Jump to content

Talk:Murder of Jill Meagher

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Death of Jill Meagher)

Suggested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Canoe1967 (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Jill Meagher → Death of Jill Meagher – Current title is not neutral per WP:NDESC. The current title implies the accused is guilty of murder which is a breach of WP:BLP. Hack (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly oppose. The title of the article implies only that the person was murdered, not that the accused is the actual perpetrator. If you don't believe me, look at the title. It's not "Murder of Jill Meagher by Adrian Ernest Bayley". Trinitresque (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's not. The court will decide who murdered Meagher, not whether she was murdered. This death will be considered a murder if Bayley is convicted and if Bayley is aquitted. Whether or not this a murder is a question that is independent of the question of who did it. Trinitresque (talk) 09:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strictly speaking, the court does have to determine whether the killing was a murder; it's possible that a decedent was killed legally, in which case it would not be murder (defined as an illegal killing). In this particular case, though, I don't think there's any question she was killed illegally; the only question is who did it. Powers T 16:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does that mean you're agreeing or disagreeing with me? You seem to be doing both. If you're disagreeing, then my response is, well that's exactly what the definition of murder is: an illegal killing, so there's no reason to move this when it conforms to WP:COMMONNAME. Trinitresque (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just pointing out an error in your reasoning, then explaining why the error doesn't matter (to me), as I agree with your conclusion. Not meaning to be critical, but I didn't want the closer to discount your argument because of a minor error. Powers T 14:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's possible, while unlikely, that the cause of death was not murder, but some other form of misadventure. The move proposal is a cautious but sensible one at this stage. Once and if a court decides that it's murder, another move can occur. HiLo48 (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

If the current accused is found not guilty, does that mean she was not murdered? Surely an unsolved murder is still a murder. If that is not the case, do you need the verdict of a coronial inquest to say a person was murdered by an unknown person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.2.209 (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While Jill Meagher's death wasn't historic, the march which it sparked, attracting tens of thousands of people was historic. The details of the murder case are not particularly important to this entry. (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doloresdaphne (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Up until this point the media and Victorian Government generally hid crime statistics and Melburnians generally didn't care too much either. This event sparked a protest of 30,000 people and an outrage that will change how Melburnians, the media (she worked for ABC aswell) and the Government views such crimes in the future. If this page is removed then we should also consider such entries as "Death of Osama bin Laden", "The Death of Superman" and such like. (UTC)
  • Keep How is this any different to entries like the one for the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann or Death of Daniel Morcombe or Death of Caroline Byrne(none are recent entries, had lengthy legal cases with difficulty proving guilt and polarised communities). It is the media and social media that created the interest in the incident, polarised communities and resulted in a greater or renewed awareness about personal safety. The spike in females learning martial arts and self defence following this incident has been enormous. It also created a dialogue between parents, children and friends (male and female) about personal safety at night. People search this site for facts about such incidents so they are informed. If awareness of personal safety via such articles achieves averting another such incident then this article should be gold starred! There are many other incidents over the years that could have an article created or have been created and linked to this one such as "Importance of Learning Self Defence", "Personal Safety at night or on a social occasion", "Disappearance of young females in Australia", "Young female victims of murder in Australia", "Notorious modern day rapists in Australia", "Traits and actions of modern day rapists in Australia over the past 30-40years". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Einformed (talk • contribs) 04:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The significant social media component of this case distinguishes it from others. Debate about why this case attracted so much attention on Facebook and elsewhere, how it led to the arrest, and the subsequent concern of law enforcement than ongoing coverage by social media may prejudice future legal proceedings, may be a point of interest.Sadiemonster (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is the most offensive suggestion I have read in years to remove this. Have you no respect? How many people marched in the street where she was abuducted to show their disgust at such an innocent person being taken from this life to soon and in such a terrible way. Considering the number of no-name reserve grade footballers that can be found on wikipedia it's utterly obscene. Whoever the grub is that suggested it I would question their motives. The fact ninemsn had it as a lead story also suggest how out of touch this clown must be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.162.186.215 (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who you're addressing when you say "you" and "grub" and "clown," as the page is maintained by a community of users. Inclusion in Wikipedia is not a personal or an emotional issue, and exclusion would not be "offensive," "obscene" or disrespectful. The debate is not about how dreadful the incident was, or how meaningful for the community, but whether it is notable enough to qualify it for listing when so many other women who have lost their lives in similar ways do not have pages. I'm not saying it shouldn't be included, but suggesting practical reasons in favour of its inclusion would be more useful than ranting against unnamed "grubs." Ninemsn made a story of this because it's a sensationalist website and not a serious news outlet, and its an attempt to stir up controversy. Not following Ninemsn is not a sign that anyone is "out of touch." Sadiemonster (talk) 07:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A great deal of the disagreement around WP:NOTE of this article is that the crime itself was greatly significant in the city where it took place. See Figure 49 on page 32 of Victoria Police Crime Statistics 2011-12. An abduction/kidnap for the purposes of sexual penetration took place only 4 times in 2010/11 and 2 times in 11/12. Of those 6 over 2 years, none of them resulted in a homicide.
Furthermore the victim was a local who had no previous criminal history and no connection to organised crime. The abduction took place off a very busy and heavily-populated entertainment district. Such crimes in Australia are especially rare and the resulting emotional impact on the city and it's inhabitants was deeply felt as many locals could relate to the victim; her age, lifestyle and background. While this might suggest missing white woman syndrome, the reference to this phenomenon needs to be considered in regional contexts, missing white woman syndrome needs to be weighed differently outside of the United States.
How is this an encyclopaedic article? Sadly, people are abducted and murdered on a weekly basis in Australia. The so-called significance is only because she worked for a media organisation which ran the story quite heavily at the time. If she had not worked at the ABC and had been an unattractive middle-aged man it would not have received more than an inch in a local tabloid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.253.109.191 (talk • contribs)
Agree with renaming of article; in the interests of WP:NPOV it should reference the alleged crime. To balance the WP:NOTE issues, all references to the victim and alleged perpetrator of the crime should reference this article. Hoptis (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT NOTE

[edit]

Could editors brought here by the article in The Age newspaper please note that this is not the correct place for comments on whether the article should be deleted or not. Such comments belong in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Jill Meagher.

But also note that that discussion is currently in the process of being closed. HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: stale discussion. See newer move request below for the discussion that resulted in the moving of this page. Dekimasuよ! 01:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Big danger here of emotion, recentism and the fact that it's in today's news taking over from what was a consensus established over many days earlier this year. The title "Death of Jill Meagher" is still 100% accurate. Yes, there's a lot of feeling in the air over this right now. Lots of people are quite understandably feeling very negative about the murderer. But that makes now precisely the wrong time to make a calm, well considered judgement on what the article should be called. In summary, current name is 100% accurate, and now is the wrong time to decide this. HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see you referred to "the murderer". 'Nuff said ..... WWGB (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proves nothing. There's also, sadly, a dead person. So the word "death" is fine. HiLo48 (talk) 11:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems like the usual practice. With regard to the previous discussion, a coroner's verdict of "murder by person or persons unknown" should be ample to use Murder rather than Death in the title. Insisting on a specific person being convicted before we say Murder is, um, overkill. Dingo1729 (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Four years later... I am not sure why this discussion was apparently never closed despite a consensus to move. I have started a fresh discussion below. --Muzilon (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: @Dekimasu: Thanks for renaming the page. Do you think this old (unresolved) discussion should also be closed off to avoid any possible future confusion? --Muzilon (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Role of social media

[edit]

I would question the validity of the comment that social media such as Facebook and Twitter "played a significant role in bringing the case to prominence and in helping with the police investigation."

It is certainly true that both had a significant role in bringing the case to prominence but it could be equally said that hate pages and careless or uninformed comments stood to put the trail of Ms Meagher's killer at serious risk. In the highly charged atmosphere of the weeks which followed Bayley's arrest, many were keen to expose what they believed (rightly or wrongly) to be evidence of his prior offences. On that basis, the likelihood of finding an impartial jury would be extremely remote and the possibility of him receiving a fair trial would be very low.

On that basis, there is no way that social media could have helped police with their investigation. Had the detectives not been able to swoop so quickly, social media might have played a bigger role but as it was, it had little or no relevance to the investigation.Flanker235 (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. This story made the headlines because the victim was a good looking woman who was part of the media. Social media got in the way. HiLo48 (talk) 10:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about it more from the legal point of view that the input of social media had the potential to prejudice the trial. Few people seem to understand that when a matter is sub judice there are issues which cannot be published. This is why the media cannot report them. Since Bayley pleaded guilty, the matter is now academic anyway but earlier on he was planning to plead not guilty which would have necessitated a trial with the attendant possibility of a very different outcome. Flanker235 (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the law hasn't caught up with how social media will "publish" claims about alleged criminals. I wonder how it will. HiLo48 (talk) 01:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Social media and citizen journalism are good for many things. Legal reporting isn't one of them. I think the only way to preserve the integrity of the court system is for the courts to enforce the law. That means prosecuting people who can be found in contempt. Many of the Facebook and Twitter posters, particularly those on the hate pages, would easily have qualified. The law understands publishing very well. It just hasn't got around to charging anyone yet. To explain this - and you probably already understand it - publishing is deemed to be the disemination of information to more than one person. If I send you an email, that's okay. If, however, I C.C. another person, that is deemed to be published. In the case of Facebook, the implications are pretty obvious. On top of that, it's not just the author who is liable but also the publisher; i.e.: Twitter or Facebook. Forums have the same problem. The hosts are liable too. Contempt of Court is a criminal offence and can incur jail time. Flanker235 (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jurisdictional boundaries are an obvious problem. For this case alone many Facebook and other social media comments would have come from places other than the state of Victoria, whose laws would be the only ones applying. I can't see Victoria charging someone from NSW. HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. However, there were plenty of potential jurors in Victoria who could easily have been influenced by what they read on Facebook or Twitter. Although I accept that many other jurisdictions were involved, this was largely a Victorian story. Bit of a red herring ;) Flanker235 (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But there's nothing to stop potential Victorian jurors seeing comments made by non-Victorians on Facebook. This story, like many others, crossed state borders I can assure you. HiLo48 (talk) 05:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I get that. This came up in the cases of the Underbelly show when Victorians were not allowed to see the back half of the first series because some of the characters were still being processed by the courts. The law had the problem that there was more than one way to broadcast and there was more than one jurisdiction involved. That didn't mean that no effort should be made to try to stop people from being influenced by the show. This is why Justice Betty King issued a supression order. She was completely aware of the potential problems with other jurisdictions.
Equally, we saw a similar problem with the "82 year old Australian entertainer" in the UK last year. His name was suppressed by a court order but someone in the Twitterscape decided to put it out there anyway. That person was in clear breach and should have been prosecuted.
In both cases the publisher, as well as the author, is liable. But to get Mark Zuckerberg to take some of that stuff off Facebook proved a near impossibility. People need to learn that they are accountable for what they publish. Flanker235 (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was no court-ordered suppression of Harris's name. It was a combination of coy media and aggressive lawyers following the Leveson Inquiry. [1] WWGB (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was different in November when the first arrest was made. Flanker235 (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But they're clearly not accountable. In both the cases you have mentioned, there have been no prosecutions. Hence, no accountability. HiLo48 (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You bet they are accountable. Just because nothing happened, that doesn't mean there was no offence committed. Were that not the case, publishers/broadcasters would never get sued for what their people write/say.
Seems pretty clear cut to me. You publish something which is sub judice in Victoria, you get charged. Flanker235 (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership problems

[edit]

It has become obvious that an IP and SPA editor is in violation of Wikipedia's guidelines regarding attempting "ownership" of articles as described at WP:OWN. This is not acceptable, especially as the IP's edits are frequently inadequate and require correction or improvement. It would be good if other editors could become more involved with the article so that it is written with collaboration instead of the current ownership problems. Afterwriting (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 7 external links on Death of Jill Meagher. 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:

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 August 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 17:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Jill Meagher → Murder of Jill Meagher – As per WP:PERSON: "If the person was the victim of a notable murder, then a title such as Murder of Kitty Genovese is appropriate." Starting a new discussion here as an earlier debate on this article's Talk page back in 2014 apparently lapsed without being properly closed or resolved. (The accused was convicted of murder, so earlier legal/BLP concerns about calling the article "Murder of..." are no longer valid.) Muzilon (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Jill_Meagher&oldid=1256743391"