Jump to content

Talk:Death of Joe Cinque

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Murder or manslaughter?

[edit]

The Joe Cinque article indicates this person was convicted of manslaughter, not murder. I'm not aware of any details of this case. If this fact is correct this article must be removed from the Australian murderers category. -- Longhair | Talk 20:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

[edit]
  • Oppose - I don't think there should be a merger. I don't think it is fair to the victim, and I realise tht is merely a sentimental approach but ... Further - judging from newspaper reports, she will quite possibly have an ongoing public life and this article will continue to develop.--A Y Arktos\talk 23:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Where is a merger being suggested though? Rebecca 04:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the article for Joe Cinque. -- Longhair 04:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- though I'd be supportive of a merger of Joe Cinque with Joe Cinque's Consolation. - Longhair 06:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would also support such a merger, and have proposed the same.--A Y Arktos\talk 10:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd rather not. While I'm not sure there's enough to say about Cinque for an article of his own, I'm uncomfortable merging him with the book because he was notable before the book was written - it isn't the reason he was notable. Rebecca 12:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If he was notable beforehand, that isn't at all evident in the stub. While I am sure he was nice, seemingly successful for a 26 year old engineer and very much missed by his family, I haven't got the sense he was otherwise notable. I haven't read Garner's book, though it has been strongly recommended to me. Can you add a little to his stub to convey his notability before the book was written? If you mean he was notable because of the manner of his death and not just the book, I really don't think the victim was otherwise notable, the manslaughterer (is that a word?) was. I don't feel strongly though that he should not have his own stub and am happy to let the status quo stand.--A Y Arktos\talk 20:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I meant that he was notable as a notable murder victim. I'd certainly heard of him long before the book was written, which I still haven't read, and I wasn't in Canberra at the time. I realise that there may not be enough on him to warrant a bit of a stub, but it just seems a bit odd to me to be then merging the article with a later book written on him, when it isn't really that that brought the crime to public attention. Rebecca 00:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Victims of crime (Cinque wasn't murdered btw, Singh was found guilty of manslaughter) are sometimes notable (Victor Chang and John Newman are prime examples here). It's random members of the public that make high-profile news that makes these articles hard to expand upon. Richard Kelvin and Alan Barnes are other articles with similar problems where the victim's article comes to a halt, and suggestions of it being merged into the offenders article go nowhere. The problem I see is a matter of decency and respect and the like. Out of respect for the victim, editors decide not to merge articles which leaves them sitting idle for a long time with only trivial edits occuring. Respect issues aside (I'm sure nobody here is disrespecting of anyone), it's keeping these articles bare, and providing little hope for them ever to improve beyond a stub. I'm not strongly in favour of merging anything, but I do like to see articles expand to cover most areas of somebody's life. If that person is only notable for a brief moment of their life, it makes the rest of the article pretty damn boring if it ever expands at all. When kept, the victim's articles tend to duplicate content (see the histories of both Peter Falconio and Bradley John Murdoch). With the intent of writing an encyclopedia, I'd merge. -- Longhair 01:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different articles?

[edit]

The merger discussion was a while back. The current state of affairs is that Anu Singh and Joe Cinque are separate articles and Joe Cinque's Consolation redirects to Joe Cinque. As best I can see, there are a bunch of notability cases:

  • Anu Singh is notable, she's been profiled a number of times and her life attracts moderate amounts of continuing media attention
  • Joe Cinque himself was definitely not notable before his death as far as I can see by WP:BIO
  • Joe Cinque himself is probably not notable after his death either. BIO only specificially excludes people involved in a relatively unimportant crime from notability and this was a fairly major crime: unusual circumstances, lots of media coverage, an entire non-fiction book devoted to it. But the material in his article would overlap all but entirely with Singh's.
  • Joe Cinque's Consolation is likely a notable book per WP:BK. It attracted a number of media articles, interviews and reviews, it won a Walkley Award for non-fiction and its author is a prominent writer in Australia. That is, there is a case for an article about the book itself, not only about the events that it chronicles.

I therefore suggest that there should be two articles:

  1. Anu Singh, covering the crime, the trial and her subsequent life if there continue to be sources for it
  2. Joe Cinque's Consolation, providing a short summary of the book and its critical response

Joe Cinque could redirect to one of the two, but I don't know about which one. 137.111.238.29 (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC) (preceding comments by me when not logged in, Thayvian (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Lots more info!

[edit]

I got access to a lot of the Canberra Times coverage from 1997–1999 via Factiva, which has resulted in many more details of the case. If anyone has thoughts, let me know! Thayvian (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal #2

[edit]

I've just proposed a merge of Joe Cinque into Anu Singh. The above discussion had concencsus in favour of Oppose, however:

  • there still does not seem to be any notable biographical information about Joe Cinque except for what already appears in Anu Singh
  • other people who were notable seemingly solely as victims of highly publicised crimes have been merged with the offender's article (eg User:Longhair's mentions of Richard Kelvin and Alan Barnes have both been merged into Bevan Spencer von Einem)

To be clear: I do not propose that Joe Cinque's Consolation also be merged, as the article is about the book, which is notable by WP:BK and the material in it is fairly different from that in Anu Singh. Thayvian (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did the merger on 13 Jul 2008. Thayvian (talk) 09:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure

[edit]

For what it's worth, I've spent the day going through this article giving it a workover. I restructured the article somewhat and rephrased a fair proportion of the content. I also added some new references, quotes, interviews. Importantly, I tried to reinforce that this is a biography article, rather than an article about the crime itself. Personally I would prefer if this article were redirected to an article about the crime/trial(s) because the status quo has some very uncomfortable aspects to it - not the least being that the WP article for the victim's name is a redirect to his killer's biography... If people agree with that opinion then I'd be happy to push for a formal article-move. I note that this discussion has been had before, but that was 7 years ago.

Meanwhile, in order to reinforce the fact that this is a biography of a person who was convicted of manslaughter (not murder) on the grounds of mental illness ("diminished responsability"), has served her sentence, and released, I felt the article needed a change of balance. For example, I changed the infobox template from 'criminal' to 'person' and added 'Dr.' to the lead sentence, since it's strongly sourced that she earned a PhD. I also removed some parts of the court case that were less relevant to Singh (e.g. details of the second trial of Rao) and added in some quotes from Singh herself. I understand that readers of the article might not appreciate this, but Neutral Point of View for a Biography of a Living Person is crucial here. Also related is policies about Undue Weight of an article, but that is very tricky to gauge in this circumstance because the Notability of Singh is entirely because of the murder case. Wittylama 11:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anu Singh. 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 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_of_Joe_Cinque&oldid=1256557724"