Talk:John Forrest

earliest comment

An anonymous editor changed "Sir John Forrest" to "Lord Forrest of Bunbury" at the very start of the article. I have reverted it. For most of his life John Forrest was known as "John Forrest" or "Sir John", and he is still referred to exclusively by these names in Western Australia where he is a household name. Very few people know him as "Lord Forrest", and so I believe that it is not appropriate to introduce him as such here. "Sir John Forrest, later Lord Forrest of Bunbury" is a reasonable compromise. This is consistent with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles).

Hesperian 00:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Forrest on the box

Tonight's episode of Dynasties is about the Forrest family. It screens at 8pm tonight on ABC TV. See [1]. Snottygobble | Talk 00:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC) ABC Radio have been unashamedly plugging itvcxlor 03:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Important correction

The creation of a Peerage in the Peerage of the United Kingdom does not occur when an announcement is made to the subject, or when the announcement is made to the press. It only occurs when the Letters Patent are issued. In the case of Sir John Forrest, no letters patent were issued before his death. The Complete Peerage (the standard reference work) does not include Forrest in Volume XIII of Peerage creations 1901-1939. As W.D. Rubinstein remarks in "The Biographical Dictionary of Life Peers" (St Martin's Press, 1991) at page 368:

"Sir John Forrest .. was granted a hereditary peerage by the Lloyd George government, the first Australian to receive a peerage. Forrest died on the trip from Perth to England. Although he is referred to as 'Lord Forrest' in Who Was Who, 1916-1928, his peerage is not mentioned or included in Burke's Peerage, The New Extinct Peerage, the Complete Peerage, or any other standard reference work on the subject."

See also my recent article on John Davies who also died before receiving his peerage. Sir John Forrest was never a peer and his article is incorrect if it says that he is. David | Talk 00:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

* Crowley (2000) states that Forrest was told he had been raised to the British peerage on 6 February 1918. He didn't die until the following September. The absense of a mention in Burke's Peerage is hardly reason for overturning what is universally accepted as fact, and smacks of original research. Find me a reference that refutes that Forrest was a peer. Snottygobble | Talk 01:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Whether someone was a peer is a matter of law, not of opinion. If the law says that a person only becomes a peer when letters patent are issued, and if no letters patent were issued for Forrest, then he wasn't a peer and the article needs to be moved to John Forrest (explorer and politician). Adam 01:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Quite right. I've already apologised to David for my immediate reaction, and started correcting the article. Since John Forrest (Australian politician) is itself ambiguous, I think it is time we claimed John Forrest for this article. Snottygobble | Talk 01:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

"Murdered" v "killed"

• Fred.e changed "murdered" to "killed" in the context of "a place where a group of white men had been murdered by Aborigines a long time ago" with edit summary "murder is legal term. killed."
• Prester John reverted with edit summary "Bugs are killed. Humans are murdered."
• I have now reverted Prester John. Humans aren't always "murdered"; for example, soldiers killed in action are "killed" not "murdered". Some people consider early explorers killed by Aborigines to be just that - killed in action. To assert that these people were murdered is therefore culturally biased. There is ample precedent on Wikipedia for making careful distinctions between forms of killing.

Hesperian 03:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Murder" is a legal term. A homicide is not a murder unless it is found to be so by a court. The neutral term is "killed." Adam 06:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Try looking at Murder. Wikipedias own definition doesn't even back you. Prester John 18:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does.

"Murder is the unlawful and intentional killing of a human being by another."

This issue hinges on the question of what system of law we should use to judge these killings as unlawful. They were certainly unlawful under colonial law; but they wouldn't have been unlawful under Aboriginal tribal law. Hesperian 23:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

They weren't even unlawful under colonial law unless a court found them to be so. Homicide can be successfully justified in court on grounds of self-defence, provocation, insanity etc. Unless someone was charged, tried and convicted of murder in relation to these killings, they were not murders. The use of the word "murder" merely to suggest moral approbrium is not acceptable. Adam 03:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

So I guess "murder-suicide" is an oxymoron then? Hesperian 03:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking yes, since a dead person cannot be convicted of murder. A coroner could conclude that dead person A had killed dead person B, but not convict them of murder. Adam 03:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is the laws of the relevant jurisdiction, not the courts, that determine whether an act is lawful or unlawful. Of course the courts are best qualified to determine whether an act contravenes the law, but that doesn't mean an act only becomes unlawful once the court has reached a verdict. Rather, the act was unlawful all along, and the court merely told us so. It follows that trivially obvious contraventions of the law may be referred to as unlawful acts by us mere Wikipedians, irrespective of whether the perpetrator has been convicted. Hesperian 04:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Remind me not to live in any country run by you. In THIS country we have the separation of powers. The legislature decides what shall be a crime, and the courts decide whether an individual is guilty of that crime. Murder is a crime under common law. The legislature (in the Crimes Act) defines the act of murder and sets penalties. A given act of homicide (the killing of one person by another) is a murder only if a court determines that it constitutes murder - the deliberate (or criminally negligent) killing of another person without lawful excuse (ie self-defence) or mitigating circumstances (ie insanity). It is open to the court to decide that the act constitutes manslaughter, of that it was not a crime at all. Adam 00:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

OK I strongly suggest to all combatants that you move on to something else now that user Saulih has placed a compromise - otherwise we will have to invoke Essjays user page speach about the save button... SatuSuro 05:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

SatuSuro beat me to the Talk page, here is what I was typing before he beat me.

Since this has once again descended into two opposing POV camps edit warring over terminology, I have added what I think is a compromise. Killing stays with a note about the debate over this subject. Ernest Favenc refers to it as murder, so it isn't all cut and dried when sources are added into the debate. Whether it was murder or killing hardly matters as the point being made was that there was rumors about Leichhardts fate and final resting place. The note removes the issue from the article proper but alerts the reader to a significant issue regarding early race relations, attitudes, and the stance taken by the indigenous community. Please let's work together on this and pull your feet out of the POV mud. SauliH 06:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear! SatuSuro 06:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)