Talk:December 2017 Melbourne car attack

Is an article necessary?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It has been established that there was not a terrorist intent behind the attack, and that there were no fatalities whatsoever. With this in mind, I wonder whether or not this article, especially given that it is (at the time of writing) the epitome of a stub, is necessary. Thoughts? Stormy clouds (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 13:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Nothing's been established yet - way too early. All they are saying is that at the time of the statement they didn't have evidence of a terror-related attack. Probably will come out that he's been on radical websites, etc. (regardless of his mental health) 104.169.18.61 (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Stormy clouds: - Wait 24 hours for editors around the world to weigh in on the issue, this will also give time for the story to be more established. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I think this is important as it is an attack on people. That no one died is good and not really important in ny opinion when it comes to overall importance for this event.BabbaQ (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

It has not been established yet that it was an attack, and calling it an attack is prejudicial to any court case that might eventuate. Akld guy (talk) 03:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted the unilateral page move which was implemented without discussion or consensus. It is the most common term used across the media. Start a page move discussion if you want. WWGB (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we understand that verifiability, not the truth, is what Wikipedia stands for. If the media lies before the truth has been established, we lie too. Akld guy (talk) 06:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Afd did not pass, though something tells me that the deletion discussion on this article is not yet complete. We shall see... Stormy clouds (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AfD

This article is not neccessary to be kept on Wikipedia as it not notable. Have a Merry Christmas --ChocolateRabbit 23:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The AfD says otherwise. Merry Christmas to you as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Terrorist attack

Actually, from more recent evidence, this would appear to have all the hallmarkings of a terrorist attack. The perpertrator was Islamic, he researched similiar Islamic terrorist attacks with vehicels overseas, hired the same vehicle, and then committed a similiar attack. As mentioned, he had a hatred for ASIO and said that they unfairly focussed on Islamic people. Sp it would appear, from all available evidence, to be a copycat terrorist attack.

• https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/green-light-for-flinders-street-hero-who-was-supposed-to-be-off-duty-20190508-p51l61.html?fbclid=IwAR2FYfF29BHduClZOd7ERaNjVbZj3-uPZ8mgYky4gVBA2llcFZDfyhlotS8

Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Except that the Victoria Police found that the driver was a nut job with no known terror links. WWGB (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Except it's in the court transcripts, for his case, he stated "I did it in the name of Allah" - not sure how much more clear that could be?. The article above clearly indicates he was a Islamic, he was angry about how Islamic people were treated, and police evidence pointed to him researching the other Islamic attacks in Europe and copying them. Sure he had some mental issues, but he was *also* a copycat terrorist attack. Summing this guy up as simply a nutjob, and not mentioned all the above, is leaving out some vital facts and giving an incorrect view of the event. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/isis-backer-drove-at-flinders-st-crowd-in-name-of-allah-court-hears-20190212-p50xa8.html Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The Age also referred to him as "An ISIS sympathisizer": Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

What you are proposing is WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia uses WP:RS, not conjecture. I see no evidence that police, experts in terrorism or the courts have called it a terrorist attack. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no WP:SYNTH here, that would imply I am drawing together disparate facts to construe a case, where each of the articles as stand alones clearly refer to his situation in detail. There is no need to combine them.

This is what the judge said in describing his situation (though he also mentioned the drugs he took):

"You said that whilst you were sympathetic to the terrorist organisation Islamic State, you did not know any members, and just supported your religion. You spoke about suicide and suggested that you intended to be a martyr, saying that as a Muslim you were forbidden from taking your own life, but it was acceptable for you to die in a war. You also said you had fasted for seven days prior to the incident."

In addition, Noori *himself* regarded himself as a terrorist. When homicide police came to question him, he wondered why terrorist squad didn't come:

"Whilst speaking to police at the hospital on the 22nd, you asked them why they were from the homicide, not the terrorism, squad. You said that ‘Normally when a Muslim guy does something it’s terrorist.’" Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The point is that YOU are trying to construe a case. Your argument is for social media, not Wikipedia. He was not charged with a terrorist offence. If you try to add your opinion to the article at this point, it will be reverted. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)