Jump to content

Talk:Cairns child killings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Name disclosure

I have added reactions from the Cairns and Torres Strait Region councils, and removed the name of the suspect in line with cultural protocols. I have also removed the coordinates of the tragedy as I find it distasteful and unnecessary in the immediate aftermath - it may be appropriate to add it at a later date. I also find the current title of the article in rather bad taste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.169.170.144 (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

The protocol refers to only recently deceased people. It doesn't refer to living persons. At least the victims' names were withheld. --George Ho (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement for providing exact co-ordinates or street address of an otherwise non-notable suburban street.
It is worth mentioning though that Wikipedia is not censored, and whilst there should not be any attempt to unnecessarily cause offence, the benchmark for this article to include people's names—including names of the deceased—is whether they appear in reliable sources, and inclusion is not subject to cultural protocols. The relevant guideline states: "Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia, since Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations."--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


There is a clear directive against naming a suspect without a conviction at WP:BLPCRIME. Naming victims who are not independently notable by WP standards is strongly discouraged by WP:BLPNAME. This has been raised and is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Cairns_child_killings. Rhoark (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your response probably belongs further down, under Categories: murder. This section, though poorly articulated in the opening editor's interpretation, is about the cultural protocols that actually relate to the names of the deceased. As previously indicated, those cultural protocols do not apply to Wikipedia, and the policies you've indicated also do not apply to the names of the deceased. It is probably not necessary to include the names of the deceased, but the minimum requirement is inclusion in reliable sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Policies under WP:BLP apply equally to the recently deceased ("recently" being flexibly defined as around 6 months to a year). Rhoark (talk) 06:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. However, my main point about the names of the deceased was in regard to the 'cultural protocols'. As previously stated, it remains unnecessary anyway, and I'm also not aware they were published, so your further advice is not relevant at this time.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that the names of the victims would be an important part of an article about their deaths. If/when the names are published by reliable sources, I would expect to add them to our article.
[1] does actually "name" 6 of the children, in the caption of a photograph, however only their first/christian names are given, no surnames - and there are apparently 5 different fathers, so we can't simply assume the children have the same surname as their mother. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly important. However, it is not important that they be named here immediately over the top of BLP policy. WP:NOTNEWS Rhoark (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

101.169.170.144 found the current article "in rather bad taste". I changed the article name from "... murders", as discussed at WP:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Cairns Child Murders, because of WP:BLPCRIME - unless/until someone is convicted, we ought not call it murder. This is particularly so (for BLP reasons) now that a suspect has been named. However, I've no particular preference for the current title, if someone wants to rename it again - provided that the new title does not include "murder". Mitch Ames (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we are being careful not to interpret meaning into words that has not been confirmed by a (coroners or criminal) court, then should the title simply be "...deaths"? "killings" is surely just as loaded a term as "murders". --Scott Davis Talk 10:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The children were killed. The cause of death has been described in several sources, including police reports, as "murder". Whilst it's not necessary to use a more inflammatory term in the title, it's also not necessary to euphemistically imply in the article title that they 'just died'. Therefore, it seems appropriate to leave it as killings.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categories: murder

I have again removed the categories that refer to murder. Per WP:BLPCRIME we should not be calling this murder until someone is convicted. I've done this twice before already [2][3], and I don't want to edit war over it. Can I have some opinions (either way) from other editors about this. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A number of sources have specifically stated that there was an arrest "for murder", though formal charges have not yet been laid. Regardless of any particular suspect, it's clear the children were murdered, as opposed to lawful killing, suicide or accidental death.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the categories. Not only do various sources explicitly quote Detective Inspector Bruno Asnicar's statement that an arrest has been made for the "murder", but it is also explicitly stated on the Queensland Police Service's Twitter feed.[4] The fact that the police have not released a name does not change the fact that they have confirmed it as a murder. (Note that this confirmation does not require a change to the name of this article.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a huge difference between a "charge" of murder and a judicial finding of murder. Murder can only be determined by the courts. If the offender is found not guilty by reason if insanity, for example, then murder did not happen. The crime at the moment is described as "homicide". WWGB (talk) 12:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You do not seem to understand the distinction for the purpose of the category. The deaths have been described by the police as murder. If the killer is convicted of murder, then that determines whether the killer is called a murderer. But that is not the basis for determination for describing the victims. If a killer avoids trial (e.g. by dying in the event, fleeing the country etc), or is convicted of a lesser charge, or is acquitted (e.g. because or mental defect or because there is insufficient evidence to prove that that person is the killer), it doesn't change the fact that the victims were murdered.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffro77, I realise that you're making a distinction between the victims being murdered and the suspect being a murderer, but:
  • BLP and BLPCRIME applies to this article - in particular to the suspect. The suspect is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
  • There is one, named, suspect. The police have stated that they expect to lay charges against her soon [5].
  • If we say that the children were murdered - whether by using that word in the article title or including the article in a "murder" category - then a reader could reasonably take that as an assertion that the one-and-only suspect murdered them.
For the sake of BLP, I think we should err on the side of caution and not state or imply that these killings were murder until a court (not the police, not the news reports) says so. (If a court finds that the named suspect is not guilty, but a coroner says the victims were murdered, ie by persons unknown, then calling it murder would be OK, because we would not be blaming any particular person.) Mitch Ames (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An entry has been raised at WP:BLPN#Cairns child killings, requesting more opinions here. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To claim that BLP and BLPCRIME say that deaths can not be called murders until a suspect is convicted is to misunderstand those guidelines. Using that reasoning Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes and Mary Jane Kelly could not be categorized as murder victims. The event is clearly a mass murder. This is true whether the the police had a suspect or not, whether there was enough evidence to be brought to trial or not and whether or not the suspect was convicted.Edward321 (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your examples are irrelevant to BLP and BLPCRIME and not comparable to the Cairns killings because:
  • The Cairns case has a single well-publicised and identified (in the media) suspect, who has been arrested and charged. Your examples did not have one suspect, and no-one was charged.
  • The Cairns suspect is still alive and thus subject to BLP. All of the suspects for your examples are no longer alive, thus not subject to BLP.
Mitch Ames (talk) 01:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You said that "Per WP:BLPCRIME we should not be calling this murder until someone is convicted." Based on that reasoning we cannot call anyone on List of unsolved deaths a murder victim. Many of those had "a single well-publicised and identified (in the media) suspect" who was "arrested and charged". WP:BLPCRIME says that a person cannot be called a murderer until they have been convicted, not that an event cannot be called a murder until someone is convected. Lizzie Borden is one example. It say that the violent death's of her father and stepmother were murders, but at no point says Lizzie was a murderer. Other examples are the Peasenhall Murder, the Hall–Mills murder case, The Wallace Case, and the Sheppard Case. Edward321 (talk) 04:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is based primarily on the Biographies of living persons policy, where an identified suspect has been charged but not yet convicted (or acquitted). I'd be more inclined to take your argument seriously is you gave examples of articles categorised as murder where the suspects had been identified, are still living, and have not yet been convicted or acquitted of murder. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Murders of Sumarti Ningsih and Jesse Lorena, Vaughan Foods beheading incident, 2014 Calgary stabbing. 2014 Spring, Texas shooting, Darren Deon Vann, Murder of Hannah Graham, Overland Park Jewish Community Center shooting, Vaughan Foods beheading incident. Edward321 (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity

Re this edit [6]:

The ethnicity was reported to explain why the Torres Strait Island Regional Council was involved (in Reactions). I originally mentioned it in this edit because I thought it needed to be said, but wasn't sure about including it in the main body text. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2nd person taken to hospital

I've removed from the Suspect section the reference to a second person taken to hospital. Only one reference [7] mentions a second person, and that reference says only "It is not clear whether the second person taken to hospital is a stepfather of the children." There's nothing at all to suggest that there is a second suspect which might be implied by the mention in the Suspect section. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And apparently "earlier reports there were two people in hospital were incorrect". Mitch Ames (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of massacres in Australia

This page is also on List of massacres in Australia. I have updated there to reflect this pages title move, charges laid etc. Others may like to check there as well if this page is significantly updated. ɛ 220 of Borg 08:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect and mother

While I appreciate the reasons for this reversion of my edit, I disagree. That text is not "ambiguous" it is misleading, in that implies (to the casual reader) that there are two people:

  1. The mother, who was injured
  2. A [separate] female who was charged with murder

The casual reader might also assume that the mother was attacked and injured by person 2, whereas we know [8] that the injuries were self-inflicted.

Personally I think that naming the mother/suspect does not violate BLPCRIME or BLPNAME; her name is widely publicised in all of the sources, and our article would say that she was arrested and is a suspect, both of which are verifiably true.

However, even if we leave her name out, we need to reword the article so that it does not imply two separate people.

  • Stating that the mother was charged ought not be a problem if we have not named her.
  • We should state that the injuries were self-inflicted; she's not the victim of a separate attacker (as is implied by your edit).

For now, I have deleted the sentence "The mother ... was taken to hospital ...", so that the article does not mislead. I think that information should be in the article - as should "self-inflicted" - but we need to come up with some agreeable wording rather than edit-war. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, but I've tried to work with the interpretations of BLPCRIME as they have been presented. That said, with the wide availability of sources, dancing around the issue at this point is little more than an academic exercise.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While WP:BLPCRIME as Rhoark pointed out in the section above does discuss not naming the suspect - "editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured", I do not believe this is a clear directive, but rather a strong caution. Given the widespread reporting of her name and the fact that she has now been charged, the omission of her name but inclusion of ethnicity makes the article seem incomplete and inadvertently culturally insensitive (an unnamed Torres Strait Islander was charged with mass murder). I understand why her ethnicity has been added and agree with Mitch Ames that it clarifies why there was a response from the Torres Strait Island Regional Council, but really if we are not naming the suspect, then her ethnicity should not be mentioned either, and the reference to the TSIRC removed from reactions.
Furthermore, reading more about this case today, sources including this one [9] are now reporting the perpetrator may never actually face trial or be criminally convicted on grounds of mental health, ergo there may never be a conviction required to satisfy Rhoark's interpretation of WP:BLPCRIME. So please in the interest of accuracy and completeness can we just name the perpetrator (not a suspect, police reporting she is aware of her actions - as good as a confession)? Dfadden (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If its been seriously considered and a consensus reached, the requirements are presumably satisfied. Rhoark (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I have removed the ethnicity from this article if we can't include her name. End of story. --George Ho (talk) 05:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on disputed BLP items

There has been some debate and article instability over the inclusion, or not, of several details, primarily for BLP reasons. I'd like to try to get some consensus on at least some of these, so I propose a poll to gauge the current opinion on each of these matters.

Can editors please indicate their opinion - with a brief reason - on each of the items below. It's possible (based on previous comments) that at least some answers will be conditional on others, eg "include in 'murder' categories if and only if suspect's name is not mentioned". If that's the case, please say so (again, briefly). Mitch Ames (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Should the suspect's name be included in the article?


Should the ethnicity of the suspect and family be included in the article?
Should the article state that the suspect's wounds were self-inflicted?


Should the article be included in "murder" categories?
This particular question started as a poll but was ultimately an article RfC. The consensus answer to the question is "no". While one person noted that WP:BLPCRIME does not (expressly) say that that events that the police call murders should not be categorised as murders, it does say that editors should seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. In this article, there is a whole section/paragraph providing coverage in relation to a named-suspect who has been charged with murder. In the absence of reliable sources confirming conviction being secured, the proposed inclusion of a murder category in the article at this time would imply the individual committed murder, and would be inappropriate (as it it is not permitted by BLP policy and various laws). There was a bit of discussion about whether another term (such as homicide) may be more appropriate to use, but that was not the question being asked so I will leave it there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Some editors are interpreting BLP to mean that the killings cannot be called murder in the article body or categoriea "until someone is convicted". Input from additional people, especially those actively involved in creating the BLP guidelines would be appreciated. Edward321 (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged this new RFC (raised by Edward321) into the existing poll (created by Mitch Ames), so as not to split the poll/discussion. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is unnecessary to apply a legalese definition where we should actually be using the common definition. A murder for Wikipedia's purposes is the standard definition, which is a deliberate killing of a human by another human.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But if the accused is found to be insane then it was not "deliberate killing" but the act of an insane person. In that case murder did not happen, "legalese" or otherwise. WWGB (talk) 08:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would mean they are not guilty of murder by reason of mental defect, but it doesn't mean it wasn't a deliberate action.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You said it yourself "not guilty of murder". Is it still murder if the person who did it is not guilty of murder? (Whether it was deliberate is irrelevant - the categories are "murder" not "deliberate killing".) Mitch Ames (talk) 09:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, but nice try, claiming I 'said it myself'. The categories use murder in the colloquial sense. This is why they can include articles where the killer was not identified or died during the event. Whether a person was convicted of murder is a more technical usage.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is merely your personal interpretation, there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that distinguishes between "technical" and "colloquial" murder. WWGB (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. The existing contents of the category indicates that it is not intended only for cases where the killer has been convicted for murder.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is never a convincing argument. WWGB (talk) 04:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's entirely valid when it's the inherent purpose of the categories under consideration. Your link to a guideline about article creation is not directly relevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see you sneakily removed the valid categories again under the guise of an edit "per source". I couldn't be bothered reverting at this stage. Consensus is already tending against your opinion, and it will develop further. I'm probably not going to be watching this article for the time being.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, how wrong you are. Here is the diff of my "per source" edit, which has nothing to do with categories. I suggest you remove the "sneakily" accusation which is without foundation. WWGB (talk) 06:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I'm okay with not including the murder categories. There was some discussion of the suspects mental state. I'm not following all the legal details but I do believe they should heavily influence our decisions. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the {{spa|202.159.162.52}} template added by Edward321, but personally I think it unnecessary here. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Three of the four examples from your link use the term "murder" before someone has been convicted of that crime. Wikipedia has its own guidelines, the question was based on those guidelines, not those of another organization. Are you suggesting the existing Wikipedia guidelines should be changed? Edward321 (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you mean there was a homocide. Murder is a crime with which people are charged. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Someone was charged with murder, but there is no murder conviction. Let's wait until someone is convicted. BLP policy forces us to take these kinds of cautious, conservative steps when dealing with contentious statements. It's not going to hurt anything to wait to see how the court case ends. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Summoned here by RfC bot. "Murder" is a specific term that implies a degree of culpability that has not been established. We should not be using controversial category labels under these circumstances. Coretheapple (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We construct the article according to reliable sources, and make no presentation that implies something that is not yet found in reliable sources, and which is not yet true. We can say in an article that someone has been arrested for murder if reliable sources say that, but we cannot say or imply that someone is a murderer. In this article we have a named individual who has been charged with murder according to sources, and this has been noted; however, as there has been no conviction, BLP policies and various laws (contempt of court, libel, etc) would not allow statement or implication indicating that the individual committed murder. Putting categories on the article which imply a murder took place, would not be allowed under BLP or several laws in USA and Australia. Removing the categories was very much the right thing to do. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, "killing" ≠ "murder". The article on murder describes it as:

    the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human. Generally this premeditated state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter).

    It is entirely possible that this killing may not amount to murder, and that is for a court to determine on the weight of the evidence. —sroc 💬 15:35, 17 January 2015 (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.

Names of the children

NAC: On the one hand, it can be argued whether 3-2 against including the names constitutes consensus in Wikipedia. On the other hand, if there is no consensus, status quo indicates not to add the names. Since the policy argument about BLPNAME and the cultural argument about privacy among certain cultures are strong, I will take the step of saying that there is consensus against including the names (knowing that a reversal in favor of no consensus has no effect). Robert McClenon (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

The names of the children have been published in the funeral notice. Given other BLP disagreements on this article, I'd like some consensus before adding the names to the article - so, opinions please:

Should we add the names of the children to the article? Mitch Ames (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes - the names are important to the article (which is about their deaths) and have been published [11][12]. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely not. WP:BLPNAME, which also applies to the recently-deceased, states that "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated ... it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories." In summary, the children are identified only in a family funeral notice, and there is absolutely no benefit to the reader in knowing their precise names. WWGB (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I assert that, for an article about the deaths of specific people, the names of those specific people who died is quite important. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong No - Aside from Wikipedia policy, there are very specific cultural protocols amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Mentioning verbally or writing the names of the deceased is taboo and is disrespectful, at least for a period of time sometimes referred to as "sorry business" and likely to cause pain and offence to some who may read this. As stated in the text The Torres Strait Island Regional Council requested respect for privacy and cultural responsibilities, adding it was inappropriate to comment due to "strict cultural protocols". is referring to this - even many coroner's reports (I have read a few} will only name the deceased for the purpose of identification, and thereafter refer to them as either "the deceased" or some other term specific to the cultural group. Dfadden (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... there are very specific cultural protocols amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
I believe that WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:DISC explicitly or implicitly state that (non-Wikipedian) cultural protocols do not apply to Wikipedia. In particular
Wikipedia's policies and guidelines cover what we do, not Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander protocols. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I accept that it is not in contravention of Wikipedia policy, and I respect your assertion that the names are important in this context, I stand by my objection. WP:DISC indeed states "Articles may contain audio, visual, or written representations of people or events which may be protected by some cultures.", so I will abide by a decision reached through consensus. In debating this topic however, I consider WP:GRATUITOUS which states "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." The articles Australian Aboriginal avoidance practices and Taboo on the dead (despite being poorly sourced, as someone who grew up in remote areas of the Northern Territory and has worked closely with Indigenous communities, I can vouch for their accuracy) describe alternatives to naming the dead, noting that this is an issue of respect during a period of mourning and not a permanent cultural prohibition. Also consider that even the Queensland Police Service will not release the names for this reason [13], and none of the National/International news agencies covering the investigation have published the names either - the only identification is a funeral notice as per WWGB's comments above. I would argue for holding off on including the names of the victims until a reasonable time has past as the article is still accurate, relevant and informative without these names included. While it doesn't sit well with me personally, perhaps a compromise such as including the victims names in a collapsible list as per Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting would be appropriate in the mean time? Its not exactly censorship, but it affords some protection against offence and supports the principle of least astonishment as per [content] for people who would not expect this information to be published here? Dfadden (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting list is collapsed for reasons of space rather than an intent to hide the names from those who might be offended. I don't think it's necessarily an appropriate solution here.
I continue to assert that it's appropriate to include the names here (a non-Australian, not familiar with Indigenous Australian culture, would probably be surprised not to find the names here). However what constitutes a "reasonable time" to exclude or hide the names for cultural reasons? If for example, it turned out that it was only "inappropriate" to exclude the names until after the funeral, I would happily wait a few days before including them. (But if it's a few months or years, I would not be happy to wait that long.) Mitch Ames (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Sandy Hook victim names were splashed across US media. The Cairns kids have only been named in a family funeral notice. Big difference. WWGB (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitch Ames:, I do not wish to infer the Sandy Hook victim's names were collapsed to avoid identification, I understand the collapsible box was implemented as a space saving measure. I merely proposed it an example of a compromise - the names can be on the page, but out of respect one has the option of not seeing them. I don't think it is an unreasonable compromise, but I would be interested to know why you feel it may be inappropriate in this case? As for what constitutes a "reasonable time", definitely not until after the funeral, but it is my understanding that for Torres Strait Islanders, sorry business generally wouldn't be over until the "tombstone unveiling", a ceremony of final goodbyes and decoration of the burial site which can be up to a year after the passing. Its probably not realistic to wait that long (although it would be a respectful course of action), but I would argue in the strongest possible terms that it would be appropriate to wait until the names are reported in mainstream media sources, or at the very least by the Queensland Police Service. In fact, I think if WP:SURPRISE were applied here, many readers would be surprised to find the names listed if the investigating authorities had not released them. Also consider that before the investigation is concluded and the case goes to court, there may be a legal issue here. Under Queensland privacy laws, minors who are involved in criminal proceedings, even as witnesses are not allowed to be identified in media reports, and under FOI, their names would be redacted in court documents - there were multiple fathers of the children, they may have half-siblings or step-siblings required to give evidence at a trial or inquest who may be inadvertently identified, so I would err on the side of caution in identifying any of the children until the full facts are known or published in reputable sources. Dfadden (talk) 07:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. I haven't seen a reason why not. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article as it stands now needs a section "Victims" before the section "Suspect", especially since there seems to be some doubt as to whether there was indeed a crime and if the named suspect committed it. There is no doubt as to whether there were victims. The article is about the event, and the victims are integral to the event having taken place. I see no "cultural" issue with naming the victims, since the family or friends have chosen to name them in the funeral notice. Whether it is appropriate under Qld law given that they were minors is beyond my expertise. I also don't know if the funeral notice counts as a WP:RELIABLE source that the names listed are the victims of this event. In the process of writing this comment, I decided I support yes (per Mitch Ames), name them and describe their life and place in community. --Scott Davis Talk 09:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. There is no link between the funeral notice and the events in the article. There is an editorial assumption that these are the same people, but there is no reliable source making that connection. Under our policies we cannot make the connection ourselves. While there is a very high degree of probability that they are the same children, there isn't 100% certainty, so even without BLP considerations, we simply don't make guesses and assumptions - see WP:SYNTHESIS. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In principle I agree with the SYN argument - the funeral notice does not state that it is for the victims of the Cairns child killings. However there are several reliable sources that make the connection, eg:
One might argue that there could be more than one funeral at the location, at 10am on that date, with 8 people being buried, half of whom have the same surname, and a memorial afterwards at Fred Moule Pavilion, but it seems to be stretching the spirit of WP:SYN a bit. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2015 (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.

Why have an article at all?

I am somewhat curious about why we are having an article about this at all. Tragically there are many cases of parents killing their children and they mostly get newspaper coverage so plenty of sources, but they don't all get Wikipedia articles or even mentions in Wikipedia. For example, the man who threw his daughter off the Westgate Bridge in Melbourne in a middle of a custody dispute doesn't get an article. It does get 2 sentences in the Westgate Bridge article. If the bridge itself had not warranted an article, would we have mentioned the event at all? The girl who was stabbed to death by her mother at home and the mother then suicided off the Story Bridge in Brisbane fails to get any explicit mention (even in the Story Bridge article, apart from a non-specific comment about the bridge being the location of two murder-suicides), but again truckloads of media coverage. There was plenty of discussion (see Talk:Death of Jill Meagher) about whether her death was notable, but the argument in favour of retaining the article was the community reaction (women organising marches etc). In this Cairns case, the children were not notable, the parent currently under suspicion was not notable, the location was not notable. There's been no community reaction in the Cairns case beyond the normal expressions of grief and sadness at the event. There's no evidence that some new legislation or other change will be implemented because of it. So why is this case so interesting that we make an article out of it? Is it the number of deaths that make it notable? Is it because of race/culture? I am genuinely curious why we find this particular tragedy more article-worthy than others. I am not proposing we delete it. In my view if so many people want to contribute to it, there's obviously something here that makes it important to them (and therefore presumably others who will wish to read it) but I am just curious what that "X factor" is. Kerry (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For me, it's the number of deaths. I've wondered the same thing about the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis which doesn't seem to be much more significant than many similar events. --Scott Davis Talk 23:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my feeling is that it must be the number of deaths that makes this more noteworthy. While I think the Sydney hostage crisis did not have the significance of 2014 Peshawar school massacre, I think (for Australians at least) the events of the Sydney hostage crisis played out in real time on our TV screens (covered continuously on our all our major free-to-air stations). I think the possible link to Islamic State played a large role in its prominence (e.g. world leaders issuing statements about the event, which I don't think would have occurred if the hostage-taking had been believed to be in relation to, say, a job loss, a family court decision etc). Perhaps too the tragic deaths in Cairns are more significant because of indigenous issues being high on the national agenda. Thanks for your thoughts! Kerry (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pretty straight-forward matter of checking the events against WP:EVENT. From a quick glance, coverage seems to be mostly national and not that varied...but on the other hand, a memorial is to be constructed, which would give the events lasting impact. However, see WP:NOTCRYSTAL; we can't predict the future in deciding whether something is notable. At the moment I'd say it's worth seriously reviewing. Things like the number of deaths is not a factor in establishing notability.Knight of Truth (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cairns_child_killings&oldid=1213473043"