Talk:Sydney Hilton Hotel bombing

Revert War Summary

(The Hilton Bombing was a bomb that killed a few bystanders at a heads of government meeting in Sydney in 1978. There is some evidence that it was actually planted by Australian security forces. aberglas researched an enumerated this evidence. There has been a revert war on whether this evidence is covered in too much detail and therefore is biased.)

Arguments for reverting aberglas's contribution

• The article is biased and not NPOV.
• There are no references for the claims. It does not state who makes the allegations.
• It promotes a "bizarre conspiracy theory" that is which "just happens to be held by an editor".
• Too much focus on the evidence of conspiracy.
• The article does not properly cover the Ananda Marga trials.

Arguments for restoring (and enhancing) aberglas's contribution

• The aberglas article sticks to verifyable facts. Indeed, it takes great care using sentences such as "It must be remembered that no one in the Australian security forces was found guilty of any misconduct."
• There are plainly plenty of references for claims, just read the article. This even includes newspaper extracts to make them easily verifiable. It certainly lists who made the allegations, again just read the article! ("Keith Burley is a retired corporal"..., "Ian McDonald, a former Commonwealth police inspector"... etc. (aberglas would be happy to add a cross reference table to precisely detail which references support which claims, but that is hardly a reason to revert the entire article.)
• The "bizarre conspiracy theory" prompted a call by the NSW parliament for a full enquiry -- hardly a body of weird radicals. Plus documentaries on the ABC (government broadcaster), SMH (main Sydney newspaper) etc.
• It is no argument to say that X should be deleted because an article does not say enough about Y. Instead just add the Y. If the article becomes too long then split it. (aberglas had explicitly offered to cover the Ananda Marga trials in more detail.)
• There is no dispute about any one of the facts. The complaint is just that "everything" is bad.
• This is primarially about not reporting important, undisputed facts. Censorship has no place on Wikipedia.

Factual history of revert war

• 29Dec04 this was a short article about the bombing. Briefly mentions the conspiracy theory.
• 18Feb05 aberglas added brief summary of the conspiracy evidence with the note "this article needs work".
• 19Feb05 ambi reverts aberglas's contribution. No discussion in talk page.
• 19Feb05 aberglas restores article and greatly extends the detail about the conspiracy, background, and corrects some factual errors such as the time. Provides many references including (paid) extracts from newspaper articles.
• 19Feb..1Mar ambi reverts the article six more times(!). No attempt to contribute. aberglas restores the article each time.
• 26Feb Edcolins tries to help. Ambi finally writes one paragraph in talk page (see below). This after five reverts, threats of banning, and repeated calls from aberglas to discuss.
• 27Feb Ambi declares she could not "honestly care less about the Hilton bombing" except to revert it.
• 28Feb Ta bu shi da yu locks page. It happens to be locked in the reverted state. The full aberglas version is here. Please compare the quality with the reverted article. Ta bu copies the reverted article to a /temp in order to try to make progress.
• By 3 March Ambi has added a total of four short paragraphs to the talk. Repeatedly just says "it's biased and must all be deleted". Makes no contribution to the main article. Makes no tangible suggestion for improvement other than to delete aberglas's contribution.
• 4Mar Ambi declares that she will not contribute to the /temp. But if Ambi does not like it when finished she will revert it.
• 12Mar The /temp version has not been edited for five days. aberglas calls for it to be made live. Ambi again just rejects without any offer to contribute. Made live anyway.
• 13Mar Evidence section just reverted without comment or positive contribution. Revert war on again. ABerglas seeks arbitration.

Reviewers are encouraged to read through this talk page and assess the tone of the postings. Who is trying to be helpful? Is this really about removing bias, or is it about censorship?

Evidence of official misconduct

This is the "totally biased" section that is in dispute:-

There is considerable circumstantial evidence to suggest that Australian Security forces and in particular Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) were responsible for the Hilton bombing. This includes:

• Several garbage crews that had attempted to empty the bin immediately prior to the blast were prevented from doing so by "someone official" standing nearby. This was despite the fact that it was overflowing with rubbish right at the entrance of the major international meeting. (Recounted by Bill Ebb, the driver of the rubbish truck that was destroyed.)

• The entire garbage truck and all bomb fragments were dumped without any proper forensic investigation. This would be extremely unusual for such a serious crime.

• Keith Burley is a retired corporal from the Army Bomb Search Dog Handler Squad. He says that Sniffer dogs were specially trained to check the site, but were then called off. This is very unusual and no explanation was given.

• Ian McDonald, a former Commonwealth police inspector, alleges that the Commonwealth security forces prevented the NSW police from establishing a normal "secure area" around the entrance to the Hilton which could be used to gather forensic evidence.

• The fact that the coronial inquest was shut down prematurely and prevented a full investigation. The coroner refused to allow Griffiths' counsel to call any police or military witnesses or documents. Later, the Commonwealth government refused to hold an official enquiry despite being asked by the NSW Parliament.

• The highly dubious way that Tim Anderson and others were prosecuted. (See below. They were later pardoned.)

• Then NSW Attorney General Frank Walker told the press in 1980 that he had been told by a disaffected CSIRO scientist that ASIO had asked CSIRO to build the Hilton bomb. Mr George Petersen MP also said that he had met a scientist said to be involved with the manufacture of the bomb.

There is little doubt that these events took place and there are many sources for these alegations. These include articles in the official record of the NSW parliament, the Sydney Morning Herald, and the ABC documentary "Conspiracy" 1995.

However, the interpretation of their significance must be made carefully. It must be remembered that noone in the Australian security forces was found guilty of any misconduct.

And there are references for each of the claims.

Aberglas 10:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) aberglas

This is not intended as a criticism of your position in this dispute, nor an endorsement of the opposing one, but: this is not helpful. Please, it would be better if you dedicated your efforts to trying to achieve a consensus with the other people here, rather than playing the blame game.

p.s. whenever a page is protected, it's always The Wrong Version which is protected. :-) —Stormie 10:48, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

It is not possible to negotiate with someone that just stonewalls. I think that this is very much about personalities. If I were to update the /temp version I would just get reverted. Aberglas 09:22, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) aberglas

Initial Reaction by aberglas

When I first came across this article I just thought it was a little light. What makes the Hilton Bombing interesting is the fact that the security forces possibly/probably were responsible for it. Regardless of what you think about the likelyhood of this, there are certainly many people that think that it is likely (including the NSW parliament!), and many serious commentaries on it.

I have worked on other contentious articles. Generally people carefully and sensitively edit each others work point by point until the result is better than any one person could produce.

But this is different. Rather than try to improve the article, user:Ambi and user:Hadal just arrogantly delete the work. They do not want to improve the article, they just want to suppress information. I have never seen such behaviour on a community project.

Anyway, I will improve the article as time permits. Hadal is right that we need more authoratative references, and these will have to come from non-web sources. Might search the Sydney Morning Herald archive (for a fee).

But I will not be bullied into just giving up! If necessary we will need to review Ambil's Admin rights. Her "crusade against bias" actually has quite an ugly feel to it if you look at some of her other edits.

Aberglas 08:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) aberglas

Might search the Sydney Morning Herald archive (for a fee). -- You don't need to do that. Many of us already have free access to Factiva, which lets us search all major newspapers. - Mark 15:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An old list of terrorist events? (Revert war continues below)

A couple of points:

1. Agree about the name change. There most certainly has been more than one Hilton bombing in history, for example Taba, Egypt two weeks ago; London Hilton in 1975; and no doubt others.
2. We probably should make a list of terrorist incidents in Australia or something similar, to help put paid to this persistent meme that the Hilton bombing was Australia's first act of terrorism. Some items to include (mostly from [1]):
   • Some definitions might include the "Rum Rebellion" coup d'état against Bligh in 1808
   • Attempted assassination of Duke of Edinburgh in 1868, by a Fenian called O'Farrell.
   • Series of arson attacks in Sydney in 1916, allegedly part of an anti-war campaign by the Wobblies. (Several Wobblies were convicted, but on the other hand, it has been claimed they were framed. But then on the gripping hand, someone always claims the bombers were framed...)
   • Assassination of a South Australian MP in 1921
   • Wounding and attempted assassination of Arthur Calwell in June 1965
   • 1971 Department of Labour and National Service in Perth bombed by anti-conscription activists
   • April 1972 Australian National Socialist Party bombed Communist Party offices in Brisbane
   • September 1972, series of bombing attacks on Yugoslavia travel aganecies and consulates, by Croatian separatists (as part of a worldwide campaign from January to September 1972, resuming 1976-1980)
   • 1974 Australian National Socialist Party firebombed left wing bookstore in Brisbane
   • 1975 letter bombs sent to Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and Malcolm Fraser
   • 1976, eco-terrorist attack on Bunbury woodchipping plant in West Australia, uses the largest unlawful explosive device ever used in Australia. TTBMK this is the only eco-terrorist/eco-guerilla attack in Australia which used explosives, although arson and other attacks on machinery and facilities are too numerous to list separately.
   • (September and October 1977 - numerous low level (harrassament) attacks against Indian diplomats and trade organisations, by Ananda Marga)
   • February 1978, the Hilton bombing
   • December 1980, Turkish Consul-General assassinated in Sydney by Armenians
   • December 1982, Israeli consulate in Sydney destroyed by a bomb
   • Russell Street Police Station bombing in March 1986 was a criminal act rather a terrorist act, but maybe it deserves a special mention.
   • 1984 National Action (a splinter group of defunct Australian National Socialist Party) firebombed home of an anti-apartheid activist
   • November 1986, bomb exploded in basement of Turkish consulate in Melbourne, whilst being armed by the bomber
   • 1987-1989 National Action firebombed several leftist bookstores
   • 1988, several explosive devices found in/near South African facilities around Canberra, although none exploded
   • January 1989, National Action did drive by shooting of home of an African National Congress representative.
   • 1989 Australian Nationalists Movement firebombed Asian businesses in Perth, and murdered a person whom they believed was a Special Branch informer.
   • June 1995, French consulate in Perth firebombed
   • February 2004, Australian Nationalists Movement members firebombed Asian businesses in Perth
   • July 2004, Australian Nationalists Movement allegedly conspired to assassinate the Attorney-General of West Australia.

Securiger 15:32, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This article needs complete rewrite if anyone has the time. It is completely factually incorrect. Anderson, Dunn and Alister were *not* even charged with the Hilton bombing and certainly Dunn and Alister did not serve time for it. They were imprisoned for a completely different crime, nothing to do with the Hilton. Anderson years later *was* charged with it after Evan Pederick confessed to the crime, but Anderson was eventually set free because of many factors, not the least of which was that Pederick, who Anderson was supposed to have ordered to do it, didn't seem to be guilty either. Changes will also affect the entry on Tim Anderson. See http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/hilton.html Alpheus (12 Feb)

Ambi: Be brave not reckless

It's great that you contribute to wikipedia. But I was concerned that you just deleted my significant contribution to the Hilton Bombing article and then called that "Minor"!. If you feel that what I wrote was biased then you need to improve and extend it. This leads to better articles. Many people would agree with my comments, articulations as to what might be wrong with them are useful. Arogantly silencing critics is not. And you abused the Minor tag.

Aberglas 03:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) aberglas

Not only is your edit biased, it's completely untenable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your agenda, nor is it a place to publish your investigative journalism. You have provided no sources for your matter-of-fact claim that ASIO was responsible; see Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Take special note of the latter policy, as it is a founding principle of Wikipedia.

The allegations against ASIO are already mentioned quite satisfactorily. Please do not present opinion as fact, and please do not accuse Ambi or any other editors of vandalism in your edit summaries simply because you disagree with their edits. See Wikipedia:Civility. Although I cannot act on it now that I've become involved, I should also make you aware of our Wikipedia:Three revert rule. -- Hadal 03:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note that Ambi reverted my work, not the other way around. I would never just revert someone else's well meant effort. That would be rude. Instead, I might try to sensitively improve it. Aberglas 12:03, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) aberglas

Aberglas, if you'd like to improve that facet of the article, there's plenty that can be done. The paragraph mentioning ASIO is quite confusing: who is Terry Griffiths? Why is his counsel talking about conspiracies? When were these claims made? That's the sort of thing we need in Wikipedia—solid information about who claimed what, and when and why they made the claims. It is not the place of Wikipedia to endorse claims or counter-claims, though. Oh, and p.s., when an administrator uses their quick revert button to rollback an edit, it always flags it as minor. I don't think Ambi was deliberately trying to downplay the fact that he reverted your edit. —Stormie 04:08, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Aberglas, you need to make sure your edits are neutral, see the NPOV link above. You cannot write the article as so Wikipedia is making an assumption of ASIO, but to reference other people's ideas. If someone had written explicitly that this was caused by ASIO, you need to quote them, not say that Wikipedia thinks this was caused by ASIO and someone supports it.

Be mindful about describing Terry; you saying that he is a "reliable observer" is not neutral as it promotes a point of view that Terry's views have greater importance than any other - this is not neutral. Griffiths views and ideas are important, but they musn't be promoted above other views.

HTH Dysprosia 05:15, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dysprosia.

First, thanks for bothering to write in the talk page (unlike Ambi).

There is no reasonable doubt that the events quoted in the "Evidence" section actually occured. They are documented in many places including the ABC article, SMH, Hansard etc. There is doubt as to their interpretations. They absolutely are relevant to any discussion of the event. And I have produced such evidence in other references.

Certainly it would be wrong for the article to draw any conclusion as to who actually planted the bomb, and it does not. However it would also be wrong to ignore the evidence.

There were also factual errors that have been reinserted by the arrogant reverting. For example, Tim Anderson was initially charged the Hilton Bombing as someone else corrected above.

On a controvertial issue the article should just provide the facts, all the facts, from a NPOV.

I have made some edits, but otherwise reverted, incorporating some of the changes.

I also feel that if others want to put in the work and research and extend the article then great. But to just revert the well researched work of others shows contempt.

Aberglas 11:50, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) aberglas.

The evidence stuff would need to be precisely quoted and sources linked with it, your version doesn't do so. The article is not permitted to draw conclusion, but is also not permitted to insinuate a conclusion either, I think your version does so, unfortunately. Dysprosia 10:13, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please stop the revert war

Please stop the revert war, and find a compromise on the talk page about the structure of the article before carrying on editing the article. I propose the following structure:

• Background (historical and geopolitical context of the Commonwealth meeting and political context in Australia at the time of the bombing)
• The bombing (the bombing itself, the deceased, the injured, emergency services)
• Reaction to the bombing (press releases directly after the bombing, particular security measures(?), direct domestic repercussions)
• Investigation (official investigation, eyewitness accounts (?), suspects, government commission?, trial, convicted people?)
• Speculation and conspiracy theories (anything which did not lead to an official investigation, cite your sources)
• Political effects (short-term, long-term effects?, political significance)
• See also
• External links

Any comments? --Edcolins 17:47, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Suits me fine, if you're willing to write it. This has been needing some serious attention for a while - the current version is execrable, but the rewrite is much, much worse. Something along those lines would be perfect - I'd have done it myself, but I'm particularly short of time at the moment. Ambi 01:17, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Moving forward, new structure

First let me welcome user:Ambi to the talk page. I would welcome a new structure, but not quite what EdColins suggested.

I would be happy if the page was split into two. The first can be Syndey Hilton Bombing and contain the dry facts. The second would be Sydney Hilton bombing controversy which details the many alegations against ASIO etc.

I would be happy for Ambi to do this. But only if she does the work to make the base page factual, comprehensive, and more than a couple of sentences long.

I do not feel that it is up to edcolins or myself to jump through hoops until Ambi is happy to stop reverting them. If Ambi wishes to contribute then great. If she does not have time then stay out of it and let others do it.

Incidentally John F. Kennedy assassination probably provides a good model for this article.

Aberglas 05:30, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) aberglas

That's still simply not neutral. By your structure, this would give half the article to your allegations concerning ASIO. The ASIO allegations - along with all the other claims as to who was responsible - certainly deserve mention, in an appropriate section in the context of a larger article. However, it is unacceptable to dedicate half the article to them. I'm not fond of having to revert people, and I could honestly care less about the Hilton bombing, but Aberglas' version is such a blatantly biased revision that if I have to revert it again, I will. On the other hand, thank you, Edcollins - both revisions of this article seriously need expansion and a dose of neutrality. It's a shame Aberglas does not appear to have the same commitment to achieving NPOV as yourself. Ambi 05:43, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello Ambi,

I actually believe that the article is pretty NPOV as is. Facts are stated, with references. Nowhere does it offer an opinion as to the actual conclusion etc. I have already added words like circumstantial evidence to soften it even more.

To move forward pick the one paragraph that is least NPOV in your opinion. But please back your opinion up. If you think that a fact is false, cite a reference. If you think that it is true but irrelevant then state that with justification. If you think that something is not covered then tell us what should be added. Etc.

But if you "really don't care less" about the article then just please just leave it alone.

I still don't think you get it. Because I put the considerable amount work into creating (most of) the article, you need to work with me (and others) to produce a good article. It is not up to any one person. I will go a long way to reach consensus.

I strongly suggest that you do not instigate another revert war as you have threatened to do.

Aberglas 06:56, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) aberglas

After one paragraph of text, we have the heading "Evidence of official misconduct". Everything after that heading acts to advance the theory that ASIO was responsible for the Hilton bombing. Presenting the theory in this manner is really not neutral - Edcollins came up with a nice way of making sure that it is mentioned (as it should be), but doing so in a NPOV and fitting manner. The long lists of quotes really aren't suitable either - you won't find these in any other Wikipedia article that I've ever seen. Ambi 09:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. So you think that there should be more material before the "Evidence of official misconduct". Please feel free to add extra material. (Ie. You do the work.) There were some freely available articles from The Age written at the time of the bombing which would be good to reference (Google finds them).

Further, if you can find any credible material that exhonerates ASIO then I for one would be very interested to read it. For me it is the potential involvement of the security forces that makes this event interesting and relevant to modern public policy.

Personally, I think that the weakest part of the article is the coverage of the Ananda Marga trials. The relationship between the first trial, the second trial, and the bombing deserves elaboration. Once this settles down and when I can make some time then I will research and expand it, maybe next week.

The extracts could be moved to a side page if you prefer. But I do feel obliged to justify statements on controvertial issues.

Between us we will have a solid article on one of the more important events in modern Australian history.

Aberglas 09:27, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) aberglas

That there should be more on the events surrounding the bombing itself is obvious. However, there is still way too much material surrounding the ASIO allegations, and it still quite clearly strives to make the case that ASIO was, in fact, responsible. I agree that we clearly need content on the ASIO allegations, but in perspective to the other theories - a paragraph or two on each. To dedicate so much space to one particular theory (which just happens to be held by an editor) is just not neutral. As far as the extracts go, though - simply put, they don't belong on Wikipedia. They should, however, be referenced - see Cyclone Tracy for a good example of a well-referenced article that does reference newspapers. Ambi 09:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So, put up or shut up. If you want to write extra paragraphs then that would be excellent.

The facts are well researched, widely known. And do not assume what my opinions actually are, you may be surprised.

Aberglas 00:15, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) aberglas

Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes

The following are relevant extracts from the above official wikipedia page. (Given that others think my material is bad.) Aberglas 00:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) aberlgas

• Deleting biased content. Biased content can be useful content (see above). Remove the bias and keep the content.
• Deleting without announcing that you're doing it. Remark on it in the edit summary box. Otherwise, other users who care about the article's development will be caught unaware, and may think you're being intentionally sneaky.
• Deleting without justifying. Deleting anything nontrivial requires some words of justification in the edit summary or on the talk page. If the justification is presented on the talk page, you can simply write "See talk:" in the edit summary box.
• Deleting useful content. A piece of content may be written poorly, yet still have a purpose. Consider what a sentence or paragraph tries to say. Clarify it instead of throwing it away. If the material seems miscategorized or out of place, consider moving the wayward material to another page, or creating a new page for it. If all else fails, and you can't resist removing a good chunk of content, it's usually best to move it to the article's "Talk page", which can be accessed using the "discussion" button at the top of each page. The author of the text once thought it valuable, so it is polite to preserve it for later discussion.
  • Critiquing instead of editing. Articles have no single author with one overarching plan. Offering a suggestion or critique on the Talk page can be helpful, but it is often faster to just give the article what you think it needs.
• Arming for war. Wikipedia is a unique community of altruistic and consensus-oriented people. In other words, this isn't Usenet, and flaming is just not done. For more about Wikipedia manners, see Wikiquette.

To be clear, my objection is that the content makes the article horrifically unbalanced. Snowspinner 00:51, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

To be clear - Both versions need to be integrated together. Both sides acknowledge that some of this is factually correct. BOTH SIDES should be working to integrate all the viewpoints expressed on this page. It does no good to simply revert. Unless you are willing to make real edits towards integration, do not revert the page. -- Netoholic @ 02:52, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)

Snowspinner is right, the article was incredibly unbalanced when it dwelt mostly on that bizarre conspiracy theory. The best idea would be for the people proposing major article changes to do so first on the Talk: page, and get agreement there. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The "bizzar conspiracy theory" resulted in the NSW state parliament asking for a full enquiry. But that is realy not the point. If you want to add to other sections of the article then go ahead. But just reverting is not acceptable.

Information certainly needs to be added to other sections of the articled, but the space dedicated to this theory is still too extreme. Please read the statement that appears every time you submit an edit - "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." No contribution is sacred, and particularly when it is biased, we have every reason to neutralise it. Ambi 00:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Page protected

OK, I've noticed that this article has had nothing but reverts for sometime now, amongst many parties (some of whom I'm a little suprised got involved with a revert war: Jayjg, Ambi and Netoholic?! wtf?). I'm locking the page till you can work out some structure to this article! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:13, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please note: I have started an attempt at Sydney Hilton bombing/Temp. The conspiracy theory needs to be referenced who states the allegations and we need sources who reported those allegations. If they can't be referenced then we should not be adding them into the article. If they can, then we should be able to add them in, but we also must keep in view that our writing should not take the POV that these accounts and theories are correct or not correct. We should state the facts and that's it. No analysis should be done. That's the only way to procede on this matter - we'll let the reader make up their mind. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:26, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Finally, an admirable move towards a good solution. I only wish I knew more about the subject in order to help. -- Netoholic @ 05:38, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

I fully agree with Ta Bu's action and statements - Wikipedia is not a reposit for conspiracy theories, and certainly not in the main articles about an event. If somebody wants to write one about this particular one, it should, IMO, be it's own article, and thoroughly referenced and neutral, too. -- AlexR 09:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Um, Sydney Hilton bombing/Temp is just a copy of the reverted article. Not much of a contribution by anyone that I can see. I won't add to it just have someone else start another revert war. And I think that you misrepresent Ta Bu -- she is not making any comment either way. Aberglas 10:04, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) aberglas

Aberglas, please play nice! Also, I'm a guy, not a girl :-) So far you have complained that I've locked the page to a version that is not your own: well, I'm sorry: but tough. If I'd reverted to your revision we'd have locked a page with very much disputed format and presentation and I would have had some very unhappy people messaging me. Please read the protection template: my lock is not an endorsement of Ambi's version of the article. In the meantime, I have created a temp article because this is normal practice while a page is locked. Please, feel free to edit this page. I assure you that if a revert war turns up on THIS page I'll block the lot of you for 12 hours (what else could I do?) I doubt this will happen. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:46, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's not my version - it's the version that existed before this POV pusher came along. The Sydney Hilton bombing is not one of the events in Australian history that particularly interests me at all, but I'm damned if I'm going to see Australian articles become biased because someone with an agenda comes along. Please stop throwing mud at me, get over the fact that there actually is a dispute (omg!) and actually look at the edits. Ambi 03:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reviewers please not the tone of the above comment.

Ta bu. Firstly please re-read my comment. I was saying that you are NOT taking a position. Secondly, Suppose I add to the /temp page and Ambi just reverts it or does massive deletions without making any substabtial contribution of her own. Then are you promissing to ban her? Aberglas 09:29, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) aberglas

Do what you want with the temp page - if you start working towards adding this in a neutral and appropriate manner, I'll be thrilled, and I have no interest in reverting it. I'm only interested in the live version that the public sees, and to ensure that Wikipedia remains a credible, non-biased reputation in the eyes of the Australian public. Ambi 09:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ta bu and others. Please comment on Ambi's point. I had thought that the temp version was a place to resove differences. Are you saying that the temp version is just to waste my and others time? I will make no further edits to the Temp version per Ambi's suggestion. At what point and how to we unlock the page? Aberglas 10:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) aberglas

It is to resolve differences, but I'm hardly a combatant. By all means work on the temp page - as I said, I won't revert it, and it would be wonderful if you could come up with a more neutral version, such as that which Edcollins suggested. Alas, I neither have the time nor inclination to convince you otherwise, if you insist on dedicating half the article to your ASIO allegations. Ambi 10:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Two things here.

1.

'What would Ta bu shi da yu do?' The author of this comment has requested that you ask, WWTBSDYD? Please edit this article in any way to improve it.

2. The temp page is only temporary. It's only needed till I unlock the page: and until I can see some consensus based editing on the temp page, I can't do that. Incidently, Ambi can actually still edit the locked page. She won't, because she knows she's not allowed to, apart from the fact that she's a sensible young lady (without any intention to be condescending!). Please, aberglas, feel free to edit that page. I doubt you'll get reverted. Your changes might get modified though. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, so Edcolins and myself (and any others) produce a new page. Ambi has said she will not contribute. But she will probably not like the result. Then what happens? Aberglas 00:54, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) aberglas

As long as it is neutral, and doesn't dedicate half the article to your agenda, then there's no issue. I've never disputed that the ASIO allegations needed to be mentioned in the article - just that they need to be in their place, alongside all the other theories as to who was responsible, consisting of one or two paragraphs each - which is entirely consistent with Edcollins' model. Ambi 03:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that the bullet points need to be converted into prose, and the article made more like something like exploding whale, stylewise. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:39, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Resolution

It has been some time since anyone edited the talk page, which now seems to be complete. So I think that that it is time to make it the main page, lift the lock, and move on. Aberglas 09:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) aberglas

I don't think that would be a helpful step. I don't see any progress towards including this content in a more neutral fashion. Ambi 12:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Ambi. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agree as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK. It seems clear that Ambi will not accept any article that itemizes the evidence of misconduct, regardless of the factual accuracy of those items. I am not prepared to spend time editing the /Temp version endlessly in the hope that Ambi might like it. So let's abandon the /Temp version. Aberglas 05:19, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) aberglas

That's exactly right. Itemising the evidence for an unproven theory in this manner (so as to attempt to convince the reader of its accuracy over any other theory) is not neutral, and therefore breaches Wikipedia policy. I'd be objecting just as much if it was itemising the evidence against the Ananda Marga Three, or against any of the other parties that have been blamed at one time or another. Ambi 09:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So, Ambi, if I get your point right, you don't deny the facts presented under the header "Speculation and conspiracy theories", but you are not satisfied by the way the information is presented. The "facts" are presented as "circumstantial evidence", and that's the breach of neutrality according to you. Is that correct?

Would it be better to replace "There is circumstantial evidence that (...)" by "According to some sources, reported facts suggest evidence of (...)"? I don't think itemizing facts regarded as evidence to some is a breach of neutrality as such provided that it is clear that the facts are interpreted and are not the conclusion of some official inquiries. If the facts are important to understand and explain a theory, they shouldn't be removed, otherwise a reader would not be able to understand the theory. --Edcolins 15:37, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

That's not quite the problem. It's that the article firstly dedicates far too much time to one particular theory (it shouldn't be dedicating half the article to any of the theories regarding who was responsible - not just this one), and secondly, that its presentation sets out to convince the reader that ASIO was indeed responsible, rather than presenting the theory in a neutral manner. I'd have just as much of a problem if the case against the Ananda Marga Three was presented in this way. There's a reason why this isn't used in any Wikipedia article that I've ever seen. I've never disputed that the ASIO theory is quite worthy of a place in Wikipedia - but in a couple of paragraphs of prose, alongside all others. That's the way the NPOV policy works. Ambi 16:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Alright. For the time being, let's then add a notice about the dispute. It will probably help readers to understand it. --Edcolins 12:48, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Page unprotected

As noone has been editing the temp page for a while and no resolution seems likely via that method, I have copied what is on the temp page to the article page and unlocked the article. Do whatever needs to be done to make it NPOV. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This seems rather strange, seeing as you said only twelve hours ago that this would not be a helpful step. Ambi 09:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm sick of the dispute and have changed my mind. How's that for brutal honesty? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:39, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So now we have a revert war again. Aberglas 07:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) aberglas

The section already describes the controversy in two paragraphs, and links to a fuller exposition of the theory. What more do you want? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An enumeration of the actual evidence in the seven bullet points (or similar). This enables the reader to make up their own mind. The two paragraphs are woolly, IMHO. I have no idea what the reference to the police interviews is. But the seven points are the key, well researched evidence complete with sources. The background about the White enquirey should also be there.

I find it very concerning that people wish to censor this information from Wikipedia.

Naturally I have little interest endlessly rewording the section just to have someone else delete it. Aberglas 07:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC) aberglas

What you call "enumeration of the actual evidence" others would likely view as "building a case", particularly as you haven't provided counter-arguments, and your case is filled with POV and unsubstantiated statements. The reader can look at the summary, then go to the link if they want to "make up their own mind". Jayjg ^(talk) 09:38, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Changes to article

I made some changes and have some thoughts about others:

• All the details about the bombing were in the lead section; I made the lead more of a summary, with the details coming in the body, after the table of contents.
• The paragraph about the Ananda Margas' conviction began with a quotation supporting their innocence, before even saying who was convicted. This struck me as a POV attempt to emphasize one point. I would have changed it so that the facts about the conviction were stated first, followed by the criticism, but I think the whole issue of their guilt in the 1982 trial is peripheral, given that the act charged was different from the bombing. Unless the association between the two incidents is explained further, I don't see the relevance.
• The article text said that the Ananda Marga defendants were pardoned in 1985, which I changed to 1988 based on the cited reference (the Guardian article). I haven't checked the other sources cited later in the article. The text should correspond with whatever source is being cited; if the Guardian got the date wrong then the text and the reference should be changed.
• The Guardian article says that Anderson was "pardoned and released" after being arrested for the Hilton bombing. It's unusual for a defendant to be pardoned before trial (although it does happen, as in Ford's pardon of Nixon in the U.S.). Was he actually pardoned? Or did the prosecution decide there was insufficient evidence to take him to trial?
• The reference to the Royal Commission is very cryptic. What did the Commission do? Did it issue a report? Did it play any role in the pardoning of the Ananda Marga defendants?

I agree that the bulleted list was not acceptable -- too many items were unsourced and/or worded nonneutrally. Some of this information should, however, be incorporated into the article in suitably NPOV terms. JamesMLane 13:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First, thanks for bothering to edit the talk page. But the whole article is a bit of a mess. What, for example, is the reference to "tag questioning"? The "Evidence" section is well referenced, and could be further refined. But why would one bother if it would just be deleted? It's easy to delete, hard to contribute. Aberglas 10:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) aberglas

You make the assumption that, because something you added was removed, anything you add will be removed. That's not justified. Here's an example from your bulleted list:

The entire garbage truck and all bomb fragments were dumped without any proper forensic investigation. This would be extremely unusual for such a serious crime.

Your insert simply asserted this, without sources -- and even with sources we wouldn't state as a fact the POV that there was no "proper" investigation. On the assumption that this incident was much discussed, I'd assume that some notable person says this, someone else counters that there was testing of bomb fragments, someone replies that tests A and B were done but not C and D, etc. We should fairly summarize the dispute, not present a brief for one side. JamesMLane 20:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Um, no. Did you actually look at any of the numerous references that I had provided? The only thing missing was a cross table of which references back up which assertion. In any case, even if they were under referenced, the correct thing would be to raise this in the talk. Not just to delete the entire article and start a revert war.

This has nothing to do with content. It is about egos, cliques and possibly political bias. Ambi, Snowspinner, Jajg et. al. want to "police" wikipedia. They mindlessly follow each other around. Cause much conflict. And cause a steady trickle of contributers to abandon wikipedia. They also seem to spend their lives playing the pathetic Wikipedia political game.

I have other things to do.

Aberglas 05:11, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) aberglas

One could argue that, in an ideal world, people would respond to an edit like yours by going through it carefully and salvaging the points that were properly referenced and stated in NPOV fashion. It's been my experience, though, that Wikipedia doesn't work that way. If you make an edit that's largely unacceptable, it will usually be reverted in toto, as if it were entirely unacceptable. As a practical matter, if you want to incorporate some of this information in the article, you're going to have to make more of an effort to accommodate the NPOV policy. Don't state opinions ("like without any proper forensic investigation") as facts; attribute each one to a prominent spokesperson, with a specific link or other reference to back up that specific point. For example, I've spent a lot of time working on another controversial article, John Kerry military service controversy, with, at this writing, 54 numbered in-line external links. That's simply the way we have to handle subjects like that. You should assume good faith instead of denouncing the motives of Ambi and the others. Deal with the issues that have been raised and see what happens. JamesMLane 07:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Prelude to the bombing

No mention is made of the two incidents in the lead up to the bombing. Is there some editorial reason for this? Briefly, ON September 15, 1977 the military attache at the Indian Embassy Colonel Singh and his wife were attacked in Canberra. Just over a month later an Air India employee in Melbourne was stabbed.

In both cases, the perpetrator was a member of the Ananda Marga. These are convictions for which AM members served time and they occurred a very short time before the bombing, yet the article gives no mention of these. Clearly, AM had issues with Indian government of the day. Of course the involvement of AM members does not justify the claim that AM is responsible for these attacks, but it does inform on the issue. cf news.com.au article written under the 30 year rule releasing cabinet documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddball (talk • contribs) 20:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

How to Do References

I am trying to improve the reference for this article, but am not sure about the best way to proceed.

The trouble is that there are multiple references that cover much of the same material. So many of the facts that need to be cited are covered by multiple references. So you can see that my initial attempt to add ref clauses does not look like it is going to produce a good result. (Other references than the documentary cover the material, but that would make the list even longer and more obstuce.)

One could have a table that cross references facts to references. Alternatively, one could simpley have an annotated bibliography style which shows the user what is covered by each reference.

Some of the better references are news paper articles that are not on line and therefor difficult for people to verify easily. I would like to put relevant extracts up somewhere. How should this be done?

All ideas welcome. I have a little time for this at the moment.

02:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Tuntable

Please take a look at the Citation templates for examples of how to add citations, ensuring that the meet the requirements of Reliable Sources. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that I have nailed down solid references for all significant statements. Almost all relate to the NSW Hansard (which is the official record of parliament, very reputable) and the Consipiracy Doco (ABC, also very mainstream). There are many other potential sources, court records etc. but I think we have enough. I have removed a few minor statements that are difficult to reference.

The section on the trials could do with some elaboration. But to say more with rock solid references requires wading through court documents, not pleasent.

Thanks Socrates2008 for your help. 12:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Tuntable

Further reading

Suggest this section is shortened by incorporating revelant material and citing it, and by removing the less notable or reliable links. Also, there appears to be a bias towards left-wing sources in this section. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll do some more on this tomorrow. Are you happy with the citations? 13:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Tuntable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuntable (talk • contribs)

It's much better - well done - but might benefit from a few more. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

PS. I'm not really sure how reference links can be POV (as opposed to the body of the article). I don't think just referencing an article endorses it as nuetral, just relevant. Which links do you specifically not like? The only key ones for me are Hansard, the Conspiracy Doco, The Green Left one, and Wilson's Almanac, the latter two expand on the story. If you or others have extra articles please include them.13:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Tuntable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuntable (talk • contribs)

3 non-neutral links (Left-aligned): Communist Party Guardian, Green Left, (Tim Anderson). You're better off including and citing the relevant material than putting lots of external links in. See WP:EL Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

More tidy up.

As to links: Communist Party Guardian removed, not relevant. The Green Left article includes a long, direct quote from Griffith. As Griffith is widely regarded as a key figure in this story, I would prefer to leave it in. Anderson was at the centre of the controversy, so I would think that linking to it is very relevant, even if the book seems rather rambly to me.

I have also tried to "balance" the list with two articles that imply that Ananda Marga was in fact responsible. Neither of them is very illuminating or well written IMHO, but I've added them. Further material along these lines would be most welcome.

I have also moved some links to References from Further reading per your suggestion, and used {cite...}.

I find a bibliography to be an important part of any article. Where to find out more, discenting views etc. That is why I have put some effort into it.

Another issue is our (quite reasonable) need to have rock solid citations for the body of the article. So in this case the Anderson trials are covered very tersely in the article simply due to a lack of citations. References enable people to find out more if they want, and to make up their own mind as to their credibility. (Obviously there are court documents in this case, but I at least have no time to wade through them.)

I also do not see much difference between "External Link" and "Further Reading", but the latter seems to imply that the articles are not in anyway endorsed by Wikipedia except to be relevant.

What do others think?

11:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Tuntable

It's better - still think some of the links could be used as references instead. "Further reading" section for published works, while "External links" is for internet links. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

References to the inquest

Some claim that Griffith did testify to some extent at the inquest. If that is true then the article needs to be corrected, and some of the testomony added. If anyone has access to the inquest transcripts etc. that would be excelent (eg. Lexus Nexus) Below is an extract from an unreliable source (http://members.tripod.com/~Hilton_Bombing/bombhilton.html)

"At the Hilton bombing inquest Griffith alleged that the private secretary of an unnamed Australian senator told him that he had spoken to an ASIO agent who had said ASIO were involved in the bombing. He said an army bomb disposal vehicle was waiting in the city at the time of the explosion (12.40 am) and Special Branch were observing the hotel from nearby, as part of a prearranged action.

"Griffith also gave evidence suggesting that even the then Prime Minister of Australia, Malcolm Fraser, may have known about the bungled attempt.

"He also said that a man called William Reeve-Parker had told him that an army officer had admitted planting the bomb by switching rubbish bins 24 hours earlier. A statutory declaration by Reeve-Parker was shown at the Hilton bombing Coroner's inquest.

"A Special Branch officer told Griffiths that his colleagues were observing the Hilton when the bomb went off and had tried to warn the police who were guarding the hotel on regular duty with a phone call. Griffiths said that he inferred the warning call had been an "attempt to save our lives," but that it also revealed security force involvement in the bombing. A police switchboard operator's notebook confirmed the fact that a call was received."

(I have added a reference to the site's Burely letter because 1. it is referenced in Hansard and 2. it agrees with Burley's video taped evidence on the Conspiricy documentary. So it is backed up by very credible references.)

unsigned comment added by 121.45.248.200 (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ananda Marga Notes

(Wilsons)

Less than three weeks after the Hilton bombing, Richard John Seary began meditation classes at the Sydney Ananda Marga centre.

On the afternoon of June 15, 1978, Seary contacted Detective Senior Constable Jan Krawczyk of NSW Police Special Branch. They already knew each other. Krawczyk had recruited him to infiltrate Ananda Marga. On this day, Seary told his masters in the NSW Police Special Branch that three Ananda Margis, Alister, Dunn and Anderson, were going out that night on a bombing mission. The target was to be Robert Cameron, leader of the National Front, a right-wing group, who lived in the Sydney suburb of Yagoona.

on the back seat of Seary's car was found a bag containing a bomb.

Anderson was arrested about an hour later by none other than Detective Sergeant Roger Rogerson.

The first trial ran from February 19, 1979 till March, when it resulted in a hung (undecided) jury. The second trial ran from July to August of that year, resulting in the convictions of the three for conspiracy to murder Cameron. All three were sentenced to 16 years jail, making it the most expensive night of graffiti in Australian history.

On February 1, 1982, after the three young men had now rotted in some of the heaviest prisons in Australia for two and a half years, Eric Mountier, a juror in the second trial, came forward and said that he believed the Yagoona case trial had been unfair and overwhelmingly prejudiced by the fact that during it, Richard Seary claimed that Dunn had confessed to him that he was the Hilton bomber.

Justice Murphy of the High Court called Richard John Seary "the most unreliable person ever presented as the principal prosecution witness on a charge of serious crime". The High Court, however, dismissed the appeal on February 13, 1984

By May 15 the following year, 1985, after a lengthy investigation of the Yagoona affair, Justice Wood pardoned the men and they walked free from jail.

Det. Serg. Aarne Tees reopened the Hilton bombing investigation. Two months later, and three years after he had walked free, on May 30, 1989, Tim Anderson woke up at his home in the early hours of the morning to a familiar face. It was Aarne Tees.

Raymond John Denning (long time crim) had told the cops that when they were both in Parklea Prison years earlier, Anderson had told him that he (Anderson) had said "I did the Hilton". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuntable (talk • contribs) 04:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Tim Anderson

Why doesn't he have his own page in Wikipedia? It is like he has been airbrushed from history. I'm not usaully one to believe in conspiracy theories but it is almost like there is a conspiracy to erase his past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.76.230 (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have linked to Anderson's page.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Anderson Appeal

This article states "Anderson was then re-arrested for the Sydney Hilton bombing, but this time he was acquitted in 1991 after the evidence of the main prosecution witness, Evan Pederick, was completely rejected by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal.[1]"

This is completely untrue. This is why I question if there is a pro Anderson conspiracy afoot here.

From Regina v Evan Dunstan Pederick [1996] NSWSC 623 (17 December 1996) The Court of Criminal Appeal nevertheless refused to hold that Anderson's verdicts of guilty were unsafe and unsatisfactory, in the sense that the jury ought to have had a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Instead, it held that the trial had miscarried by reason of the way in which the Crown had conducted it. However, instead of ordering a new trial, the Court exercised its discretion to enter a judgment of acquittal.

The Anderson judgement is not online, but can be found at R v Anderson (1991) 53 A Crim R 421

The evidence of Pederick was not "completely rejected" as the article states. The Court refused to hold that Anderson's verdicts of guilty were unsafe and unsatisfactory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.76.230 (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Commonwealth Govt veto?

Is this really the correct word? AFAIK the Commonwealth can't "veto" a state government inquiry. They can decide not to cooperate or not hold their own inquiry but not veto one. Tigerman2005 (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Also I'm not sure the sources support this conclusion: "Evidence that Australian security forces may have been responsible led to the New South Wales parliament unanimously calling for an inquiry in 1991[1] and 1995.[2]"

The motion that passed (it passed the LA, not sure if it even went to the LC) says this:

       That this House: 

               (1) stresses the imperative and urgent need for a top level, open, joint New South Wales-Federal Government inquiry into the bombing of the Sydney Hilton Hotel on 13th February, 1978; 

               (2) calls upon the Federal Government to immediately establish the inquiry; 

               (3) pledges the full co-operation of the New South Wales Government; 

               (4) emphasises that the terms of reference of the inquiry must embrace events leading up to, as well as, the circumstances and consequences and subsequent investigations of the bombing. 

That is what passes on a voice vote (without objection is probably more accurate). Really it just asks the Commonwealth to have an enquiry and pledges state cooperation. As it is there is a suggestion that "evidence" of Australian security forces involvement was more prominent than it possibly is. It may have been the catalyst for the independent MP who put up the 1991 motion. Not saying the sentence as it is is necessarily wrong but I think the emphasis is off. They agreed to ask for an inquiry rather than demanded action. I think something more along the lines of "Twice (in 1991 and 1995) the NSW parliament has passed motions calling for a joint state-federal government inquiry into the bombings. The Federal government has not chosen to do so." Does that make sense? Tigerman2005 (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Tuntable (talk) 04:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Reorganized

I reorganized it a bit to make it cleaner. Grouped the summary info at the top, then the conspiracy, and finally the Amanda Marga angle which I think makes more sense once people understand the conspiracy.

The Amanda Marga section is still a bit confused and could do with a clean up if someone has time.Tuntable (talk) 04:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts and it looks good but content wise it's a dog's breakfast. There is a small summary of what happened followed by a massive section for the conspiracy angle (these are alleged events not accepted facts) and then a bizarre profile at the end. I also think the investigation/trial part needs to go before the conspiracy section. Also if the conspiracy section is going to rely on the Commission of inquiry as a source some page numbers or at least section numbers would be useful. On two occasions the article states that Seary's evidence was discredited. I eventually found in the citation that the discrediting was done by two high court justices. Perhaps we can add that - seems important to note to me, others may disagree. Anyway personally I'd like to see the article with an order something like (after the lede): Background (explanation of Hilton being location for CHOGM and discussion of threats against Indian PM - Bombing (a run through of the bombing itself strictly dealing with the facts. Garbage truck collects bin, bomb goes off, police respond, damage caused - investigation/trial (already in place however some post-trial events relating to Tim Anderson's eventual acquittal could be moved so a more chronological order flows) - Alleged conspiracy/subsequent inquiries (I'd be loathe to use conspiracy but the saga with Anderson's retrial, the many inquiries into the event plus some of the accusations of cover-up/ignoring of evidence that ran counter to the police version of events etc could sit here - Aftermath (or some better word!) to cover outcomes from the event. Just some thoughts anyway. Tigerman2005 (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is a dog's breakfast.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Richard Seary

I don't think we need the profile of Richard Seary. It seems a bit odd.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Bias

This article is grossly biased in favour of fringe conspiracy theories, for which there has never been any real evidence. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, the evidence is enumerated in the article. All referenced. Much of it in Hansard. Or the Conspiracy video which shows people giving their evidence. The article carefully does not reach a conclusion in Wikipedia voice, but the evidence is pretty overwhelming, even if it differs from some editor's world view.Tuntable (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I think after Anderson's conviction was overturned all we have are theories, but the sources used are not good. Hansard is a primary source and shouldn't be used as extensively as it is. There is a new book out about the bombing which could be used for adding more information.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

If there is some particular piece of evidence that you think is incorrect then please discuss it here. But I think it is all pretty rock solid. And remember, the NSW parliament unanimously voted for an inquiry due to concerns -- so this is not some fringe theory. 203.45.176.47 (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

BTW The strongest evidence is simply the fact that a sizable bomb was placed in a garbage bin right in front of police officers. No terrorist could have done that without being seen. And we now know it was placed the night before, and garbage men were prevented from emptying the bin.203.45.176.47 (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Favell's first name

In the "Bombing" section, the first name one of the garbage collectors is given as "William", but on the picture of the plaque it says "Arthur".

Which is it?

HandsomeFella (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

William, according to The Hilton Bombing, by Imre Salusinszky. Sardaka (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Trials and inquiries

The extensive use of Alister's book in this section is questionable and in my opinion shows a bias. It wouldn't surprise me if Alister wrote this section himself.

Anyone who thinks the Margis are innocent victims should check out the two new books on the subject: Who Bombed the Hilton? by Rachel Landers, and The Hilton Bombing, by Imre Salusinszky. Margi activities are shown pretty clearly, especially the actions of one particular Margi, Abhiik Kumar, who deserves a mention in this article. I hope to be writing it up soon. Sardaka (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Salusinszky and Landers

I have heard Salusinszky say that there "is not a shred of evidence" supporting conspiracy theories. He apparently then addresses (on just two pages?) the evidence a bit, which is a direct contradiction. I do not know and it is not Wikipedia's place to determine what really happened. It is possible that there are alternative explanations to the evidence that convinced the NSW parliament to call for an inquiry. That evidence might well be flawed, but most certainly exists, and is well beyond a "shred".

A book that provided a detailed analysis and alternative theory would be of interest, but that is not what this book appears to do. But for Salusinszky to suggest that not a shred of evidence exists makes him either an extremely poor researcher or a blatant liar, and thus a poor choice of reference for Wikipedia. I leave it there for "balance", but the contradiction needs to be made clear. Tuntable (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

As to Landers, the article makes very vague quotes. What "evidence of seven garbage men" etc. What does Landers herself cite as sources given that she was presumably not an eye witness. If there is anything real here it would be good to (succinctly) elaborate, but my strong suspicion is that it is just unsubstantiated opinion and should be removed entirely. I have just cleaned it up a bit, e.g. we do not need to know why "Landers was here today..." Tuntable (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

P.S. There is a critique of Landers which I have not pursued at https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/who-bombed-the-hilton-part-1-the-bomb-and-the-bin-,11191 Tuntable (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Better Reference wanted for Philip Morris and other's testimony

In

https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/who-bombed-the-hilton-part-1-the-bomb-and-the-bin-,11191

John Jiggens stated

  At the Hilton trial, Phillip Morris, the controller of the Sydney Council cleaning department, testified that there were several garbage collection shifts scheduled for that weekend in February 1978: one about 12:40 am Saturday morning, which was the last collection not waved away, one about 6 am Saturday, the next at 2.30pm on Saturday afternoon, and a third at 6 am on Sunday morning.

   Keith Snashall, who drove the 6 am rubbish collection, the truck previous to Ebb’s, was too sick to give evidence at the Hilton bombing trial. Instead, his evidence to the 1982 Hilton inquest was read at the trial, which confirmed that he was waved on.

   Neville Porter drove the previous garbage truck to Shashall’s, the 2.30 pm collection on Saturday afternoon. He testified that his truck was waved away from the bin outside the Hilton by the police. His shift could see the bin near the escalator and it looked full. Rubbish was protruding from the top and a newspaper was sticking out.

This is important as it backs up the testimony of Bill Ebb. However, I think it wants a better reference before inclusion. I would guess that the trial was Anderson's second trial. If anyone has access to Lexus Nexus etc. and can find that reference please add it to the article or just to here. Tuntable (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Put bombing before Amanda Marga

I moved the sections about the bombing itself to the front.

The trials of the Margis are certainly important and relevant, and might even justify their own article if someone wanted to expand them. But they are secondary to this article. Further, their significance becomes much clearer after the conspiracy theory is discussed.

I also renamed the "Other Publications" section to arguments against the conspiracy. I also filled out the references a bit. That said, this section is still very weak, containing nothing but vague conjecture that really is not up to Wikipedia standards.

Finally I removed the Primary Sources tag because it is simply not true. The main sources for the section are the NSW Parliament and the ABC documentary, neither of which are primary. I also removed the Undue Weight tag as I do not think it is true, and people are free to add other weight if they wish. I also removed all the "According to Hatton" qualifications because the statements were made in parliament, never disputed, and have multiple sources -- there is no likelihood that Hatton himself inventing these facts. Tuntable (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the logic the boming should go before the trial and the previous version didn't work. But I don't think the pro- and anti- conspiracy views should go first, as effectively this is putting fringe opinions before reliable sources, making a chronologically confused article, putting minor contested details before the proven key facts. I would say there needs to be a first section which actually gives the details of the bombing, based on established facts as agreed across reliable sources, and then a chronological presentation of the various investigations, trials, inquiries, books. In other words, I think we need a really radical rewrite. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "Fringe Opinion"? There were not one but two motions cast unanimously by the NSW pariament, so I would hardly call the conspiracy accusations fringe. The case against are completely vacuous, but they should stay to give "balance". One day I might pay to have access to news paper articles.

If somebody wants to verify the Conspiracy reference ping me and I'll send you a private copy. It seems to have disappeared commercially like so much stuff. TV is for entertainment, not public record, sadly. Court records can be obtained for a small fee from the court. Hansard is public and free. Sadly Griffiths never wrote a document that puts all the evidence together neatly. Tuntable (talk) 06:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, Hansard is absolutely not a primary source for these events. A primary source would be from a witness. This is someone (a politician) reporting on evidence gathered by others. Tuntable (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Re fringe, maybe that's too strong a term, but principles of due weigh require us to give most weight to what the majority reliable sources say. Do the majority of reliable sources say this was done by the security forces, or is that a minority view (however well evidenced or otherwise)?

Re Hansard, I'm looking again. Our first Hansard citation is "The garbage bin had not been searched for bombs. Searching bins is normally a high priority, and is specified in New South Wales police permanent circular 135". The source for this in Hansard seems to be the following sentence, buried about half-way through a very long speech: "Senior police at the Hilton were in breach of New South Wales police permanent circular 135, dated 28th November, 1972, which clearly indicated that all waste bins should be searched in any potential bomb threat situation." The speech is by one politician, John Hatton, so really we should attribute this claim to him rather than state it as a fact in our encyclopedic voice. For Hatton's view, Hansard is the primary source for his having said this. We've made a specific interpreration of his long speech to highlight this one claim as noteworthy, which requires original research if we have no reliable secondary sources indicating why it's significant. If it is noteworthy, surely we can easily find a reliable secondary source saying so? If not, I'd question if it is noteworthy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Hatton made several statements to parliament about a contentious subject. There is no record of anyone disputing them. The entire parliament voted to call for an inquiry, thus broadly supporting his statements. There are several other issues brought out of that long speech. The reason is that Hansard is one of the few authoritative references that actually remains accessible for people to verify easily. The speech is important precisely because it summarizes Griffiths information as a matter of record. For example, the Conspiracy documentary has videos of witnesses giving evidence, but it is ephemeral and now difficult to access.

If the police circular issue really bothers you, then ask the NSW police for that circular, they will probably give you a copy so you can verify it (I would encourage you do do that). However, sadly, Wikipedia gives you no mechanism to add that to the article. In theory your personal opinion is not valid, and there is nowhere you can actually post the circular if you obtained it. However, I would encourage you to add a reference.

There is a problem with fake news. All sorts of crazy conspiracy theories. But you will not find them backed by a unanimous motion in parliament. If you could find a "majority reliable sources" that actually challenged any of the facts raised by Griffiths via Hatton, then that would be interesting. But there don't.

The final issue about Wikipedia editors not being competent to summarize and extra information without a reliable source is nonsense. That is exactly what Wikipedia editors do. All the time. There are no "reliable sources" that say what should be put into a Wikipedia article. That is what editors do, collectively, and generally do fairly well which is why Wikipedia has value. To say that editors are not allowed to make editorial decisions is to say that nobody is allowed to edit Wikipedia.

If you think that there is other information in that or any other verifiable speech that should be added, then by all means add it. If you have specific reason to think that that is not relevant then discuss. But do not say that editors are not allowed to edit. Tuntable (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you talk about Wikipedia editors' competence. When I was talking about primary and secondary sources I was referring to our policies: WP:PSTS: Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. WP:PRIMARY: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[d] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge... Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. We need to use attribution (e.g. "Speaking in Y debate, X MP alleged that---"), be clear where facts are sourced from, seek secondary sources to show what is noteworthy, not list facts we think are important and simply add a footnote to Hansard. A better way to approach this might be to place the parliamentary debate in to the narrative of different inquiries. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Um, so, what is the definition of a Primary Source? That is the point that you missed. And eye witness is a primary source. So a respectable newspaper article written by a journalist that witnessed an event is a primary source. A book is not a Primary Source because they are reporting on others. Likewise a speech by someone summarizing the research of others who have in turn interviewed witnesses is definitely not a primary source. (It could be called Hearsay, but I don't think there is a Wikipedia policy about that!)

For the case of the book or speech, there is a question of the integrity of the author. In this case, it is a politician, so not a random person. And it was backed by the entire parliament, and therefor not a complete QAnon type fabrication. I think it is as strong as you ever get.

There are other sources such as court records, newspaper articles, the Conspiracy film, but you would no doubt argue that they are not easily accessible for verification.

What would you consider to be a suitable source? A book written by somebody? Lots of crazy books are written.

The citations are there for a reason. To allow people to verify sources. But I think that the statements hold on their own without the need for excessive qualification. The events did really happen as described.Tuntable (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The definition of primary source is clearly set out in our policy I linked to above, WP:PRIMARY, which I strongly urge you to read as an active wikipedia editor Tuntable. Wikipedia uses primary sources only with extreme caution as they require interpretation. A long primary source will have too many facts to include, so requires selection of which facts are notable. This kind of interpretation and selection is original research, which Wikipedia does not do. Hence we use reliable secondary sources. Reliability is determined case by case, so "A book written by somebody" may or may not be reliable. We can determine reliability by, for example, noting the reputation and expertise of the author and publisher. Opinions, including those of politicians talking in parliament, should always be attributed, rather than expressed in our voice. So, just to take the first bullet point of the section: At the 1983 Walsh Coronial Inquest it was stated by Terry Griffiths and others that there was a continuous police presence outside the building since the previous morning. This may have prevented anyone placing a large bomb into the rubbish bin while the police were there. This is footnoted to a non-online source, so is hard to verify. It is unclear whether "This may have prevented" is the speculation of Griffiths and the unnamed others, but it is in our voice, rather than attributed, which seems to me original research. (Also, the reader doesn't know who Griffiths is at this stage and the significance of his views, as he is only introduced at the end of the section, but that's easily fixed.) So, we need to go through this section and make sure everything we say is attributed where necessary, verifiable, and flagged where sourced from a primary source. If we don't use secondary sources, we may be giving details that are not noteworthy, so we need to confirm that what we say is indeed noteworthy. This shouldn't be controversial on Wikipedia; it's basic policy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Other issues

Have added templates for multiple issues as this article really needs major cleanup work. In particular it needs a neutral overview of what happened, a chronological structure, avoid undue weight on the conspiracy question. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I have been reluctant to weigh into this debate, but, after objective reflection, I agree with the preceding comments by Bobfrombrockley. The article needs much work before meeting Wikipedia standards - as he has well explained above. In particular, I think, as a previous contributor to this talk page said, the Alister comments are unsubstantiated and biased. The profile of Seary is superfluous. He can have his own entry if justified. The assertions of conspiracy section is overly prominent and dubiously sourced, as others have noted, and tends to prejudice the article. John Hatton was a good man but didn't always get it right - as he would be the first to agree. Reading the debate in Hansard, it is clear that he was asking for an inquiry and providing evidence to support his case. The Parliament agreed to the motion on the basis that enough questions had been raised to justify an inquiry. It did not validate the allegations raised. Wikipedia is not a forum for the canvassing of theories, rather the statement of well-sourced, objectively established facts. My test, I guess, is how an ordinary citizen wanting to know the basic facts about the Hilton bombing would react. Without satisfaction at present I conclude. UncleTurner (talk) 05:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy Section overly Prominent

Suppose, for the sake of argument, the conspiracy accusation was true. Surely that would be very, very important an interesting. Nutters let of bombs all the time, not so interesting. But if it was true that it was ASIO and Police Special Branch that made the bomb then I think that it is very obvious that that would be very interesting indeed.

From that I think it follows that a discussion of whether the conspiracy is true or not is central to the article. It is why I bother to edit it.

When people ask for "balance" they are thinking that they do not personally think the conspiracy is likely, and want to see credible sources that refute it. If such sources exist I personally would be very interested to see them. But I do not think they do, because the conspiracy is in fact true.

The section "Arguments against a conspiricy" is, to my mind, very weak. Vague statements of opinion with no detail. Quite different from the sharp Accusations section. It is there for "balance". If somebody would like to read those sources and improve this section that would be great. I personally do not want to do that because I strongly suspect that the sources are garbage.

So unless someone has some constructive edits that they wish to make, extra information they wish to supply etc. then I will remove the Issues tag in a few days time. Tuntable (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The tags are there to encourage editors to make constructive edits, add extra information, etc. If you think a section is weak because it contains vague statements of opinion with no detail, you can add tags for that to encourage editors to do that work too. Two editors have now argued that the article does not meet community standards, so removing the tags would be a mistake which I would revert unless there is a consensus here that they are unnecessary. I have absolutely no opinion on whether there was a conspiracy or not and know nothing about the details of this case, so am not going to do the edits; I'm here as a Wikipedia editor who noticed a very weirdly organised and confusing article, which dives into arguments for a conspiracy theory before giving a neutral account of what we know happened and which has sections heavily reliant on primary sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Amanda Marga Persecution Section

This could be tidied up, or moved into its own article. I would be happy for someone to do that, and could help a bit, but do not have time personally. But it is a separate issue.

Todo Griffiths latest comments

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/feb/13/hilton-hotel-bombing-surviving-officer-vows-to-find-the-bastards-who-did-it The 1979 Asio Act allowed the government to “close the door” on anyone investigating any crime committed by the secret service, Griffiths said. “As a result of that we can’t get the people before the courts who are responsible for the bombing,” he told the crowd. “I appeal to everyone who has the power and the authority to look into the matter again and I hope they’ll take me seriously.”

Also https://www.afp.gov.au/news-media/platypus/remembering-hilton Has a 1978 video of Griffiths plus commisioner saying "things have changed in 40 years", nicely ambiguous acknowledgement. Tuntable (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hansard is a primary source

Re this edit by Tuntable: Hansard is the verbatim report of the proceedings of the parliament and its committees, so it is a primary source for what was said at these sessions. It is more or less the textbook example of a primary source for statements said in parliament. I guess the counter-argument is that Hansard is a secondary source for the facts that occurred, but we can't state that these are facts, we can only record the opinions of those who spoke at the parliamentary debate, in which case we need to attribute. As we are struggling for consensus here, I will put a notice on the original research noticeboard about this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I suppose that Hansard is a primary source that Hatton said certain things in parliament. Are you seriously arguing that Hatton did not say those things in parliament?! That you need a non-Hansard proof that Hatton did say those things, better than the official record of parliament? If that were the standard, then 99% of the content of Wikipedia would need to be removed.

You might argue that Hatton is an unreliable secondary source. But the fact that the parliament endorsed the statements gives them weight. And it is backed up by other sources, but I think Hatton's comments backed up by parliament are an extremely strong source. Especially as they have never been refuted.

If you really want to argue that Hansard is a primary source, then what is it a primary source of. And what is an example of something that is not a primary source. E.g. a Newspaper article is just a primary source of what a Journalist wrote.

I do get annoyed by Wiki-lawyers that do not actual work to research and improve articles, but use specious arguments to damage the work of people that do.Tuntable (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Where there are other sources (the Conspiracy documentary being good) I a have removed Hatton says. Otherwise I have qualified them. But what you are doing to wikipedia is poisonous.Tuntable (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)!

Verification Needed

From the [[2]]

Request that someone verify that the cited source supports the material in the passage. Add the template only after you have made a good faith attempt to verify the information (so making the template unnecessary—see also ).

There is no evidence that anyone did make such a good faith attempt. One source is the court records, which can be purchased for a small fee. The other is the documentary Conspiracy, which can also be purchased from https://www.filmartmedia.com/projects/conspiracy/. But unless someone has made such a good faith attempt, then those templates should be removed.Tuntable (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's reasonable to expect Wikipedia editors to pay for sources to check sources that are not rigorously cited. The Verify source tag is there to encourage good quality articles through ensuring all our content is genuinely verifiable, a key plank of Wikipedia policy. Please don't remove these tags unless you can confirm the text is accurate, e.g. with quotations or timestamps, and clear attribution. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I uploaded an index that I made of the film which might help other editors [3] It is better than I had thought. I'll also add some more accessible refs.Tuntable (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. That's a good start. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I have partly reverted the latest edit. I have described the content of the Accusations of conspiracy section as assertions, as another editor has described the contribution of Rachel Landers. On balance, I have come to the conclusion that they allegations, not substantiated facts. I don't dispute that this side of the story needs to be ventilated. However, the article has a number of cautions at the beginning, including 'This article may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. (February 2021)'. Half a dozen of the statements made have a tag saying 'verification needed'. Much of the attribution is to a 1995 ABC documentary. This is not holy writ. ABC docos get things wrong eg the Four Corners allegations that Neville Wran was corrupt that were discredited by the Street Royal Commission.UncleTurner (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you UncleTurner. I agree. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

An ABC Documentary saying that some journalist believes something is certainly questionable. But an ABC Documentary with video of a witness saying certain things is very strong evidence that the witness did in fact say those things, otherwise it would be gross fraud and likely uncovered at the time. Now, the witness may be lying for whatever reason, but there is no real doubt that those things were said.

I might add that the points made in the "Accusations" section are very specific and backed by evidence, whereas the points made in the "Arguments" section are just unsubstantiated opinion lacking detail. It would be very good if someone could read those dubious works and either make the section stronger or remove vague, unjustified assertions.Tuntable (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I take issue with this. Re the ABC doco, a witness saying something does not prove anything other than that the witness said it - it has no other credibility unless backed by facts. Many of the allegations in the Accusations section are not backed by specific evidence - that is why many are tagged as needing verification. By contrast, the Arguments section is backed by two substantial, well-documented books by very reputable authors. Salusinszky's book was short-listed for the 2020 NIB prize. UncleTurner (talk) 07:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, as you say it does confirm that certain people said certain things. Like that Ebb said that other drivers had been stopped from emptying the bin. Ebb might have been lying, although nobody has ever seriously asserted that and he would have no reason to lie. The fact might also be irrelevant, but we can leave the reader to determine that. But we do not need to verify what the article actually says, namely that "Ebb said ...". He did say those things, as you say. We have video evidence of exactly what he said.

The arguments section provides no real arguments beyond the author's opinions. Quite different from the other section which is specific. For example, Ebb does not say "I think they done it", rather he makes a specific statement about a specific event which he would be well qualified to comment on. Likewise the other points.

There are books that say we were created by aliens, anyone can publish a book. If you have read the books then I would very much like to see a better enumeration of what they actually say that is factually verifiable rather than just unsubstantiated opinion. I would encourage you to improve the section if you have an interest in this. Tuntable (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

To take up your point, the ABC program documents various people as saying various things, no more or less. This does not make them correct, as memory is a fallible thing - I refer you to the Rashomon effect. With something as important as this, objectively verifiable facts are needed. The conspiracy section is lacking in substantiated facts as opposed to claims. I reiterate that the arguments against section draws on two well-researched, well-regarded books by very reputable authors. This gives it substantial weight. I have taken up your suggestion and added more detail.UncleTurner (talk) 08:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Alistairs assertions

They were removed recently, for reasons that are unclear. I do not have a strong opinion of them, maybe they could be condensed. But it requires discussion here rather than just doing it. So I put them back, at least for now.

I also put back the photo of the clean up. Not the greatest photo, but it does serve to make the event more real.

I also split the trials section into two, as it was too big and a bit confusing that there were in fact two distinct trials. Tuntable (talk) 08:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I take your point. My reservation is that Alister is hardly a disinterested observer. His claims need objective verification.UncleTurner (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. The qualification "According to Paul Alister's later assertions" is important. I think the assertions are in fact probably true, and it would be interesting to go over the findings of the appeal to confirm them. Tuntable (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Arguments for and against a conspiracy

The Arguments against conspiracy section has had much of its content removed for no justifiable reason. I have restored it as it was in the interests of objectivity. It is a necessary counterbalance to the arguments in favour. I reiterate that the arguments against section draws on two well-researched, well-regarded books by very reputable authors. This gives it substantial weight. Such use of reputable secondary sources is entirely in line with Wikipedia principles. Someone else has now decided, again with no explanation or justification, to remove both the for and against a conspiracy sections. This makes the article uninformative and lacking in balance. I have restored both sections to strengthen the article.UncleTurner (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Blanking reverted

A few months ago, someone has blanked the article to try to get rid of multiple issues, including undue weight to conspiracies and controversies. A few days after that, someone else has restored most of the article that was deleted. Can anyone explain why?202.169.23.60 (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Where is the Terry Griffiths article

I am certain that Terry Griffiths, the cop, had a Wikipedia article but instead I get directed to this article?

So what happened to his article. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)