Talk:Lindt Cafe siege/Archive 3

2934:

another talkpage with another user very detailed it is not about some doubts that some people spread about certain incidents as lets say 9/11 it is about the facts and the most logical conclusion. and facts simply are that monis was known to be an islamist, a perosn with extreme religious views, and possible connections to others from this range. actually it is the other way around, original research would mean to conclude he was only deraged and not terrorist, though at the moment all points point out to the other direction. this pattern could be applied to all arguable terror incidents, since some strange things always occur. i remember the charlie hebdo attacks when conspiracy theories came up because they wondered how quick the french investigators knew who the attackers were because one of them left his phone in the stolen vehicle that they left behind. and many people doubted this. but this are merely side notes. as well as it is here in the sydney siege. when a person that is known for extreme religious views, takes several, to him unknown individuals hostage, and even forces them to press a jihadi(please correct the name if wrong) flag against the window--: -->

88:: there was no consensus regarding the designation of the siege as a terrorist attack (and whether Monis was a terrorist or not). Initially, the editors supporting the template removal simply removed the template (and references to the attack on the template itself as well as the terrorism in Australia article), the other editors voiced their objection but no consensual conclusion was drawn. I'd like to propose a compromise. I had recently seen one editor draw a difference between fact and opinions regarding the attack. Opinions belong in the debate section while the fact that the NSW police treated the event as a terrorist attack should take precedence in this discussion. That the event was treated as a terrorist attack by the police warrants the inclusion of the template. But because the absolute designations have been debated by experts, the event should not be included in the box. In addition, I have placed the reference to the event in the main terrorism page under "Debated events." I hope this seems fair. 2270:

those who say they are extremists regardless of their ideology? that is just pure bias. facts are the attacker in this case was a radical islamist with alliance to isis and who forced people to pres the jihadi flag on the window. the attack had an islamist backround, that the hostage taker had other problems, fine this can apply as well but only on focusing on this and hence concluding it was no terror attack and that the australian government only classified the incident as "terror" for insurance purposes is just false. this is wikipeda and not a blog of people comming up with some strange views and forcing people to focus on it, because somehow somewhre some little truth is in there. it is ok to mention the different viewpoints but it is wrong to say something like this "officially declared it to be a terrorist incident for insurance purposes" since it implies that the MERE purpose to put this incident to the terror category was of financial reasons, which in fact is wrong.

2774:

person of terrorism, we reflect the person as such. When the person has been killed, and not tried, we do the same on the basis of statements of government officials and RSs .... otherwise, Osama Bin Laden and the 9/11 hijackers would not be categorized as terrorists. Which of course is not how Knowledge works. Plus, as pointed out above, there are many RSs that -- along with the Prime Minister and the head of the agency in a best position to make the determination -- have also reported the act as one of terrorism. But, of course you've done your google searches, and are aware of this. I see very little substance in your comments -- if wp accepted them, which it clearly does not, we would not have any people in the terrorism cat. That's of course, not how wp works at all, and a non-consensus view. When closing debates such as this one we don't give weight to those views that are in conflict with wp guidelines and practices.

3128:: I agree that use of guns in Australia is pretty rare. Even organised crime don't use them very often! People get stabbed to death here. While I am sure that that happens in USA too, the culture is very different. My suggestion for the use of something other than "gunman" was based on reports I read that he actually didn't have a gun at all and didn't shoot anyone, that all of the shots were fired by police. If he definitely had a gun, and we are 100% certain of that, and also 100% certain that he definitely shot and killed someone, then I agree that "gunman" is reasonable. But I would suggest that if there is any doubt in the future about whether a) he had a gun or b) he used it that we should consider changing the name to culprit. I agree with you that perpetrator is inappropriate, as this is an Australian page and perpetrator is more in line with US speech. 3101:: Regarding "culprit" vs. "gunman" I would argue against changing it for three reasons: 1) because all the sources during and after the siege (before and after he was identified) use the word "gunman" which makes it the most common name, and 2) because we've already successfully debated changing it from the more generic and american-style "perpetrator" to "gunman", and 3) because this is a man who stormed in to the cafe with... a gun. In parts of the USA that's not remarkable, but it certainly is in Australia. I would argue that regardless of how many times he fired it, that makes him a man-with-a-gun a.k.a. gunman. 2499:

what matters. i still dont find any smart conclusion by wpedians here why the hostage taker used this way for achieving something if not an islamist backround, at least not what i can read right here. there, to me at leas, is no other conclusion for the islamist flag the attacker used, than an islamic extremist backround. you just dont do something like this if you only want to "rob" this place or have another intention. Maybe i do not have enough information, but if so please provide here the link/s that clearly show evidence about the incident that its backround is definetly NOT an islamist one.

2936:

to avoid any further danger or pain to others done by people doing this in the name of their god. but this emotional behavior as good as it is intended has no place here on wikipedia. wikipedia is a factstation nothing more. and facts are that a hostage situation ALWAYS is a terror atttack, if not combined with for instance a bank robbery or similar. and facts are that the hostage taker was known for his religious believes and extreme views and even behavior. this is 1+1 nothing more one doesnt need some biased news tabloid. greetings

3174:. There is an argument that he didn't fire the gun at all, but this is one of several theories. However, I would argue that this is immaterial to whether he should be classified as a 'gunman'... If you were to try to rob a bank with a gun, whether or not you fired that gun (or even if it was a real/fake gun) would not make a difference to the criminal charge you would receive - "armed robbery". He had a gun, was threatening to use it, and quite probably did - either as a 'warning shot' or to kill one of his hostages. 1853:) have restructured the text in order to - and I will quote his/her edit summary directly - "break down into two main views - terrorists and apologists who pretend it wasn't". While the text itself was mostly unchanged, the reformatting of the section (which includes several "debates", not just about terrorism) into an "us vs. them" tone that decreases the quality of the article and decreases the understanding we can give our readers. Instead, it was turned into a series short of sub-sections with 1130:

172 references, including many from overseas resources, suggesting that it was much more widely reported. I suspect that readers (from outside Australia, in particular) would be much more likely to know about the 2014 event than the 1984 event. Besides, RECENTISM is more about balanced coverage; we're not talking about putting less prominence on the 1984 event, but what is the much more likely that readers finding "Sydney hostage crisis" would be looking for the 2014 event, per

2909:"This is not a normal investigation — it is grappling with questions of national significance," New South Wales state Coroner Michael Barnes told the court. "Was Monis a so-called lone wolf prosecuting an ISIS-inspired terrorist act, or was he a deranged individual pursuing some personal, private grievance in a public manner? They are real questions we must try and answer if an explanation for the siege is to be forthcoming and strategies to avoid a repeat are to be developed." ( 2802:

RSs say -- that the 9 11 hijackers were terrorists. We already have his words, his actions, the PM statement, the ASIO considered well-after-the-fact statement. As with the question of where Obama was born -- if we find out later that there is new information, we can revise the cat ... WP is quite facile, in that regard. (And unlike Obama, there is no BLP issue). Really -- we have more than sufficient information. The suggestion that we don't is not in like with the facts.

2165:-Duncan Lewis is not independent of government decisions about ASIO's funding - which have a political component. A coronial inquest will be sufficiently independent of government and sufficiently thorough that it should more compelling answers to the question. Note that a coronial inquest is independent of the political process, and funding decisions about Australia's anti-terror agencies, that the PM, the treasurer and the ASIO chief are not independent of. 31: 410:

another blow to the dignity of those who were caught up in the events because they wanted a cup of morning coffee, or in Dawson's case, chocolate. As one of the editors trying to keep this article calm, accurate, informative and respectful, I pruned the bandwagon section (that is, the section about the approval of terrorist organisations) quite hard in order to try to keep it concise and the whole balanced in terms of section lengths.

3907:- debate aside, until the inquest confirms either way, the default definition should be the government's legal one. The incident was a terror attack for insurance purposes. It seems there is some sort of social and political motivation to regard it as a non-terror attack regardless of the law, but until this hunch is verified, all the tiresome classification debating does is muddle the matter. 1911:

was definitely not terrorism. All that people like Bachcell are doing are quoting from people who got it wrong early on without having access to all of the facts that are currently available. If those same people that Bachcell et al were quoting from were interviewed today, undoubtedly they would now say that they were mistaken and that it was not terrorism, as it so clearly wasn't.

3524:). I note that the "trial of Oscar Pistorius" article you mention is indeed a 'high level trial', BUT the crucial difference is that there is no separate article for the event itself. Our case would be different in that we're talking about having separate articles for the crime and the inquiry into it. The only other article I can find that is specifically about an inquest is 2420:: "the whole point of the template is to have articles people will be looking for – it might be your personal that this wasn't terrorism, but it is an event that most people would associate with it and query why it's not there". I am sympathetic to the argument that, despite disagreement amongst conflicting sources, readers may expect to find this event listed in the 2433:. To my mind, there ought to be some consistency: if this event is not listed in that article and template, then the template should not be used on the event's article, although it may be useful to include a link to the Terrorism in Australia article for readers who may be interested in that subject (where they will find the infobox listing the relevant events). 904:. You ALL need to learn some respect, as not everyone knows 100% of the ins & outs of the Knowledge system. I am now moving on with my life. Good Luck with keeping Knowledge a viable website, if you treat everyone this way. If you want to ban me, be my guest. I want to be banned. I would also like EVERYONE who treated me like trash, including yourself: 1659: 4131: 3334:

this article. As to the names of witnesses, notability is mainly about creating new articles, knowing who said what is an important reference point -- if something is worth hearing about then it is worth knowing who said it. Knowing Monis's state of mind before the siege is central to the debate as to whether this was terrorism.

3318:

the inquest is happening and the kind of information that is being received are probably all that is necessary in this article at this stage. Obviously findings of the inquest at a later date, (even possibly a separate article on the inquest itself?) will be issues down the track, but not much else for now. What do others think?

3561: 1975:). Given that each of these reverts using the same "undo" function (not something a newbie would necessarily know about) and each of the IP addresses geolocates to Melbourne, I can reasonably assume that this is not four different people but the same person hopping IP addresses. Now that I'm pushing up against the 3770:. I would prefer for a consensus to emerge from reasoned debate and from Reliable Sources rather than a popularity contest, particularly given the topic at hand. As I mentioned above, the coronial inquest has just started and will be running for many weeks. I believe the facts and analysis that arise from 3807:

for the coronial inquest to reveal findings - this will be sufficiently independent of government and sufficiently thorough that it should more compelling answers to the question. Note that a coronial inquest is independent of the political process, and funding decisions about Australia's anti-terror

3519:

I'm cautiously in favour of creating the inquest as a separate article. You're correct that it has lots of reliable source coverage and the details that already exist in this article are more than necessary - implying a breakout article is warranted. My main concern is that the new article become too

3317:

criteria. We probably won't know what is relevant information for some time, but that's ok because we are not under any time pressure in writing an encyclopedia. So it seems to be better to wait to know what is relevant rather than include everything that is said. I would suggest the broad facts that

2935:

then one NEEDS to conclude the most obvious. and this is not about quoting certain newspapers, we dont have to quote anyone neccessarily, but display an overview on the situation and conclude by the facts. that is it. i can understand if many muslim people have problem with islamism and are very keen

2788:

Isnt ASIO the same organisation which in December also assessed him as falling well outside the threashold for inclusion in counterterrorism investigations. So many assessments so hard to decide what is true... maybe should wait for the NSW Coroners investigation % report to be publish before putting

2498:

First of all the point that this incident was only labeld as a terror act for insurance purposes is probably not quite true. It might be a factor as well to some extend but is for sure not the 100% only reason. Furthermore it is not about a particular "isis" flag but an islamic/islamist flag. that is

2147:

Others have debated whether it is lone wolf terrorism, or terrorist-organization-inspired terrorism, or terrorist-organization-directed-terrorism, but the dispute has largely been about the type of terrorism. Even lone-wolf terrorism is terrorism, and nobody disputes that he declared allegiance to a

1129:

Perhaps, but I would think the 2014 was reported much more widely than the 1984. I wasn't aware of the 1984, but perhaps people from Sydney would have a greater awareness of it. Note that the 1984 event article has a total of 6 references, all based on Australian sources; the 2014 event article has

250:

I don't think this gun man had a jihadist flag like, for instance an IS flag, but rather a shahada flag which is an everyday symbol for all Islamic people. It means just there is no deity except God and Mohammed was his prophet. I know the gun man asked for an IS flag but none was provided and it was

4188:

The expert? McAlister was questioning why the police used guns they train with and not guns they never train with for the raid? Is such a silly question worth mentioning in the article? (note I do agree the use of 223 round in such situations is absurd when they should be using 9mm rounds maybe this

3620:

I have private correspondence that indicates that the inquest will indeed be investigating deeply, and not just glossing over the issues, and thus be a hot topic. Hopefully it will redefine the way that police focus on terror, but that may be optimistic. But the focus should be on what the inquest

3433:

article. Then, in this article, all we need give is a summary of each week at the inquest. In this first week's case, it would be a summary along the lines of "week one of the inquest interviewed people from different parts of Monis' life and found him to have a history of paranoia, social isolation

3370:

belongs in the article on him. The stuff on being a member of an outlaw bikie group, promoting himself as a "1%er", molesting women by saying they had to be naked to receive black magic massages, and telling women to submit to sex or he'd put a black magic curse on them - these are all coming out of

2475:

That's pretty obvious. This discussion ended on Knowledge 6 months ago, and in real life it ended 2 or 3 months ago with the coronial inquiry declaring that the reasons for the attack were in relation to a court case, and, while manipulative, did not fit any definition of terrorism. That should be

2458:

doesnt make it a terrorist act, what it does is enables insurance companies to avoid paying out on claims. The flag debate raged early on it isnt a flag of ISIL or related to ISIL activity. The Daily Telegraph is a sensationalist news outlet who is known for its bias and dramatisation of stories to

2292:

Due to the fact that a couple of days have passed and nobody tried to engage into the discussion again, i raise the above mentioned points once again. Bevore someone claims and alledges that this particular incident was no islamist terror attack, for whatever arguable reasons, i want to know what is

1992:

Correct. The consensus is that it is not terrorism. Indeed, the treatment of Monis as a terrorist may well have led to the two deaths, which I believe is the important part of this story (completely overlooked by mainstream media). But I do wonder about the template -- people would expect to find

4228:

As in the one reference? the claim in the article is miss leading I hope, I hope he was saying the police should have been trained with a 9mm rifle and not claiming what he is quoted as saying in the article that they should have used rifles they are not familiar with and not have trained with. But

3038:

Quite possibly true. But in that case what were the Police shooting at? They must be awful shots to have missed 20 odd times at such close range. No, they just liked the sound of their big guns going off. There must have been ricochets going everywhere. But the real story, IMHO, is that the no

2997:

Also added the negotiation notes, it would seem obvious to use people trusted by the gunman if available. It would be very interesting to know how the police negotiations were carried out. I suspect very crudely "We do not negotiate with terrorists, give yourself up, full stop." But Monis is dead

2993:

Apparently they fired 27 high calibre bullets into the small concrete room during the raid. 27! What were they firing at? Ghosts? Five bullets hit Moris, so the police must be awful shots if they missed 22 times! It is surprising that more people did not get killed. More information as to how

1511:

In that case, most of the article is material of that nature, with our sources being the media, and few (if any) official reports published. I notice that there was no denial of the report on Dawson being the victim of police fire and it has since been reported around the world. Is there any reason

1462:

We seem to have the three deaths sorted out. Monis killed Tori Johnson, the cops killed Monis and Katrina Dawson. We don't know the times - there are contradictory reports. We don't know the details of those wounded. But with 27 rounds fired and only a quarter of them hitting Monis, there must have

176:

Of course during the event everyone, including the authorities, was unsure of what was happening and why and whether or not anyone else was involved. They had to do the best they could, which seems to mean treating it as if it was terrorism. As I said before, it has turned out that the "causes" and

3333:

At the moment I am just summarising the key facts as they arise. It may well be good to restructure and possibly reduce it later, and it will probably become too big for its current location, and might, possibly, justify an article on its own. But I think that the inquest is vitally important to

3054:

Well said. Is there a way to get this into the article? It is incredibly relevant that the shooter was not the person primarily involved in the deaths and injuries = it was police. While there is an argument (and perhaps even a valid one) that police had no choice but to fire (certainly if they

2933:

said "...otherwise, Osama Bin Laden and the 9/11 hijackers would not be categorized as terrorists. Which of course is not how Knowledge works". And i can fully agree with this. the accusation that it would be original research to label it as terrorism etc. is just wrong. as i already elaborated in

2801:

He wasn't known to be a terrorist until he committed an act that the ASIO states is terrorism. That's not unusual. We have many murderers who aren't known to be murderers until .. they commit murder. We don't feel a need to wait a period of time after, say, 9 11, to mirror what the government and

2269:

i dont understand how this is not fully labeld as islamist terror attack. yes there are "experts" and journalists who say several things like he was just deranged and wanted attention and so forth but these are merely side notes. arent all islamists somehow mentally deranged, at least according to

2249:

which for some reason doesn't count under this self-declared consensus. Under NPOV and OR, 1: in the presence of one or more views, both have to be presented, 2: it is synthesis to conclude on the basis of weighing two sides that one has "disproven" the other. For the purposes of inclusion under a

1910:

At the time, the majority of Australians did NOT regard it as terrorism, while the majority of people from USA *DID* regard it as terrorism. I think that the current view is that the majority of people from anywhere in the world currently recognise the facts drawn from the investigation that this

1616:

I think that police mistakes and cover-ups will turn out to be a big part of this story. Everyone makes mistakes, and police at all levels are merely human, especially in tense conditions. But we expect police to set an example for honesty, and I'm not seeing that here, where misleading statements

1377:

to be floods. So now we have a case that both is and isn't terrorism. Consensus at the time is that it wasn't and then it became so later in spite of the facts. I think if the infobox has to go in, a good compromise is that it be where it now - that is, at the bottom of the page, near the "Debate"

1061:

I think the hatnote more than sufficiently helps the reader without unnecessarily delaying readers expecting last month's event. Anyone looking for the 1984 event would expect "Sydney hostage crisis" to refer to the recent one which is most prominently in the consciousness of most; I suspect many

3616:

I am not sure that the inquest deserves a separate article, but it was certainly growing to big for its current position. I was thinking of a sub article, (2014 Sydney hostage crisis/inquest), as the detailed chronology was mainly notes for those more interested in it, and to help us/me with the

3437:

It is true that "The inquest is only interested in Monis as it pertains to the event." however the inquest is producing 1 report - while we have multiple different articles that are relevant (including but not limited to this article, the biography, and other articles of more broad scope like the

2818:

Monis was assessed by ASIO and consider not to be a terrorist nor someone likely to be involved with a terrorist incident, as I said we should wait for the outcome of the NSW Coroners report because as Wittylama has describe they will be able to access all information and question everyone before

2773:

Witty -- rather than go with the POV of a wp editor, we tend at wp to go with official statements of government officials and statements of RSs. You might argue that US and Australian government courts that convict (living) terrorists are not "neutral" -- but that is irrelevant; if they convict a

2210:

article (particularly the "Motivation" and "analysis" sections). I think it is a sign of the times that we are debating the word "terrorism" so heavily because the gunman wanted the most possible attention for his violence, but the Port Arthur massacre article doesn't use the word terrorism once,

2202:

of the siege talk about terrorism, and politicians (and the head of ASIO) have classified it as such since, but the secondary sources that are referenced - the actual analysis rather than the primary source reporting - err very much towards a classification of deranged-man-with-gun. Over the next

1351:

Yes to what Jeffro says. Also, we do need to be careful not to be re-writing history. An attempted summary of this: at first they didn't know what was happening, so they decided to act as if it were terrorism just in case; then it became clear there was no affiliation, support or planning and the

2884:

Today was the first day of the official coronial inquiry into the events. There will be a LOT of reporting on this, with a lot of new facts to add. Crucially, this will be sources from expert-witnesses to the inquiry, not "heat of the moment journalism". I would argue that these will be the best

2254:

have firmly been established as an Islamist inspired terrorist event even if the current administration for political purposes has not acknowledged anything beyond a criminal workplace violence incident, and most high profile "workplace violence" incidents look suspiciously like Islamist attacks

2223:

Just as an aside, it is universally agreed that the Port Arthur massacre was terrorism, it is just that we didn't use that term as frequently then as we do now. Even conspiracy theorists, for all 3 major versions of the conspiracy theory, all conclude that it was terrorism, as does the official

1577:

On checking the source, you are both correct and I'm mistaken - the source does present it as being something which definitely happened. My memory was that it had included provisos, but this was a mistake. I've half reverted myself: the implication that the police had given a misleading cause of

409:

It is the last day of the year and regrettably, it seems we have to add more about terrorist organisations jumping on the gunman's bandwagon. First he jumped on theirs, then they (eventually) jumped on his. It's a noisy bandwagon that they seem to be driving around in circles. It also seems like

2194:

However, the third source you cite is also the Daily Telegraph, with made-up statistics like "The hostages found themselves the victims of roughly million to one odds, terrorised by a maniac desperate for attention." - so I dispute that this can be used to justify the claim that "Many RSs have

3568:

scandal in the UK (the latter of which BTW might be a useful model on the level of detail to be included?) But I also share the concern that the problem I have suggested above, which is that the section has too easily become a day by day reporting of everything that is said at the inquest (and

3193:

With respect, he didn't. He walked quietly in, and only fired one shot, many hours later. The gunmen who stormed the cafe, killing two people and wounding others - including one of their own number, shot in the face - were the police. They fired 22 times, and we have conflicting reports in our

1038:

Yes; the lede starts "The 1984 Sydney bank robbery and hostage crisis ..." and a disambig page would help the reader. The word "hostage" is used 3 times in the opening paragraph. I raise it for discussion here as it affects this article more than the other. Your note there pointing to this

523:

NOW... notice the part thats missing from these demands? Absolutely anything to do with the claimed "motive". Somebody has attempted to do a bit of original research and invent their own reasoning behind why he performed this hostage situation without actually being backed up by the facts and

375:

As much as a note-to-self as it is an FYI to other editors, I've come across two more pieces of analysis in the SMH by two of the calmer and more thoughtful opinion writers in the local media. Especially now that the "debate" section of this article is getting filled out nicely I think it is

2148:

terrorist organization, or that the Prime Minister and head of ASIO declared it terrorism. There is RS support for it being treated as terrorism and highest-level-government support, so while not exclusively viewed that way, for cat purposes it should be reflected inter alia as terrorism.

1971:). The first three times revert was made with no explanation and the fourth time it was simply "It was declared as a terrorist attack". Each time I edited I left a clear explanation for why I was removing the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis from the template and a request to discuss. ( 1648:“Ms Dawson was struck by six fragments of a police bullet or bullets, which ricocheted from hard surfaces into her body ... one bullet struck a major blood vessel, she lost consciousness and died shortly afterwards,” he said.(Counsel assisting the coroner, Jeremy Gormley SC), 1352:

gunman was angry, had a confused agenda with to some extent, a personal set of grievances; subsequently, terrorist oganisations tried to claim him via their approval (see "Bandwagon" section above); and then it was declared a "terrorist incident" for the purposes of insurance.

3495:

where they say "This is the biggest hearing in New South Wales history". If that is true, then this DEFINITELY warrants its own page. If it isn't entirely true, then it still probably warrants its own page just because people are thinking of it like that. I am going to be

4016:

People are adding ISIL stuff. There's been no 100% consensus on talk about "terrorism" or "islamism" let alone ISIL. I'm removing the ISIL tags unless someone gains consensus that this is "ISIL inspired" or "ISIL planned". Currently the evidence of either is conflicted. --

3428:

that the level of detail in the "people that knew monis" section is far too much for what is relevant for this article. It's a day-by-day account of who said what at the inquest. I'd suggest that the paragraphs be divided up and integrated into the relevant parts of the

3389:

I don't know why we have a separate Monis article as he is not notable apart from his final act of madness. The inquest is only interested in Monis as it pertains to the event. It is very difficult to split information between Monis and the Seige, and pointless IMHO.

808:

is because my email accounts are under my real life name. Just because something is "similar" doesn't make it fact that the same person wrote it. You are fabricating non existant evidence. I want to see proof that I am both of these people that would hold up in legal

3883:

In fact you're both correct.... You don't need a user-account to contribute (to articles or to talkpage discussions) but signing-up does add to the users credibility (as well as making it easier to contact you and gives you added features like a watchlist).

2729:: It appears to me that your argument is based on the premise that because the PM, ASIO director, and the Daily Telegraph call it terrorism then therefore it is. And the corollary premise is that anyone who disagrees with this assessment has to prove it was 3075:

My bad. I note that it is in the article already, in the lead paragraph no less. Even still, I wonder if we should be using the term "culprit" rather than "gunman" as he only fired 1 shot, so his having a gun was somewhat irrelevant to what happened.

4036:

I don't know if the possibility of a 'false flag' was ever discussed? .. searched in the discussion archive here but didn't find anything The whole story smells suspicious - for me - there must have been reports on this also discussing this angle ..

3055:

were incorrectly informed that this was a terrorism incident), it is certainly notable that only 1 hostage was killed by Monis, the rest by police by crossfire. I think that future readers of this article would be very interested in that fact.

2428:

that it seems contradictory to include the template in the article without including a link to the article within the template, although I can understand the rationale to some extent. I also note that the event is not mentioned in the article

3942:

The ref is OK, but this just does not sound like anything that our beloved PM would say. I'd expect something like "this shows the need for all of our terror legislation...". Any further reference would be helpful. I have marked it as

3434:

and psychiatric illnesses" (and then give a couple of examples). The level of detail however, (e.g. that he wore a strange suit to court in 2011) is not pertinent to THIS article, and would be a stretch even for the biography article.

3617:

summation later. In any case I do want to summarize it and put summaries in appropriate places. I am also not sure about having a separate Monis article, but Monis himself would be pleased to have achieved Notability on Knowledge.

177:

motivations are politically and psychologically complex. As it turns out, he was acting alone, he was not supported by anyone but probably would like to have been. It cannot be known. In this state of ambiguity, leave the box out.

2989:

Pretty amazing. 5 people shot by stray police bullets (Dawson, three hostages, plus policeman.) The police must have run amok, shooting at anything that looked like it was moving. One stray bullet is a bit careless, but FIVE!

2145: 3500:

and create the article, and, once I have created it, I am going to move over all of the information that we have here over to the new article. If I am wrong (which I don't think I am), it can be merged back into this one.

3158:

With regards to whether he had a gun, as far as I'm aware, there zero reports conflicting with the statement that he was armed with a shotgun. The article currently gives 4 footnotes for this statement (second paragraph of

2293:

to say about the alliance between the hostage taker and islamist terrorist group/s and especially what the purpose of the jihadi flag has been. these points were not elaborated or explained here at all until now. greetings

3223:

Well, if we don't call him a "gunman" (despite the fact he definitely was armed with a gun), and we've already decided against the american styling "perpetrator", what would you suggest instead - Hostage-taker? Offender?

1169:, and in the prose. Given that new news about the topic is now slowing down (with the notable recent announcement that "for insurance purposes"), perhaps its time to revisit and confirm the consensus about this issue.... 3408:

BTW Those Guardian pages I am citing are the only source I could easily find with reasonable detail that did not just cherry pick sensational facts. (I certainly do not have time to wade throught the full transcript.)

3466:

I for one think that it definitely should, as I believe (1) that it is likely to be relevant into the distant future and (2) it has far-reaching consequences far beyond the consequences from the hostage crisis itself.

1016:

for "Sydney hostage crisis" and the hatnote is sufficient to redirect anyone who happened to be looking for the other. However, if you wish to pursue this, it should also be raised onmthe other article's talk page.

2244:

What we have here is a case of politically motivated whitewashing and synthesis of a "consensus" when there is no global consensus between counterjihad and anti-islamphobia pundits, and the Australian government has

2203:

year or two there will no-doubt be several books and journal articles published on these events, and the media/police actions that surrounded them. IMO the WP article should definitely try to take these into account.

2960:

Three hostages were wounded during the raid: Marcia Mikhael, who was shot in the leg; a 75-year-old woman, Robyn Hope, who was shot in the shoulder; and her 52-year-old daughter, Louisa Hope, who was shot in the

1823:- Coronial inquests are lengthy processes, especially one this large. It continues agin in May. The final findings won't be until the conclusion of the inquest and are probably several months away as is normal. 514:"To please broadcast on all media that this is an attack on Australia by the Islamic State. And number three is that we need Tony Abbott to contact the brother on a live feed and five hostages will be released. 3643:

article that people were adding daily summaries, usually about 2-3 lines per day, and then summarising it further elsewhere in the article. I think that that would be a reasonable approach in this topic too.

1378:

section (even though insurance determinations never were part of any debate), where it can perhaps usefully provide context; rather than at the top of the article, where it would look like it was unequivocal.

3989:

In the " raid and end of siege" section the first paragraph ends saying he was struck with 7 bullets while at the end of the section it says 13. In the "police weapons and tactics" section it also says 13.

3841:. Most readers will query why this attack has not been included on either page. We should include based on reader expectations, and then they can find their way to the main article and form their own views. 2740:

sources - and furthermore the Daily Tele is neither (a popular nickname for it is "the daily terrorgraph"!). For the same reason that some have argued here that there's a political/ideological motivation to

1542:

I agree with Skyring. There is no dispute in reliable sources about this point - it's been widely reported in reliable sources around the world with no denial, and I don't think anyone's arguing this point.

3167:

source that conflicts with that, that would be interesting to read/include but frankly I can't see how the whole thing could have happened at all if he didn't brandish some kind of weapon to start with...

2538:

Hard to see it as terrorism, unless you see the gunmen as being agents of state-sponsored terrorism, deliberately aiming to enforce their dogma at all costs including the deaths of members of the public.

2373:

The question at hand has been debated on this talkpage before and at length... Whether, and how, this article should be classified vis-a-vis Terrorism, both in this article and more controversially, in

2250:

terrorism category, there would be no terrorist incidents if editors were able to conclude on the basis of even one "reliable source" that Major Hasan or the Sydney gunman was merely a cover story. The

2081:) for insurance purposes. The justification for this may be contestable, but the government designation of this act as a terrorist act, while debated, is WP:VER and should be documented by the category. 2198:

I disagree with your characterisation: "but the dispute has largely been about the type of terrorism", and I think the article (particularly the "debate" section) bear this out. Some of the journalism

524:

actually contrary to the facts we have at hand. Using the Prime Minister of Australia, Tony Abbotts own words the motive should be changed to "Political Motive" which are backed up by the actual facts.

517:"Most importantly there are three bombs at George Street, Martin Place and also Circular Quay. And in order for those not to be ignited, we need these three things to be met as soon as possible." See: 3936:" had a long history of violent crime, infatuation with extremism and mental instability...As the siege unfolded yesterday, he sought to cloak his actions with the symbolism of the ISIL death cult.". 2191:) as this was not mentioned elsewhere and is quite an important statement. With regards to the "brush with terrorism" quote, that specific article (and quote) is already referenced in the article. 652:

The source couldn't be more direct. The editor's entire editing history was about a week, yet he knows enough to add a 'retire' template to his User page? Given this knowledge of Knowledge, it is

2134:

said of Monis two months after the event: "He said at the time that he undertook the siege that he was inspired by ISIL. Had the flag, all of that sort of thing. Yes, I think he was a terrorist."

472:

The women speak quickly as they relay the demands of the gunman in videos posted to social media. Man Haron Monis has held them and 15 others captive in the Lindt Chocolat Cafe in Martin Place.

3560:

I'm cautiously open to the idea. I haven't done much digging, but some quick glances seem to show that there are some separate articles on inquiries in other countries including inquiries into

2104:(one of which is the one you cited, the other to a federal government website). However, this does not "outweigh" the approximately dozen other reliable sources that are cited in the section 2745:

call this terrorism, then it is also true that these three sources have a political/ideological motivation to try their hardest to call it terrorism - and we must try to balance this as per

1259: 3671:. All the evidence points to mainly being a custody battle, combined with a psychological issue, with the ISIS connection being entirely secondary. Monis did not even have an ISIS flag 2011:

I've just been reverted, again, by an IP with the edit summary "There is no need to engage in discussion..." Perhaps an admin could return it to consensus and semi-protect the template?

4098: 1873:). As this left the "resignation" as the only sub-section underneath "political consequences", I also moved that into the "law and policy" section and renamed it "law and politics". 1751:

On the talkpage of Monis' biography I've suggested that we should replace the Fair Use image of Monis with a different, more Neutral, portrait photograph. Please leave your comments

861:

if you really really want, but it would be a waste of my time, and would result in you being permanently blocked. Is that what you want? (Although you may also be blocked for making

505:"Hello everybody," she says. She gives her name - which Fairfax Media cannot make out - and introduces herself as "one of the many hostages here in the Lindt cafe at Martin Place". 1216:

page into the 'See also' section should be done because it was declared a terrorist attack, yes it was declared for insurance reasons but it was a terrorist attack by definition. (

4211:

The controversy is well-sourced, accurately describes what McAlister said (so we needn't speculate on what he meant), and was discussed in multiple cited sources so is notable.

2519:

so for this to be called a terrorist act it needs to be sustained by the information provided in multiple independent reliable sources and not based on the opinions of editors.

475:

Forced to do his bidding, they talk to the camera, standing in front of a black and white Shahada flag held up by another person behind them, who remains hidden by the fabric.

2023:..and again, by another anon, using the same 'undo' method but with no previous editing history on that IP address. I've now requested the template be marked as semi-protect ( 1865:

the various arguments. I retained a couple of the copyediting changes as well as the moving of the "government declaring as terrorism for insurance purposes" sentence to the

1485:

No such thing has been "sorted out": the coroner's inquiry which will establish the facts has yet to even begin. Leaks reported in the media shouldn't be presented as facts.

2736:

I would argue that while the PM and ASIO director are certainly notable sources (which is why their opinions are prominently included in this "debate" section) they are not

2687: 2224:

story. Yet it isn't mentioned in that article (even though it should be) and it is, oddly, mentioned here. What a different 19 years makes to how the world is perceived!

2135: 3350:

I think that the inquest is significant enough to warrant its own article, and then we can have a degree of control on what is put there, without confusing this article.

1578:

death doesn't seem sustainable, especially as gunshot wounds often lead to death through shock and heart-related issues rather than the wound directly. It's all very sad.

1896:

I agree that the restructuring into "terrorism" v "doubts" was unhelpful and potentially non-NPOV, and concur with your reasoning on re-integrating. Thanks for your work

2983: 1649: 1408: 2862: 1723:

Esposito, Michael. Reviewing bail laws in the wake of the Sydney Siege . Bulletin (Law Society of South Australia), Vol. 37, No. 1, Feb 2015: 24-25. Availability: <

2968:

Also, a bit more on Monis's weird demands and why they were denied seems in order if known. A chat with the prime minister hardly seems like giving into terrorism.

1192:

I am happy to reverse these changes if this is what we agree on, with civil debate - but for the moment I think these edits represent the existing consensus here.

3822:

Certainly we can review the decision later. But the issue has been raised as to whether to incude the template now, so needs to have at least an interim solution.

1251: 1165:

As we know, this article has a fair amount of edit warring over whether this event should be classified as 'terrorism': in the Categories, with the inclusion of

649:: "Second sentence of paragraph 5 of cited source: "An inquest is mandatory under the Coroners Act as these deaths occurred in the course of a police operation." 3693:

and personal opinion. This is a discussion as to whether it should be included in the Terrorism in Australia article and template, we are judging this based on

2623: 2131: 487:"The second is for the media to inform the other brothers not to explode the other two bombs which are also in the city. There are four bombs altogether here. 1263: 2965:

So who shot them? It would would seem unlikely to be Monis got all of them. If the four of the five people shot were by police that would be worth knowing.

1255: 1686: 1617:

and spin were part and parcel of the aftermath. Saying that a victim died of a heart attack, when in fact she was killed by police gunfire, is deceptive. --

4088: 162:

I also agree that the approach the NSW Police used to handle the crisis is not a particularly good way of considering how to consider it after the event.

889: 518: 2187:. I've now added the first ref you linked to (the Daily Telegraphy "exclusive interview" with the ASIO boss) into the designation as terrorism section ( 1552: 985:

be changed to a disambig page. "Sydney's 1984 'Dog Day Afternoon'" was a previous title for the other hostage crisis and was renamed after a 2012 RM.

3624:

But let's leave the split, and revisit once the inquest is over. It provides a good place to put the day by day accounts for the time being at least.

2982:

Actually we know, from the enquiry:“No shot fired by Mr Monis, other than the one that struck and killed Mr Johnson, struck anyone,” Mr Gormley said.

2704:

Where does Lewis use the word "perp"? And he's only talking about one of the gunmen. Others caused more death, wounding and destruction than Monis. --

1271: 3039:

attempt was made to negotiate with Monis, nor even to talk to people like Habib that could give them insights as to Monis's character and motivation.

1095:. Is there any evidence that one is significantly more notable than the other, given a long-term, historical viewpoint? Remembering that 1984 was a 4099:

http://web.archive.org/web/20141216054347/http://www.businessinsider.com.au/sydney-siege-update-hres-whats-happening-to-the-city-as-a-result-2014-12

2923: 2874: 2548: 2408: 2090: 1986: 3573:) would only be magnified in a separate article, as it is very difficult to know what evidence given will be relevant until later. So I'd say yes, 478:

In voices that are clear but betray the terror of the situation, they talk of bombs and Islamic State. They are made to call Monis "the brother".

316:

Removing the one word removes the idea of universality - it is now more neutral but still conveys what we understand to be the gunman's intention.

2910: 830:

I want this part of the Talk Page permanently deleted from history as these are ALL unsubstantiated claims based on manufactured false evidence.

2459:

suit the political agenda of the LNP, any sourcing relying on it should be questioned while using it as the primary reasoning should be avoided.

2312:

To ensure that this discussion doesn't happen in an echo chamber, I'm going to ping everyone who has edited this page 10 times or more (based on

1955:. However I was reverted by an anon editor on January 21, March 30, April 1st and 2nd. Each was the only edit that the IP address had ever made ( 1175:

moved the 'terrorism in Australia' template down to the 'designation as terrorism' section - where it can at least be seen in the context of the

2929:

This sounds very promising. i am confident to gather important information of this if a report is done. However i would still add a point here,

1993:

it there, although it should then be noted very clearly in the article as a non-terrorist attack, but that in itself would lead to dispute. So

191:

It certainly shouldn't be put at the top of the aritcle. But there seems to be sufficient discussion in reliable sources to put the box in the

3313:, and so the level of detail seems to me excessive and unhelpful - and in particular I wouldn't have thought that the names of witnesses meet 3021: 4102: 3463:

I'd like to start some discussion as to whether or not we can get consensus as to whether the inquest should have a separate article or not.

381: 559:

that bombs had been placed, but none were found, and there is no evidence that Monis actually was working with the alleged "brothers". This

3966: 3870: 3842: 3698: 2630:, who said there were lessons to be learned from this "brush with terrorism". And with the many RSs that have referred to it as terrorism. 2425: 2383: 1279: 525: 434: 258: 3601:

on the basis of topical/chronological order - if this gets split to grow it can later be condensed and merged in if it isn't appropriate.

3285:

Because they are both an event and a controversy. I'll tweak it. But articles are never perfect, and it would take a lot to restructure.

3958: 3446:. As a result, the information arising from the inquest may be relevant to those articles but not necessarily relevant to include here. 1267: 387: 3970: 3271: 1773: 1733: 1442: 1217: 687:

In case it's not blatantly obvious, the user's modus operandi is to simply start a new username, so the editor's supposed retirement of

496:

A post on one hostage's Facebook page at 5.27pm, more than seven hours after the siege began, repeated the "small and simple requests".

493:"We don't understand why these demands haven't been met yet. They are not unreasonable. He is only asking for a flag and a phone call." 438: 3016:

Monis was hit 13 times, twice in the head and 11 times in the body. Those wounded were wounded by fragments of ricochets, they weren't

3997: 2984:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/sydney-siege/sydney-siege-inquest-lindt-cafe-deaths-investigated/story-fnqxbywy-1227200443586

2079: 3528:

and it too is a standalone article. Other notable inquests are merely sections within the article about the person or the event e.g.

3493: 1668: 3962: 2576:

I don't see the gunmen as acting independently. I think they went in with a plan, and were willing to inflict injury and death. --

1708: 1185:

removed the 'terrorism in australia' and 'terrorist incidents in 2014' categories (as per the previous consensus on this talkpage)

218:

If you are wondering if it was a terrorist act - both ISIL and Al Qaeda are praising his acts and telling others to emulate them.

2514:

if this was a terrorist incident then there would have been a much worse with a lot quicker resolution</original research: -->

2207: 1644:

Unfortunately it appears to be true that Dawson was struck by police fire, according to reports of the first day of the inquiry.

1247: 3855:

Please create a (free and anonymous) Knowledge ID if you wish to participate in talk page debates. It adds to your credibility.

2255:

committed by people with different or no apparent political motive who might be working towards the same destabilization goals.

1195:

Perhaps we can have this discussion here, now, once and for all, about how we should deal with this article - with reference to

3787: 3533: 2421: 2388:

The tone of some of the discussion/edit summaries (both in this article and the template) has sometimes become quite aggressive

2375: 2109: 1952: 1166: 64: 59: 1951:

Based on the consensus here that this article should NOT be categorised as "terrorism", I have also removed this article from

1808:

Does anybody know what the process is? When/if the hear from witnesses? When/if they deliver a report? Would be good to add.

3209:

Knowledge is intended to supply facts to interested readers, not to confuse them or to push some particular point of view. --

1512:

to be coy on this point? Perhaps this should go to RSN if there is any doubt as to the accuracy (of the report, that is). --

3649: 3639:

We can certainly revise what Tuntable has written to see if it should be summarised further, but I note in the comparable

3506: 3475: 3355: 3133: 3081: 3060: 2481: 2229: 2060: 1916: 1687:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/sydney-siege-mamdouh-habib-claims-he-could-have-stopped-hostage-deaths-20141230-12f230.html

3279: 3270:

The information about the flag raids is duplicated in the events section and the discussion section. Why is this so? --

1548: 1369:

Insurance declarations are usually the other way around: that is, for the purposes of insurance, accidents are declared

1243: 846: 773: 600:, which asserts that "Statement NOT verifiable in Citation given". The reference says in the antepenultimate paragraph: 484:"We're held here hostage and the brother has three requests. One is to get an IS flag and he will release one hostage. 4138:

An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the

4089:

http://web.archive.org/web/20141224053449/http://www.sbs.com.au/news/fragment/siege-victims-remembered-private-services

1587: 219: 2754: 901: 519:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-siege-over-lindt-cafe-gunman-forces-hostages-to-appear-in-videos-20141216-127wgy.html

4108: 2100:, and an important fact to cite in the article - which is why it already is. See the two footnotes in this section: 4060: 3694: 3171: 3160: 2627: 2251: 2105: 2101: 1009: 38: 3013:

Sad to read so much speculation above from people with no experience in hostage situations or police operations.

1875:

I hope that people here concur with these adjustments and their adherence to policies on Neutrality, particularly

938:

You're not a newcomer. You have a good knowledge of templating and other specific aspects of Knowledge. Bye now.--

1787:

I don't know why it would be there. I've moved that sub-section to be the last part of the "events" section now.

4092: 3577:, be bold and create it, but be aware of the potential issues, and we can see where it goes from there. Thanks. 3163:) and the fact of him having a gun is crucial to the explanation of how the whole siege happened. If you have a 912:

in this thread to be permanently banned. The only person who I would like to see banned, but NOT permanently is

490:"The third is for Tony Abbott to contact the brother via live web, somehow, and he will release five hostages. 3874: 3846: 3702: 3645: 3640: 3574: 3502: 3486: 3471: 3351: 3129: 3098: 3077: 3056: 2477: 2225: 2056: 1912: 1383: 1283: 1005: 986: 893: 457: 415: 321: 289:. However, it may be possible to clean up the wording so that the article does not suggest that the shahada is 182: 1724: 1062:

would not even be aware of the 1984 event, but those who do would certainly also be aware of the 2014 event.

529: 262: 3170:

With regards to whether he fired the gun, there are conflicting reports - as seen in the second paragraph of

1544: 1221: 4001: 3974: 3912: 3275: 1777: 1737: 604:

An inquest is mandatory under the Coroners Act as these deaths occurred in the course of a police operation.

442: 93: 3022:

http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/news/16101-inquest-reveals-barrister-katrina-dawson-killed-by-police-bullet

2885:

quality sources for us to use in WP to help answer the questions we've been debating here because they are

4234: 4194: 4103:

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/sydney-siege-update-hres-whats-happening-to-the-city-as-a-result-2014-12

3783: 3529: 2430: 1213: 1131: 1013: 382:

http://smh.com.au/comment/sydney-gunman-man-haron-monis-a-real-sheikh-only-to-himself-20141216-128h9x.html

342:. For that reason, I have removed the parts of the links that refer to that possibly misleading section.-- 1236: 4170: 4150:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3490: 2758: 982: 750: 47: 17: 3194:

article of how wildly they fired, with some saying fifteen rounds missed Monis and others saying nine.

1276: 135:

of your compromise—that is, inclusion of the template, on the condition that is placed adjacent to the

3485:

Just looking through the various articles covering it, it is getting the same kind of coverage as the

1404:

Probably a reliable report. Add it in? or wait for coroner's report? Will be a long time coming.....

388:

http://smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/free-emotions-come-with-price-tag-20141221-12bbpd.html

4213: 3993: 3525: 2863:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IP 115.166.47.100 and Template:Terrorism in Australia

2807: 2779: 2695: 2663: 2635: 2599: 2563: 2153: 1752: 1712: 1693: 834: 761: 635: 613: 254: 2622:

Yes. In accord with Australia’s top spy boss Duncan Lewis, the Director-General of Security of the

85: 3888: 3794: 3540: 3536:). So... I'm cautious, but like you say, we can always merge content later if we change our minds. 3450: 3228: 3178: 3105: 2920: 2823: 2793: 2765: 2555: 2523: 2463: 2405: 2344: 2215: 2116: 2047: 2031: 2015: 1983: 1887: 1876: 1858: 1805:

It started several weeks ago, it seemed like there was some sort of session, then all went silent.

1791: 1759: 1379: 1317: 1203: 1092: 858: 453: 411: 396: 317: 227: 178: 2513:

islam =/= terrorism having a flag also doesnt make a person a terrorist <original research: -->

103:

Your characterisation of what was removed and why is misleading. Inclusion of the template is not

4022: 3948: 3908: 3860: 3827: 3750: 3676: 3629: 3443: 3414: 3395: 3339: 3290: 3044: 3003: 2973: 2870: 2260: 2002: 1934: 1813: 1707:

There's starting to be academic-quality level sources being published about the siege. Here's a

1431: 1342: 1104: 1044: 994: 952: 925: 917: 905: 897: 879: 838: 765: 740: 705: 678: 657: 581: 356: 307: 209: 153: 89: 2956:

We know Monis killed Johnson and the police killed Dawson. But then the article goes on to say

502:

Another woman stands before the flag and a cafe poster that refers to "the love of chocolate".

4151: 2313: 1960: 4230: 4206: 4190: 4070: 4042: 3813: 3727: 3606: 3582: 3570: 3521: 3376: 3323: 3310: 3241: 3214: 3028: 2753:

be classified as terrorism... that's incorrect both epistemologically and also legally. See [[

2709: 2677: 2649: 2613: 2581: 2544: 2170: 2086: 1968: 1964: 1901: 1828: 1622: 1517: 1468: 544: 3722:. Editors are welcome to vote for any reason, if you disagree you can't edit their comments. 1300:

is misleading and therefore inappropriate. This is especially the case where sources are not

511:"One is to send an IS flag as soon as possible and one hostage will be released," she says. 4166: 2746: 2328: 1956: 1880: 1663: 1583: 1490: 1449: 929: 842: 795: 769: 719: 167: 4158: 2043:

and left a hidden comment in the code to ask people to read the talkpage (there and here).

1861:). Therefore, I have restored the article to the pre-existing structure which deliberately 4078: 3719: 3598: 3565: 3367: 2941: 2930: 2803: 2775: 2722: 2691: 2659: 2631: 2595: 2559: 2504: 2401:

and discuss it properly without resorting to insults or "with us or against us" rhetoric.

2348: 2298: 2275: 2184: 2149: 1854: 1689: 921: 909: 862: 805: 631: 609: 2126:

The police certainly treated it as terrorism. As did officials. Australia’s top spy boss

1409:"Martin Place siege victim Katrina Dawson struck by a police bullet, investigations show" 2861:, if interested, a related discussion about the IP editing the template can be found on 1182:

removed this article from the list of terrorism incidents that appears in that template.

4238: 4222: 4198: 4178: 4046: 4026: 4005: 3978: 3952: 3916: 3891: 3885: 3878: 3864: 3850: 3831: 3817: 3797: 3791: 3754: 3731: 3706: 3680: 3653: 3633: 3610: 3586: 3557: 3543: 3537: 3510: 3497: 3479: 3453: 3447: 3418: 3399: 3380: 3359: 3343: 3327: 3294: 3245: 3231: 3225: 3218: 3186: 3181: 3175: 3137: 3125: 3108: 3102: 3085: 3064: 3032: 3007: 2977: 2945: 2917: 2826: 2820: 2811: 2796: 2790: 2783: 2768: 2762: 2713: 2699: 2681: 2667: 2653: 2639: 2617: 2603: 2585: 2567: 2526: 2520: 2508: 2485: 2466: 2460: 2445: 2441: 2402: 2364: 2336: 2302: 2279: 2264: 2233: 2218: 2212: 2174: 2157: 2119: 2113: 2064: 2050: 2044: 2034: 2028: 2018: 2012: 2006: 1994: 1980: 1938: 1920: 1905: 1890: 1884: 1832: 1817: 1794: 1788: 1781: 1762: 1756: 1741: 1697: 1675: 1626: 1521: 1494: 1472: 1453: 1435: 1387: 1346: 1287: 1225: 1206: 1200: 1146: 1142: 1108: 1074: 1070: 1048: 1029: 1025: 998: 956: 933: 888:

I suggest you and ALL of your abusive mates on Knowledge have a long in-depth read of:

883: 850: 799: 777: 744: 709: 682: 639: 617: 585: 533: 461: 446: 419: 399: 393: 360: 331: 325: 311: 266: 231: 223: 213: 186: 171: 157: 97: 4157:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2994:

they fired more than a couple of bullets in that enclosed envirodnment would be good.

2789:

labels on things we dont have sufficient information about nor the ability to obtain.

1842:

I just thought I'd write her to keep people abreast of recent changes to the article.

4018: 3944: 3856: 3823: 3746: 3672: 3625: 3439: 3410: 3391: 3335: 3306: 3286: 3040: 2999: 2969: 2866: 2398: 2360: 2320: 2256: 1998: 1976: 1930: 1846: 1809: 1716: 1427: 1329: 1100: 1040: 990: 939: 866: 785: 727: 692: 665: 568: 430: 343: 294: 196: 140: 107:

at the whim of editors, and removal at the time was because of what was available in

2211:

even though it's clear that the gunman there wanted attention for his violence too.

2142: 220:

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2014/12/30/11/31/man-monis-praised-in-isil-magazine

4038: 3809: 3723: 3690: 3602: 3578: 3425: 3372: 3319: 3237: 3210: 3024: 2905:

To wit, they're basically dealing with exactly the same thing we're debating here:

2705: 2673: 2645: 2609: 2577: 2540: 2516: 2368: 2340: 2166: 2127: 2097: 2082: 1897: 1824: 1618: 1513: 1464: 108: 4109:

http://web.archive.org/web/20141220091702/http://en.irna.ir/News.asps?Nid=81428520

3470:

Is there consensus to create a separate article now, or do people prefer to wait?

2749:. As, as for the claim that the burden of proof lies with those arguing it should 1997:'s edit is good. (It will be interesting what the Inquest eventually produces.) 3808:

agencies, that the PM, the treasurer and the ASIO chief are not independent of.

3489:

got, or similar high-level trials, and also I note in one of the pages from the

3314: 2332: 2316: 2138: 1579: 1486: 1445: 913: 790: 499:"He is now threatening to kill us," the post read. "Please help. Please share." 163: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2039:

The template has now been semi-protected. I've remove the link to this article

1328:; instead, it should only be stated as quoted. This precludes categorisation.-- 1235:

Much of the earlier discussion centred on whether Monis was an ISIL-terrorist.

433:

to come into force is not included in the source at the end of that paragraph,

3774:

will be the most valuable to us for adding footnotes and building the article.

2937: 2726: 2500: 2294: 2271: 1719:, which seems to explore the 'why is this guy on bail' reaction to the siege: 754: 4229:

maybe thats his bad idea care to supply a link to what he actually thought?--

4093:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/fragment/siege-victims-remembered-private-services

1441:

I've added it - the sourcing is reliable, and this has been reported earlier

749:

You are all full of accusations aren't you ? Where is your proof that I am a

3869:

No you're wrong, I'm allowed to participate in any discussion on Knowledge.

3203:

It was also unclear why 22 shots were fired by police, of which 13 hit Monis

3189:, above you say Monis should be described as a gunman because (and I quote) 2591: 2437: 2356: 2324: 1138: 1066: 1021: 723: 661: 338:

that gives the reader the impression that the shahada flag is exclusively a

4112: 3664:(As the previous consensus was no, I am removing the tag in the meantime.) 1725:

http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=995569470465830;res=IELHSS

1946: 1857:

such as "lone wolf terrorism" and "doubts" which undermines NPOV - as per

2658:

One perp is discussed. Monis. And that is whom he states is a terrorist.

2352: 4075:

after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add

2644:

Has Lewis identified which of the shooters he thinks was a terrorist? --

2247:

officially declared it to be a terrorist incident for insurance purposes

2141:

said there were lessons to be learned from this "brush with terrorism".

2055:

Having read this, I also removed its linking in the "terrorism portal"

1685:

Some controversy about offers of help during the crisis. Worth noting?

437:, it only says January. Where does the date of the 28th come from? -- 3266:

Flag raids - same information is in 'events' and 'discussion' sections

2608:

So you see the actions of the gunmen in this incident as terrorism? --

2108:. This seems to me to be the correct balance - see also the policy on 1772:

Why is the information about the flag raids in the gunman section? --

2515:... The whole point is Knowledge doesnt draw conclusions nor conduct 1270:'terrorist incident' for the purposes of the Terrorism Insurance Act 1008:

also commonly referred to as a "hostage crisis", though? Otherwise,

3305:

Just some thoughts on the information that has been added so far by

2688:"ASIO boss admits Lindt Cafe gunman Man Haron Monis was a terrorist" 924:

but not being as abrasive with how I was treated as a newcomer.

1929:

I have added quite a bit to this section, to make the issues clear.

4083:

to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

3782:

article should also be applied to how this topic is dealt with in

3309:"documenting the inquest" after 2 days of testimony. Knowledge is 691:

socks and probably other accounts cannot be taken at face value.--

330:

I have amended both instances in the article. The target article (

2554:

Not at all; that's contrary to what terrorism encompasses -- see

452:

Changed to what ref said. If you find the specific date, add it.

1947:

This article's listing in the "terrorism in Australia" template

3198:

stormed the café, firing 22 shots, seven of which struck Monis

2378:. I draw everyone's attention in particular to the discussion 608:

I don't see how that could NOT support the article statement.

376:

important that these two pieces get referenced at some point:

25: 3790:- both of which are having parallel discussions to this one. 3236:

I think you missed the point there, Lama. Have a nice day. --

547:. Aside from that, the article you've posted contains only a 334:) may also need clarification, as it currently has a section 4118:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

1188:

removed the equivalent articles from the 'see also' section.

429:

The given date of 28 January 2015 for the amendments to the

123:

that an event is a terrorist attack. That said, whilst your

3928: 1316:(such as Hockey's assessment for insurance purposes). Per 3768:

voting to determine if something is, or is not, terrorism

1463:

been a lot of police bullets bouncing around in there. --

1296:

call it terrorism, to the exclusion of those that say it

1212:

I think inserting the 'terrorism related categories' and

784:

There is enough overlap and similarity in the edits that

656:

to conclude that the editor has multiple accounts (i.e.

4064: 4059:

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on

3191:

this is a man who stormed in to the cafe with... a gun.

2686:

Have you read our article? In addition, you might read

2416: 2395: 2392: 2389: 2379: 2188: 2078:

Joe Hockey has listed the event as a terrorist attack (

2024: 1972: 1870: 1850: 715: 650: 645:

Seriously?! I stated fairly clearly in my edit summary

627: 623: 597: 1324:

as 'terrorism' should not be stated as 'terrorism' in

1979:

I'd appreciate if someone else could look into this.

1849:

to the "debate" section of the article (see the diff

804:

The only reason I am not going to make a claim under

3967:

this ABC piece includes the video of Abbott's speech

1650:

Sydney siege inquest: Lindt Cafe deaths investigated

435:

Stricter bail laws would be an assault on our rights

2106:

2014_Sydney_hostage_crisis#Designation_as_terrorism

1709:

Google Scholar search for "Sydney siege" since 2014

508:The demands in this video are slightly different. 3520:much of a 'day by day' reportage of the inquest ( 2690:, and the other articles covering the statement. 2397:, so I think both articles need to have a cup of 543:is probably beyond fair use and may constitute a 3597:Go ahead, I've been trying to update details on 3265: 602: 481:"This is a message to Tony Abbott," says one. 3778:2) I also think that the consensus outcome on 3621:determines as opposed to the process itself. 664:) and was simply intending to be disruptive.-- 2998:(shot 5 times!), and dead men tell no tales. 2626:("Yes, I think he was a terrorist." And with 2624:Australian Security Intelligence Organisation 2132:Australian Security Intelligence Organisation 1274:'terrorism'. Plus under Australian law : --> 8: 3161:the Hostage-taking and negotiations section 2102:2014_Sydney_hostage_crisis#Insurance_claims 3991: 2144:Many RSs have referred to it as terrorism. 1869:of the first Debate section (see the diff 1304:, sources based on incomplete information 890:Knowledge:Please do not bite the newcomers 252: 222:Should be added to the article carefully. 2672:"Perp"? Do you have a source for that? -- 131:more recent sources probably justify the 4113:http://en.irna.ir/News.asps?Nid=81428520 3689:I've struck this comment as it is clear 2130:the Director-General of Security of the 1099:gentler time, I recall the 1984 event. 989:should then go to the See also section. 273:It's fairly clear from sources that the 251:never displayed as part of this siege. 4189:is the point he was trying to make?) -- 3660:Vote: Should this be Terrorism template 3534:John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan#Inquest 1973:See the full template edit history here 626:, so probably won't respond here, I've 4139: 2380:in the 'back and forth' edit summaries 1801:What happened to the Coronial Inquest? 1171:For what it's worth, I have just now: 726:have further confirmed sockpuppetry.-- 622:Given that the editor responsible has 563:what analysts have confirmed as Monis 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1373:to be accidents; floods are declared 1312:, or where sources use the term in a 7: 2112:in retaining Neutral Point of View. 1711:, but I came across this article in 371:two more useful analysis references 3720:do not refactor talk page comments 1400:Dawson struck by police bullet.... 1039:discussion will suffice. Thanks. 277:was for the flag to be considered 24: 4063:. Please take a moment to review 3172:the Raid and end of siege section 1838:Structure of the "Debate" section 1768:Flag raids in the gunman section? 1652:. The Australian, 29 January 2015 1179:about IF this event is terrorism. 788:'s allegation is in good faith. — 468:"Motive" is contrary to the FACTS 4129: 2455:Terrorism for insurance purposes 2208:Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia) 1657: 1656: 1308:, sources that are deliberately 1197:Knowledge's established policies 285:jihadist flag, or the only flag 29: 3927:The article quotes Abbot, from 3839:Include in template and article 3788:Template:Terrorism in Australia 3766:1) I'm not keen on the idea of 2376:Template:Terrorism in Australia 1953:Template:Terrorism in Australia 1273:(Plus more expert opinion : --> 1241:Australian expert, Barton : --> 1167:Template:Terrorism in Australia 4184:Question of which rifle to use 3969:- 0:40 is where it starts. -- 3530:Death of Ian Tomlinson#Inquest 2417:added it to the template again 1261:Australian expert, Jones : --> 551:motive that was found to be a 281:. The IS flag certainly isn't 80:Terrorism template and sources 1: 4179:19:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC) 4047:11:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC) 4027:11:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC) 3459:Inquest as a separate article 3008:00:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC) 2978:23:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC) 2252:2009 Fort Hood Hood Shootings 2195:referred to it as terrorism." 1698:12:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC) 420:01:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 400:00:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 361:09:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC) 326:07:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC) 312:05:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC) 267:04:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC) 232:07:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC) 214:02:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC) 187:11:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC) 172:05:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC) 158:02:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC) 98:02:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC) 4006:09:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC) 2893:, will be from all relevant 1676:17:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC) 1627:21:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC) 1588:10:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC) 1553:10:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC) 1522:10:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC) 1495:07:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC) 1473:22:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC) 1454:22:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC) 1436:20:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC) 1388:23:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC) 1347:12:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC) 1292:Cherry-picking sources that 1288:11:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC) 1265:SMH columnist Feneley : --> 1226:06:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC) 1207:11:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC) 1147:11:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC) 1109:23:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC) 1075:15:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC) 1049:13:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC) 1030:11:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC) 999:11:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC) 981:I propose that the redirect 957:00:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC) 934:17:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC) 916:for treating me the same as 884:01:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC) 586:04:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC) 3979:12:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC) 3953:09:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC) 3917:13:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC) 2755:Philosophic burden of proof 2476:the end of the discussion. 902:Knowledge:Assume good faith 851:20:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC) 800:17:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC) 778:17:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC) 745:08:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC) 714:As anticipated, the editor 710:02:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC) 683:02:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC) 640:12:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC) 618:12:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC) 534:22:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC) 462:01:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC) 447:03:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC) 4254: 4081:|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 4061:2014 Sydney hostage crisis 4056:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 3182:13:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC) 3138:11:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC) 3109:09:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC) 3086:02:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC) 3065:02:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC) 3033:10:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC) 2628:Prime Minister Tony Abbott 2384:on the template's talkpage 2065:02:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC) 2051:14:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC) 2035:15:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC) 1833:10:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC) 1795:13:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC) 1782:06:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC) 1763:12:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC) 1747:Different image for Monis? 1742:18:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC) 1253:Age columnist, Szego : --> 1010:2014 Sydney hostage crisis 718:. His further activity at 425:Date of bail act amendment 2426:noted just a few days ago 2019:15:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC) 2007:23:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC) 1987:14:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC) 1818:06:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC) 1413:The Sydney Morning Herald 1245:US expert, Stewart, : --> 4239:04:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC) 4223:02:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC) 4199:06:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC) 3929:http://www.inquisitr.com 3892:07:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC) 3879:04:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC) 3865:22:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC) 3851:06:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC) 3832:22:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC) 3818:12:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC) 3798:11:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC) 3755:07:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC) 3745:per previous consensus. 3732:06:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC) 3707:06:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC) 3681:07:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC) 3654:02:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC) 3641:Trial of Oscar Pistorius 3634:02:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC) 3611:19:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC) 3587:15:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC) 3575:User:Mister Sneeze A Lot 3544:14:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC) 3511:13:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC) 3487:Trial of Oscar Pistorius 3480:13:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC) 3454:19:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC) 3419:22:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC) 3400:22:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC) 3381:06:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC) 3360:03:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC) 3344:22:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC) 3328:02:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC) 3295:23:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC) 3280:08:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC) 3246:18:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC) 3232:09:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC) 3219:22:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC) 2946:09:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC) 2924:09:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC) 2875:07:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC) 2827:12:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC) 2819:drawing any conclusion. 2812:01:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC) 2797:00:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC) 2784:17:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC) 2769:10:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC) 2714:06:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC) 2700:17:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC) 2682:10:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC) 2668:10:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC) 2654:07:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC) 2640:05:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC) 2618:23:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC) 2604:22:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC) 2586:21:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC) 2568:20:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC) 2549:18:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC) 2527:04:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC) 2509:15:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC) 2486:15:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC) 2467:23:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC) 2446:14:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC) 2409:14:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC) 2303:09:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC) 2280:21:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC) 2265:20:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC) 2234:14:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC) 2219:10:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC) 2175:12:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC) 2158:06:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC) 1939:07:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC) 1921:14:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC) 1906:11:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC) 1891:20:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC) 1262:'Lone wolf terrorist' 1242:'lone-wolf terrorist' 1006:1984 Sydney bank robbery 987:1984 Sydney bank robbery 894:Knowledge:Assume no clue 4052:External links modified 3985:Conflicting information 3965:both quote Abbott, and 3718:removed strikethough - 3366:Some as it pertains to 2120:22:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC) 2091:14:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC) 1278:) It was terrorism. 1254:'lone-wolf terrorist' 3784:Terrorism in Australia 2914: 2431:Terrorism in Australia 2422:Terrorism in Australia 1715:while researching the 1320:, an incident that is 1214:Terrorism in Australia 606: 3697:, not our own views. 3491:Sydney Morning Herald 2952:Who did the shooting? 2907: 2759:Legal burden of proof 2414:I see an IP user has 1258:'retail terrorist' 983:Sydney hostage crisis 857:Sigh. I'll request a 287:used for that purpose 86:old template argument 42:of past discussions. 18:Talk:Lindt Cafe siege 4126:to let others know. 4067:. If necessary, add 3526:Ashley Smith inquest 2899:benefit of hindsight 2096:This certainly is a 1732:Hope this helps. -- 1091:That view smacks of 4122:parameter below to 4012:Category- ISIL tags 3695:WP:Reliable sources 3646:Mister Sneeze A Lot 3569:therefore violates 3503:Mister Sneeze A Lot 3472:Mister Sneeze A Lot 3352:Mister Sneeze A Lot 3130:Mister Sneeze A Lot 3099:Mister Sneeze A Lot 3078:Mister Sneeze A Lot 3057:Mister Sneeze A Lot 2986:. I shall add it. 2911:quote via ABC (USA) 2590:Either constitutes 2556:lone wolf terrorism 2478:Mister Sneeze A Lot 2226:Mister Sneeze A Lot 2206:By comparison, see 2057:Mister Sneeze A Lot 1913:Mister Sneeze A Lot 1250:'terrorist attack' 1012:would still be the 660:is a sockpuppet of 545:copyright violation 541:entire news article 336:jihadist black flag 3564:in the US and the 3444:Islam in Australia 3020:by police per-se. 2897:and will have the 2452:calling something 1728:ISSN: 1038-6777. . 918:User talk:Jeffro77 906:User talk:Jeffro77 898:Knowledge:Civility 624:apparently retired 4177: 4008: 3996:comment added by 3691:original research 2517:original research 2444: 1672: 1545:The Drover's Wife 1444:. It's very sad. 1326:Knowledge's voice 1145: 1073: 1028: 854: 837:comment added by 781: 764:comment added by 753:? Do you no what 654:fairly reasonable 592:mandatory inquest 565:wanting attention 269: 257:comment added by 77: 76: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4245: 4221: 4219: 4210: 4173: 4172:Talk to my owner 4168: 4141: 4136: 4133: 4132: 4082: 4074: 2434: 2419: 1845:Recent edits by 1703:Academic sources 1670: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1423: 1421: 1419: 1339: 1334: 1306:during the event 1275:‘terrorist act’ 1135: 1063: 1018: 949: 944: 876: 871: 853: 831: 780: 758: 737: 732: 720:User talk:BXT888 702: 697: 675: 670: 578: 573: 353: 348: 304: 299: 275:intended purpose 206: 201: 150: 145: 111:. Additionally, 109:reliable sources 73: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4253: 4252: 4248: 4247: 4246: 4244: 4243: 4242: 4214: 4212: 4204: 4186: 4176: 4171: 4134: 4130: 4076: 4068: 4054: 4034: 4014: 3987: 3925: 3662: 3599:Man Haron Monis 3461: 3368:Man Haron Monis 3311:not a newspaper 3303: 3268: 2954: 2415: 2189:here's the diff 2137:Prime Minister 2098:reliable source 2025:here's the diff 1949: 1855:loaded headings 1840: 1803: 1770: 1749: 1705: 1683: 1658: 1417: 1415: 1407: 1402: 1335: 1330: 1314:special context 1257:US expert : --> 1163: 1132:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC 979: 945: 940: 922:User:Mitch Ames 910:User:Mitch Ames 872: 867: 832: 806:Knowledge:Libel 759: 733: 728: 698: 693: 671: 666: 594: 574: 569: 470: 427: 407: 373: 349: 344: 300: 295: 248: 202: 197: 146: 141: 117:during an event 82: 69: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4251: 4249: 4226: 4225: 4185: 4182: 4169: 4163: 4162: 4155: 4116: 4115: 4107:Added archive 4105: 4097:Added archive 4095: 4087:Added archive 4053: 4050: 4033: 4030: 4013: 4010: 3986: 3983: 3982: 3981: 3940: 3939: 3938: 3937: 3924: 3923:Abbots remarks 3921: 3920: 3919: 3901: 3900: 3899: 3898: 3897: 3896: 3895: 3894: 3871:124.148.222.41 3843:124.148.222.41 3836: 3835: 3834: 3801: 3800: 3776: 3775: 3763: 3762: 3757: 3739: 3738: 3737: 3736: 3735: 3734: 3710: 3709: 3699:124.148.222.41 3684: 3683: 3661: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3614: 3613: 3594: 3593: 3592: 3591: 3590: 3589: 3549: 3548: 3547: 3546: 3514: 3513: 3460: 3457: 3422: 3421: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3402: 3384: 3383: 3363: 3362: 3347: 3346: 3302: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3267: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3200: 3168: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3049: 3048: 3012: 2963: 2962: 2953: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2902: 2895:points of view 2854: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2734: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2571: 2570: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2470: 2469: 2449: 2448: 2387: 2372: 2345:Whiteghost.ink 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2204: 2196: 2192: 2178: 2177: 2160: 2123: 2122: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 1948: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1924: 1923: 1908: 1874: 1839: 1836: 1822: 1802: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1769: 1766: 1748: 1745: 1730: 1729: 1704: 1701: 1682: 1679: 1654: 1653: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1457: 1456: 1401: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1380:Whiteghost.ink 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1310:sensationalist 1280:210.11.218.130 1239: 1238:Probably 'Not' 1230: 1229: 1190: 1189: 1186: 1183: 1180: 1170: 1162: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1033: 1032: 978: 975: 974: 973: 972: 971: 970: 969: 968: 967: 966: 965: 964: 963: 962: 961: 960: 959: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 813: 812: 811: 810: 685: 593: 590: 589: 588: 526:203.206.83.156 469: 466: 465: 464: 454:Whiteghost.ink 426: 423: 412:Whiteghost.ink 406: 403: 391: 390: 384: 372: 369: 368: 367: 366: 365: 364: 363: 332:Black Standard 318:Whiteghost.ink 259:120.146.217.62 247: 244: 243: 242: 241: 240: 239: 238: 237: 236: 235: 234: 179:Whiteghost.ink 81: 78: 75: 74: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4250: 4241: 4240: 4236: 4232: 4224: 4220: 4218: 4208: 4203: 4202: 4201: 4200: 4196: 4192: 4183: 4181: 4180: 4174: 4167: 4160: 4156: 4153: 4149: 4148: 4147: 4146: 4145: 4127: 4125: 4121: 4114: 4110: 4106: 4104: 4100: 4096: 4094: 4090: 4086: 4085: 4084: 4080: 4072: 4066: 4062: 4057: 4051: 4049: 4048: 4044: 4040: 4031: 4029: 4028: 4024: 4020: 4011: 4009: 4007: 4003: 3999: 3995: 3984: 3980: 3976: 3972: 3971:110.20.234.69 3968: 3964: 3960: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3954: 3950: 3946: 3935: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3922: 3918: 3914: 3910: 3909:I.am.a.qwerty 3906: 3903: 3902: 3893: 3890: 3887: 3882: 3881: 3880: 3876: 3872: 3868: 3867: 3866: 3862: 3858: 3854: 3853: 3852: 3848: 3844: 3840: 3837: 3833: 3829: 3825: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3815: 3811: 3806: 3803: 3802: 3799: 3796: 3793: 3789: 3785: 3781: 3777: 3773: 3769: 3765: 3764: 3761: 3758: 3756: 3752: 3748: 3744: 3741: 3740: 3733: 3729: 3725: 3721: 3717: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3708: 3704: 3700: 3696: 3692: 3688: 3687: 3686: 3685: 3682: 3678: 3674: 3670: 3669:Not Terrorism 3667: 3666: 3665: 3659: 3655: 3651: 3647: 3642: 3638: 3637: 3636: 3635: 3631: 3627: 3622: 3618: 3612: 3608: 3604: 3600: 3596: 3595: 3588: 3584: 3580: 3576: 3572: 3567: 3566:phone hacking 3563: 3559: 3556:Similarly to 3555: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3545: 3542: 3539: 3535: 3531: 3527: 3523: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3512: 3508: 3504: 3499: 3494: 3492: 3488: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3477: 3473: 3468: 3464: 3458: 3456: 3455: 3452: 3449: 3445: 3441: 3435: 3432: 3427: 3424:I agree with 3420: 3416: 3412: 3407: 3406: 3401: 3397: 3393: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3382: 3378: 3374: 3371:the inquest. 3369: 3365: 3364: 3361: 3357: 3353: 3349: 3348: 3345: 3341: 3337: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3325: 3321: 3316: 3312: 3308: 3300: 3296: 3292: 3288: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3277: 3273: 3272:110.20.234.69 3247: 3243: 3239: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3230: 3227: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3216: 3212: 3208: 3204: 3201: 3199: 3196: 3195: 3192: 3188: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3180: 3177: 3173: 3169: 3166: 3162: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3139: 3135: 3131: 3127: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3110: 3107: 3104: 3100: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3087: 3083: 3079: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3066: 3062: 3058: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3046: 3042: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3030: 3026: 3023: 3019: 3014: 3010: 3009: 3005: 3001: 2995: 2991: 2987: 2985: 2980: 2979: 2975: 2971: 2966: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2951: 2947: 2943: 2939: 2932: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2922: 2919: 2913: 2912: 2906: 2903: 2900: 2896: 2892: 2888: 2883: 2882: 2877: 2876: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2860: 2859: 2828: 2825: 2822: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2809: 2805: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2795: 2792: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2781: 2777: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2767: 2764: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2748: 2744: 2739: 2735: 2732: 2728: 2724: 2721: 2715: 2711: 2707: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2697: 2693: 2689: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2679: 2675: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2665: 2661: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2637: 2633: 2629: 2625: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2601: 2597: 2593: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2546: 2542: 2528: 2525: 2522: 2518: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2487: 2483: 2479: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2468: 2465: 2462: 2457: 2456: 2451: 2450: 2447: 2443: 2440: 2439: 2432: 2427: 2424:template. I 2423: 2418: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2407: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2394:or simplistic 2393: 2390: 2385: 2381: 2377: 2370: 2366: 2362: 2358: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2342: 2338: 2334: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2304: 2300: 2296: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2281: 2277: 2273: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2262: 2258: 2253: 2248: 2243: 2242: 2235: 2231: 2227: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2217: 2214: 2209: 2205: 2201: 2200:at the moment 2197: 2193: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2161: 2159: 2155: 2151: 2146: 2143: 2140: 2136: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2124: 2121: 2118: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2049: 2046: 2042: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2033: 2030: 2026: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2017: 2014: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1985: 1982: 1978: 1974: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1954: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1922: 1918: 1914: 1909: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1889: 1886: 1882: 1878: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1843: 1837: 1835: 1834: 1830: 1826: 1820: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1806: 1800: 1796: 1793: 1790: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1779: 1775: 1774:110.20.234.69 1767: 1765: 1764: 1761: 1758: 1754: 1746: 1744: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1734:110.20.234.69 1726: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1718: 1717:Bail Act 2013 1714: 1710: 1702: 1700: 1699: 1695: 1691: 1688: 1681:Mamdouh Habib 1680: 1678: 1677: 1674: 1673: 1667: 1666: 1651: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1523: 1519: 1515: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1424: 1414: 1410: 1405: 1399: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1344: 1340: 1338: 1333: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1272: 1268: 1266:'terrorist' 1264: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1246:'terrorist' 1244: 1240: 1237: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1218:137.147.34.25 1215: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1205: 1202: 1198: 1193: 1187: 1184: 1181: 1178: 1177:public debate 1174: 1173: 1172: 1168: 1160: 1148: 1144: 1141: 1140: 1133: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1076: 1072: 1069: 1068: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1031: 1027: 1024: 1023: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 996: 992: 988: 984: 976: 958: 954: 950: 948: 943: 937: 936: 935: 931: 927: 923: 919: 915: 911: 907: 903: 899: 895: 891: 887: 886: 885: 881: 877: 875: 870: 864: 863:legal threats 860: 856: 855: 852: 848: 844: 840: 836: 829: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 807: 803: 802: 801: 797: 793: 792: 787: 783: 782: 779: 775: 771: 767: 763: 756: 752: 748: 747: 746: 742: 738: 736: 731: 725: 721: 717: 713: 712: 711: 707: 703: 701: 696: 690: 686: 684: 680: 676: 674: 669: 663: 659: 655: 651: 648: 647:two weeks ago 644: 643: 642: 641: 637: 633: 629: 625: 620: 619: 615: 611: 605: 601: 599: 591: 587: 583: 579: 577: 572: 566: 562: 558: 554: 550: 546: 542: 538: 537: 536: 535: 531: 527: 521: 520: 515: 512: 509: 506: 503: 500: 497: 494: 491: 488: 485: 482: 479: 476: 473: 467: 463: 459: 455: 451: 450: 449: 448: 444: 440: 439:110.20.234.69 436: 432: 431:Bail Act 2013 424: 422: 421: 417: 413: 404: 402: 401: 398: 395: 389: 386:Ross Gittins 385: 383: 379: 378: 377: 370: 362: 358: 354: 352: 347: 341: 340:jihadist flag 337: 333: 329: 328: 327: 323: 319: 315: 314: 313: 309: 305: 303: 298: 293:'jihadist'.-- 292: 288: 284: 280: 276: 272: 271: 270: 268: 264: 260: 256: 246:Jihadist flag 245: 233: 229: 225: 221: 217: 216: 215: 211: 207: 205: 200: 194: 190: 189: 188: 184: 180: 175: 174: 173: 169: 165: 161: 160: 159: 155: 151: 149: 144: 138: 134: 130: 126: 122: 121:determination 118: 114: 110: 106: 102: 101: 100: 99: 95: 91: 90:I.am.a.qwerty 87: 79: 72: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4231:Thelawlollol 4227: 4216: 4207:Thelawlollol 4191:Thelawlollol 4187: 4164: 4143: 4137: 4128: 4123: 4119: 4117: 4058: 4055: 4035: 4015: 3998:96.33.96.138 3992:— Preceding 3988: 3963:The Guardian 3941: 3926: 3904: 3838: 3804: 3779: 3771: 3767: 3759: 3742: 3715: 3668: 3663: 3623: 3619: 3615: 3469: 3465: 3462: 3436: 3430: 3423: 3304: 3269: 3202: 3197: 3190: 3164: 3017: 3015: 3011: 2996: 2992: 2988: 2981: 2967: 2964: 2955: 2915: 2908: 2904: 2898: 2894: 2890: 2886: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2750: 2742: 2737: 2730: 2537: 2454: 2453: 2436: 2311: 2246: 2199: 2163:Late comment 2162: 2128:Duncan Lewis 2077: 2040: 1950: 1877:WP:STRUCTURE 1866: 1862: 1859:WP:STRUCTURE 1844: 1841: 1821: 1807: 1804: 1771: 1750: 1731: 1706: 1684: 1669: 1664: 1655: 1643: 1425: 1416:. Retrieved 1412: 1406: 1403: 1374: 1370: 1336: 1331: 1325: 1321: 1318:WP:TERRORIST 1313: 1309: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1269:Hockey : --> 1249:Police : --> 1196: 1194: 1191: 1176: 1164: 1137: 1096: 1093:WP:RECENTISM 1065: 1020: 1014:PRIMARYTOPIC 980: 946: 941: 873: 868: 859:WP:CHECKUSER 833:— Preceding 809:proceedings. 789: 760:— Preceding 734: 729: 699: 694: 688: 672: 667: 653: 646: 621: 607: 603: 595: 575: 570: 564: 560: 556: 552: 548: 540: 539:Pasting the 522: 516: 513: 510: 507: 504: 501: 498: 495: 492: 489: 486: 483: 480: 477: 474: 471: 428: 408: 392: 374: 350: 345: 339: 335: 301: 296: 290: 286: 282: 278: 274: 253:— Preceding 249: 203: 198: 192: 147: 142: 136: 132: 128: 124: 120: 116: 112: 104: 83: 70: 43: 37: 3760:2 Comments: 2329:220 of Borg 2139:Tony Abbott 914:User:C.Fred 658:User:BXT888 380:Waleed Aly 127:is flawed, 113:assumptions 36:This is an 4032:False Flag 3810:-- Aronzak 3724:-- Aronzak 3603:-- Aronzak 3571:WP:NOTNEWS 3522:wp:NOTNEWS 3373:-- Aronzak 3315:notability 2931:Epeefleche 2891:considered 2804:Epeefleche 2776:Epeefleche 2733:terrorism. 2723:Epeefleche 2692:Epeefleche 2660:Epeefleche 2632:Epeefleche 2596:Epeefleche 2560:Epeefleche 2391:, partizan 2349:Epeefleche 2185:Epeefleche 2167:-- Aronzak 2150:Epeefleche 2110:Due weight 2083:-- Aronzak 1863:integrates 1753:over there 1690:JohnAugust 1418:10 January 755:Defamation 751:Sockpuppet 716:did return 632:Mitch Ames 610:Mitch Ames 596:Regarding 195:section.-- 139:section.-- 119:are not a 115:by police 4159:this tool 4152:this tool 4140:|checked= 3431:biography 3187:Wittylama 3126:Wittylama 2747:WP:Weight 2592:terrorism 2365:Viriditas 2337:Gnangarra 1881:WP:Weight 1426:Regards, 1161:Terrorism 724:User:BT80 662:User:BT80 630:the tag. 598:this edit 555:. It was 405:Bandwagon 224:Legacypac 133:substance 125:reasoning 71:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 4215:General 4165:Cheers.— 4071:cbignore 4019:Callinus 3994:unsigned 3959:ABC News 3945:Tuntable 3943:dubious. 3857:Tuntable 3824:Tuntable 3747:Khestwol 3673:Tuntable 3626:Tuntable 3440:Bail Act 3411:Tuntable 3392:Tuntable 3336:Tuntable 3307:Tuntable 3287:Tuntable 3165:reliable 3041:Tuntable 3000:Tuntable 2970:Tuntable 2867:Khestwol 2361:Tuntable 2321:Jeffro77 2257:Bachcell 1999:Tuntable 1931:Tuntable 1847:Bachcell 1810:Tuntable 1713:Informit 1428:Ariconte 1322:disputed 1101:Moondyne 1097:slightly 1041:Moondyne 991:Moondyne 847:contribs 835:unsigned 786:Jeffro77 774:contribs 762:unsigned 561:supports 283:the only 279:jihadist 255:unsigned 84:Re: the 4217:Ization 4175::Online 4120:checked 4065:my edit 4039:Ebricca 3716:Comment 3579:Melcous 3498:WP:BOLD 3426:Melcous 3320:Melcous 3301:Inquest 3025:YEPPOON 2738:neutral 2369:Ansh666 2341:Skyring 1898:Melcous 1825:YEPPOON 1302:experts 1004:Is the 977:Hatnote 920:&, 628:removed 557:claimed 549:claimed 39:archive 4079:nobots 3442:, and 2887:formal 2725:& 2399:WP:TEA 2333:Nick-D 2317:Dwpaul 1977:WP:3RR 1580:Nick-D 1487:Nick-D 1446:Nick-D 1332:Jeffro 1298:wasn't 942:Jeffro 926:BXT888 908:& 900:& 869:Jeffro 839:BXT888 791:C.Fred 766:BXT888 757:is ? 730:Jeffro 695:Jeffro 668:Jeffro 571:Jeffro 346:Jeffro 297:Jeffro 291:always 199:Jeffro 193:Debate 164:Nick-D 143:Jeffro 137:Debate 105:merely 3886:Witty 3792:Witty 3558:Witty 3538:Witty 3448:Witty 3226:Witty 3176:Witty 3103:Witty 2938:Joobo 2918:Witty 2824:garra 2794:garra 2763:Witty 2727:Joobo 2524:garra 2501:Joobo 2464:garra 2403:Witty 2295:Joobo 2272:Joobo 2213:Witty 2114:Witty 2045:Witty 2041:again 2029:Witty 2013:Witty 1995:Witty 1981:Witty 1885:Witty 1789:Witty 1757:Witty 1727:: --> 1201:Witty 394:Witty 129:other 16:< 4235:talk 4195:talk 4144:true 4124:true 4043:talk 4023:talk 4002:talk 3975:talk 3961:and 3949:talk 3913:talk 3889:lama 3875:talk 3861:talk 3847:talk 3828:talk 3814:talk 3805:Wait 3795:lama 3786:and 3780:this 3772:that 3751:talk 3728:talk 3703:talk 3677:talk 3650:talk 3630:talk 3607:talk 3583:talk 3562:9/11 3541:lama 3532:and 3507:talk 3476:talk 3451:lama 3415:talk 3396:talk 3377:talk 3356:talk 3340:talk 3324:talk 3291:talk 3276:talk 3242:talk 3238:Pete 3229:lama 3215:talk 3211:Pete 3179:lama 3134:talk 3106:lama 3082:talk 3061:talk 3045:talk 3029:talk 3018:shot 3004:talk 2974:talk 2961:foot 2942:talk 2921:lama 2881:Note 2871:talk 2858:Note 2821:Gnan 2808:talk 2791:Gnan 2780:talk 2766:lama 2757:and 2710:talk 2706:Pete 2696:talk 2678:talk 2674:Pete 2664:talk 2650:talk 2646:Pete 2636:talk 2614:talk 2610:Pete 2600:talk 2582:talk 2578:Pete 2564:talk 2545:talk 2541:Pete 2521:Gnan 2505:talk 2482:talk 2461:Gnan 2438:sroc 2406:lama 2382:and 2367:and 2357:WWGB 2325:Sroc 2299:talk 2276:talk 2261:talk 2230:talk 2216:lama 2171:talk 2154:talk 2117:lama 2087:talk 2061:talk 2048:lama 2032:lama 2016:lama 2003:talk 1984:lama 1935:talk 1917:talk 1902:talk 1888:lama 1879:and 1871:here 1851:here 1829:talk 1814:talk 1792:lama 1778:talk 1760:lama 1738:talk 1694:talk 1623:talk 1619:Pete 1584:talk 1549:talk 1518:talk 1514:Pete 1491:talk 1469:talk 1465:Pete 1450:talk 1432:talk 1420:2015 1384:talk 1343:talk 1284:talk 1222:talk 1204:lama 1139:sroc 1105:talk 1067:sroc 1045:talk 1022:sroc 995:talk 953:talk 930:talk 880:talk 865:.)-- 843:talk 796:talk 770:talk 741:talk 722:and 706:talk 689:both 679:talk 636:talk 614:talk 582:talk 530:talk 458:talk 443:talk 416:talk 397:lama 357:talk 322:talk 308:talk 263:talk 228:talk 210:talk 183:talk 168:talk 154:talk 94:talk 4142:to 4111:to 4101:to 4091:to 3905:Yes 2916:-- 2751:not 2743:not 2731:not 2353:Lor 2315:): 2183:Hi 2027:). 1867:top 1665:220 1375:not 1371:not 1134:. 567:.-- 553:lie 4237:) 4197:) 4077:{{ 4073:}} 4069:{{ 4045:) 4037:-- 4025:) 4004:) 3977:) 3951:) 3915:) 3877:) 3863:) 3849:) 3830:) 3816:) 3753:) 3743:No 3730:) 3705:) 3679:) 3652:) 3632:) 3609:) 3585:) 3509:) 3478:) 3417:) 3398:) 3379:) 3358:) 3342:) 3326:) 3293:) 3278:) 3244:) 3217:) 3136:) 3084:) 3063:) 3031:) 3006:) 2976:) 2944:) 2889:, 2873:) 2865:. 2810:) 2782:) 2761:. 2712:) 2698:) 2680:) 2666:) 2652:) 2638:) 2616:) 2602:) 2594:. 2584:) 2566:) 2558:. 2547:) 2539:-- 2507:) 2484:) 2442:💬 2363:, 2359:, 2355:, 2351:, 2347:, 2343:, 2339:, 2335:, 2331:, 2327:, 2323:, 2319:, 2301:) 2278:) 2263:) 2232:) 2173:) 2156:) 2089:) 2063:) 2005:) 1967:, 1963:, 1959:, 1937:) 1919:) 1904:) 1883:. 1831:) 1816:) 1780:) 1755:. 1740:) 1696:) 1671:of 1625:) 1586:) 1551:) 1520:) 1493:) 1471:) 1452:) 1434:) 1411:. 1386:) 1345:) 1337:77 1294:do 1286:) 1224:) 1199:. 1143:💬 1107:) 1071:💬 1047:) 1026:💬 997:) 955:) 947:77 932:) 896:, 882:) 874:77 849:) 845:• 798:) 776:) 772:• 743:) 735:77 708:) 700:77 681:) 673:77 638:) 616:) 584:) 576:77 532:) 460:) 445:) 418:) 359:) 351:77 324:) 310:) 302:77 265:) 230:) 212:) 204:77 185:) 170:) 156:) 148:77 96:) 4233:( 4209:: 4205:@ 4193:( 4161:. 4154:. 4135:N 4041:( 4021:( 4000:( 3973:( 3947:( 3911:( 3873:( 3859:( 3845:( 3826:( 3812:( 3749:( 3726:( 3701:( 3675:( 3648:( 3628:( 3605:( 3581:( 3505:( 3474:( 3413:( 3394:( 3375:( 3354:( 3338:( 3322:( 3289:( 3274:( 3240:( 3213:( 3132:( 3080:( 3059:( 3047:) 3043:( 3027:( 3002:( 2972:( 2940:( 2901:. 2869:( 2806:( 2778:( 2708:( 2694:( 2676:( 2662:( 2648:( 2634:( 2612:( 2598:( 2580:( 2562:( 2543:( 2503:( 2480:( 2435:— 2386:. 2371:. 2297:( 2274:( 2259:( 2228:( 2169:( 2152:( 2085:( 2059:( 2001:( 1969:4 1965:3 1961:2 1957:1 1933:( 1915:( 1900:( 1827:( 1812:( 1776:( 1736:( 1692:( 1621:( 1582:( 1547:( 1516:( 1489:( 1467:( 1448:( 1430:( 1422:. 1382:( 1341:( 1282:( 1228:) 1220:( 1136:— 1103:( 1064:— 1043:( 1019:— 993:( 951:( 928:( 892:, 878:( 841:( 794:( 768:( 739:( 704:( 677:( 634:( 612:( 580:( 528:( 456:( 441:( 414:( 355:( 320:( 306:( 261:( 226:( 208:( 181:( 166:( 152:( 92:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index