Talk:Murder of Anita Cobby: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 09:37, 29 August 2016 editAthomeinkobe (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,950 edits →Consistency with Homicide articles: I'm done← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:34, 29 August 2016 edit undoEng.M.Bandara (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users763 edits →Consistency with Homicide articles Next edit →
Line 120:		Line 120:
	::::::Parliment defined murder, the Court determined fact, it's a fact in the courts POV, not Misplaced Pages'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. --]<small>]</small> 08:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)		::::::Parliment defined murder, the Court determined fact, it's a fact in the courts POV, not Misplaced Pages'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. --]<small>]</small> 08:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::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. ] (]) 09:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)		:::::::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. ] (]) 09:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
			::::::::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. --]<small>]</small> 11:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:34, 29 August 2016

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Australia: Sydney / Crime

[REDACTED]

	Australia portal Murder of Anita Cobby is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian crime.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia.
[REDACTED]	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Anita Cobby be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

2006

The Trial We've got: "All accused pleaded not guilty at their trial, however shortly before trial proceedings began, Travers changed his plea to guilty."

Then: "John Travers having already pleaded guilty before the trial."

So did he change his plea before or after the trial? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shermozle (talk • contribs).

Immediately before the trial began. -- Longhair 11:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it necessary for this article to have so many links to other articles? I don't see why it should link to each article for the particular body part on which bruising was found. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.36.9.64 (talk • contribs).

I cleaned up the links a little. Should be better now. -- Longhair 11:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It says the were sentenced in the Supreme Court, which has a link to the page "Supreme Court," which is an article about the general usage of the term around the world, ie, the most powerful court of last resort in the country. Australia's highest court is the "High Court of Australia," while Supreme Courts are only the highest courts in each state. Is there a more appropriate link that could be used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.136.103.206 (talk • contribs)

I've changed the link to Supreme Court of New South Wales. -- Longhair\ 10:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

inconsistency

How was Travers apprehended? The section detailing investigation jumps directly from the police investigation to Travers being in police custody without giving any explanation. --68.40.197.241 19:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that too, whoever was adding info about travers probably had the strange notion that everybody knows how it happened (how he was apprehended). Also, very strangely (probably the same user) just put in travers at the beginning of the article before he is ever introduced that he had had something to do with her broken fingers, users reading the article will wonder WHO OR WHAT travers is (just like I did). Very poor editing indeed! Billtheking 15:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Someone elses daughter cover.jpg

Image:Someone elses daughter cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

removed obsolete link

Prisoners challenge indefinite imprisonment.This link is no longer displaying an article.

Michael Murphy or Michael Murdoch?

I removed these two sentences from the article because they seem to contradict each other or need further clarification:

"On December 26, 1985, two months before the murder, Michael Murphy escaped from Silverwater Correctional Centre."

"A mistrial was called when information surfaced that Michael Murdoch was a prison escapee from Silverwater Prison at the time of the murder."

I had a look but couldn't find it in the references. Maybe someone with the book could clarify it for us? Sarah 14:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this article needs cleaning up

Sections of this subject reads more like a novel than a statement of fact - I have neither the time nor inclination to do it myself, but someone may want to do a rewrite so it doesn't sound like a Year 10 English assignment. Especially that part about the face in the clouds being 'his daughter's killer'. Wtf?

EDIT: Oh hell, I'll do it myself. Started with one small change. More to come. Kyniska 911 04:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I still think this article needs cleaning up

This reads like a bloody mystery novel.

Is this article too sanitised?

On another site, one can read:

"Anita Cobby had been dragged through a barbed-wire fence and punched, beaten and kicked. There was extensive bruising on her head, breasts, face, shoulders, groin, thighs and legs. Her throat had been cut and she was almost decapitated.

Medical officers believed that Anita Cobby was conscious when she had her throat cut. It would have taken two to three minutes for her to bleed to death. Anita Cobby had also been repeatedly raped."

which is gruesome, but helps to explain *why* the public was so outraged, something the current Wiki article doesn't do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.110.64 (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The article misses much of the brutality, and shows just how deranged the five killers are. Cobby was tortured by Travers for perhaps 30mins before she was killed. Travers cut off her nipples and she was made to eat them. The nipples were found in her stomach during postmortem examination. These kinds of details are not published in the hope there will not be copycat killers. However, sanitizing events also denies the public the real picture. You can be sure the prison population are well informed about the details, though.27.33.81.127 (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The medical examiner denied under oath during his court testimony that she was mutilated in the way you describe or in any other way other than what's currently described in the article. He said radio reports used incorrect information. TheBlinkster (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Murder of Anita Cobby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murder of Anita Cobby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.citv.com.au/crime-investigation-australia/episodes/episode.aspx?id=8

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Article Non compliance with NPOV policy

The article does not conform with Misplaced Pages NPOV Policy, for example it describes events as if they are fact, as this matter went to Court, I would contend that any claims should be supported by who said it, and not said in Misplaced Pages's Voice --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 09:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Please provide specific examples of your concerns. WWGB (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

"Cobby was dragged into a car and raped, before being driven to a farming property at nearby Prospect, where she was dragged into a paddock and subsequently murdered." It should read something like "Australian Courts claimed Cobby was dragged into a car and raped, before being driven to a farming property at nearby Prospect, where she was dragged into a paddock and subsequently murdered." Or "According to Local Court documents....such and such" Also many of the cited material is this article is primary sources, you may be aware that Misplaced Pages prefers secondary sources as per policy. Are there any international reports/ analysis that could give a broader sense to the article. Right now as other users have pointed out it reads like a 'mystery novel'. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 12:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Consistency with Homicide articles

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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)

The term "homicide" has different definitions in different jurisdictions. In Australia, for example, homicide refers to the unlawful killing of another person. . 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, Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages's voice. "The murder of ..... " appears that Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages's voice appears to be an endorsement of the judgment. It could just as easily be said that avoiding the word is Misplaced Pages'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)

"It could just as easily be said that avoiding the word is Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages's voice --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 07:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

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)

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. Misplaced Pages is not platform to assess the credibility of courts. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 07:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

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)

Parliment defined murder, the Court determined fact, it's a fact in the courts POV, not Misplaced Pages'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)

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)

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)

Categories: