Talk:William Goldwyer

Untitled

A hint for further research: The Old North Road by W.J. de Burgh apparently contains a personal account of Goldwyer. Hesperian 04:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Murder category inclusion

Regardless of what the Noongars think (a POV stance in its own way), if it had of been three Noongars clubbed and speared to death it would have been a murder. If you are trying to assert that the Noongars were at war with the europeans, and killing them was a act of war and therefore not murder... I think a stronger case needs to be built to justify removing the cat. If that proposal is true - then both situations are correct... from the whites perspective it was murder, from the Noongars perspective it was war. It should then fall in to both categories (war and murder) and NOT neither to solve a supposed POV situation. Either way justifying a removal on the basis of cultural POV is undeserved.SauliH 04:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asserting that he was or wasn't murdered. I'm asserting that assertions that he was or wasn't "murdered" is culturally biased and therefore POV. I think categorising him as a murder victim as absolutely unacceptable; I feel very strongly about this. I will take it to WP:AWNB for a wider perspective. Hesperian 04:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I have posted the following at WP:AWNB.

Can I get some wider input on a dispute at Talk:William Goldwyer please?

Goldwyer was an explorer who was speared to death by Indigenous Australians in northern Western Australia. This was characterised as "treacherous murder" by the colonists, but Indigenous Australians repudiate this, invoking "the right of Aboriginal people to defend their land" and "the history of provocation which led to the explorers' deaths". For an indication of the depth of feeling involved in this see Explorers' Monument.

Recently someone added this article into Category:Australian murder victims and Category:Murdered police officers. I reverted with edit summary

remove murder cats - cultural bias - most noongars would consider him "killed in action" rather than "murdered".

Today SauliH has reverted my revert, i.e. reinserted the murder categories, and explained his actions on the talk page. Discussion continues there.

Hesperian 05:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

There are three points I would like to state here:

1. Timeline is important. The killing of the three white men is still a killing incident in it's own right. It is absolutely unforgivable that a massacre occured later, but the killing of the white men was a killing in and of it's self. Was it murder? I will argue it was.

2. If we weigh in the statements of the indigenous people that the killing was an act of 'defending their land', then the killings are an act of war. Therefore the massacre that followed is ALSO an act of war and excusable (if killing during war can be excused) under that guise. The europeans NEVER declared war on the indigenous population (in this region), and it would be rewriting history to claim they did. I do not want to excuse the massacre that followed, but the logic of 'act of war' leads to this by inference.

3. The third option is that the indigenous people felt it was self defense. Self defense implies that the killing party was against the wall. I think we can all see that the attack was far from this.SauliH 05:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the categories on the basis that, regardless of whatever cultural issues there are, "murder" is a legal term with a specific meaning, and shouldn't be used unless someone has actually been convicted of murder. See previous discussion here. The issue hasn't been completely resolved, but I think we should nevertheless leave these categories out.

A category which doesn't use a specific legal term in the name would be a much better alternative. --bainer (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

On this basis (legal proof that the incident was a murder) could bainer also remove the cat from Beaumont children disappearance and every other unsolved killing? You need to be consistent. I do not agree that you can simply drop the categories on this basis. The people were murdered. The discussion you refer to only deals with the murderers being called murderers with a legal conviction. SauliH 14:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Bidding against myself here, but I actually agree with SauliH on this point, for similar reasons that I disagree with him on the main point! In the previous discussion I was opposed to making conviction the sole arbiter of whether someone should be called a murderer. One of my examples is probably relevant here, so quoted below

the indigenous Australian Midgegooroo was convicted of murder, but it is now widely recognised that his actions were only murder from the white settlers' point of view; from the indigenous point of view his actions constituted retribution under tribal law. To categorise him as a murderer or even a convicted murderer would impose a single cultural viewpoint on the situation.

Hesperian 06:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If he was killed in his sleep, then it's undoubtedly murder, even if from the Aboriginal point of view it was justified. If there was a fight, then it might not be. The article seems to imply the former, although there is room for doubt. Even so, I think that using the "Murder" category is justified here. Lankiveil 23:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC).

Although the article doesn't mention it, the Panter diaries suggest that the explorers has previously had a series of running battles with the tribe, and were expecting to be ambushed. Still "undoubtedly murder"? Hesperian 02:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I have removed the categories from Beaumont children disappearance, since not only has noone been convicted of murder in relation to their disappearance, but it is still not known what happened to them. An accurate category for that article would be something like "presumed murder victims", since it is widely presumed that they were murdered.

If you're looking for an alternative term, try "homicide". --bainer (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)