Talk:Murder of Anita Cobby

In order to maintain consistency with Homicide related articles, e.g Homoicide 1 and Homocide 2, I propose renaming the articles to "Homicide of...." Because the word murder has political/legal consequence attached to it, and thus may change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, from an encyclopedic POV the word "Homicide" represents facts as it is i.e human killing human, without the politicizing and maintains an accurate general descriptions of the article. I propose all articles of this nature be given a general Name such as "Homicide of....." and discuss a proposed subheadings. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 16:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term "homicide" has different definitions in different jurisdictions. In Australia, for example, homicide refers to the unlawful killing of another person. [1]. Had the shooting of Trayvon Martin occurred in Australia, it may not have been a homicide as Zimmerman was not found to have acted unlawfully. As always, Wikipedia should follow the reliable sources, and not try to engineer a one-size-fits-all approach to a complex category. WWGB (talk) 05:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The word "homicide means "Homicide occurs when one person causes the death of one other person" and can include "murder, manslaughter, justifiable homicide, killing in war, euthanasia, and execution" The definition of homicide appears to me as being quite consistent, and that is the precise reasons why I proposed this policy, to give an accurate description of the facts without the legal aspects being said in Wikipedia's voice. "The murder of ..... " appears that Wikipedia is endorsing the legal judgement, if that particular jurisdiction considers it to be murder, it should state say in the article. And thanks for your contribution about the removal profession, it appeared bit out of place to me as well, provides no relevance to the primary article. I was hesitant to remove it at first as it appeared on other articles of this nature --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 12:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Five men were convicted of murder; therefore Cobby was murdered. Trying to obtain some sort of consistency across every article from every jurisdiction in the world is a futile exercise. This is an article about Australians in Australia; it is entirely appropriate to use the word "murder" here because the men were tried and convicted according to law. The proposer says that using "murder" in Wikipedia's voice appears to be an endorsement of the judgment. It could just as easily be said that avoiding the word is Wikipedia's way of casting doubt upon the verdict. Without even opening any of the references used in the article, eight out of twenty use "murder" in the title (there are 23 total but three are duplicates). I'll bet my house that the word "murder" appears within every single one of the sources. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"It could just as easily be said that avoiding the word is Wikipedia's way of casting doubt upon the verdict." that is precisely what I am saying, the evidence that used in courts is not and will never have conclusive assay the evidence for evolution. We have one source namely an ONE court localised to one area making a claim, I do not think that would suffice to be used in Wikipedia's voice --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 07:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, that is just ludicrous. The Supreme Court of New South Wales does not make "claims". You should step away from law-related articles. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Supreme Court of New South Wales court convicted 5 persons of Murder, that is the definition of a claim. The conviction maybe to said in WP voice provided reliable secondary sources, however, the murder is the claim. Wikipedia is not platform to assess the credibility of courts. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 07:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How far down the slippery slope shall we take this? The Parliament of New South Wales defined murder in the Crimes Act 1900 and the Supreme Court applied that definition to the case. There are no claims here, only the application of law. Or are you going to say that the parliament only "claimed" to define the law? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parliment defined murder, the Court determined fact, it's a fact in the courts POV, not Wikipedia's. That's why the most suitable title would be homicide of Anita Cobby. Otherwise would be changing article names whenever somone lodges an appeal, new evidence comes and legal defiantion in that jurisdiction changes. It does not assit WP bring about conformity and consisity. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 08:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how things work here. The men killed Corby. They were convicted of murder, a crime defined by a legislature in a sovereign state. The media reported it as a murder, both before, during and after the conviction. You can't try and change history thirty years later because of some misguided attempt at consistency. I could make some analogies about what you are trying to do, but will not waste my time. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you have some sort of sympathy towards the alleged victim here, and not addressing the actual arguments being agitated consequently you have not advanced your position on this matter. I'd like see some other inputs from other editors. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 11:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here is another input. The scum who killed Cobby were cotal tunts who broke her fingers and almost decapitated her.[2] They slaughtered her without compassion and will rot in gaol. If you don't think that was murder then you are a fool. Your behaviour is bordering on trolling. I strongly suggest you move on to another project where your opinions may have some value. "Alleged" victim? You are an idiot. Got it? WWGB (talk) 11:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And there we have it, give someone enough rope and they'll hang themselves, your true colours and sympathy for the alleged victim are on display now. Your description of them being scum e.tc is irrelevant, you may say it was murder, I say it's natural selection, but the point is neither opinions are an accurate representation of the facts but rather an opinion of it. I'm trying to maintain consistency and represent facts of a similar nature articles globally in an accurate, consistent and encyclopedic POV without editorializing. Thanks for your contribution looking for further uninvolved editors inputs. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 12:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zzzzzz ..... WWGB (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - per Article titles - Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources, and per WP:COMMONNAME - Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). Sources in support of my position: convicted of...murder - raped and murdered - brutal gang rape and murder - brutal murder - THE RAPE and murder of Anita Cobby - savage murder.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So then lets change the article to Brutal Murder, Rape, and knife wounded Anita cobby? as per RS despite WP is not a news paper, I'm sure you wouldn't support those views because that would be called editorializing. We are not here to judge whether murder, rape, genocide, treason or wearing a blue shirt is evil/bad/good as per For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil.. At the end of the day to state that this was murder as a fact is plain incorrect, whats fact is that this was a homicide, whats opinion is that it was murder. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 02:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is not "opinion" that it was murder. The state's government has defined murder here. After a 54-day trial, it was proven that it was a murder. 54 days of evidence, argument and finally, a decision. There were lawyers trying very hard to argue that it was not murder, but they failed. Did they try to appeal that decision to a higher court? No, they accepted the fact that they were found to have murdered the victim. In fact, one defendant even admitted that he committed murder by pleading guilty before the trial. There is simply nothing more to say on this topic.

It is difficult to assume good faith with you when your first edit after being away from Wikipedia for more than one year was to try and label Obama a founder of ISIS. Nobody took that seriously and the discussion was closed 15 hours later. I think it is time to shut this one down too, because it is clearly going nowhere. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is also difficult to assume good faith in discussion when we have editors sentimental to the subjects death with comments such as "The scum who killed Cobby were cotal tunts who broke her fingers" this is about Wikipedia policy, not Australian laws, 'Australians laws' have no jurisdiction of on Wikipedia. All I am attempting to do is apply WP policy to the article(s) and try to achieve some sort of consistency and neutrality from a global perspective. The article does say that she was " begging her attackers to let her go, saying she was married and also menstruating", I think the argument the classify this death has a part of 3.5 billion years natural selective process is as strong as to classify it as murder. She was menstruating i.e able to reproduce, she clearly failed the achieve that outcome and was consequently placed her offspring the archives of extinction. Whatever genetic traits she had clearly was not adapt to the environment she lived in and was ultimately unable to reproduce. And please do not bring other RfC's into this discussion, the other RfC was healthy discussion, I admit dailymail is not RS as per Wikipedia policy, and the discussion ended fruitfully, and an idea was brought, it was tested, and failed the test and the discussion was closed. Stop attacking me, and attack my argument. Out of the these three options for the article, which describes facts and not opinion.

# 1. The Murder of Anita Cobby # 2. The omission of Anita cobby by Natural selections # 3.The homicide of Anita Cobby' . --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 03:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eng.M.Bandara, #2 is obviously trolling and disruptive editing. Consider this a formal warning. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[as a process of natural selections]. Source to support my view, I think it ought to be included. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 03:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eng.M.Bandara, again, the title you proposed as option #2 is wildly inappropriate and can easily be seen as trolling. If you cannot see this then you should consider if you possess the competence to edit here and make some adjustments before that option is taken away from you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NeilNI am not saying it is appropriate, and I'm trying illustrate the precise opposite of that, that is not an appropriate title because it is an opinion as is to call it murder. The most appropriate title would be homicide.--Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 04:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for admitting you were trolling. Now stop it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you don't like what I'm saying doesn't mean i'm trolling. Look at the contribution I made to this article and various others. My intention is to improve WP. All the best I'm done here, clearly some people just don't have the intellect to understand what i'm saying or just prefer to stick their heads in the sand. -Marking RfC for closure consensus unable to be reached --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 06:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A clear consensus was reached; everyone opposed your suggestion. If you want to improve WP, which I believe you do, then you should stick to what you know, which is not articles about Australian law. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]