Template talk:Terrorism in Australia

2014 Sydney hostage crisis
The categorisation of the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis as a "terrorist" incident (or not) is somewhat contested in various sources, but the strong consensus after lengthy discussion on that article's talkpage is that the event should NOT be classified as "terrorism". Instead, that the debate about the classification should be addressed in the article - see 2014 Sydney hostage crisis. As such, the article is not listed in this template as a terrorism event for consistency. For the discussion about the edit-warring on the inclusion/exclusion of the event on THIS template, see Talk:2014_Sydney_hostage_crisis. Wittylama 08:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The template has now been semi-protected due to this issue. Anyone wishing to add this event to the template should seek consensus on the talkpage of the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis. Wittylama 14:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are you saying that it was not a terrorist attack? It was declared as one so stop letting your opinion get in the way! This is actually ridiculous who gave you the right to change all the Wikipedia pages and say it was not a terrorist attack? Why are guest editors treated as second class individuals on Wikipedia? Wikipedia says that everyone can edit Wikipedia but in fact not everyone can because some people let their opinions get in the way! Your crazy antics mean that Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia at all but an encyclopaedia with people's opinions subtly embedded within the text. No wonder people say you shouldn't trust Wikipedia all the time because there are people like yourself who let their opinions take over! (124.181.23.9 (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC))
 * It's a pity that it took actually protecting this template from editing by guest editors to encourage you to join the discussion...
 * As mentioned several times before, the issue of whether the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis should be classified as a terrorist attack is not as clean-cut as you seem to believe. In fact, the WP article about the event has a whole section discussing it! See 2014 Sydney hostage crisis. Simply saying, as you have, that "it was declared" a terrorist attack is simplistic as there is no such thing as an impartial judgement - the claim that you are referring to was made by a minister of federal government and was done so specifically "for insurance purposes". For comparison, many events get classified as an "Act of god" for insurance purposes, but we don't classify them as such in WP...
 * As you would have seen on the talkpage of the article about the Sydney hostage crisis, there has been much debate about how to write the article in the most accurate and neutral way - and especially about whether to include terrorism-related categories since these, unlike the prose, are binary statements. Including something in a category or in a template list like this one gives no nuance about the contested nature of the topic, whereas the consensus of the experts that have commented (and are cited in the article) are clear that the event should not be called terrorism. Again, I encourage you to please read 2014 Sydney hostage crisis. Wittylama 08:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As thorny as the issue whether that particular incident is technically "terrorism" or a "terrorist attack" or a "terrorist incident" or an "act of terrorism" or something else, that section of the article does use this template, so it is contradictory to omit the event from the template. I support its inclusion because it is useful to include this event in a list of such events that readers may associate with "terrorism", regardless of the disagreements various sources may have over such terminology/categorisation.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 16:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the reason this template appears within the "2014 sydney hostage crisis" article arose from discussion on that article's talkpage (see the archive here and elsewhere in the archive) as a consensus on how to best represent the nuance of the topic and this controversy about classifying it. Specifically, we agreed to include this template in the "debate" section to give readers context about terrorism in Australia (rather than where it was initially above the fold of the article) but also to not include the article in the template itself. I'm noting this, for what it's worth, by way of clarifying that this combination was not an oversight/accident, but deliberate. Wittylama 10:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I would like to apologize for the continued reverting of edits, and . I am not user  but one of the other users who reverted edits. I should have joined the discussion without continuously reverting edits, so I apologize for that. I believe it should be listed as it was declared a terrorist attack despite being done so for financial reasons. Does a flood stop being a flood when it's declared as one for financial reasons? What are your arguments to support that it should not be listed? (58.168.138.159 (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC))
 * Dear, you will find extensive arguments (in all directions) on this topic at the discussion-page of the article itself, notably at the sub-section linked in the notification below. The key thing to say at this point is that the coronial inquest is currently underway and that it is dealing with precisely the issue of "terrorist or just an angry man" (again, see the link below). As for your flood analogy: yes, but, lots of things are classified as an "act of god" for insurance purposes - which doesn't mean we give them a religious categorisation on WP either. Wittylama 10:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I read the arguments and yes I understand what you're saying, I guess there needs to be a limit on what can appear on Wikipedia. Sorry my IP address changed. (137.147.43.116 (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC))

See a current discussion at . —sroc &#x1F4AC; 14:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

If the 2015 Parramatta shooting was a terrorist attack, why not the hostage crisis? They both had the same motives. I do not understand this. - User:Meganesia