Talk:Leongatha mushroom murders

Bolding name of the accused

The page Erin Patterson redirects to 2023 Leongatha mushroom poisoning#Lunch and deaths. The guideline WP:RPLA provides that in such circumstances "it will often be appropriate to put the redirected term in bold at its first occurrence in the target". Accordingly, editors have bolded the fist occurrence of the accused's name in the target article. One editor has removed the bolding on three occasions: . It needs to be resolved here whether the first occurrence of Patterson's name should be bolded, and such consensus should prevail. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 06:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

On the narrow point of whether it should be bolded, yes, obviously.

That said, as Cameron Dewe above points out, there's the broader WP:BLPCRIME question here of whether we should be naming the suspect at all. Currently the lead blandly says "One woman", but the "Lunch and deaths" section names her, which is a bit incoherent.

I personally don't have strong opinions either way: usually we'd lean towards not naming, but her name has, however, been splashed all over the media so for better or worse, what Wikipedia does is not going to materially impact her privacy. Jpatokal (talk) 07:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

It seems strange when the bolded alternative title isn't contained in the first sentence of the lead. It's also strange that it isn't her full given name bolded in the lead, and then it's bolded again with her full name later in the article. I'm more strongly against it being repeated bolded in the "Erin Patterson" section, and especially her maiden name. That seems particularly at odds with the manual of style. Local Variable (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I notice my previous comment about whether Wikipedia should have this article while court proceedings were in progress has been removed. Now that the verdict is in on this case and the suspect has been found guilty of murder, it is probably timely to rearticulate my view. The perpetrator of these murders is still a private person, she hasn't directly sought out the media publicity but it has been visited on her all the same because of here actions. Although the Manual of Style for the lead section does advise bolding the title and alternative names once, on first appearance in the article, a criminal who is only notable for a single crime ought not be the subject of an article. Wikipedia should be writing about the crime, not the criminal. Highlighting the name of the criminal only draws attention to a person who would otherwise be considered a private person. They might no longer want the attention that their criminal notoriety now confers. Wikipedia should not emphasise that notoriety by highlighting a name without very good reason to do so. Just because the did the crime is not sufficient reason to bold the name. Not bolding the name is a way to avoid continuing harm to the victims and their relatives. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 06:11, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Patterson's name is not bolded because she is the subject of the article. (She's not.) It is bolded because of WP:RPLA, that is, this article is the landing page of a redirect from her name. WWGB (talk) 06:18, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm OK with that sort of bolding for a redirect, as well as bolding for a section heading. But not repeat bolding just to emphasise the name. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Trial section is too long

While I appreciate the liveblogging, the minute by minute trial coverage is excessive. There's no encyclopedic reason to include fluff like this: On 21 May, court proceedings were delayed since the parties to the trial were dealing with an unspecified issue. The jury returned to the court at 12:35 pm and watched a PowerPoint presentation on digital forensics. Jpatokal (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

While I have been copy editing the current content, I agree it is too unwieldy. Perhaps just a summary of key points, such as "Patterson was shown to have discarded a food dehydrator" or "Patterson searched for location of death cap mushrooms on iNaturalist". WWGB (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely a summary of key points. This is an encyclopaedia not Judge Judy. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone, feel free to condense the content if it is too detailed. Will try my best to avoid too much detail with the trial section. Cheers. Andykatib (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Jpatokal:, @WWGB:, @Martinevans123:, I will need a bit of help with condensing the trial material. I have removed the sentence from 21 May that WWGB highlighted. Not sure what to keep and what to take out. Or should we wait till the trial concludes? Andykatib (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you keep going with your current edit pattern. It's very thorough. At the end of the trial, we will have an idea of what's been more important, then we can condense accordingly. WWGB (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @WWGB: for your advice. Agree that it will be a good idea to wait till the end of the trial before condensing. Andykatib (talk) 05:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

That section should definitely should be cut down as soon as possible. My main concern is that the article needs to be very readable and that means taking a "less is more" approach to what we write about, in that we don't want to include an overwhelming amount of detail. See WP:TERSE for more a guideline on what I mean. Qwerty123M (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Qwerty123M:, thanks for your feedback. As the main editor working on the trial section, I agree that it needs to be condensed. Was thinking if some of the trial section content could go into the background and "Lunch and death" sections. Perhaps the "Lunch and death" section could be expanded into a timeline covering the events leading to and after the lunch. A lot of this information only came to light during the trial proceedings. Will be good if we find a news article or court document giving a timeline of the events. Feel free to edit and make changes. Cheers. Andykatib (talk) 11:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Now that the trial is over, it's time to start swinging the axe. Asamboi (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I tried my hand but the current day-by-day format is just too verbose. I think we need to make the call on what format we want before drastic surgery, and I agree that moving the content from the trial into a timeline of events is likely the best way forward. Asamboi (talk) 08:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Surely there are other murder trial articles we can model this article on. HiLo48 (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Some murder trial articles that could serve as templates for the Erin Patterson trial include the Murder of Meredith Kercher, Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton, the Murders of the Dickason children and Death of Pauline Hanna. These cases vary but we could incorporate elements of their structure. I worked on the Dickason and Pauline Hanna cases, which were big news in New Zealand in 2023 and 2024. I have created a background section about Erin Patterson but I think I'll need a second set of eyes to trim down the trial section. Andykatib (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's that bad. Sure, get rid of fluff, but I don't think it's unduly unweildy. A lot of trials won't get the kind of coverage this one did, and so we have the advantage of reliable coverage of the nitty gritty of what happened each day. I expect readers would expect detailed coverage of the trial here. In particular, Patterson's evidence about what happened should probably be covered, and to avoid giving it undue weight, so should the other evidence. Whether the trial should be split to another article is another question, but at the moment, it's not so bad to warrant that. Local Variable (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Andykatib @Asamboi @Qwerty123M @WWGB I have now condensed Week 1 and Week 2 trial subsections, but I still think each Week subsection, from 1 to 5, could be reduced another ~25%. Due to the level of detail and number of people giving evidence, each subsection is difficult to reduce without losing nuance. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi @DiamondIIIXX:, sorry for the late reply. Have moved onto other projects but could see what can be trimmed. Andykatib (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jpatokal, WWGB, Martinevans123, Andykatib, DiamondIIIXX, Local Variable, HiLo48, Asamboi, and Qwerty123M: OK. Instead of week-by-week, I've made a start to divide the Trial section into four main sections. Namely,

1. Opening directions and summary – key issues of both the Crown and Defence's cases, together with any procedural matters that the bench ruled on during the trial;
2. The Crown's case – the witnesses called and evidence tendered. There is generally a chronological flow to the witnesses, but not always. Grouping in subject matter areas takes precedence. I'm not confident that this is anywhere near succinct enough, yet. However, I feel that grouping will assist other editors to focus on the key elements of the Crown's case;
3. The case for the defence – in the main, this Pattinson taking the stand, and her cross-examination. I'm not aware that the defence presented and other evidence; and
4. Closing summaries – an overview of what the Crown and Defence presented to the jury, together with the summary and directions from the bench, including any jury issues.

I've taken some time to remove Erin this… and Erin that…; replaced with Patterson this… and Patterson that…; and Simon this…, replaced with Simon Patterson this…, etc. Where Simon Patterson is in the witness stand, the language that was used was the defendant's in-laws. This reads odd to me, coming form him. I've replaced the language to refer to his parents, referring to Simon P's parents. I think our efforts are now best directed into editing the Crown's case to make it more succinct, using the sections proposed, or something similar, if anyone has great ideas. Cheers all. Rangasyd (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Uhh, why? Given that there are many Pattersons involved, we should be using "Erin" and "Simon" for unambiguous and concise clarity. Asamboi (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Good work @Rangasyd: on reorganizing the trial section. It looks much better and more coherent now. To avoid confusion with the many Pattersons, it should be alright to use first names to avoid confusion given that the murder case revolved around a family conflict. Otherwise great work. Andykatib (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone, given the length and complexity of the trial, would it be best to remove the tag saying that the trial section is too long? I think we have cut as much that could be cut. Andykatib (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not so comfortable with the haste of removing the tag. I think it's better to retain for the time being, as it focuses editors' efforts on making the content more concise. Re comment that,

Uhh, why? Given that there are many Pattersons involved, we should be using "Erin" and "Simon"…

The use of "Erin" and "Simon" creates the projection of the editors' (readers') familiarity with the subject. The overriding rules are defined in WP:MOSBIO and MOS:SAMESURNAME; in particular:

…use given names or complete names to refer to each of the people upon first mention [my emphasis]. For subsequent uses, refer to them by their given names for clarity and brevity. When referring to the person who is the subject of the article, use just the surname unless the reference is part of a list of family members or if use of the surname alone will be confusing.

So, generally speaking, while this article is not specifically about Erin Patterson, I believe that Erin, after the first mention, should be referred to only as Patterson; on the implied basis that this article can be construed by some that it is about her (see redirect). Further, I believe that Simon Patterson should be referred to on first mention as Simon Patterson ("Simon"), and thereafter as Simon; and that all other members of the Patterson family follow the format of Simon. In other words, Erin Patterson should only ever be referred to as "Patterson"; and that all other members of the Patterson family, on first mention, be referred to as their full name, and thereafter as the first name(s). I'm happy to entertain others' thoughts if they feel that I'm on / off mark. Cheers. Rangasyd (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. This is a textbook case of the final clause you yourself quote: unless use of the surname alone will be confusing. It's manifestly confusing to have an article about 4 Pattersons that calls only one of them "Patterson". Asamboi (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree with @Asamboi. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Bump. The article is currently inconsistent but mostly uses "Patterson". Other opinions? Asamboi (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

• The naming issue is the least of this article's problems. It needs a machete taken to it.

  The court heard testimony from Darren Canty, the operations manager for the waste company Dasma Group, which operates the Koonwarra Transfer Station and landfill. The prosecution played video footage of a woman taking a food dehydrator to the waste processing facility on 2 August 2023. Canty submitted the CCTV footage to the police to assist with their investigation on 4 August. Statements were tendered from a teenage friend of Patterson's son and her son's flying instructor Ulysses Villalobos.

So now we know the name of the local tip -- the name of the manager of the local tip -- and the name of the company that operates the local tip -- AND the manager's apparent motive in supplying the video footage of the local tip -- PLUS the precise date on which he delivered that footage. As an added bonus, we get the name of son's flying instructor, even though (it appears) whatever the flying instructor had to say wasn't worth mentioning. Ditto for the son's teenage friend. For God's sake, is there no detail too trivial to include? The article's unreadable. EEng 11:57, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you on all those points. Feel free to delete that content. HiLo48 (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

A drop in the bucket. Without exaggeration, most paragraphs of the trial section should be either (a) reduced to a single sentence or (b) simply deleted -- in most cases (b). EEng 17:52, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone, per the talk page discussion yesterday with @EEng:, I have reduced the trial section to the opening arguments, Patterson's testimony, closing arguments, verdict and sentencing. I think the material could be condensed further especially Patterson's testimony but I am not sure what to cut out. Feel free to help out. Andykatib (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Names of counsel

@EEng: While I tip my hat at your wielding a much-deserved axe to the trial section, I do think we should mention Nanette Rogers (prosecutor) and Colin Mandy (defense) by name. Both became household names here in Australia during the trial and would probably pass the notability bar if they had standalone articles, plus constructions like "counsel for the defendant" are more verbose and unwieldy than "Rogers" or "Mandy". Asamboi (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

• You may well be right. But consider:
  • We can say, The prosecutor and The defense.
  • Once the article is appropriately cut down, there may not be much such stuff left. I suspect that instead, our readers will learn that "Video evidence showed X", "the police found Y", and "a technical analyst discovered Z in Patterson's internet search history", while "Patterson claimed that she always J but never K".

For the record, I found my axe dull, so I had to make do with the hatchet. EEng 15:30, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Pretty sure that Mandy has been sacked. But Careful with That Axe, EEngene.Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Unlike Justice Beale, counsel for either party does not have a Wikipedia entry, so I don't think publishing their names is necessary. WWGB (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Is there a reason not to publish their names? They're central figures in this story and neither accused nor victims, there are no BLP reasons to intentionally anonymize them. Asamboi (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Since no such reason was presented, I have restored their names. Asamboi (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Names will often be referenced in an article in circumstances where the person is not notable enough for a standalone entry. Indeed, that's often a reason invoked in deletion discussions (redirect to another article where they are given a passing mention). Local Variable (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

egg

wrt this revert, is the idea that it is an WP:EASTEREGG but it's acceptable in this context? I think it's reasonable to assume that clicking murdered would take me to murder, although the strongest case for that is someone changing the link after they were upset at their destination rather than speculative preemption. 49.183.93.101 (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that "murder" is a well-known word, in all English speaking varieties, and so does not need to be linked. Similar links to Murder in English law are used, without any problem, in very many articles for murder in the UK. Similarly with links to Scots law on murder. Given the widespread differences in murder law between countries, I think these links are informative. An alternative might be to add Murder in English law etc., to a "See also" section, but this is not really an "associated topic", but an essential topic embedded in the subject matter of the article (and it's also a bit hidden at the bottom of the article). I don't see such links as "easter eggs". Happy to see the views of other editors. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I think the standard MOS:EGG lays out is to prioritise keeping links intuitive, and expand the link or spell them out if the reader experience would be sufficiently worse without it. I can see an exception being made if spelling it out would be too awkward, but I don't think there's any great loss in not having murdered link to murder in Australian law. I don't think the element this case hinged on, establishing intent, is particular to murder under Australian law. Not the end of the world if the link stays, I wouldn't want a plain link to murder either. 49.183.93.101 (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how one would "spell it out", unless by putting it in full in the "See also" section. It looks wholly intuitive to me. Happy to see the views of other editors. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2025 (UTC) p.s. the link was already used, quite correctly, in the infobox.

Yeah, I don't think it could be spelled out naturally which is why I prefer omission than (to me) a non-intuitive link. I think the infobox link makes more sense as it's about her murder conviction, so the Australian legal context is is a natural destination, vs what is just a verb in the first sentence. The link to attempted murder next to it is strange though, as if we were following WP:ASTONISH I would expect both to go to Crime in Australian law or both to go to the broad article, but not each to a different one. 49.183.93.101 (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what's a more useful link for "Attempted murder" in this case. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2025 (UTC)