Talk:Port Arthur massacre (Australia)/Archive 2

Discussion on disambiguation

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". --PBS 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)

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).

'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)

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)

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.

Complete horse-shit. 90% of the article is from the COURT DOCUMENTS OF PRESENTED FACTS. You don't know what you are talking about.--Dacium (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

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.

And that has what to do with the massacre? Absolutely nothing. There isn't a shred of proof the goverment or Howard was involved in any of this not one fact at all.--Dacium (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

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.

Again, please true and source your facts. Not make up complete and utter non-sense. There is very little to no 'mystery'. 11 hour stand off so what? Lack of misses is bullshit - go look up how many times he missed, he missed all over the place, he was never able to kill anyone who was more than 2m away from him. No audio or video tapes show anything about multiple shooters, you can go down to the court and watch them if you want. The timeline is consistant. YOu seem to want to add facts that are just completely made up on conspiracy sites. How about you read the court proceedings and the official police documents.--Dacium (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

Why dont you point out what isn't fact. Just because people don't believe doesn't make it ture. The facts show with 100% certainty that byrant was the murderer. His prints and DNA were on all the guns, he was seen by 20+ witnesses killing people. YOU IDIOTS DON'T REALISE THAT THIS EVIDENCE NEVER NEEDED TO BE BROUGHT TO COURT BECAUSE HE CHANGED HIS PLEA TO GUILTY, SO THE THEY DID NOT HAVE TO SHOW THE EVIDENCE. YOu you idiots insist there never was any. If you can back up your claims with any sources at all then add them, but stop talking crap.--Dacium (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2009 (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)

As far as I know, Bryant's estate was under an administrative tribunal order. I could be wrong. But as to what gains there would be for him in being a stooge. There are none. Stooges aren't paid off for their services, they are set up to take all losses and that's all there is to it.114.78.162.241 (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Artistic Response - is this encyclopaedic?

Someone, presumably one of the authors or a person connected with these works, has restored the section titled Artistic Response. I deleted it because I considered it self-indulgent and not notable. THis article is about the massacre, not the appropriation of it by artists. One of the causes of massacres is imitation driven by the failure of life trajectory of the loser who perpetrates it. Media and pop culture TEACH them it is a way to huge 'fame'. This sort of section in the Wikipedia article is giving this grubby crime a significance it does not deserve.

The two 'artistic responses' were the play (2007) - ie produced ELEVEN YEARS after the event - and the symphony which according to the composer's Wikipedia page was inspired by the play. The impact in the rest of the country was probably a bit more important. ChrisPer (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Could this be any more poorly written?

I don't believe it could. Major rewrite necessary. --66.188.84.217 (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You are not exaggerating by much. Go for it. ChrisPer (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

More Official Sources

I think perhaps more references are needed directly from official sources. The majority seem to be from this one book,
Altmann, Carol (2006). "The Massacre. After Port Arthur". Allen & Unwin.
One thing that irks me is too many footnotes references. Multiple ones in one paragraph all pointing to the same footnote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.28.25 (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem is that the 'official sources' are not online or in many cases published - the court records lump a lot of them. The article should be substantially reworked. ChrisPer (talk) 06:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not very clear on why the article being cited to reliable sources should irk anyone. One can only cite to what is available. It would help, IP, to review WP:CITE, WP:RS and the points covering inline citations. It is frequently questionable whether all points in a paragraph are covered by a single citation at the end of it. Yes, the article does need more work. Before I worked on it, there were multiple errors and misstatements and questionable sentences. It can certainly stand improvement. 48kb of content with 23 total cites was woefully inadequate, and even with the addition of the one substantial source that I could find, is still under sourced. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Opposition to Gun Control Laws

The article contained two unsubstantiated claims which are demonstrably false. It said that Tasmania and Queensland were particularly opposed to new gun control laws. This is not true. The two states most opposed to new legislation were Queensland and Western Australia, as John Howard confirms in his autobiography, Lazarus Rising:

"Stricter gun control was not an easy issue, especially for the Coalition side of politics. There was plenty of support from the Labor party. The NSW Premier, Bob Carr, was a strident opponent of the free availability of guns and was to prove one of my strongest backers. The two problem states were clearly going to be Queensland and Western Australia, both of which had Coalition governments."

The article also asserted:

It should be noted that the Tasmanian state government initially attempted to ignore this directive, but was subsequently threatened with a number of penalties from the federal government.

Tasmania was not a problem state for Howard's gun control laws. Tony Rundle personally invited Howard to join him immediately after the massacre (to "associate myself with his government's response", as Howard puts it in Lazarus Rising) and they discussed Tasmania's gun laws at that time. Howard did not threaten Tasmania with any penalties; he didn't need to, because the Premier was already on side. I have edited the article accordingly.Sankari Suomi (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The article specifically states "notably" not "most opposed" and does not say "particularly opposed" as you claim. Rundle may have supported Howard but his party didn't. Only NSW supported gun control, Howard had to threaten the other states with penalties to get their support. Your claim that the sentence is "demonstrably false" is incorrect as you have based it on a misinterpretation of what it says.Wayne (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Not the deadliest killing spree in Australian history

It shows ignorance and offends Indigenous people to claim, as in this article, that the Port arthur Massacre was the deadliest killing spree in Australian history.

In 1838 between 60 and 300 Aborigines were murdered by police at the Slaughterhouse Creek massacre. In 1840 up to 80 were killed at Fighting Hills. In 1868, at Jaburrara, between 30 and 60 were killed. In 1886, in the Coppermine murders, 150 were shot by miners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.71.2 (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Fix it then.ChrisPer (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually its the definition of Spree killer that distinguishes this from those and many other events, though it could use a source to support/define the claim Gnangarra 15:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Chamber Blast Pressure

There's an awkward sounding sentence in the middle of the paragraph "Capture and prosecution" which reads: "Both weapons had suffered from massive chamber blast pressure,( a tactic used by todays armed forces so as it is unable to trace projectiles to a certain weapon) possibly from the heat of the house fire.". A little research suggests that this is probably a quote lifted from media and misunderstood in this context. As far as I can tell, over-pressured chambers are used to provide stability under sustained fire rather than foiling forensic analysis and the quote doesn't even mention which armed forces use it or how they do. There doesn't seem to be any articles on the topic on Wikipedia but I don't know the area at all well. Can we refer this to a firearms subgroup for assistance? 58.96.94.12 (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

What this refers to is ONE of the rifles being damaged by an overloaded round or similar effect. One of the references, possibly "A Gunsmiths Notes on Port Arthur" discusses the possibility of a round from a batch known to cause blown-up rifles. THis might be accidental or deliberate, but given the perps profile my bet is accident. A bore obstruction might do this too(eg jamming muzzle in dirt or a previous squib shot which failed to get the projectile out of the barrel.) I think some of the conspiracy sources imply that a specially over-loaded round was used to do this damage. Its essentially conspiracy nonsense.ChrisPer (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

WLRoss edit on far-right organisations in opposition to gun laws.

Moved from another section of this page: This is one of the worst articles that I have seen in Wikipedia. There is a very hard slant in the "Reactions" section where a completely unsubstantiated assertion is made that the US organization: the Christian Coalition, strongly opposed the imposition of tighter gun laws in Australia in the aftermath of the Port Arthur killings. I have edited out the comment, only to see it replaced, twice. Where is there given even a shred of evidence for this assertion? It is nothing more than an obvious attempt to smear the US Christian group in particular, the the US Christian right in general. 98.218.81.29 (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

WLRoss, your edit comment is: "ChrisPer. Your belief that the media exaggerated opposition is WP:OR. The reliable source provided supports the claim."

I dont think 'media exaggerated opposition to the laws'. I was aware that these far-right idiots grabbed media attention and were used by activist media and politicians to discredit the much larger mainstream opposition as though they were extremists.

Your source does not say what you thought it does. It clearly says not that the far-right organisations led the opposition to the gun laws, but that the far-right organisations used the controversy to make a push for support, and leading that push for support was the list of dodgy little groups you name.

Nevertheless I thank you for causing me to read that article carefully, because it is extremely helpful and informative. ChrisPer (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Memorial plaque missing a name?

If there were 35 victims why does the Port Arthur Memorial Garden plaque list only 34 names?

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1428/5113546498_c510a178e3_b.jpg

The name of Raymond John Sharp is missing, although his brother(?) Kevin Sharp is listed. Why is this? Plinuckment (talk) 09:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you talk to the people who are responsible for the garden and plaque. Editors here are few and not part of officialdom.

ChrisPer (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Correct number of injured?

This article claims 19 people were wounded, the History of Tasmania says 20, and the main article on Tasmania says 21. What is the correct number? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.215.127.205 (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

According to this document the following 21 people were wounded:

Patricia Gwen Barker, Gerald Pounds Broome, Graham Derek Colyer, Brigid Ann Cook, Peter David Crosswell, Robert John Elliot, Gaye Jeanette Fidler, John Graeme Fidler, Gordon Howard Francis, Douglas Eric Horne, Douglas Ivan Hutchinson, Pamela Kathleen Law, Yvonne Lockley, Carolyn Anne Loughton, Dennis Olsen, Neville Quin, Michael Robert Sargent, Thelma Walker, Linda Marie White, Caroline Susan Mary Williams, Simon Roger Williams

At least that's what I've counted. (Lord Gøn (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC))

Conspiracy Theories reduced in main article

At least two conspiracy theories about the massacre have been widely promoted by fringe groups. These theories have been dismissed as without foundation. The Government of Tasmania, the Tasmania Police, the prosecutor Damian Bugg and Bryant's defence lawyer John Avery have all dismissed the suggestion that Bryant was not acting alone, saying that the evidence simply does not support any of the conclusions reached by the theorists.[17]

In 2001, former One Nation leader Pauline Hanson caused controversy when she claimed that the Commonwealth had ruled out "a full investigation" when "a lot of people are asking questions" about Port Arthur.[18] The Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia stated that the claims were "ludicrous", and urged One Nation to change their position or risk being seen as influenced by extreme elements within the community.[19]

Time to downplay this. Its only notable for its persistent nuttiness. ChrisPer (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have reduced the conspiracy stuff again. The material I removed was not of itself conspiracy stuff, but made loose claims as to why this nonsense took hold. For instance 'because there was no trial' - of course there was a trial, but the perpetrator pleaded guilty which meant it was not a media circus. And as to all the claims about doubtful identification, as far as I can tell the conspiracies were off and running very early, and additional evidence was just twisted to fit the framework of the conspiracy nuts. ChrisPer (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"Of course there was a trial". No, there was not.

Bryant maintained his innocence for five months after the incident, right up to the first preliminary Hearing on September 30, 1996, during which he pleaded "not guilty". That first Hearing was suspended with David Gunson, Bryant's lawyer, resigning the very next day and being immediately replaced by John Avery.

In a possible conflict of interest, John Avery had been present during that first Hearing, because he had already worked on a related case against gun store owner Terry Hill, alleged by the Hobart police to have supplied Bryant with his firearms. Although that case against Hill was dropped due to lack of evidence, Avery was still present at Bryant's first Hearing.

A second Hearing was held almost two months later, on November 22, 1996, and this time Bryant pleaded "guilty" to all 72 charges. By pleading "guilty" Bryant never had a Trial. He had two Preliminary Hearings and a Sentencing Hearing, but no Trial.

Kwazimoto69 (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

We disagree about the meaning of the term 'trial'. Due process was followed, which means the hearings you refer to were the trial. The words 'no trial' to many mean "no extended circus laying out evidence for the papers and TV". His counsel Avery is a shonk, I agree. In this case he claims to have been pressing for a guilty plea for 'the good of the community' but there is no chance the outcome for Bryant would have been any better from a media circus. The idea of 'conflict of interest' seems to be wank. Avery was not a witness whose evidence would need to be un-corrupted, but a lawyer. Lawyers go to courts and do stuff all the time there for different people whose interests must be separated; to claim a lawyer has conflict of interest from being in an earlier hearing is silly.

The whole conspiracy thing is based on confirmation bias; start with the idea, and reframe everything in your mind to support it. Joe Vialls dropped out of fashion, but people were sucked in by his ALL CAPS INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE. What then follows is fifteen years of ignoring the evidence AGAINST the conspiracy idea. When Vialls was discredited, they became Scurr acolytes or whatever; fine people in many cases but caught in delusion. You can read up on the unconscious processes at work in a great book by Robert Cialdini, "Influence: Science and Practice". He refers to ideas 'growing supports' after the original reason we committed is taken away. Robbed of the initial reasoning our unconscious rushes into rationalising new reasons without realising that the fealing of unnaturally strong committment to the idea is a warning that your mind has been manipulated. This is the trick used by car salesman in the 'Lowball' technique. ChrisPer (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

When Bryant pleaded 'not guilty' in the first Preliminary Hearing the prosecution were then supposed to demonstrate that they had sufficient evidence to make a case against Bryant. That did not happen at the first Hearing, and it didn't happen at the second because Bryant was persuaded to plead 'guilty', thus negating the need for an actual Trial in which the evidence against Bryant would be heard. Yes, we disagree on the definition of 'Trial'.

An alleged copy of Bryant's Psychiatric Report, based on interviews conducted by Professor of Forensic Psychiatry Paul E. Mullen on 4 May, 1996, can be found here, and the summary of Professor Mullen's report is:

"In my opinion therefore this man is fit to plead, though he may require a little more assistance and a little more time in coping with the legal process than would a more intellectually able accused."

Bryant didn't get someone who would give him a little more assistance and who wouldn't spend time helping him cope with the legal process; he got Avery, a man who really churns my stomach. In an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald Avery is quoted as saying:

"I had nothing to offer [Bryant] in the legal sense. I never let him think I had anything to offer. There was no chance of a deal in the real sense; it was never put to him. I regularly said to him, 'You are going to jail for life and you are never going to get out'. In answer to your question, what did I have to offer Bryant? Sweet FA."

Avery admits that the evidence against Bryant was overwhelming but states in his very next sentence that Bryant was entitled to have his guilt proved. Except Avery defined his role as being "...to explain to him [Bryant] the implications - on himself and the families of the victims - of pursuing the not-guilty. He certainly recognised that pleading guilty would be seen to be a better outcome for everyone, including himself."

There is no evidence in support of the conspiracy theories, and there is no evidence that Bryant didn't commit these atrocities, but there doesn't have to be. Bryant didn't need to prove he was innocent; the onus was on us to prove he was guilty. Except rather than go to Trial with the apparently overwhelming amount of evidence we locked Bryant up for 5 months, and when he pleaded 'not guilty' we locked him up for another 2 months until he changed his mind and "confessed".

Professor Mullen attests that Bryant was fit to stand trial although he added that Bryant may require additional assistance due to his diminished mental capacity. In other reports it was estimated that Bryant's mental age in 1996 was that of an 11-year old. In other words, we locked up an 11-year old man-child for seven months, over half a year, until he finally agreed to do what we wanted. I don't see that as 'due process'.

Kwazimoto69 (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Pish and tosh, Kwazimoto. That half a year is expeditious for a murder trial. Given the evidence that Police had gathered but never had to present, his trial was a foregone conclusion. I myself would rather the evidence be in the public domain, but remember that we DONT have access to it because of that guilty plea. Yes, Avery sounds a complete prat who was acting not necessarily in the best interest of his client but according to himself, in that of 'the community'. Whether it makes any difference to the outcome, is debatable. Your characterisation as locking him up 'until he did what we wanted' is nonsense. He was always going to be locked up for the rest of his life, and just because you misname bits of the process based on opinion doesn't mean it wasn't formally correct in law. That formal correctness is what is called 'due process'. ChrisPer (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

---

I would agree if there was an article on the theories but there is not so something more than a short single line is warranted. The deleted material had no detail of the conspiracy theories so it has basically been deleted for a personal opinion that any reference to them at all is nonsense. What "loose claims"? They were reported in newspapers, supported by police statements and commented on by politicians. Who cares if there was a trial or not? It was a statement by the Premier of Tasmania dismissing conspiracy theories and it is obvious what he meant by "no trial". I had a friend who was there that day so took an interest from the start but I never heard any conspiracy theories "very early". Without references that claim is WP:OR. Wayne (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it because I considered it not to contribute to the article about the massacres; and the article has suffered from the past attention of conspiracy buffs to load it with their nonsense. I have no interest in disagreement for its own sake. In one other point, it may be obvious to you and me what he meant by 'no trial', but it doesn't make that assertion correct, or mean that the assertion will not be misconstrued by other readers. ChrisPer (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

From what I've read almost all the conspiracy theories stem from the lack of identification in conjunction with other claims (such as several of the victims being ASIO and the identity suppression etc). Obviously if the police had interviewed more people they would have got a positive ID from the majority of witnesses but they didn't do that because of the guilty plea. That the Premier of Tasmania commented on this makes it notable if it was not already and the text explains to the reader where the claims originated and why. The lack of identification is not a conspiracy itself nor is it a significant part of one. There is no actual conspiracy content so I can't see where the problem lies. Wayne (talk) 08:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Your position is not unreasonable, and I am not going to start a fight over it. My view is a bit different - I find the conspiracy material should be downplayed because it gets people deservedly tarred as nuts. However, your suggestion that police didn't interview enough people to get a positive ID because of the guilty plea seems odd - police interviews should be over by the time the court date arrives, by a long shot. We (and the conspiracy people) don't have access to the police interviews, except what they published or presented in court. The nature of SHTF means that witnesses conflict and get it wrong - thats how it goes, and the loonies siezed on natural variation and spun it up into far more than it was really worth. ChrisPer (talk) 05:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

How about adding a section called "controversy" for inclusion of evidence or testimony that is contrary to or calls into question official court accounts (without any sort of analysis or editorial), and putting all details of nutty conspiracy claims into a dedicated section? I feel this is likely to be a compromise which could keep the conspiracy nuts happier while not appearing to censor claims about questionable evidence (or giving excessive weight to a particularly nutty Facebook page).Miasmic (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

But why? The arguments for conspiracy stories are not rational. Its fourteen years after, and there has been no new evidence about the conspiracy theories. At bottom its nonsense, and has no place in the article. What we need is rewriting the article with less anecdotal stuff. ChrisPer (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

$1.5m?

The Martin Bryant article says his inheritance was only $550,000? Neither figure seems to be sourced. Jpatokal (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed in this edit to a sourced 300,000 GBP. Feel free to change this figure if your change can be sourced. Note that I used Historical Exchange Rates to convert 300,000 GPB to 570,000 AUD using a 1 May 1996 exchange rate of 1.8971 and similarly a 1 May 1996 exchange rate of 1.5039 to convert 300,000 GBP to 450,000 USD. I of course rounded as necessary --Senra (talk) 12:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

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.

The Weimar Republic put the German gun laws into place many decades before the NSDAP took advantage of them. They relaxed the civil laws slightly for 'Aryans' who could be approved under Weimar legislation, which is logical when planning to enter your country into a racially motivated state of war.. but they amended the act and completely forbade Jews from owning any firearms. The laws were already in place for the Nazi government to inherit and actively utilize. So YOUR argument is a lot of bollocks. And with the fall of that argument, the bollocks regarding motive also falls. There's plenty of motivation to incrementally disarm a population when you are planning to remove sovereignty from that population. Or if you wish to impose the presence of a force which has no jurisdiction except through the treasonous actions of the acting government, contrary to the national constitution. All good motives for allowing such an incident to occur, or even to stage it. But you have to belittle me and bring John Howard into it, and you infer that my position is that he masterminded the shootings. You attempt to discredit me by making the asinine assertion that a belief in the possibility of a conspiracy is paramount to a view which equates Howard with Stalin, Mao or Hitler. His only role was in helping to legislate guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, costing the taxpayer over one half billion dollars in buyback programs. Perhaps John Howard doesn't have the kind of character to do this, but there are those with global interests who do and John Howard clearly demonstrated his willingness to bend over for all takers. Funny enough, those who have such a character don't even hide the fact that they have such ambitions and several of them make it plain that such 'happy coincidences' as Port Arthur make their work much easier. It isn't difficult to find this information in mainstream, credible news sources. You just need to stop looking at the ground. I don't know, how much would you care to wager that Australia will see FEMA or UN Peacekeepers in action on Australian soil in the next 15 years? Maybe worse. How about People's Liberation Army?

You simplify the issue to be persuasive for people who may not have a broader historical knowledge. You demean everyone's intelligence with your simplifications. And using language such as 'Official Cover Story' doesn't necessarily indicate pre-judgment. That evidence has been taken well into account, with all it's contradictions and unanswered questions. It was exposure to the official explanation of events which made me question the case to begin with. But then, like any person of actual intelligence, I've looked into all that tin foil hat kind of stuff just to be sure... you know, like eye witness testimony, including the informal testimony of someone who knew Bryant well and claimed that it wasn't him. (Of course, the exclusion of eye witness testimony which is non-confirmatory of the official explanation of events leads to suspicions of conspiracy). Pretend like you have some capacity to think for yourself. Stop assuming that people just pick a bunch of crap off of the internet, or the news and go with it the way you seem to. Oh, and just to address the eye witnesses who claim to have seen Bryant carrying the weapons, shooting people. There are at least two possibilities to explain that outside of the official claims. 1. He actually participated in the operation. 2. Someone was brilliant enough to get a floppy blond wig. It doesn't take a great stretch of the imagination to reason out that you'd want a patsy to actually be present at the place where he's going to be alleged to have been.114.78.162.241 (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

I'd just like to point out that his shooting was way above the level somebody should have with an IQ of 66, the fact that he was able to reload once he hit 29 rounds so he would have a round left in the chamber is also outstanding and incredibly difficult even for trained soldiers. the fact that he was consistently making accurate semi automatic shots to the head and his general accuracy would put him within the top 1% of marksmen in the world. just something to think about before blindly dismissing such claims — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.39.240 (talk) 05:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Request new locator map at top

I stared at it a long time before I could figure out what was land and what was water. Water should always be blue on maps, to avoid this problem. StuRat (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Request raised here --Senra (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Image replaced per this edit --Senra (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This article reads like it was written by a 12 year old on crack

Could it be any more poorly written? --1.121.190.112 (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, just wondering where you got your experience for the comparison. Regardless, feel free to improve the writing. --Pete (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Just had a quick look. My interpretation differs from yours. --Pete (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Anything thinking this is an example of brilliant writing is a bit silly. This is a good example of a cover up in action, and what is the worst in Wikipedia's crimes. 203.4.164.1 (talk) 05:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Slanting

I've pulled back a number of IP edits (like this} pushing the conspiracy theory by slanting the language and introducing unsourced material. This article is not the place for speculation and argument, but always welcoming in discussion on ways to improve the article. It'd be awful if we were seen to be complicit in covering up some "black-hat" government operation, but the sort of evidence raised in support is usually along the lines of a chain of speculations or some error in photo interpretation or something. For example, the involvement of professional shooters is often raised because so many of the deaths were headshots, ignoring the fact that you don't need telescopic sights and a steady hand when you shove the muzzle into their face before pulling the trigger. --Pete (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Its high time we started calling for psychiatric intervention. The 1980s saw the largest de-institutionalisation in history of people who desperately needed ongoing mental health care and this article shows it. ;-)

ChrisPer (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Have removed a long, unsourced and "slanted" section from conspiracy theories which has specific statements about his identification, including quotes, supported by none of the sources cited. The sentences before and after this remain and state the same thing without this vapour. I don't find any of this untruthful or even controversial, but if it's sourced from nowhere credible it shouldn't be here.

"Of the few witnesses contacted by police, only two positively identified Bryant as the gunman at Port Arthur, both having first identified him on 27 May, after the media had published his photograph naming him as the culprit. In their police statements, three witnesses, two of whom knew Bryant by sight, stated that they “did not recognise” the gunman as Bryant and a worker in the café later stated she had changed her mind because the gunman did not resemble the photographs published by the media." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.62.16.12 (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Correct, this article is 99% false. Not just a slant. A slant is okay. This article is just plain lying. 203.4.164.1 (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

BRD

I've reverted a couple of recent bold edits. Let's discuss them.

1. There's a paragraph about Bryant buying firearms and equipment, which needs to be sourced. I've read this a few times in various places, such as some of the books about the event, so we can source it. Removing it, claiming it to be untrue is unjustified, I think.

2. The massacre is hardly the most controversial event in Australian history. I'd be very skeptical of any reliable source claiming that to be the case. Far more controversial events would be the Dismissal and the Lindy Chamberalian affair. The Port Arthur thing was uncontroversial because most Australians accepted the official version. --Pete (talk) 02:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

LOL as if. What absolute nonsense. It was proven that someone else bought the weapons. And, until Wikipedia started messing around with this article, most Google hits showed the conspiracy theories (multiple, not one). If that has changed, it is because of Wikipedia's involvement, not because, as you foolishly claim, "most Australians accept the official version". They don't. Didn't then, don't now. There have been many TV shows, newspaper articles and radio interviews proving that the vast majority of Australians think that this version of events is so absurd that it could not possibly be true. Lindy Chamberlain's case, in comparison, is about 50/50 whether we accept the official version of events - or the official version of events now. This one stands at about 80% disbelieving of the official story. 203.4.164.1 (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory supporters are relatively few, but seriously disconnected from reality. Any more conspiracy-based edits will be ruthlessly reverted as vandalism. ChrisPer (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Added a bunch of sources. If you revert that, I'd say that you are against Wikipedia's rules, Mr banned 25 times already. 203.4.164.1 (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to inform you 203.4.164.1 (may I call you 203 for short?) thats not sources, that is unsourced opinion. We tactfully refer to that as WP:OR. To just say 'most people think that' or 'It is common knowledge that' will not ground the assertions you are attempting to make, especially as much of it is false. I suggest you read a few more of those Wikipedia rules especially WP:NPOV which has a good section on 'Fringe theories and pseudoscience'. WP:RS is awesome and frustrating because even the court documents are accessed at a fringe website, so are not able to be trusted as an RS. When you write in a suitable piece of information, you provide the source with a reference using a template to put in author, date, publication, web address, date accessed, page number etc. If you click 'edit' next to the heading of a section in the article you can copy the template from that section to use yourself. Look below at the references and footnotes sections to see what you are trying to do. All the best, ChrisPer

Ps conspiracy material and assertions designed to smuggle in conspiracy ideas will be ruthlessly reverted and where approriate reported as vandalism. Please propose your changes here on Talk before putting them in. ChrisPer (talk) 06:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Not representing the majority viewpoint

According to this (http://encyc.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_truth_changing), this article has been edited by over 2,000 unique individuals, and of these, the substantial content has been added by just 5 - with the other 2,000 having their edits reverted, accusing them of being vandalism, including at least 20 of those 2,000 editors being banned from Wikipedia for trying to add content that disagrees with just 5 individuals. I also note there that the first 50 editors all added conspiracy theory-related versions of this story, yet all of those edits were oversighted after the creation of the above article on Encyc that exposed them. So what we are looking at now is an article that is factually inaccurate and represents the views of just 5 people out of 2,000, or 0.25% of the unique editors to this article. The viewpoint, even with Google being filled with Wikipedia mirrors, still represents less than 1% of the popularly accepted truth. If you want this article to be accurate at all, I suggest that you cease automatically removing edits that are backed up by facts that are aiming at creating a factually accurate article. And having people say things like "anyone who believes in a conspiracy theory is delusional and out of touch with reality" doesn't help - as governments routinely lie to their people, and the idea that a government would lie to wrongly convict someone in order to win an election is far from being delusional - it is almost routine. Just look at how Kevin Rudd was axed because USA hated his support of China and the CIA threatened Julia Gillard that if she didn't outst him then USA would cease positive ties with Australia. Wait on, am I deluded in saying that? Or was it proven true on diplomatic cables? Just like how the so-called conspiracy angle on this issue has been very much proven true, by eye witness accounts, photographic evidence and even video footage showing an entirely different person doing the killing. But hey, what would I know? Apparently I am out of touch with reality and don't get a voice, just like the 99.75% of people who have tried to edit this article. Good luck on your controlled article !! 123.2.223.96 (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

We operate on policies drawn up by the community. We source our statements, and we use reliable sources. Reputable, widely accepted sources are the best. Opinionated blogs, meh. If you - or anyone - feels that the truth is being suppressed, or a cabal is operating to distort the truth, take it higher, to the reliable sources noticeboard or through discussion and dispute resolution. There are rules and procedures and you'll get a fair hearing. Well, fair-ish. We're all volunteers here and few tolerate time-wasting and disruption, so read the policies and guidelines, get a feel for the way things work here. --Pete (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Being in the majority of edits doesn't matter. Complying with policies like WP:OR and WP:NPOV including 'undue weight' does.

Cobber of the IP address, you appear not to understand what 'sources' means. You see the tiny blue numbers in the article, links to references and notes? you write those references and notes so people can look up what they say and confirm that your edit is correct. Find a section and note where the little blue number is. Then click 'edit' and find the place where the number is and you see all the details of where the article is that is the source of that paragraph or sentence. ChrisPer (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

That website is nuts. The article was created on September 24th 2001, not 2002. Someone's got redirects and dab pages confused with the article itself (the deletions and restorations mentioned). See the history and this[1] which shows it has had 631 editors, not over 2000. I can't be bothered with the rest. Dougweller (talk) 09:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It has references, and seems to be 100% accurate. But you, Doug, a guy who insists that the famous first sighting of the Bermuda Triangle by Christopher Columbus in 1492, didn't happen, are clearly the more inspired one. And Chris here, famous for being banned for controlling an article, has decided to instead take on the mantle of controlling this one - controlled to make sure that the voices of 5 people outweigh the voices of 2,000+. Why not just let it go and let accurate information be produced? This article represents the worst that Wikipedia has to offer. 123.2.223.96 (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Please don't take the link from Mr. Denial Doug as accurate. As the link above proves, there have been copious amounts of oversights with regards to this article, which is why it now appears that there are just 693 editors, when in actual fact there are well over 2,000. 123.2.223.96 (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Once again, we work on established procedures here. Understand the rules, work within them, you'll have no trouble. Edit in unsourced rubbish, it will be swiftly removed. That's the way to build a respected and popular encyclopaedia. As opposed to one full of rubbish. --Pete (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

On that note, it's not even remotely full. Looking at the list of US presidents, most entries are empty. And the rest are not much help. Here, let me quote the entirety of the article for James Buchanan: James Buchanan was the fifteenth president of the United States, widely considered one of the worst presidents ever because he let seven states secede and allowed the Civil War to happen. Yeah, that's the whole article. One unsourced, opinionated sentence. Not even an infobox. Anyone using this resource as a solid backing for their arguments should take a closer look at their priorities. --Pete (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

BRYANT'S PURCHASE OF THE AR-15

In the 'Background' section I am removing the sentence which states Bryant purchased the AR-15 from gun shop owner Terry Hill. While Hill was questioned by the authorities with respect to Bryant's purchase, there was no proof that any transaction, legal or otherwise, occurred between the two men. Hill insisted that he did not supply Bryant with any of the firearms allegedly used in the shooting, and eventually all charges against him were dropped. If Hill is to be named as the supplier of the firearms allegedly used in the shooting then a reputable source needs to be cited. (Kwazimoto69 (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

Almost every person that comes to this page comes looking for the conspiracy theories, because, in spite of what this article claims, the vast majority of people do not believe the official version of events. Most editing of this article has been in relation to the conspiracy theories. It is a credit to Wikipedia's controlling cabal of users that they have managed to continue to keep this article as inaccurate as they have for as long as they have. 203.4.164.1 (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that very few people looking at this page "comes looking for the conspiracy theories", and that contrary to your claim, the vast majority of people do believe the official version. There is no evidence for any other version, or any sane reason for disbelieving the official findings.125.237.105.102 (talk) 07:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no cabal trying to suppress the awful truth. The simple fact is that the official line is well-sourced. Not just from government reports, but from mainstream media, books and so on. The sources for conspiracy theories are generally blogs or self-published tracts drawing heavily on inference and speculation. We can provide an article for these things, but they don't rate more than a passing mention in this article because they are fringe views. It is Wikipedia's generic policies that keep conspiracy theories suppressed in exactly the same way we don't have a real lot of space devoted to Flat Earth or the Illuminati or Chariots of the Gods or other wacky concepts. If we had reliable sources for the Port Arthur conspiracy material, we'f give it the prominence it deserves. As we do now. --Pete (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Seascape

Why is it "assumed he unloaded ammunition" at Seacape? There was no reason to unload ammunition, there is no reference to ammunition being found there. This claim makes no sense.125.237.105.102 (talk) 07:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I read in The Age that the cops assumed that based on the fact there were a lot of explosions in the hotel as it burned. I'm guessing that's the assumption. But that sentence does seem like WP:OR. It should probably be removed or at least said that it was only the authorities that assumed that.MJH92^talk 03:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I've (sloppily) fixed the dead link to the supporting source cited at that point ([2]). I don't know much about the topic but it is not clear to me that the cited source supports the article assertion as written. Also, please note this edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Number of fatalities

Keeping tabs on the number that have died. At one point, the article mentions 32 killed. The next section lists some that he injured, but no actual deaths. Then the death toll jumps to 35. None of those injured appear in the list of deaths at the bottom. There is still the hostage in the boot, alive but late found shot dead. So the progress death toll needs to be corected — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.55.16 (talk) 08:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed this too 86.90.39.63 (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

More information available here. Researched by BSc, MEd, PhD accredited Doctor Keith Allan Noble.

http://netk.net.au/Tasmania/Noble1.pdf 1.144.96.23 (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC) [Edited: Latest version of the book.]

You can email Keith for the latest version of his book, he is a very approachable person and will gladly provide you the latest version for free. It is constantly being updated with newly found information at around 700 pages with images and photos.

1.144.96.81 (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, thanks. But we need a reliable source, and if the mainstream media doesn't think it's worth covering, then it's probably a fringe theory. --Pete (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

That's why it was posted in the Talk section, rather than splayed across the front page - we should be letting people make their own decisions by providing as many different sources of information as are available. Restricting different opinions is akin to propaganda. 1.129.97.126 (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to take policy up with the wider community. The discussion page here might be a good starting point. --Pete (talk) 05:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

On reviewing the first few pages of the book mentioned, then may I suggest that if Dr Noble wants his book to be read widely, he should also think very carefully about the laws of defamation. --Pete (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2015

hi there!

there is a substantial article about the Psychological Profile - describing the family background, possible mental illnesses and the context to the crime - that i suggest to be linked in the motivation chapter:

Serial Murder and the Psychology of Violent Crimes Edited by Richard N. Kocsis, PhD (Forensic Psychologist) http://legalportal.am/download/library/p16v8tjh16adfot1os3el32sr3.pdf

Chapter 11, , p. 197 Anatomy of a Mass Murder: Psychological Profile of Martin Bryant and the Port Arthur Massacre by Ian Sale

greetz from vienna

213.47.54.70 (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Info available on Dr Sale on page 505 of 717, in this Ebook: http://netk.net.au/Tasmania/Noble1.pdf 1.129.96.22 (talk) 05:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: This article is no longer Semi-Protected, so you can now edit the article yourself, but please ensure that any additions are properly sourced, to reliable sources and you maintain a neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 07:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

As it stands this article deserves to be removed from the wiki entirely

It contains no sources on many factual statements about Martin Bryant. Martin Bryant is a living person and disabled. We should be much more careful about what we present as factual here given that he can't very well make accurate corrections to the article himself. As it is he could sue TOW for slander.--Prestopotatoe (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

If we are going to have a conspiracy theory section, then actual theories need to be presented, not vague suggestions that Bryant wasn't positively identified and therefore maybe………

Either put up a theory or not mention it at all. We can't just have our readers guess at hints. --Pete (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Rewrite suggested - reduce and simplify

I propose rewriting, removing all the 'narrative invisible observer viewpoint' and simplifying the entry to be more encyclopaedic.

The "First he woke up then he had breakfast' level stuff is also potentially harmful in creating a model for imitation, and unnecessarily gives incentives to others and maybe offence to survivors by making the perpetrator more 'famous'.

I suggest adding links to better references if they can be found, such as the Bulletin articles and court transcripts, and removing the Alternative Theories to the Talk page. ChrisPer (talk) 05:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I read the court transcripts and wrote most of the article from what I could remember. I was hoping most people would eventually edit it away.--Dacium (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

How does one access the court transcripts? Are they available electronically? ChrisPer (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

They were available from ref. 4 (The Queen V. Martin Bryant), but the link is dead from here. try [3] I have also seen them elsewhere. Martin451 (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats where I read them originally myself, but I want to find a 'reliable source'. There are a number of documents on those sites that I would like to use as references if I could find the original source in a book, library or refereed article. ChrisPer (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm appalled to discover the grizzly moment to moment, shot by shot, gorry impact detail, death by death by death. Its ALL AS IF RELIVING IT FROM SHOOTER'S VIEW. Such useless detail shockingly risks tempting visualization to'rd replication/copycat by someone so disposed. I'm stunned that there are no safeguards against such potentially provocative "eye of shooter" detail. I'm at a loss to see what POSSIBLE use SUCH detail can pissibly serve---short of reenactment or sick fantasizing or the like. WaywardPilgrim (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for not proofing that. Didn't know "Once saved---text cannot be edited. WaywardPilgrim (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if who over-write such entries can come back later and edit where further consideration recommends. WaywardPilgrim (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Hello I tried to find the sources for:

• "In March 1996, he had his AR-10 repaired at a gun shop and made enquiries about AR-15 rifles in other gun shops."
• "He put his bag down on a table and pulled a Colt AR-15 SP1 Carbine with a Colt scope and one 30-round magazine attached out of the bag."

this edits changed the identification of the AR 15 and have been made without giving the sources:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)&diff=next&oldid=493202014 IP-Info (British Columbia City: Victoria): https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/96.54.224.159
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)&diff=prev&oldid=565388676 IP-Info (British Columbia City: Nanaimo): https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/70.66.13.54

There are no citations (I did not find them) which give the sources of this texts. I read in http://criminologyresearchcouncil.gov.au/reports/28-91.pdf but is does not cover the given information for closer identification of the material. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 09:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Later I have seen, that for the identification as L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle (as written in the article) the sources are also missing. New infos like this maybe based on wrong information here. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Information about development of gun control laws after the Port Arthur massacre

The information about gun control laws is not complete, especially missing is the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 No 127 see official Version and the Firearms and Weapons Legislation Amendment Act 2017 No 26 see official Version I suggest to have a dedicated section for the development of this laws. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Missing section about the court trial

The information concerning the court trial should be concentrated and improved in a dedicated section. As to be read concerning the 4½ years' imprisonment of Port Arthur lawyer JOHN AVERY, "Bryant's change of plea in 1996 avoided a longer and more harrowing trial over the shooting in which 35 people died." The Sydney Morning Herald: Port Arthur lawyer jailed for stealing. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Improvement of Article / Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Gun politics

This article should be improved, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Politics/Gun_politics#Port_Arthur_massacre. Some proposals are already here on this disc some may come additionally. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)--Ｔｏｍ

Sources for Improvements

Literature

• Tool, ISBN-Formatter: https://tools.wmflabs.org/isbn/IsbnCheckAndFormat
• Tool, find Sources Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Literature supposed to be reliable

• Altmann, Carol; After Port Arthur: Personal Stories of Courage and Resilience Ten Years on from the Tragedy That Shocked the Nation, Allen & Unwin, 2006, ISBN 978-1-74176-130-6 (read online)
• Critcher, Chas; Issues in cultural and media studies, (chapter 9, "Panic at the port" P. 124) McGraw-Hill Education (UK), 2006, ISBN 978-0-335-21807-3 (read online)
• Chapman, Simon; Over Our Dead Bodies: Port Arthur and Australia's Fight for Gun Control, ISBN 978-1-74332-031-0 (275 Pages),(read online)
• Deckert, Antje; Sarre, Rick; The Palgrave Handbook of Australian and New Zealand Criminology, Crime and Justice, Springer, 2017, ISBN 978-3-319-55747-2 (read online)
• Geipel, Ines; Der Amok-Komplex: oder die Schule des Tötens, Klett-Cotta, 2012, ISBN 978-3-608-10276-5. (Port Arthur 28. April 1996)
• Parry, Stephen; "Port Arthur Massacre 1996 – AFDA National Embalming Team – Detailed Report", Port Arthur Papers, ISBN 978-0-642-27136-5 (read online) (refer page 112, column 2, paragraph 3.)
• Turner, Geoff; News media chronicle, July 1995 to June 1996 in Australian Studies in Journalism, Published annually by the Department of Journalism, University of Queensland. (P. 269 f. Legal "The coverage of a massacre at the historic Port Arthur site in Tasmania on April 28, in which 35 people were killed ..." )
• Voumard, Sonya; The Media and the Massacre: Port Arthur 1996-2016, Transit Lounge , 2016, ISBN 978-0-9943957-2-6 (read online)
• Wainwright,Robert; Totaro,Paola; Born Or Bred: Martin Bryant : the Making of a Mass Murderer, Fairfax Media, 2009, ISBN 978-1-921486-09-8. (by The Examiner, Read online: Part1 Part2 Part3, by The Sydney Morning Herald A dangerous mind: what turned Martin Bryant into a mass murderer?)

Literature possibly containing conspiracy theories

• Beattie,Stewart K.; A Gunsmith's Notebook on Port Arthur (E-Book with 400 Pages)
• Noble, Keith Allan;MASS MURDER Official Killing in Tasmania, Australia (E-Book with 718 Pages). At p. 29 "A TANGLED WEB OF POLICE CORRUPTION " and more Info. (2.nd Edition) ISBN 978-3-47884512-0
• LaRouche: Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), Vol. 28, No. 40, 2001 Oktober, 19 ("Bryant was a known security threat", P. 60, better sources outstanding)
• Vance, Lloyd T; The Truth About Port Arthur (Part 1), Publication date 2015-11-12, Identifier: TheTruthAboutPortArthurPart1_201511 Archive.org
• Vialls, Joe; THE PORT ARTHUR MASSACRE CONSPIRACY (E-Book with 74 Pages)]

other Sources

_____ before the massacre ____

• Barry Unsworth, NSW Premier; "There will never be uniform Gun Laws in Australia until we see a massacre somewhere in Tasmania", December, 1987 [4]( fringe / conspiracy website, unreliable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC))
• Barry Unsworth, NSW Premier; "It will take a massacre in Tasmania before we get gun law reform in Australia", Chapman P. 102

_____ after the massacre _____

• Prime Mininster, 1996, April, 29 TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER THE HON JOHN HOWARD MP PRESS CONFERENCE - PARLIAMENT HOUSE (~Port Arthur & gun laws)
• HVP No 1 - 30 APRIL 1996; TRAGEDY AT PORT ARTHUR, TASMANIA (THE PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, House Votes and Proceedings: "Mr Howard (Prime Minister), by leave, moved—That this House: (a) expresses its shock .....")
• SJ No 1 - 30 APRIL 1996, Deaths at Port Arthur, Tasmania (Senate Journal: "The President invited honourable senators to join him in observing a minute's silence in memory of those who died in the tragic events at Port Arthur in Tasmania and in sympathy with their loved ones and friends.")
• House Hansard, Wednesday, 1 May 1996, Page: 90; TASMANIA: TRAGEDY AT PORT ARTHUR ("Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) —It being 10.30 a.m., I ask honourable members, and visitors in the gallery if they wish to join us, to rise for one minute's silence as a mark of respect for the victims and families of this week's Port Arthur tragedy.")
• House Hansard, Thursday, 9 May 1996 Page: 766 f. Gun Control ("... Denison (Mr Kerr) proposing ... The need to give full support to the Commonwealth's initiatives to secure stricter gun control ...")
• Prime Mininster, 1996, July, 2 TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER THE HON JOHN HOWARD MP PRESS CONFERENCE - SYDNEY (~crimping magzines)
• Parliament House, Canberra, Current Issues Brief 16 1995-96; After Port Arthur - Issues of Gun Control in Australia
• Tasmanian Government, 1999: Review of Jury Act 1899 ("There has been no systematic review of the Jury Act 1899 since its enactment.")
• The Sydney Morning Herald, September 19, 2008, Andrew Darby; Port Arthur lawyer jailed for stealing (refers to JOHN AVERY + "Bryant's change of plea in 1996 avoided a longer and more harrowing trial over the shooting in which 35 people died.")
• Collection of Port Arthur Documents 2009
• Parliament House, Canberra, Posted 21/12/2012 by Jonathan Curtis, Australian gun laws
• ADVOCACY CONVENTION 2014 - HOBART, TASMANIA: "The Advocacy Convention is open to local and interstate practitioners wishing to improve their trial techniques and hone their advocacy skills."
• Parliament House, Canberra, Posted 19/10/2016 by Cat Barker; Regulation of lever-action shotguns
• Heath, Jack; WA Police Union refuse to withdraw offensive video stigmatising mental illness (SANE Australia, Date: 24/11/2016)

_____ after the massacre / TV-Videos _____

• NBC Sunday Today 28 April 1996 first coverage of Port Arthur massacre TV-News-Video (youtube video)
• NBC Today on April 29,1996; TV-News-Video (youtube video)
• 7 Nightly News Port Arthur massacre on April 29,1996; TV-News-Video (youtube video)
• The Port Arthur Massacre - Australia's Worst Shooting Spree in History (Crime Documentary) (youtube video)
• Studio 10; Walter Mikac and John Caldwell - Port Arthur Anniversary - (2016) TV-News-Video (youtube video)

* signing area for additions to calm the bot :-p) --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 08:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Problems with used sources of the article

During checking and referencing the article I remarked that there is a problem with one of the main sources for this article:

• Title: IN THE CRIMINAL SITTINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT HELD AT NUMBER 7 COURT, SALAMANCA PLACE, HOBART, BEFORE HIS HONOUR THE CHIEF JUSTICE, ON TUESDAY THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1996 THE QUEEN v. MARTIN BRYANT used by this source is not complete. Texts begins with Page No. 50 and it is obviously an abstract of the original. There is no knowledge about who made this abstract or this Additionally this text was retrieved from "www.shootersnews.addr.com". Under this circumstances this text might be doubtful. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • It might be advisable to have full documents. See HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA: "FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 - SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL" P.48, (Hobart files 6 Matters for 1996/1997 see P. 51) --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 13:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • For the record: I left a request for a full version of this paper at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request + difflink --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Title: Police (1996 May, 7); Statement of Collyer, Graham Derek, Page 2 is missing, but Page 2 can be seen in youtube. (This is the statement about the first seconds of the inicident.) --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Open Questions

Checking the article, the envents, the sources step by step sometimes I can fix something if it is covered by the sources. Small unsourced additions with low importance (which might have been inserted over the time) I took out. Problematically I feel about missing informations. Those kind of informations with low importance are no problem. Coincidentally I found some Info about Wendy Scurr. This leads me to open a section about open questions. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 08:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Timeline / Police Alarm / Wendy Scurr

Wendy Scurr is reported to be the first person to alarm the police about the incident. This is not mentioned in the Court-Protocol. Multiple Sources for this can be found in the net. The first alarm to the police should be a point in a shortened time line in the article which is missing until now. For time lines as a general question in this kind of articles I left a inquiry in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography [5] --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Structure of the article

The structure of the article developed as to be seen in the version history. There are weak points as the incident had 2 days but there is only a section for "28 April 1996". The best structure for a crime-related article in en:WP I have found by September 11 attacks. This has been well discussed and parts of the structure are suitable for this article. I'll do my best and try to fix the structure. All help & critics are welcome. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 09:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Demarcation facts vs. conspiracy theory

Up to now it is clear, that supposing the incident was planned by Australian authority’s is conspiracy theory. But there are multiple sources that prove:

• Bryant was ill (ill or sick or with other deficits - it has long descriptions) since long-time before.
• Bryant was a known security threat to the officials since long-time and Eric Cunningham Dax was one of the specialist who examined him.
• There have been deficits by the police managing their Mission Control at the incident.
• There have been deficits in case inquiry and detection of details.
• There have been deficits from the media. See: Australian Press Council chair, David Flint, argued: "Australian newspapers regularly ignored contempt-of-court provisions, this showed that the law, not the newspapers, needed to change." source Turner P. 269-270, Action to change the law see REPORT ON REVIEW OF THE LAW OF CONTEMPT
• There have been deficits in managing the court-case (including problems with the protocol).
• There had been a finished design for new gun-control-law by Nov. 1995, which had been rejected by Tasmania.
• The officials were happy to use this design after the incident for a quick solution.

My personal feeling is, that the authorities in the otherwise "quiet and sleepy"[6] province was simply overwhelmed with this situation. It would have been easier to deal openly with procedural deficits. The political success of the following laws the authorities could have been celebrated something more modest. The following conspiracy theories have supposingly emerged due to the sum of not admitted deficits. Nevertheless to improve the article I have tried to find as many facts as possible - time will show how they can be used to improve the article at the best. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

"Stewart K. Beattie; A Gunsmith's Notebook on Port Arthur (E-Book with 400 Pages)" appears to be a self-published source by a conspiracy theorist. I looked at it briefly, so I could be wrong, but that was my first impression. There are apparently other theories out there that Bryant was "framed" or some such. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's just collect in the first steps, whatever you find and you think could be useful .. just add it above. To be honest ... in the meantime I have seen so much, that i decicded to leave away some things which show to much idea of conspiracy. However to check & prove facts you just have to have multiple sources. What can be used in the article shows up later. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind that I removed the two self-published sources from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Politics/Gun_politics#Port_Arthur_massacre. I think we should point people to RS. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Well I didn't see it. Thx for info. No problem as long as it remains complete here ... hm ... otherwise ... why shouldn't the colleagues on the project-page make up their own mind? Now how about you? Are you going to help here? --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Fringe conspiracy and original research (WP:SYNTH). Subsequent gun control stuff doesn’t belong in this article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, SmokeyJoe. Thx for your comment ... hm ... I think it is not that easy, because "gun control stuff" is part of aftermath of this incident. But ... if aftermath is part of the incident changing the laws for media is also a part of it. See REPORT ON REVIEW OF THE LAW OF CONTEMPT . Let us see how opinions of others are. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

From the perspective of this article, it is easy, it is out-of-scope. The in-scope article is Gun laws in Australia, which refers to this massacre. Even there, I think you are having trouble with the WP:NOR policy with these references. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Honestly: I would like to agree you. Sorrowfully some projects are building "chains of relations" between articles. But please have a look to Talk:Colt_AR-15#Edit_break and above ... sorry I can't help it unless this problem of interconnections is not solved. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, beware WP:SYNTH. It is not for Wikipedians to solve. Find a reliable source where someone has already done this. Scrounging primary sources is not what we do. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

OK @SmokeyJoe: Proposal: Edit the article in some steps and leave editcomments for those parts you eliminate according to your arguments: WP:SYNTH / WP:NOR etc. I just looked it up once more in https://library.ithaca.edu/sp/subjects/primary definitions from there are:

• "Primary Sources

A primary source provides direct or firsthand evidence about an event, object, person, or work of art. Primary sources include historical and legal documents, eyewitness accounts, results of experiments, statistical data, pieces of creative writing, audio and video recordings, speeches, and art objects. Interviews, surveys, fieldwork, and Internet communications via email, blogs, listservs, and newsgroups are also primary sources. In the natural and social sciences, primary sources are often empirical studies—research where an experiment was performed or a direct observation was made. The results of empirical studies are typically found in scholarly articles or papers delivered at conferences.

• Secondary Sources

Secondary sources describe, discuss, interpret, comment upon, analyze, evaluate, summarize, and process primary sources. Secondary source materials can be articles in newspapers or popular magazines, book or movie reviews, or articles found in scholarly journals that discuss or evaluate someone else's original research."

I do not dare to do it after all the changes I have already made. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look sometime - agree there has to be some relationship to it and subsequent gun laws, which is in the article's present revision as it is tightly linked with John Howard's reaction. It is true that there were several other massacres in the years before but none that really triggered the debate like this one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd caution foreign editors about trying to take the gun laws out of the article: every modern reliable source and practically every modern comment on the massacre connects the two (because they indisputably were). It was a watershed moment in gun politics in Australia that changed it forever according to every side of politics and everyone involved. It would take some pretty incredulous original research to try to disconnect them. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I remember the national debate very well, and agree. The fact that a Premier of NSW said, some years before the Port Arthur incident, that it would take an incident in Tasmania to bring about gun law reform is no basis for any conspiracy theory - as the Gun laws in Australia article confirms, it was well known at that time that Tasmania had lax gun laws and gun law enforcement. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I think I misinterpreted what TOM was intending to do. The scope creep worrying me was the thought that subsequent gun control developments were going to be added, I think later developments, such as the gun buy back and national laws, are better covered elsewhere, though of course prominently linked. The Unsworth quote is intriguing, but I am having trouble finding a reliable source for it, can someone help? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC). Barrie’s name misspelled, the quote frequently repeated on conspiracy websites but nowhere else. It could be true, it could be revisionist fantasy, it could be someone’s unreliable well-after-the-fact recollection. Oft repeated, but no original source, that’s a red flag for unreliable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Per the other Australian editors above, this article clearly needs to have some substantive content on how the massacre led to major changes in Australia's gun laws. The massacre shocked Australians, and directly and rapidly led to some far-reaching reforms. Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: Thanks for your opinion. (a hint: read my edits on this page beginning with 10 April 2018‎) The problem about the "Unsworth-Quote" in the Version: "It will take a massacre in Tasmania before we get gun law reform in Australia" is, that it has been reported/referenced later several times. Additionally there is a second variant of an "Unsworth-Quote" in the Version: "There will never be uniform gun laws in Australia until we see a massacre in Tasmania." To find reliable sources I used google-booksearch. May I offer as service: The first quote has been mentioned in books of: Chapman (P.102) and Deckert/Sarre (P.789) and some other sources. Chapman has the best explanation about the first quote and one repetition. Sorrowfully the pages which can be seen in G-bookreader change. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 10:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Is there any reliable, independent source that explicitly links the alleged Unsworth quote with the Port Arthur massacre? HiLo48 (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. See:

• Chapman, Simon; Over Our Dead Bodies: Port Arthur and Australia's Fight for Gun Control, ISBN 978-1-74332-031-0.
• Deckert, Antje; Sarre, Rick; The Palgrave Handbook of Australian and New Zealand Criminology, Crime and Justice, Springer, 2017, ISBN 978-3-319-55747-2.

HTH + leftshift. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

But is it actually significant? It's not like Australia was starting from US-style gun laws: there already were a range of controls in place. Unsworth also isn't the best regarded premier, to put things kindly. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

About "It's not like Australia was starting..." pls read: Gun_laws_in_Australia#Evolution_of_Gun_laws_in_Australia and some sections higher in "Demarcation facts vs. conspiracy theory" --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Tom - What do those source actually say about any link between the Unsworth quote and Port Arthur. Are they truly objective? And I agree with Nick_D. When it came to changing the laws, Port Arthur was not isolated from the series of gun incidents that came before. This included the Dunblane massacre, because of the strong British background of many Australians. The mood in Australia was ready for new laws. HiLo48 (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Well it is not up to me judging about "truly objective" concerning the books I mentioned. I think they can be regarded as reliable. Concerning connection to the Dunblame massarce pls. read: Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)#Mental_illness_and_copycat_effects --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 11:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

As Wikipedia editors, it is ALWAYS our job to assess the quality of sources. My point about Dunblane is different from what that link is discussing. Australia's gun laws did not change because of Port Arthur alone. They changed because of a long growing change of mood in Australia about guns. A major cause of this was the sequence of shooting massacres that culminated in Port Arthur, and which included Dunblane. HiLo48 (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree 100% to "it is ALWAYS our job to assess the quality of sources" and "The mood in Australia was ready for new laws.". Now what has to be done in the article? There are many texts marked to be without any source. There are texts in it which are based on primary (legal) sources. I have asked for help at multiple [7] + [8] + [9] + [10] + [11] corners of this project. Normally this has to be shortened/eliminated ... but as I wrote introducing: I do not dare to do this in the article --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I found a source that has Unsworth reflecting on what he had said.

Farouque, Farah (3 May 1996). "States 'no' to losing gun rights". The Age. p. 1. A former NSW premier, Mr Barrie Unsworth, said yesterday that he regretted comments he made nine years ago at a special guns summit chaired by the then Prime Minister, Mr Bob Hawke. Mr Unsworth had stormed out of the summit, angrily declaring: "It will take a massacre in Tasmania before we get gun law reform in Australia." He said: "I do not feel justified after the events of Sunday - just numb and depressed because of my failure nine years ago."

That article is about federal and NSW government proposals for national gun control in the immediate aftermath of Port Arthur and links back to the Milperra massacre. It might not be needed in this article though. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

And it still doesn't show that there is an actual connection between what Unsworth said and what happened at Port Arthur. Just, as he said himself, an embarrassment for Unsworth. HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Some misunderstandings were clarified. Just for the records [12] --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC notice

An RfC has been opened on whether Colt AR-15 should mention the Port Arthur massacre. 19:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Just replying with a proper four-tilde signature so this section can eventually be automatically archived. Graham87 09:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

New section

This Wikipedia page only follows the official story. Why was Martin interviewed by police without a lawyer or guardian present? This is illegal and not present in this article. There are police transcripts available that prove this. You say Anthony nightingale shouted no, not here in the Cafe. Who heard and witnessed this? Surely you have to present a proven source for this? And why would he shout that? Did he know that this was going to happen? Again this is not in this article. In a gunsmiths notebook you have a sketch of the weapon used in the Cafe. I presume like the sheep who wrote this rubbish that the eyewitness was Graham collyer. You have none of the witness statements either. Only what the media has put out. You also haven't stated that the channel 9 program after the massacre showed a pristine Cafe with the blue bag on the table compared with the original police video showing the solo cup etc in the real Cafe. Tell the truth not what the media wants people fed. The photo is in the gunsmiths notebook.

Chrismcmaster (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Also were the weapons you state ever forensically linked to Martin Bryant? Do you have proof of that? Chrismcmaster (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

If you have reliably sourced information that covers these details, by all means add it. Anastrophe (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

everything in the article is verifiable by reliable sources as per Wikipedia policy. If you have a problem with the published information then take that up with the publishers. Gnangarra 01:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Time Span

I there documented evidence from a reliable source that the shootings in the cafe and gift shop lasted over such a short time span? This is a claim that has created many conspiracies, and I want to make sure that this was not just added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.188.94 (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)