Talk:Murder of Udin

Usage of legal terminolgy: "murder"

 * At this point I don't think your concerns are actionable per WP:WIAGA. They may have some validity, so feel free to continue this on the talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Some more verifiable facts, article 340 of the Indonesian Penal Code (1982), defines murder as not only the killing of someone "with deliberate intent" (like manslaughter), but also being it "premeditated". Nothing like this is being mentioned. The problem with this article, I am trying to point out, is the ill-defined usage of legal terminology that give a distinct impression of being not neutral. I think that calling it murder is neither factually accurate nor neutral. 04:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And so all RSs calling it a murder are incorrect? We generally go for the common term, which in this case is "murder"; all RSs available use the term, including local papers, international reports, and academic write-ups. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, see Murder of Robert Eric Wone for another good article about a killing in which no one has been convicted that uses the word "murder". Mark Arsten (talk) 04:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The use of the term "murder" is not a judgement that has been made by editors here; it is one that has been made by the individual writers of the sources covering the death in question. The job of wikipedia editors is to summarise and report on the information given in reliable sources; since the consensus among these sources is to use the term "murder", it would be amiss if this article made use of another term—that would us making a judgement call, and doing so in opposition to secondary sources is the wrong way to go. The article is neutral in how it presents the information given, and hasn't taken liberties with it, so I'm not really seeing what the issue is; unless a viable argument for ignoring a widespread journalistic consensus is offered I'll remove the dispute tag for its flippancy. GRAPPLE   X  05:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I also have trouble believing that we should substitute Mootros' judgment for that of all our RSs. Forming our own interpretation of the case through direct research in the Indonesian penal code seems to me exactly what policies like WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY warn against. More importantly, though, I feel like we've taken this discussion as far as it can reasonably go between the four of us. Mootros, if the consensus here is not enough for you, who would you consider a fair editor to ask for a quick fifth opinion on the legitimate use of "murder" in the wiki--whether it should follow the sources or be decided by an independent standard? Khazar2 (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, it appears our fifth opinion is already here. Hopefully that's enough consensus, but I am willing to revisit this if any sources turn up that pointedly describe the case in other terms. Khazar2 (talk) 05:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Murder is pronounced by a court of law, a medical examiner, or coroner. Nothing like this has been mentioned here. If you think this is a different case here and the "verdict" made by journalists and social scientists overrules the lack of a legal verdict, than it should explicitly stated that this is the case, rather than given the impression that this a legal judgement. Mootros (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Internationally, "murder" is defined by vastly different criteria by different states. To enforce the definition on one state's view of murder (for instance, Ireland and America, to pick two nations, unilaterally define killings that are not premeditated to be murder) is a needless level of OR and NPOV—using the term that is supported by sources and widely recognised as the applicable one by a variety of media and commentators is the only correct and logical option. We do not require a legal verdict in order to make use of reliable sources as policy dictates. GRAPPLE   X  05:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I am going by the Indonesian Penal Code. You make a mockery of the GAR process by re-listing it despite my objections. 05:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Mootros, I'm even more surprised by your insistence on this page after a glance at your talk page, which suggests that you've had this discussion at a number of other articles, with similar results, such as here. I understand that your opinions about the definition of murder are unusually strong. But I do hope that you'll take away from this conversation that on Wikipedia, reliable sources have to trump our own views on these things. If you feel that academics, police, judges, and newspapers are using the word murder less accurately than you are, the place to start is with the academics, police, judges, and newspapers--Wikipedia will be glad to follow their lead. It's a shame that you won't accept the repeated consensus on this. Khazar2 (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You haven't even made use of the GAR process; and the Indonesian Penal Code simply does not affect our policy one iota. We make use of the most common terminology available amongst reliable sources. That's all that it is. GRAPPLE   X  05:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You deliberately ignorer our policy on neutrality. Sadly, you have chosen to ignore my participation in this review. Mootros (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To ignore multiple sources due to one editor's stubborn refusal to accept policy is sticking to, not ignoring, our neutrality policy. If you do not wish to contribute an actual argument for your case then yes, I will ignore your participation, as it is not supported by anything more than your own opinion at this point. GRAPPLE   X  05:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you participated in this GAR? Have you made any constructive commends? Have you asked for some tweaking regarding some of the terminology, by giving more context? Have you suggested to put it on hold? Mootros (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're confusing WP:GAR and WP:GAN; only the latter has occurred here—and I don't need to have contributed to something that only requires one reviewer in order to explain common policy to you. "Murder" is the common term across sources. Find multiple reliable sources which refute this term and then maybe this will actually be a discussion, until then you haven't a leg to stand on. GRAPPLE   X  05:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are clear about the GAR. Plus, nobody here is interested in refusing the term "murder". I am inrrested in having articles that give a balanced account by giving a lot of context. Explaining for example that a social science professor and many other people has describing the deed as murder, despite that there is no legal verdict. You are merely following some source, in a almost slavish fashion, by reiterating a specific point of view of some that could easily be construed as a legal judgement of facts. 05:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you read the other article than you see it does not say murder (apart from accusations). Here it is very different. It says it alot and that is fine. I am saying regardless of the title (which I have given a suggestion) I ask you for qualification and for context, because your chosen term can be easily misunderstood as a verdict. That for example academics, police, judges, and newspapers say it was murder, despite you the lack of a verdict. But instead we see generic heading without context for example. 06:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Tweaking to remove this problem
Current: Fuad Muhammad Syafruddin (18 February 1963 – 16 August 1996), best known by his pen name Udin, was an Indonesian journalist who was murdered in 1996.

I suggest this opening to make it less disambiguate and and give more context:

Fuad Muhammad Syafruddin (18 February 1963 – 16 August 1996), best known by his pen name Udin, was an Indonesian journalist who was brutally killed in 1996. His death has been described by academics, state officials and journalists as murder.

I am fine with the current title if the article is careful of the usage of term murder. Mootros (talk) 06:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Oppose per the lengthy discussion above (though I appreciate your putting forward your concerns in a more concrete form). The RSs all say simply murder; until significant dissenting sources are found, no need to describe it differently. Khazar2 (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Your version is ambiguous because, it implies a legal verdict by a court of law, or coroner. My versions states the facts that everybody calls it murder, except a court of law [verdict] examining the case. In addition my version also explains that it was brutal. It looks like you are presenting facts in a non-neutral way. Mootros (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above (Sumaji was tried for murder, so definitely not "except a court of law examining the case."). Also, brutal introduces POV which may or may not be supported by sources. The Invisible Palace suggests it was over within a couple minutes, the time it took Marsiyem to realise that Udin had not invited the visitors in and that she could hear nothing coming from the front of the house. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No such legal verdict that says murder. Using metal rods to kill someone might be called brutal, but that's a minor point. Your version implies a legal verdict. It looks like you are presenting facts in a non-neutral way too.  Mootros (talk) 07:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we're getting to the core of the issue here: you believe that the use of the word "murder" implies a legal verdict. The rest of us do not believe it does. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murder of Udin. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213052111/http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/08/27/journalist-metta-wins-udin-award.html to http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/08/27/journalist-metta-wins-udin-award.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)