Talk:Port Arthur massacre (Australia)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 (June 2003 - April 2007)


Contents

[edit] Discussion

Comment - I'm not saying the 1996 one is more important - I'm saying that it would be the article most likely to be sought after by readers. (See WP:DISAMBIG#Primary topic). Chuq (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That's hard to appreciate, but this raises the question of whether greater prominence should be given to events that happened in English-speaking countries on the basis that English-speaking readers are more likely to look at them. In any number of articles that have sections by country, for example, it is acknowledged that greater prominence should not necessarily be given to English-speaking countries. Shouldn't the same principle apply to problems of disambiguation, even though readers are more likely to refer to the English-speaking-country-related topics? Of course, in practice, because editors are likely to know more about English-speaking countries, those sections or articles are likely to be more complete. But that is a matter of lack of information on certain subjects rather than principle, and this needn't carry over to the organization of the encyclopedia. Joeldl 04:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Joeldl please read the Wikipedia:Naming conventions because what you are suggesting above is not the Wikipedia policy on naming pages. The policy is "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize". --Philip Baird Shearer 07:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe that that has to do with deciding between two titles for the same topic, where it is the name of the article that is at issue. In this case, we're judging the relative importance of the topics and not the names for them. The name that English-speakers would most easily recognize is, in each case, "Port Arthur massacre" and is not in question. So what I'm talking about is not language, but whether the organization of the encyclopedia should take into account the greater interest English-speakers have for topics related to their countries. Joeldl 07:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Note a similar issue often comes up in Bill O'Reilly debates where the consensus is to keep it as a disambig even though the American is more likely to be linked to because it's considered that both have a high level of importance/notability Nil Einne 21:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


"Lüshunkou massacre" would be a better title for the other page, but if disambiguation is chosen, the titles should be something like "Port Arthur massacre (Lüshunkou)" and "Port Arthur massacre (Tasmania)" to make it clear that it's not the same place being referred to in the two articles. --bainer (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is that in English, it is more commonly recognized as Port Arthur and not Lushunkou. 132.205.44.134 22:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
While the name is a historical one for the location a person looking for information about an event associated with the first Sino-Japanese war would be able to distinguish the difference by name. Where as a person looking into the Australian one may consider an 1896 event to be associated with the same place as the location was PA penal settlement. Gnangarra 23:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Gnangarra here - if both articles are to be disambiguated, use geographical terms instead of dates. Since there is already a geographical term in the article name ("Port Arthur") people will assume that the dates are there because the location was the same for both. -- Chuq (talk) 05:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
How about "Port Arthur massacre (Lüshunkou 1894)" and "Port Arthur massacre (Tasmania 1996)" then? 132.205.44.134 16:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
What's the point of both a location and date disambiguator? Generally articles disambiguation titles are only as specific as they need to be. -- Chuq (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I think Port Arthur massacre (China) and Port Arthur massacre (Australia) are sufficient to distinguish the two geographically. I know of a Port Arthur massacre that happened in China, but I have never heard of Lüshunkou, and that disambiguator wouldn't help me understand what the article was about. Dekimasuよ! 03:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, if geographical disambiguators are to be chosen, I agree that China and Australia are the best ones. Joeldl 03:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

In determining people's opinions, I first considered the level of support for disambiguation of any kind, before considering what form that should take. Of the minority opposed to disambiguation, most relied on a Google search for their argument. However, searching Google Books or Google Scholar give rather different results: Google Scholar reports "Port Arthur massacre 1894" 612 times compared to 1,570 for 1996, and 1,490 for "China" compared with 975 for "Australia". These are not great differences, and the trend is even reversed at Google Books ("1894": 176; "1996": 111; "China": 583; "Australia": 228). I am thus unconvinced by the arguments that the 1996 event deserves primacy, thus requiring Port Arthur massacre to be converted into a disambiguation page. Of the disambiguation schemes mooted, appending the country is most popular, and the best. This article has been renamed from Port Arthur massacre to Port Arthur massacre (Australia) as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 08:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarism?

From the Wikipedia article:

lifted the rifle to his shoulder and fired a shot at Mick Sargent, grazing his scalp and knocking him to the floor. Before Mick could shout a warning, the gunman fired a fourth shot that hit Mick's girlfriend, 21 year old Kate Elizabeth Scott, fatally in the back of the head. In a matter of seconds, the young man had claimed three victims.

From crimelibrary

lifted the rifle to his shoulder and fired a shot at Mick Sargent, grazing his scalp and knocking him to the floor. Before Mick could shout a warning, the gunman fired a fourth shot that hit Mick's girlfriend in the back of the head. In a matter of seconds, the young man had claimed three victims.

At least that part of the article is accurate. Most of it isn't accurate at all.


Phrases like "Before Mick could shout a warning" are not appropriate to the article anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 12:31 12 August 2007 (GMT).

[edit] Israelis Were Involved

Two professional assassins did all the killing. The reason was to push gun control laws. Wendy Scurr, Andrew MacGregor, and Stewart Beattie have devoted years to this. There is some question as to Joe Vialls (Ari Ben Menashe), that he may have been involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor Boris (talk • contribs) 11:42, August 4, 2007

Do you have multiple independent reliable sources for those claims? --Geniac 17:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The conspiracy claims are not based on good evidence and may be discounted. They were never based on credible evidence, but on the wishful thinking of a few of the people who did not like the gun control laws. Time has shown that the supposed objective 'to push gun control laws' has not been pushed as far as was possible with the level of public support at the time, and the laws made no practical difference to most Australians lives. The people such as John Howard, AIC criminologists and the police ministers who created the National Agreement on Firearms have curiously not made a habit of murdering people for weird political ideas, or pushed to remake society in ways that required disarmament, despite ten years in power to do so. Their track record is a good refutation of the so-called 'alternative' theories.
On the other hand, the late Joe Vialls has a track record that also speaks to the credibility of the conspiracy theories.
As a shooter and an honours graduate in science I am appalled that people keep pushing this nonsense despite having the opportunity to correct their false ideas. My research over some years led to a different set of ideas: that the shooter was Bryant and that irresponsible media coverage combined with his defects as a human resulted in his choosing to commit these crimes. ChrisPer 06:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Their opportunity to correct their false ideas? Could it be possible that the official cover story so lacks credibility, that anyone who takes a look at the facts can't help but reject it as the fraud that it is? You may be a "shooter" and fancy yourself as some kind of scientific thinker, but if you can't see that Bryant's defects are exactly what disprove the official story, then you're either a fool, a liar or both. Going to a shooting range and having a fascination with guns doesn't train anyone to do the kind of precision killing that was done on that day. And there is plenty of evidence, including eye witness testimony to support the fact that this was done by a hit squad and not by a single shooter with a pronounced intellectual disability.121.44.233.92 (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Obviously I can't persuade you as use language that is entirely pre-judging the evidence. 'Official cover story' to dismiss all non-confirmatory evidence. 'Fool, liar or both' seems to rule out YOUR opportunity to learn anything. Nevertheless as I pointed out above, events over the last eleven years would indicate that the conspiracy hypothesis is complete bollocks, because there is no credible motive, no credible perpetrator other than Bryant, no evidence that the supposedly mass-murder-planning John Howard has the kind of character that WOULD do this, no evidence that all the people at PA who saw Bryant carrying the guns and shooting people with them were lying, and no person who was part of a cover-up blowing the whistle in the media, despite the massive cheque they would get.
Its really depressing, this conspiracy fantasy is a discredit to all the rest of us. 203.59.222.27 (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'Witnessed events' section?

This section describes the personal experience of one journalist after the events. Its not worth having, if it has to be on Wikipedia create a separate article on 'Self-indulgent journalism' for it.ChrisPer 05:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correct Template Use=Vandalism?

Why has user SatuSuro flagged my correction of the court references to follow Wikipedia:Citation_templates as vandalism...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.16.100 (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies - the level of vandalism on this article is incessant - if it was a correct - please feel free to reinsert - but a very good idea would be to put an edit summary - and even better create an account SatuSuro 13:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why are the conspiracy theories even mentioned?

I am an avowed sporting shooter and consider myself active in politics; obviously I am against the draconian gun laws introduced in Australia following the Port Arthur massacre. That said, I have never, ever heard even mention of the possibility of there being some kind of conspiracy, regardless of the motivation, in all my life of living in Australia (with a prominent journalist for a father).

My question is, why are the conspiracy theories even mentioned at all in this article? I believe they are the very definition of fringe; you could claim conspiracies in a reductio ad absurdum fashion for just about any crime that has ever happened in human history. It is one thing for there to be open debate about 9/11 conspiracy theories (because they have been so widely debated and published), however surely Port Arthur is beyond dispute as to the incident itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriswaltham (talk • contribs) 18:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The reason they are mentioned is only because a significant number of the people editing this page in the past came here after exposure to conspiracy materials, and seem to want to incorporate that stuff. ChrisPer 07:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
By the way, to anyone who's interested. The monument to the massacre is, guess what.. a reflecting pool. And it reflects a tall pyramidal brick structure which is due East. What does that mean, huh?121.44.233.92 (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unencyclopaedic, poorly displayed

This article is very poorly written, about 90% of it is written as a first person narrative, which seems to be copied, or at least paraphrased from a single source, and then misrepresented as if it was proven fact, when it was merely an opinion. What actually happened at the Port Arthur massacre is a mystery, which nobody knows for sure. Presenting 90% of this article as if it was proven fact reflects poorly on Wikipedia.

There are some facts about what happened, and these should be included. Anything else that isn't fact should either be excluded, or else presented as for what it was - theory and hyperbole.

One fact that isn't mentioned is that John Howard was newly elected at the time of this massacre, and was behind in the polls after he introduced the unpopular GST against popular opinion (he had promised in 1995 that he would never introduce it). Gun law reform was something that the nation wished to happen (we didn't want to become as bad as USA), but no politician had been able to bring it in because of the powerful gun lobby. John Howard used this event to gain popularity. He claimed that the sole reason for the massacre was because of the ease of buying guns. This is clearly not true at all, and only the most gullible of people believed this. If it was so easy to commit such a massacre, that even someone of Martin Bryant's obvious incapacities was able to do it, then why had nothing like it ever happened before? This was more than double the next worst massacre. You can't explain that by gun law reform, because the guns had always been about. There is something more to this.

The most interesting element of this case, as with all of the most well-known mystery murders is the mystery component. This is barely mentioned here, and what is mentioned is mentioned falsely. It doesn't matter whether it was Freedom Fighters or Pauline Hanson or who said it. The most interesting elements are the facts of the case. Facts like the 11 hour stand off at the Seascape Lodge, the speed of firing, the lack of misses, the various audio and videotapes of the murders which indicate multiple shooters, at least at the Seascape Lodge. The timeline not fitting with the police version of events. Things like these are what would make this an encyclopaedic article.

This is an important article for Australians, and I am sure that I speak for all of us when I say that this article is a disgrace in its current format. It probably needs to be written again from scratch, with a more encyclopaedic tone, and focussing on facts rather than opinion. And try to remove bias from it as well. There's a lot of bias in the text there. As with all well known murder mysteries, not everyone believes that Martin Bryant was the murderer, and of those that do, there are a wide range of beliefs as to what happened. There certainly was never a confession in this case. Dyinghappy (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  • This version looks more encyclopaedic to me. Why not write something more like that? More facts, less opinion. Dyinghappy (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay I was bold and made massive wholesale changes to the article, but only to the "alternative theories" section, which quite frankly was a bit nonsensical. There is a wide group of people who dispute John Howard's version of events (most obviously the 1/2 of Australians who do not vote for the Liberal Party) and calling that entire group of people "conspiracy theorists" is stupid. The case was questioned to huge levels, and it isn't appropriate to call these investigations conspiracies, nor is it appropriate merely to mention (and then ridicule) the people who made these investigations. As an encyclopaedic article, we should be focussing on what they discovered, not who they were. That is what is useful to people who might investigate the case, and use this article as a reference. Facts such as the massive suppression orders related to the case, the unconstitutional laws that were passed, the sheer improbability that the event had happened (yet it did), compounded by his proven severe intellectual disabilities (and inability to concentrate) are very relevant. There were also a few lies in the article, such as the suggestion that Martin Bryant confessed, or that he pleaded guilty, or that his lawyer knew why he did it. Martin Bryant fired his lawyer because his lawyer wanted him to plead guilty. I am not going to go in to the time lines, because so long as it is represented as "police version of events" it is fine to have inaccurate times. But Noelene and David Martin died the night before, was what the coroner's report said. And the Seascape fire was the day after. 3 days event does not equal a 1 day murder spree. We probably should fix that up too, but I don't want to tread on any toes. Dyinghappy (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Dyinghappy, while your criticisms of the overall style are correct, the 'alternative' investigations or theories are tripe. There is no reason to give them the respect of treating them neutrally. There are 37 wounded but surviving people besides those on site who were not shot, and their stories were collected by police. There is no reason to think that John Howard created a cover story, because the evidence is overwhelming that Bryant did it and acted alone. Your edits are based on counterfactual beliefs and will be reverted. ChrisPer (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

90% of google hits, the majority of discussion on this page. Anyway I won't tread on any more toes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyinghappy (talk • contribs) 04:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your participation, which remains welcome even if we disagree! ChrisPer (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

One fact that isn't mentioned is that John Howard was newly elected at the time of this massacre, and was behind in the polls after he introduced the unpopular GST against popular opinion (he had promised in 1995 that he would never introduce it).

The GST wasn't a factor in the 1996 election campaign. JH won a solid victory in that election, and in fact the GST didn't become law until three or four years later, after JH had fought and won the 1998 election based on the GST and there had been significant dealings in the Senate with the Democrats. Years after Port Arthur.

I'm familiar with all of the conspiracy theories, and frankly, they are rubbish. Bryant's marksmanship wasn't superb - it was crap, when you look at all of his shots. The only reason he shot so many people in the Broad Arrow was that he was virtually poking the rifle in their faces. I've been there and it isn't a large room. A child with a water pistol could have done just as well. It just goes on and on - trivial inconsistencies, easily explained, are seized upon as evidence of some vast conspiracy. Of the conspiracy itself, there is no actual evidence, no phone calls, no meetings, no nothing, and in the decade since, no leaks, no remorse, no revelations. Thousands of people and they all tell one story. The only ones saying different are those who weren't there.

Hard to see what Bryant could have gotten out of it if he was the stooge. He was wealthy already and most of his relatives were dead. What could he possibly have been offered for his co-operation? What could make up for loss of freedom for life? All he has to say is "I didn't do it, and here's how and why." But no, his initial attempts at denial after arrest were pathetic, easily disproven. If he hadn't made a guilty plea, he would have inevitably have been found guilty as witness after witness pointed their fingers at him and the forensic folk locked the case up tight.

I echo the comments on the quality of the article. It's pretty woeful. But at least, last time I looked, it reflected the reality. --Pete (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)