirect to Death of Thomas Perotto as he was the only fatality. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 03:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose and snow close per WP:NCWWW. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 03:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Changing this vote to support thanks to other editors for making me aware of NOYEAR. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 23:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment WP:NOYEAR is relevant and contradicts WP:NCWWW as other users have discussed removing the year making a WP:SNOW irrelevant. LouisOrr27 (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Support – the year is not necessary in the title since I'm not aware of any other notable "Bondi Junction stabbings". See also precedents such as Lindt Cafe siege, Strathfield massacre, Central Coast massacre, Milperra massacre. 2024 Wakeley stabbing is a very new article so I think it has less weight. I also think we should primarily be looking at comparable events in Australia rather than events overseas. I also think the fact that this was a stabbing rather than a shooting/etc is less significant. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 08:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Support as per my reasons in the concurrent discussion on the same move just above at #Would anyone miss the "2024" in the title if it were gone?. As I said there, get rid of the year per WP:COMMONNAME - it doesn't appear in any of the sources and it isn't needed per WP:PRECISE. Per WP:QUALIFIER it would only be needed to disambiguate the title if another similar event occurred in the same place in a different year. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Support - Its a big event and doesnt need the year Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Admittedly I supported this above given the clunkiness of the lead, before it was rewritten. What I'm wondering is if we truly have a WP:COMMONNAME at this point? The media don't appear to be universally using this term. It's very different from Sydney Siege or something like that. In those circumstances, I have some sympathy for the view given by @Aydoh8 that WP:NCWWW applies. Local Variable (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The proposal here ("Bondi Junction stabbings"), in effect, follows WP:NCWWW exactly if you take into account the WP:NOYEAR part. That says: Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. Well this one fits that.

Like this:

• When the incident happened: not necessary per WP:NOYEAR
• Where the incident happened: Bondi Junction
• What happened: stabbings

Resulting in: Bondi Junction stabbings -- DeFacto (talk). 14:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Support particularly per SomethingForDeletion's argument that most similar Australian incidents do not have it and the strongest consistency argument lies there. I find the painful internal self-contradiction of WP:NCWWW and WP:NOYEAR frankly unhelpful, although the WP:NOYEAR examples more closely resemble this article. I think here we run into a similar issue we had with the word "massacre", which is that on a global scale this was not a huge incident, but in an Australian context it is a very much bigger deal. Nobody is going to be calling this the 2024 Bondi Junction stabbings in future years unless we keep the current title and they were Googling it and reading about it on Wikipedia and getting into a WP:REFLOOP. From the references "Bondi Junction stabbing" or "Bondi Junction stabbings" are by far the most common, though I suspect WP:REFLOOP already (as Google prominently displays the WP article title), and most people are dropping the 2024. -- Rob.au (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Support per @DeFacto. Local Variable (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Support it's the only widely-known stabbing event in Bondi Junction... yet. RPC7778 (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Support per WP:NOYEAR J2m5 (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Support. I was thinking the exact same thing while using Pageview Analysis. This only only notable stabbing at Bondi Junction, and while the year may help people to find it while searching, its definitely not going to hurt to remove it. (Also, unrelated, but my condolences and prayers go out to the loved ones of the victims, this is truly a terrible tragedy.) Poxy4 (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Support per WP:NOYEAR Erin1973 (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Support per WP:NOYEAR Fileyfood500 (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Support. Given this is the only instance of stabbings in Bondi Junction, the year 2024 is a bit unnecessary to be put in front of the incident. 174.44.191.134 (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Support: WP:NOYEAR seems conclusive here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:NOYEAR. The policy clearly reads that some articles do not a year when in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. It's hard to judge historic perspective just a week after the event. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Support It's not hard for me to tell which one's the historically only one. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: alian Wikipedians' notice board, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Sydney, WikiProject Death, and WikiProject Disaster management have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Support unless there have been other articles about other stabbings in Bondi Junction

(Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 12:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Support per WP:NOYEAR; no other stabbings have happened in Bondi Junction. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Support Although I think specificity is great in terms of Wikipedia pages, this is a unique incident and the short description mentioning 2024 should be enough. PickleG13 (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Support LibStar (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments made after the closure.

@Raydann: I've moved this back as it is currently on the main page. Feel free to move it back when it comes off.--Launchballer 23:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC) Also feel free to tell WP:ERRORS about the move, they're pretty understanding. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC) AFAIK there's no rule against moving a page even if it's on the main page. @Launchballer, point to the policy/guideline if there is any. Neocorelight (Talk) 01:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC) Why should a link on the main page dictate the page title? It would have redirected and the full page title did not appear. The redirect could be avoided by a correcting the link from the main page. FWIW, discussing this with the original page mover might have been the better option rather than overriding a consensus decision. Local Variable (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC) It's because redirects from anywhere on main page are not allowed per WP:MPNOREDIRECT. JennyOz (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC) Fair enough. It should be off the main page soon. Local Variable (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC) That's typically fixed by posting to WP:ERRORS to change the Main Page to use the new title. It's not a reason to delay or reverse an RM close. However, it seems the close is being discussed on the closer's talk page for a different reason.—Bagumba (talk) 10:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC) I find what was posted on the closer's talk page a little confusing. Consensus was decided unanimously here that it should be moved. LouisOrr27 (talk) 10:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC) Well, their point is clear - local consensus can't override policy or established guidelines. Where I tend to disagree with @Amakuru: is that (1) it is against guidelines and (2) most of those votes don't reference the guideline that applies on this and maybe editors who aren't aware of the sitewide convention. In truth, neither of these are right. In relation to (1), the guideline recognises that it is a judgement call. Opinions may differ on this point. As to (2), it was quoted verbatim above by DeFacto in response to my query, making the contention we were unaware of it untenable. That all said, there may be value in getting the opinion out outside, uninvolved editors about the application of the rule here. Local Variable (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC) Thanks @Local Variable: and really you've summarised the point well. Firstly, WP:CONSENSUS on Wikipedia doesn't in any way mean that majority or even near-unanimous votes carry the day, per the WP:NOTAVOTE principle. It's reasoned arguments that make sense. And sure, whether something stands by itself without need for a year is a subjective question, but given other major incidents such as 2021 Hualien train derailment that have closed with no consensus to remove the year, I can't see any angle in which the Bondi stabbings rise to a higher significnace or long-term recognizability level than that. Indeed, this is far from the only stabbing at that location covered in reliable sources, for example there was one in 2018.[1][2] Overall, the case for removing the year was very weak so I don't think even hefty support numbers should cause a move in this case.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: This proposal was closed but then re-opened per request at Special:PermanentLink/1220569664#Bondi Junction stabbings. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 16:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'll really just repeat the point I made to Local Variable above. The question here is whether the exemption for WP:NOYEAR of the year being unnecessary beacuse "in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it" applies here. I would argue it definitely doesn't. Sure, this event looms large right now because it's just happened, but if we look back on this in 5, 10, 15 years, is it really going to be such a major event that no clarification of which year it was is required? I doubt that. If we take 2021 Hualien train derailment as an example, this was a major rail disaster with many tens of deaths, but ultimately the consensus there was not to remove the year. To do something different here seems odd. That's all. Finally, this is far from the only stabbing at that location covered in reliable sources, for example there was one in 2018.[3][4] That might not merit a Wikipedia page, but it was certainly a Bondi Junction stabbing that wasn't in 2024. Overall, the case for removing the year seems weak to me given other examples and precedent, hence why I requested a relist and I'm not certain there is a consensus here.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment I was the one who originally nominated the page to be moved, originally based on the Would anyone miss the "2024" in the title if it were gone? discussion above. I'll expand on my reason why I still support the move, mainly based on SomethingForDeletion 's comments. There is a president in Australian events to ignore the year, Lindt Cafe siege & Strathfield massacre are two examples. SomethingForDeletion listed more examples above. Secondly most, if not all, of the sources simply refer to the incident as either "Bondi Junction stabbings", "Bondi Junction mall stabbings" or "Westfield Bondi mall stabbings". Rob.au made a good point about how globally the incident is not huge but in Australia, especially Sydney, It is quite a big deal In years to come people will be referring to the incident without the year. As Amakuru stated, this was not the only stabbing incident to happen in Bondi Junction, so would Bondi Junction mall stabbings be better suited as the pages title? LouisOrr27 (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose "Bondi Junction mall stabbings", because the usual Australian English term is "shopping centre" not "mall" (which is viewed as somewhat of an Americanism), and the media sources calling these "mall stabbings" seem to be mainly overseas sources which are choosing a term for their own readers. Furthermore, while it is true that other stabbings have happened in the suburb of Bondi Junction in the past, none of them are remotely equal to this in notability. If someone says "Bondi Junction stabbing" it is obvious they mean this one, not some other past stabbing incident, unless the context otherwise makes clear. Finally, everyone in Sydney remembers the Lindt Cafe siege (well, at least people who were here and of age at the time), but how many remember the exact year it took place in? The exact year is not seen as being particularly significant to the memory fo the event, for most people. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I can see some force in what Amakuru says. The difference between this and some of the other major events (Lindt Cafe Siege, Port Arthur massacre, etc) is that that is the firmly established common name for the respective tragedy. So we must give way to the common name even if it does not fit the typical naming convention. The examples given on NOYEAR are incidents of such notoriety that it is unnecessary to add the year. This is a fine judgement call. At this stage, I do have hesitations about the conclusion the year is unnecessary. Local Variable (talk) 06:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  The problem is I think the year-less common name is almost inevitably going to be established in Australia. It is only a question of how long it takes for you to be convinced that it is established – accept it is now, or wait X months/years and accept it is then? There are going to be articles in the Australia media talking about this for years to come – just like there have been articles mentioning the Lindt Cafe siege even earlier this year, before this stabbing, see e.g. "‘Exhausted by flashbacks’: Lindt cafe siege police sniper Mark Davidson wracked with guilt" – and I guarantee you none of those articles are going to put the year in front of it. As much as Wikipedia editors love doing that, it isn't the style journalists use. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  You're not wrong that the no year form will most likely be the common name in Australia, but this isn't Wikipedia for only Australia. WP:GLOBAL requires we look at a worldwide perspective, would someone in Slovenia immediately recognize the year-less name. Maybe, maybe not. That is why NOYEAR tells us to consider historical perspective when deciding whether a year is necessary. It should be relatively un controversial to say that historical perspective is rarely easy to judge 10 days after an event. estar8806 (talk) ★ 13:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think someone from Slovenia is likely to remember this incident. It is essentially a local event, it is going to stick in the local memory, be quickly forgotten from the global one. I don't think whether the year is included or not will make any difference to whether a person from Slovenia recognises the incident–maybe the word "Bondi" will give them a clue it happened in Australia; I don't see how the presence or absence of the year is going to make any difference to them. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Local Variable: Did you want to strike your ealier "support" !vote in the interim?—Bagumba (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Done. I'm yet to come to a firm conclusion. Local Variable (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

General Queries:

"Officers from the NSW Police Force were called shortly before 4 pm" ? a. that's almost 40 minutes after the attack started b. CCTV footage from a cafe shows Inspector Scott around 3.35pm. Multiple reports say the perpetrator was killed before 4pm. Seems like authorities were called not long after 3.20pm.

"Tourist"? Pikria Darchia lived in Sydney (Maroubra) and had studied at TAFE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.181.222.182 (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Just in relation to the first point - Scott was already at the centre when the attack started. The article needs to be clarified since I can see how you were confused. Local Variable (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Based on how I read the sources, the possible delay may have been because more general panic and probably more calls to police occurred when people heard Insp. Scott opening fire rather than the stabbing itself. As for Darchia, there were hints that she was in Oz longer than a tourist visa would allow but with no hint of irregularity. However, there is still confusion over whether reliable sources exist for her actual status in Oz. Borgenland (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Multiple reports say Inspector Scott was supervising liquor license checks nearby when calls came in about the stabbing, which is why she arrived quickly. There's an image of her walking into the centre by herself also.

Admittedly, precise times won't come out until the inquest but this article seems more reliable than most of the ones out there and matches the cctv that leaked: emergency calls came in by 3.30pm, perpetrator was dead by 3.45pm, attack lasted 20-25 mins max.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/how-the-terrifying-bondi-attack-unfolded-floor-by-floor-20240414-p5fjp1.html

For Darchia, the link cited here doesn't say she was a tourist? Just that she was a Georgian citizen/national in Sydney. "Tourist" is the addition/assumption best removed imo. 111.220.48.51 (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Removed. Local Variable (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Another SMH timeline has appeared at [5]. It's not very detailed (it's more storytelling then forensic), but they've now narrowed in on the attacker re-entering the centre for the last time at 3:20pm and the shots being fired at 3:38pm. It doesn't have a specific time that Scott entered the building, but she certainly entered in response to calls after the attack started. It doesn't seem like she was in the centre for very long, but it does describe some people being aware of the attack and others being oblivious at that time. As for Darchia, I've also removed the "tourist" label at least once - this is clearly incorrect per multiple sources. The section on fatalities is horrendously inconsistent in level of detail. For some things at this stage I'm inclined to let facts settle a bit but it's pretty problematic to have some people reduced to their nationality or the fact they were a mother, or nothing other than their age, while others have occupation (and it seems this section has been subject of extensive editing, because I've seen details come and go from it). -- Rob.au (talk) 08:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, this article is admittedly hard to source reliably at the moment; early media reports in particular contain errors and speculation. I just noticed some mistakes that seemed egregious, like Darchia being a "tourist" and police being called "shortly before 4pm". Footage shows Inspector Scott entering Westfield alone at street level (Level 3), then performing CPR on a victim in the Chanel store (Level 4), then running after the attacker (Level 5), before shots were recorded on CCTV at 3.38pm. That sequence of events, even in a fast-moving incident, indicates that police received calls not long after the attack began around 3.20pm. Agree about victims' biographies. 49.181.222.99 (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand the layout of this centre may be confusing to those unfamiliar with it. The entrance used by the first police officer is actually on Level 4 near Uniqlo (there is imagery of her entering there). There is also footage of her running along Level 5 with members of the public behind her (at least one armed with a chair/stool). The location she runs through in this footage is away from the top of the escalator outside Uniqlo, the footage showing her running along the south side of the first void space on that section, past the juice kiosk, past the curved rear historic frontage of the Eastern (hotel/pub), then turning left towards the enclosed bridge. The location of the deceased attacker was just before that bridge. Multiple sources say she pursued and engaged with the attacker first, but remained in the centre for hours, which is where other images of her come from. At the speed she was moving in the videos (in the sections covered by video), from that entrance, up that escalator, along the walkway and left to the engagement with the attacker could have easily happened in the space of two minutes. I'm not going to put this level of detail in without WP:RS, but I've seen no evidence that contradicts this. The timelines published yesterday are consistent but light on details about times. -- Rob.au (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, that does make sense. Not suggesting editing the article either, especially as narrowing down timings often involves intrusive/disturbing images or footage. The alarm sound & evacuation notices on e-billboards are a reasonably good guide to before/after the actual attack; they seem to have triggered around or at the time of the shooting and can't be heard/seen before this eg. bollard man, the chase etc. 49.181.222.99 (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The balance of detail looks fine to me. Two deceased worked in the centre, two were visiting from overseas and one surrendered her baby. Jade Young may have no further detail, but the article does not benefit from reporting that she was "an architect from Bellevue Hill". WWGB (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

One of the people described as "a retail worker in the shopping centre" actually worked for an online clothing retailer as an e-commerce assistant. [6] She didn't work at the centre. -- Rob.au (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The BBC reports ""Ms Singleton ... was working a shift in a retail store when the attack began". Perhaps she had two jobs. WWGB (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

If you read the whole article you can see the BBC has clearly made the same error, naming the store "where [she] was working". Given that company is not a physical store and has no outlet in the centre, this statement is self-evidently incorrect. We also know from multiple sources that she was attacked in the Channel store. There is no source that says she worked there. This source [7] says her fiancé "knew Ms Singleton was in the centre shopping". Rob.au (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, all the people killed were residents of Sydney and none were visitors, at least three (Cheng, Darchia, Tahir) held foreign nationalities also. Ms Singleton was employed in e-commerce (White Fox) but was shopping in the Chanel store at Westfield, as was Ms. Cheng, when attacked. 49.181.222.99 (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Re: Bollard

Do people actually use the term "bollard" in regular speech? Viriditas (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does. It's not a redirect, so it must be regular speech to somebody. It's quite common in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Those objects that are often placed between pedestrian areas and roads to separate vehicular traffic from pedestrians; I have no idea what else you can call them, other than a "bollard". Fork99 (talk) 04:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

It looked to me like the bollard he was fending the perpetrator off with was one of those moveable posts with a heavy base - the sort you see a line of, spaced out with a rope along the top to cordon off an area or denote queue lines, etc, as seen in stanchion? But yeah, the media reports immediately spoke of bollard and we do use the term. JennyOz (talk) 05:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Here's an Australian ad for such bollards. HiLo48 (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

It looks like he used a stanchion from a movie theater, not a bollard. In the states we would call this a post stanchion. I wonder if it was a post stanchion from the Event Cinemas tenant, from a coffee shop, or from a bank. Viriditas (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

This Australian has heard of the word stanchion, but would never use it. It's just not a common word in Australian English, which I presume is the version of English we're using in this article. HiLo48 (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

In Australian English, a stanchion is for example something that holds up electrical catenary wires to power electric trains. It implies something structural in some way. A fixed or movable post for various purposes including protecting objects and people from vehicles, providing access restrictions for vehicles or for holding up queue management systems or temporary restrictions around a hazard is a bollard. You would simply never in any context describe these objects as a stanchion in Australia (if you wished to be understood). That's why the person wielding the bollard was dubbed "Bollard man" and not "Stanchion Man". -- Rob.au (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

This made me laugh out loud. Thanks for this. Viriditas (talk) 08:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Whether it was or not, I would argue the vast majority of Australians across demographics would call it a bollard. In Australia a bollard describes both permanent and movable "poles" that prevent access, or separate pedestrian areas from cars, or are used to prevent or at least show no access permitted by people to areas, such as those used with a rope that would be "technically" a "stanchion". "Stanchion" is just not common vocab in Australia at all; to the point where stanchions are generally advertised by manufacturers as bollards. KarmaKangaroo (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Understood. Just trying to figure out my own confusion. Viriditas (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Source 11

The entry makes a claim about gunshots, but the source provided, 11, says no such thing. 147.78.4.122 (talk) 10:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

It is in the bottom, but was paraphrased into the version in the article to void copyvio reversion. Borgenland (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Borgenland "Inspector Scott shot Cauchi and he died at the scene. Police have not said how many shots were discharged but some witnesses say they heard three shots.

Shopping attendants lock down their stores with customers still inside and some help shoppers escape out exits in the back of storerooms.

By this stage, heavily armed police are at the scene and searching the area."

Nothing about gunshots compelling shopping attendants to do that. By that point most people had fled anyway, according to the article. The off duty officer was only inside because people had already fled outside and told her what was happening. Perhaps you misunderstood and causally connected two sentences that are from a timeline of events. Nowhere does it say one led to the other though. 147.78.4.55 (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20240413133128/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-13/how-the-bondi-junction-stabbing-spree-unfolded/103705200.

It is about this time that other shoppers, some unaware of the stabbings, hear the gunshots. Some panic, fearing there may be an attacker with a gun, and flee. Shopping attendants lock down their stores with customers still inside and some help shoppers escape out exits in the back of storerooms.

This was the version at the time it was published Borgenland (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Borgenland Well that also doesn't say what you interpreted it to mean. Also that's not the version now, and so the source doesn't verify that claim in any form. I don't see any reason why it should stay, based on that. Happy to hear reasons of course, but as of right now it seems to be cluttering up the page with unfounded speculation. 147.78.4.81 (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The officer was not off duty - indeed she was in uniform. The officer was not "only inside because people had already fled outside and told her" - she was nearby attending to routine duties and responded to a radio call. She was directed by members of the public when she arrived at the centre. (Side note - probably not good to refer to sources by number as this changed - source 11 is now about buses - I'm guessing you're talking about what's currently source 9). That particular source is a very early source - more recent ones like https://www.smh.com.au/interactive/2024/bondi-junction-timeline/index.html however do indicate that there was confusion in the centre - while some people knew, others were oblivious and for some the gunshots alerted them. It also claims the building's evacuation alarms sounded after the gunshots (which would be consistent with some being oblivious at that time). -- Rob.au (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2024 - Aftermath regarding targeting of women.

At the end of 'Reactions', I believe the global discussion of gender-based violence following this attack is relevant.

After the last paragraph under 'reactions' that ends in "Additional police were deployed in shopping centres in Queensland as a precaution.[35]", please consider adding following sentences;

This incident, where majority of victims killed and wounded were women, aroused national and international discussion about gender-based violence, with great attention to the rates that women are killed by men, and potential gender-based motives of Cauchi.

Following the subsequent 2024 Wakeley Church Stabbing, discussion by the public and major news sites questioned the definition of terrorism, specifically after the "religiously motivated" Church attack was considered a terrorist incident, but not the Police-noted "obvious" targeting of women. It was deemed non-ideological due to the fact that Cauchi was schizophrenic, and there has also been criticism of Australia's mental health system, and discussion on how to better support mental health, specifically for men, in order to avoid more similar incidents.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by EyeofHorus13 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 09:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry! I'm new to editing/talk pages on Wikipedia. I was wondering if the addition of global discussion about gendered violence following this attack specifically would be a worthwhile contribution, because I believe it would be. I'm unsure how to edit it in a way that would make sense on the page, but I'll try to shortly. EyeofHorus13 (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe Cauchi was attacking women in particular. If he was, it was the result of madness. Any attempt to turn this into an attack on women is just political correctness, or more specifically, playing the gender card. Sardaka (talk) 09:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The gender ratio could be explained by many other factors, such as more women then men in the shopping centre. WWGB (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Care should be taken not to derail the talk page into anything other than a place for procedural discussion about editing the article.

If gendered based violence has received significant coverage in reliable sources, it is probably suitable for inclusion (but maybe only a passing mention, since we won't give it undue weight). We of course don't do original research here, and our opinions on the causes aren't of any significance.

@EyeofHorus13, I appreciate you are new, but this template is generally reserved for specific edit requests (eg, fix typo X). However if you build up experience editing other articles, with time you could add a sentence or two somewhere summarising a reliable source speaking about gendered violence, and add a reference to it. Local Variable (talk) 10:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes totally understand. I will note that for the future, thank you. I didn't even know 'talk' pages existed until I was redirected here trying to edit, so from now on this will be the first place I go to.

As for "If gendered based violence has received significant coverage in reliable sources, it is probably suitable for inclusion (but maybe only a passing mention, since we won't give it undue weight). We of course don't do original research here, and our opinions on the causes aren't of any significance." I do agree. I wrote a lot so there is hopefully at least something to use, because I was personally blown away by how much global discussion there was regarding gendered violence with this incident being the catalyst for discussion, so I do think public attention regarding this, and mental health support, is significant to the 'Reactions' page. I know we cannot be partial in assuming his motives, however the discussion is still there and related to this attack. EyeofHorus13 (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, there was no issue with you bringing it up on the talk page, my comment shouldn't be interpreted that way. My first point (directed at others, not you) was that a talk page isn't a venue to get into discussions about "political correctness" and the like.

If you find reliable sources about that view then I see no reason why it can't be mentioned in a sentence in the reactions sentence, along with a citation. Local Variable (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I will look for such to summarise. Much appreciated. EyeofHorus13 (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Archive

There are two archive pages of this talk page.

• Talk:2024 Bondi Junction stabbings/Archive 1
• Talk:2024 Bondi Junction stabbings/Archives/ 1

What is the difference between these pages? --Family27390 (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Raised at User_talk:ClueBot_Commons#Erroneous_talk_page_archiving. Local Variable (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed by another editor. WWGB (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)