Jump to content

Talk:Murder of Jo Cox: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 335: Line 335:
::::::ok EEng, now listen up. Continue to accuse me of "owning" this article and I'll be thinking seriously about taking this to ANI. Your whole attitude throughout this discussion has been juvenile at best. Either contribute seriously or find something else to do. [[User:This is Paul|This is Paul]] ([[User talk:This is Paul|talk]]) 21:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::ok EEng, now listen up. Continue to accuse me of "owning" this article and I'll be thinking seriously about taking this to ANI. Your whole attitude throughout this discussion has been juvenile at best. Either contribute seriously or find something else to do. [[User:This is Paul|This is Paul]] ([[User talk:This is Paul|talk]]) 21:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Now I'm really scared. More at [[User_talk:EEng#Murder_of_Jo_Cox]]. '''[[User:EEng#s|<font color="red">E</font>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<font color="blue">Eng</font>]]''' 21:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Now I'm really scared. More at [[User_talk:EEng#Murder_of_Jo_Cox]]. '''[[User:EEng#s|<font color="red">E</font>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<font color="blue">Eng</font>]]''' 21:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::::And as I said there, I don't believe your contributions were particularly constructive, or that you actually intended to improve this article. Your edits were poorly thought out, and even more poorly put into practice, and your subsequent behaviour leaves a lot to be desired. There are issues with this article, and I've no doubt it would benefit from a visit to [[WP:GOCE]], but it needs the attention of someone who actually has a working knowledge of UK police and UK law, which you have clearly demonstrated you do not have. [[User:This is Paul|This is Paul]] ([[User talk:This is Paul|talk]]) 22:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


== Assassination vs. murder ==
== Assassination vs. murder ==

Revision as of 22:13, 9 September 2017

Terrorism category

I've put this article under the Terrorism in England category, but it has been reverted twice now, by different users. However, there are a number of sources verifying that it is: 1 2 3 4 5 In addition, a number of other Wikipedia articles such as List of terrorist incidents in Great Britain and List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2016. I earlier tried to remove this from the latter article, but that edit was undone and I explained the situation to the editor who undid it. I was messaged to bring the concern to this talk page, because it's clear that this incident was a terrorist act. So, I would like to know why my edits are being reverted. Parsley Man (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TBH I'm not entirely happy about a terrorism category at the moment, and it was also reverted by This is Paul here. It does tend to make assumptions about the motive which should be left to the trial and the investigation. Whether Mair was of sound mind at the time of the attack is going to play a major part in determining what the motive was.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to overlook this category when the judge has ruled that it will be dealt with as a terrorist trial. WWGB (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With that revelation, I guess there should be no more reservations against categorizing Cox's killing as a terrorist act of some sort... Right?... Parsley Man (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to argue since the case is being heard under terrorism laws. The question of Mair's mental health will also be raised at some point.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely happy with a terrorist category at present either, although if there is consensus to add it then fair enough. I think though we should wait for the trial, where we will no doubt learn more than we know now. This is Paul (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not exactly heard under terrorism laws - terrorism case management is an obscure point of court procedure. At this point we do not know the motive, and if he were found to be plain insane then it's likely we'd need to remove the categories. Therefore we shouldn't be using them at this point. --
zzuuzz (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
zzuuzz, Parsley Man is now in 3rr territory. Could you take the necessary steps to prevent this from becoming 4rr as the user doesn't appear to be listening to the rest of us. CassiantoTalk 16:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sorry! :( Parsley Man (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most Islamically motivated terrorist attacks are automatically and indisputably added to a terrorism article without debate. If this is so, then to maintain neutrality we should start adding other politically motivated attacks into the category too. Not to mention the perpetrator pretty much stated his motivations and killed a major political leader. Beejsterb (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could work hard to weed out those "Islamically motivated terrorist attacks" whose motivations sound more sketchy, and remove them from those categories too. Not that I would know of any examples. Parsley Man (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's too early to make any clear judgement about the motive due to the ongoing legal proceedings. WP:BLP is more cautious than parts of the mainstream media. Thomas Mair's mental health set off concerns at his first court appearance, and this will be a factor at his trial.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we're clear, this is actually related to something Beejsterb and I have been discussing, about whether an attack should qualify as a terrorist act even though details are murky and/or top officials in the investigation haven't confirmed it. I was thinking about introducing the issue to WP:VPP. Parsley Man (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Terrorists can have mental health problems and be politically motivated. Most terrorists probably do have mental health problems, regardless of the motivation. Beejsterb (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly off-topic discussion that surmises things an individual cannot know.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

We aren't having the discussion about the terrorism category on the Orlando shooting page. I wonder why that is. Sceptre (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're not having it because those events occurred in a different country, where this aspect of English law does not apply. This is Paul (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure that sub judice doesn't prevent us from saying that the trial is under terrorism protocols. Sceptre (talk) 10:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you really want a British example, the terrorism category was added on the article for 7/7 less than four hours after the first bomb, a category that has been on that page for the last (coincidentally, exactly) eleven years. Sceptre (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
zzuuzz,

Her message forgotten

Some articles commenting on whether what she stood for has been forgotten. These might be usable somewhere at a future date. This is Paul (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Khan, Shehab (15 July 2016). "Today we bury Jo Cox – how quick we were to forget her message of solidarity and unity". The Independent. Independent Print Limited. Retrieved 16 July 2016.
  • Ramper, Julia (15 July 2016). "One month on, we've already forgotten the lessons of Jo Cox". New Statesman. Progressive Media International. Retrieved 16 July 2016.
  • Gordon, Bryony (16 July 2016). "Four weeks on from Jo Cox's killing, why are people still threatened with 'being coxed'?". The Daily Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group. Retrieved 18 July 2016.

I should prob log in, but incase I forget- Just noticed that on the quotes of what Mair reportedly said, the quote "Britain First" has a dirent link to the page of the political party Britain First. However much I hate both, there is no proof of context as to whether he meant "Britain First" as in the party or rather "Britain First" as in Britain is the most important or highest. I think that putting that link there links to thing that as you read on actually have to links to it. But leaving the link there, people will assume that he shouted something regarding the party, and as said, its an ongoing case, so why the jump to the conclusion that the quote "Britain First" is directly related to the party rather than just a quote?2A02:C7D:B349:7D00:2014:9A1C:FFB9:D1F1 (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the link; the existing references use a small 'f' in their reports. Later accounts[1] include a number of quotes including "Britain First", but even with all the rest of the case so far, there is still not enough to link it to a specific political party. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, just logged in. I think it was due to the reports of the photos that gave people the link. Good to clear it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJBay123 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 November 2016

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: I'm closing this RM as it has been inactive for over two weeks. There was no opposition to the page being moved from Killing of Jo Cox, so it was moved to Murder of Jo Cox before the RM closed; following this, discussion of a possible move from this title to Assassination of Jo Cox took place. I voted neutral on this move, so I believe I can close it, but if that's not the case, I will IAR close it anyway. There was no consensus in favour of moving the page to Assassination of Jo Cox (non-admin closure). Linguist Moi? Moi. 19:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Jo Cox → Murder of Jo Cox – Thomas Mair has been found guilty of murdering of Jo Cox, and I think it safe to say that "Murder of Jo Cox" will now become the common name for this incident. With a criminal conviction, it is now appropriate to make the move. (Disclosure: I was firmly in favour of the current article name pending the trial of the accused. MrStoofer (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on "Assassination" from the nominator. I Oppose this suggestion for several reasons. First, "assassination" is somewhat of an Americanism, which is not appropriate given that this is a UK event (whatever you think about Americanisms generally on Wikipedia). Second, it is not referred to widely (or at all) as an "assassination". Reliable sources call it a "killing" or "murder", so WP:COMMON would indicate the name should be Murder of Jo Cox. There is a difference to (for example) JFK, which is widely referred to as an "assassination".Third, it follows that calling it an "assassination" would be both an expression of opinion (contrary to WP:NPOV) and synthesis (contrary to WP:SYNTH). Fourth, I think it is arguable whether this was genuinely an assassination. For me, an assassination implies both a trained (if not professional) killer and some clear political purpose. This was just a lone weirdo who didn't like Jo Cox because she was pro-Remain. Fifth, I don't like "assassination" because it somewhat glorifies the act, since this was not an assassination in the sense in which I understand the word. MrStoofer (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dismissing assassination as an Americanism is truly a bizarre card to pull. UK politicians can be assassinated, hence Assassination of Spencer Perceval. Shakespeare's Macbeth uses the word. If anything, it's a Britishism. Other politicians who were total opposites of Americans to be assassinated: Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, Assassination of Julius Caesar, Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, Assassination of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh. And despite what you may assume, not all advocating for the title are American. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tally (S/A/O/N): 16.5/6.5/0/0

Support

Move to "Assassination of Jo Cox"

  • Move to Assassination of Jo Cox. To quote the judge, "the murder was carried out to advance a political cause of violent white supremacism". -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Previously discussed at a number of other, similar, articles I think e.g. Murder of Lee Rigby. Not the charge under which conviction was secured? Is an RfC needed here? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there were any charges for the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, and I don't think there's even such an offence in the UK. But that doesn't make it any less the case. Previous move discussions here have favoured this title (and the assassination categories are sure to follow). -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's seen as an "aggravating factor" for Murder in English law, not an offence in its own right. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:COMMONNAME applies: if the media are calling it "assassination" we should too; if the media are calling it "murder", so should we. Keri (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The Kennedy case is different because BLP doesn't apply there; Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin would have been a better example. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There's still plenty of time for it to change, but the media are going with the act as "murder" and the perpetrator as "right wing terrorist" so far. The Independent explains that "The prosecution, as was the case when trying the Lee Rigby murderers, wanted the jurors simply to decide whether he was guilty of carrying out the murder, and not to consider his motives", although Sue Hemming, head of special crime and counter-terrorism at the Crown Prosecution Service, said: "motivated by hate, his pre-meditated crimes were nothing less than acts of terrorism designed to advance his twisted ideology." So I'm still not persuaded that Wikipedia should unilaterally name this the "Assassination of..." JFK's murder, otoh, is almost universally reported as such. Keri (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify my position, in the absence of a consensus to move to "assassination of...", I also support a move to "murder of.." as the next logical step. With a very recent conviction for the crime of murder, I wouldn't expect many sources to describe it as anything else. I suspect this will change over time, as the defence lawyer said to the jury, "You and you alone will determine whether Thomas Mair ... will be forever remembered as the man who assassinated Jo Cox".[3] -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to "Assassination of Jo Cox", per zzuzz. Sceptre (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to "Assassination of Jo Cox": difference between Cox and Lee Rigby is that she was specifically targeted as a politician who was pro-immigration, pro-refugees, etc. Lee Rigby was targeted not because of his political beliefs but because of his profession. See Assassination of Spencer Perceval, or the 'Assassination' sections on the articles for Ian Gow and Airey Neave. Describing the act as an assassination is not 'glorifying' Mair's actions, but merely draws attention to the political nature of this event. Jackb1992 (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to "Assassination of Jo Cox", which is the most accurate title (an assassination is a murder with political motives). Murder of Jo Cox is the second-best possible title, and the current title ("Killing") is the worst option. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 00:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:COMMONNAME, please link your multiple reliable sources which call this the "assassination of Jo Cox". Keri (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to "Assassination of..." because it's more precise. Wikipedia itself defines Assassination as 'the murder of a prominent person, often a political leader or ruler, usually for political reasons or payment.'. There's no doubt that's exactly what this is. Julianhall (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The doubt in my mind (aside from whether sources use the term - they don't) is whether she was sufficiently well known before her death to be described as "prominent", or a "political leader". In my view, she wasn't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well exactly. She was not prominent and in no way was she a political leader. To say that this was an assassination would be, at best, POV or SYNTH. MrStoofer (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support either

  • Support move to either "Murder of Jo Cox" or "Assassination of Jo Cox" per the rationales of the nom and above voters, but Oppose move to "Assassination of Jo Cox" per WP:COMMONNAME. Linguist Moi? Moi. 22:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to assassination or murder. The former is more precise but both are true. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A quick (non-scientific) sampling of "killing of" vs. "murder of" gives me the impression that articles with the former title format are focussed primarily on the victim and articles with the latter title format are focussed primarily on the crime. Given that this article is about the crime (and Jo Cox already exists to describe the person), I would favor the move as proposed. However, given that the victim was a public figure, and that the crime was apparently politically motivated, I would also support a move that involved "assassination of". —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 07:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Move to "assassination" or "murder"

It seems a consensus in favour of a move is emerging. It's not clear, though, where it should move to. Two options are being proposed. Which do you support?

It is unfair and inappropriate to commence a second move discussion when another is already underway. 13 editors have expressed a preference for "murder" above, and this section does not trump or negate that !vote. I strongly suggest this secondary vote stop now. Once the first move proposal is resolved, you can then start another if you have a different preferred outcome. WWGB (talk) 05:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, there is no need to have the debate running in two places at once, not sure what this achieves. My preference is still for "murder of" as it is simpler and does not run into NPOV issues.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion. Murder of Jo Cox → Assassination of Jo Cox

Pinging those who've opined in the earlier discussion. If I've missed someone, please ping them. User:MrStoofer User:Ribbet32 User:Davethorp User:Keri User:Martinevans123 User:Dragons flight user:zzuuzz User:Od Mishehu User:Ribbet32 User:PatGallacher User:Nick Cooper User:Sceptre User:ianmacm User:Jackb1992 User:Lugnuts User:Ebonelm User:Linguist111 User:This is Paul User:Chessrat User:WWGB User:Rwendland User:GPHemsley User:Ghmyrtle User:MSGJ User:Chaheel Riens

Tally (S/O/N): 4/11/1

Support

  • Support "assassination". It is more precise and serves the reader better than a strict adherence to WP:COMMONNAME, so WP:IAR applies. It's a political killing. The target was a prominent public figure in her local community.
For those of you relying on Wikipedia's definition: The first sentence of Assassination cites a Harvard International Review article which discusses the assassination of leaders but (citing Black's Law Dictionary) defines "assassination" as "the act of deliberately killing someone especially a public figure, usually for hire or for political reasons." In a quick Google search I found half a dozen definitions, most of which include "prominent person," "public figure," "famous" and similar, none of which invoke "leader".
-Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) Updated 06:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Given that the victim was a public figure and a member of government, and the crime was apparently politically-motivated, I think "assassination" applies here. And, FWIW, much of the American news coverage I saw online the other day (CNN, USA Today, etc.) used the term. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 05:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She was definitely not a member of government - she was a member of the opposition. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that in the sense that she was a member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which, as a parliament, is a legislative body of government, not that she was a member of Her Majesty's Government. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 22:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Russell Flint, counsel for Mair, told the jury that "you and you alone will determine whether Thomas Mair can return to his quiet and solitary existence or will be forever remembered as the man who assassinated Jo Cox.". Seeing as defence counsel was not contesting the idea it was an assassination, I think dictionary lawyering is beside the point. With regards to COMMONNAME: it is not, and never has been, a bar to using an equally descriptive article title in common usage. Sceptre (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    But there was indeed no "contest" over the use of that term in the entire case? Do you think the use of that word, by counsel for the defence, just once in his closing remarks, outweighs the use of the term "murder" by the prosecution and the judge throughout the case? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The three above support !votes need to address that the murderer of this provincial opposition politician is considered a fantasist and nutcase. WP:RS sources so far don't and in future won't legitimise such people by placing them on the same level as organized political causes. Whatever anyone thinks of the IRA, etc, those killings of politicians were not done because the murderer was a fantasist. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only mental illness Mair was found to have is obsessive-compulsive disorder. He was sane and well-organised, and even the defence counsel said as much. Sceptre (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Oppose - mainly on the grounds that it's only been two days since the name change to "Murder of..." was agreed, ergo the arguments to make the name change to "Murder of..." are still valid and still trump any arguments for "assassination". If traction is to be gained for the move to "Assassination" then really a month or two should be waited to see what the man on the clapham omnibus calls the act - "murder" or "assassination". Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as per charge, closing statements of Richard Whittam QC, judge's summing up, verdict, WP:COMMONNAME and news coverage (and serious doubts over the veracity of Mair's own self-deluded claim to really be a "political activist" in any meaningful sense). Many people regard "assassination" as more appropriate to US English, for whatever reason. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Firstly, the term is not the most widely used in this case in reliable sources, at least in the UK. Secondly, it is, at best, highly debatable whether, at the time of her death, Cox was sufficiently well-known a figure to be described as "prominent", "famous", or "important". To the wider world, she simply wasn't. I accept it's a marginal decision either way, but in cases like this we should err on the side of the unambiguous, clear, and (now) uncontentious word "murder". Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Ghmyrtle and Keri above. I'd need to be shown evidence of common usage in WP:RS to support this rename. Although granted it is not in the dictionary definitions, I would see assassination as usually associated with a plot by a group, rather than an individual with a history of mental illness. Rwendland (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think List of assassinations, List of assassinations in Europe, and List of assassinated American politicians show that to be a misconception. But perhaps that is the source of the idea that "assassination" is an Americanism. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 22:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Per WP:RM#CM, "Do not put more than one open move request on the same article talk page". This second request seems to breach that requirement, as the original move request is still open above (although a decision has been implemented). WWGB (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because "Assassination" violates numerous Wikipedia policies, including:
    • WP:COMMONNAME: The name used by reliable sources is "Murder", not "Assassination".
    • WP:POV: "Murder" has a strict legal definition (which this incident meets) and perhaps a less strict non-legal definition (which this incident meets). It is arguable (i.e. a matter of opinion) whether this was an assassination. Was Jo Cox prominent enough before her murder to qualify? I would say no, if you say yes that is a POV. Was Mair motivated by a defined political purpose in the sense required for an assassination? I would say no, if you say yes, that is a POV. The fact that so may people think this was not an "assassination" in the proper sense shows clearly that this is a matter of opinion (i.e. a POV). Wikipedia should not offer a view one way or another on whether this was an assassination.
    • WP:SYNTH: Because reliable sources do not call this an assassination, for Wikipedia to call it an assassination requires editors to take the definition of "Assassination" and apply it to this incident. Even if this did not involve a POV (which is does), applying the definition would be synthesis and we do not do that per WP:SYNTH.
    • I see that WP:PRECISE has also been cited. The meaning of "murder" is precise and this incident was a murder, no doubt or debate and that is what reliable sources say. Whether it was an assassination depends on a rather vaguer definition - the fact that we are arguing over whether this was an "assassination" shows that that word is vaguer and involves the application of a POV.

-- MrStoofer (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Was Mair motivated by a defined political purpose in the sense required for an assassination?" Uh, yes, he was. Again, it's a fact that defence counsel did not contest. I would also argue that a national legislator is by definition "prominent enough" to qualify as such; Gabbie Griffords wasn't that prominent in Congress when she was shot but we still call that an assassination attempt. Sceptre (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've made this point over the years several times on different articles regarding to far-right and white supremacist violence: Wikipedia editors have this rather strange reticence to describe white terrorists in the same terms they describe Islamic terrorists, even when reliable sources don't share that reticence. Sceptre (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was commenting on the use of the word "assassination". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the consensus is to stick with "murder of" for the time being. The supporters of "assassination of" should accept this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion both arguments have provided good points, so it's probably a "no consensus" situation, which would result in no move. The only consensus reached so far was to move the article away from "Killing of Jo Cox", which received no opposition. Linguist Moi? Moi. 18:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Far from it; the "support" position offered no policy-based argument for what is, essentially, an emotive choice of title. This is a clear, majority, policy-based consensus to retain the present title. Keri (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, we're not approaching a consensus to move the article to "Assassination of...". Back to my original argument, I still don't think a speedy close is feasible as people are disagreeing. However, it looks like this RM will close soon, anyway. Linguist Moi? Moi. 19:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Discussion

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.

Requested redirect name change

The current redirect for this article concerning the perpetrator is Thomas Mair (alleged assassin). For reasons already mentioned, this should be removed and a more appropriate disambiguation substituted. Philip Cross (talk) 13:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just create any additional redirects you think are needed. I can#t see much benefit of deleting this one. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What MSGJ said. Per WP:CHEAP, it takes up more of the database to delete redirects than to keep ones like these around. Ribbet32 (talk) 05:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Thomas Mair himself

An article has been created on Mair himself entitled Thomas Mair (assassin). I'd invite editors to think about two points:

--MrStoofer (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a move to "Thomas Mair (murderer)" for obvious reasons. – I'll comment at the move discussion.
Should that whole article be deleted per WP:ONEEVENT? – Start an AfD or propose a merge or something.

- Linguist Moi? Moi. 16:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed source

I've just noticed that the source for the information regarding abusive and offensive tweets posted in the month after the murder, a Guardian article, has actually been removed by the Guardian. Should another verifiable source be found, or should the information be removed? Younotmenotyou (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To quote The Guardian: "This article has been removed. It was based on a press release from anti-racism campaigners Hope Not Hate which it admits contained incorrect information." I've removed the claim from the page. The material could be re-added if a RS - not based on the HNH press release - were found. Keri (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard-Carter Kenny died before the attack took place?

So I read a page that Bernard-Carter Kenny had died before the attack on Jo Cox. What is that information based on? I'm asking not because I believe that but because maybe the page could address it.--Edittrack121 (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much place on Wikipedia for conspiracy nuts. From what I gather, some people have seen an obituary from 3 years earlier of someone who lived in Yorkshire, called "Bernard Kenny", and taken this as evidence that it was a hoax. There is no need for this article to discuss how more than one person has a similar name.. no need to address it at all. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I think I remember that now. How can I close a talk page discussion?--Edittrack121 (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge carried out - undue?

As per consensus, I have merged Thomas Mair (murderer) into Murder of Jo Cox. As said by DarjeelingTea, there was no consensus in the discussion to trim the article, so the entire content has been included in the merge. The question now is, does the perpetrator section now lend undue weight? I, for one, believe the section was better before I merged Mair's article into it, as in that version it covered Mair sufficiently without being as bloated as it is now. Perhaps a few statements from the current version could be added to it. Linguisttalk|contribs 21:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More explicitly mention terrorism?

Almost one year on from Jo Cox's death, I think a reference to terrorism should be included under the attack type section of the Infobox, as it is on wiki pages for similar attacks, such as the Murder of Lee Rigby. I would add the tag Right-wing terrorism. Mair was tried as a terrorist, and the remarks of the presiding judge further emphasise the nature of the attack. --Fold 1997 (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TERRORIST is a problematic word and has to be clearly supported by reliable sources. The infobox isn't the best place for any statement that is likely to be challenged. The sentencing remarks of the judge could be summarised as "right-wing terrorism" but there is a certain amount of WP:OR here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree terrorist can be a problematic word, I don't think there is much room for debate in this case. All sections of the British Media refer to the murder as "terror-related" as a minimum. This includes right and left wing tabloids such as the Daily Mail, the Daily Express, and the Daily Mirror, as well as more reliable sources sich as the BBC and The Guardian. The debate in the British press was centred around whether the EU referendum campaign inspired Mair in any way, but there is broad consensus that the attack was terrorism. While Mair was not convicted of a terrorism offense, he was tried under terrorism protocols in the same way as Lee Rigby's murders. This page is also linked on the Right-Wing Terrorism wiki page, so I think their should be some mention of this in the article outside the merged perpetrator section, if not the infobox. You mentioned it was too early in the legal proceedings to categorise this page as terrorism in mid 2016 on this page, and I would have agreed with you then, but I would argue consensus has been reached by the British media and public, as well as from a legal perspective.Fold 1997 (talk) 09:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that Thomas Mair was some sort of political fruitcake who believed that what he was doing was justified. However, I think that Right-wing terrorism is too much WP:OR and isn't supported by the sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

For some time this article has stated that Mair had a persecution complex, information that has sat here until removed by two separate people today. I reverted both edits (as they were from a) a newbie, and b) someone recently blocked), but then thought I should check the information out. I can only find a passing reference to it. Editor b suggested the edit may be political pov pushing, but I fear it's more likely this was original research. We perhaps need to keep a closer watch on this page. This is Paul (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth pointing out that Mair was given a prison sentence, and was not detained in a mental hospital. This means that the court was satisfied that he was sane enough to understand that his actions were seriously wrong. While Mair may have had a range of mental problems, none of them was deemed to be serious enough to prevent him from understanding his actions.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a bit of a counter-factual White-washing exercise underway here to designate Mair as some persecuted mental patient and not the terrorist murderer he was found by a jury to be. AusLondonder (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism again

Someone who really ought to know better made this edit just now, which I have reverted, since consensus was never reached as to whether or not this should be named as a terrorist incident. I'm personally inclined not to include it in those categories as the media generally didn't refer to Cox's murder as terrorist related, but others may disagree. That being the case then I'm opening this discussion so that we can reach some kind of conclusion on the matter. However, the categories should not be reinstated without consensus. This is Paul (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This may help you decide. AusLondonder (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He was tried as a terrorist. The Crown Prosecution Service said it was terrorism and lists it as an example on the Terrorism Fact Sheet. Seems pretty clear-cut. Would be very curious to see how any editor could genuinely suggest this could wasn't terrorism. AusLondonder (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's not up for debate that Mair was a neo-Nazi – his flat was full of neo-Nazi memorabilia and literature, nor is it up for debate that the attack involved knives. This is hair splitting of a stupid degree, but then again, this is the modus operandi for editors to this talk page (such as people insisting that the terrorist murder of a politician isn't an assassination). Sceptre (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)You and I know the first source is unencyclopedic. The second could be used, but needs to be backed up with other sources. No doubt the categories were added because of recent events in the United States, where that incident has been referred to as a terrorist attack, but in the UK the media didn't use the term widely for the murder of Jo Cox. There is no consensus to include or not include these categories, but I suggest that before we make any changes we do a bit of research. AusLondonder, {u|Sceptre}}, I am happy to take this to WP:RFC is either of you feel particularly strongly about this. This is Paul (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the Crown Prosecution Service need another source to back it up? I mean, seriously, the judge described it as terrorism in his sentencing remarks. The vast majority of sources that deal with the question of terrorism in this case all agree that it was terrorism. Oh, and consensus isn't needed to add content to articles. Sceptre (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This seems to be a case I just don't like it. The sourcing from the Guardian and directly from the CPS and the trial is more than enough to establish this was a terrorist incident. AusLondonder (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested to know why the media haven't defined it as terrorism. The case was tried under aspects of terrorism law, but what we need is someone who actually said "this was an act of terrorism". It's not a case of me not liking something (that accusation gets thrown around far too much by people who've had their opinions challenged on here). It's a case of wanting to make sure we have an accurate article. I have considered taking this forward to FAC at a future date, and it's likely they would want clarification. In any case, since this argument has been a long drawn out one, I've taken this matter to DRN, and they can sort it out. This is Paul (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, once Mair was convicted, the media had no problem with identifying him as a terrorist. They didn't do it previously because of the very obvious sub judice implications. Nick Cooper (talk)
Even the notably cautious BBC are calling it far-right terrorism and a terror attack these days. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just passing through, but a couple of policy points need to be made:

  • First, while it is true that consensus is not needed to BOLDly add information, once that addition has been challenged, then consensus is needed to retain it. See this section of the Consensus policy, second bullet point, both sentences.
  • Second, using material from a trial transcript or other public record about a living person is prohibited by Wikipedia policy, see BLPPRIMARY, unless the material has first been firmly established by third-party clearly-reliable non-public sources.
  • Third, in looking at non-public sources, especially (but not only) news sources, it is important to distinguish between reporting and labeling. When a source independently reports that someone else has labeled or found someone or something to be something, then the source is a third-party source and, if reliable, a reliable source for that fact. When a source, entirely on its own, merely labels something as something then that source is no longer a third-party source but a PRIMARY source making an editorial statement. If the source is reliable and significant enough, then that can be used here but it must be labeled and attributed here as opinion with something like, "which X says was Y." But in that case there is often a question of undue weight: In light of the other information in the article, why is it important that X, in particular, says anything about Y?
  • Fourth and finally, a common error made with labeling is to review a bunch of sources which all label or identify something in a particular way (for example, a bunch of sources which all call an albino squirrel a "snow squirrel" (I'm making this up) and then in an article about squirrels say something like, "albino squirrels are frequently called snow squirrels," with citations pointing to some or all of those sources). Though there's a fine line here, to do that is ordinarily prohibited original research unless that usage is so common as to be universally accepted, it's an official labeling by someone qualified to do so and reported in a reliable source, or unless there is a source which actually says in so many words that albino squirrels are often called snow squirrels.

I've not looked at, and do not have any opinion about, what the sources may be or say here or what the right answer to your dispute might be, but your discussion needs to proceed knowing what the ground rules are. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, I don't think calling a neo-Nazi who got convicted under terrorism protocols of murder and sentenced to a whole-life tariff a neo-Nazi terrorist is a violation of the BLP policy. Sceptre (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Our policies apply regardless of how some people might feel or characterize someone. Otherwise is to pursue a POV or agenda. We follow sources, not evaluations. This guy may or may not be what you say: as I said above I've not looked at the sources nor do I have an opinion. But we don't make judgments here, we only report what reliable sources say. This guy could be the antichrist but unless reliable sources clearly identify him as such, our policies do, in fact, apply and prevent us from labeling him as such no matter how much a demon he may or may not be. This is all a corollary of the fact that we do not have a board of professional editors to decide what should and should not be in the encyclopedia, we instead rely upon our policies to determine what can and cannot be here. And BLP is one of them and it applies as equally to Hitler Charles Manson as it does to Mother Theresa Tenzin Gyatso. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He's a convicted terrorist murderer, Brent. Sceptre (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TransporterMan - our Biography of living persons policy does not apply to Adolf Hitler. Godwin's law does. By the way you've stated above you haven't actually bothered to look at whether the sources say he's a terrorist. That's what this dispute is about though so I don't understand why you've gone on lengthy rants completely failing to address the genesis of this dispute. AusLondonder (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I should have explained how I came to be here. The main thing I do at Wikipedia is dispute resolution: I'm a member of the Mediation Committee, one of the founders of and the most frequent contributor to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and the second most frequent contributor to Third Opinion. I don't say that to brag or to claim any authority, but only to explain why I might happen to be here and to suggest that there's at least a slight possibility that I might have the experience to know at least a little something about what I'm talking about. I happened to notice the request made at DRN about this dispute, but I didn't have time right now to take on the case directly, so I dropped over here to dispel some misunderstandings and clear up the basic principles with the hope that you can resolve this yourselves through discussion. Feel free to consider it as a Nth Opinion and accept it or disregard it as you see fit. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC) PS: I've updated the examples given above to living persons, hope you like these better. — TM[reply]
As far as I'm aware, the only sources who say Mair isn't a terrorist are some z-list professional rent-a-gob and the like. Mair was arrested, charged, prosecuted, and convicted under terrorism protocols and nearly all sources that talk about the terrorism question are unanimous that Mair is, indeed, a terrorist. It's frankly like saying "Charles Manson is a cult leader" is a BLP violation. Sceptre (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope you can back that statement up with a reliable source, because if not you've just libelled her. This is Paul (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This [4] covers the no-longer-applicable sub judice issue, as well as why the CPS didn't use 'terrorist' until after the trial. Mair is identified as neo Nazi by multiple sources which don't use the term liberally such as the Press Association [5] FT [6] and Sky News. [7] Dtellett (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That pretty much clinched it for, we can use the term terrorist. Doug Weller talk 18:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that this can be called terrorism, per the many sources found, and the Guardian article from Dtellett about sub judice. Also, more sources for terrorism/white supremacism:[1][2][3] Also another good one about him being tried as a terrorist from the Guardian here.[4]  Seagull123  Φ  21:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There appear to be plenty of reliable sources for this now, so I've no objection in principle to updating the article to reflect that. I say in principle because I'd like to see what the DRN volunteer who takes on this case has to advise regarding Wikipedia policy. This issue keeps recurring in different articles, and we ought to decide how we proceed when uncertainty prevails again, as no doubt it will. In future though, Sceptre, I suggest that if you wish to make controversial changes of this nature, you actually take the time to find the material to verify the information you wish to change or add. The onus is on anyone wishing to make controversial changes to an article to do so with strong enough evidence to justify those changes, and had you done so in this case all of this discussion could have been avoided. This is Paul (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't patronise me. The sources were already there in the article; you refused to acknowledge them. Sceptre (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now I really am going to patronise you. Time to grow up and stop getting on your moral high horse like some immature little schoolkid who's been pulled up by the teacher for not doing their homework properly. It's your responsibility to highlight the sources, not ours to go looking for them on your behalf because you can't be bothered, especially when you take the attitude you did in this case. In fact, your whole demeanour smacks of tendentiousness. Regardless of the sources, it was up to you to build a case, not start whining about how Wikipedia is biassed, and so on, because things don't appear to be going your way. This is Paul (talk) 09:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The case was built when he was convicted. Sceptre (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No matter, it's still up to you to justify the use of the term if you are the one who wishes to add it to the article, particularly if that change is controversial. The sooner you accept this the sooner we can all stop arguing and go back to doing something constructive. This is Paul (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This dispute is no longer relevant to article content, and User:This is Paul, you have been personalising your disagreement in an inappropriate manner. Both of you should take any remaining disagreements to user talk pages or some other suitable venue. MPS1992 (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Iqbal, Nomia; Sivathasan, Nalini (7 August 2017). "A demanding few months, says Met anti-terror chief". BBC News. Retrieved 14 August 2017. Before Westminster, the highest-profile terror attacks in the UK in recent years were the murder of MP Jo Cox in June 2016...
  2. ^ Thompson, Isobel (14 August 2017). "Trump Under Fire for Hesitating to Condemn White Supremacists". The Hive. Retrieved 14 August 2017. ...despite the fact that M.P. Jo Cox had been shot and killed by a far-right terrorist just days before.
  3. ^ Rizzo, Alessandra (9 August 2017). "Terror scheme referrals double after attacks". Sky News. Retrieved 14 August 2017. ...since the June 2016 murder of Jo Cox, the MP killed by a white supremacist.
  4. ^ Cobain, Ian (23 November 2016). "Was Jo Cox's killer tried as a terrorist?". the Guardian. Retrieved 14 August 2017. The answer is that Mair was indeed prosecuted as a terrorist, and this was made clear during preliminary hearings. This is the reason that he was tried in London, rather than Yorkshire. ... Immediately after the case, the Crown Prosecution Service said that Mair had been convicted "of the terrorist murder of Jo Cox"

Reversions on 9 September 2017

I have performed this reversion to some recent changes, since they appear to have been poorly thought out. Sourced material was removed, potentially creating unsourced material because of the removal of references. It also appears the editor is unfamiliar with some aspects of the UK, for example, that UK police are not routinely armed. This is Paul (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I believe everything continued to be sourced to exactly what it was sourced to before (though an intervening paragraph break seems to have confused you). I'm perfectly familiar with the superficial details of UK police practice one learns from watching Prime Suspect and Masterpiece Mystery and Vera. You, however, might practice giving more thought to what helps the reader understand the subject of the article, rather than wasting his or her time and attention by stuffing it with pedestrian or obvious details and multiple quoted descriptions of the gun and so forth. EEng 19:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You think that the fact UK police are routinely unarmed is a "superficial detail of UK police practice" puts the value of your contribution into perspective. Please stick to improving articles on other crimes. 81.154.245.211 (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Well, in that case, I must be familiar with the minutiae of US law enforcement because I've watched a few episodes of Law and Order and CSI, not to mention Columbo (I'll be applying my expert knowledge to a few articles a bit later on). But seriously, this article is on quite a few watchlists, so perhaps we can ask others what details they think are appropriate and not appropriate. This is Paul (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Christ, you two really take the prize. My point, "obviously" (though, it seems, apparently not), is that every reasonably informed person knows that police in the UK do not routinely carry firearms – and that, in fact, one could even have gleaned that fact from such pop-culture sources as those I listed. EEng 21:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what you said. Just a suggestion, but maybe it's time to stop digging, eh? This is Paul (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I put obviously in quotes with you in mind. EEng 21:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't need "pop-culture sources". We don't assume "reasonably informed persons", thanks. We just want facts. Christ, give yourself a prize, why dontcha. For nothing. 81.154.245.211 (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article's owner was conjecturing about my knowledge of UK police practice, not that of our readers; to help you, here's the quote: It also appears the editor is unfamiliar with some aspects of the UK, for example, that UK police are not routinely armed. Nor we were talking about sources to be used in the article. Do try to keep up. EEng 21:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article has no owner. Your self-styled "improvements" kinda suck. 81.154.245.211 (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot to link WP:OWNER to educate me. Anyway, look, you two enjoy yourselves, really. EEng 21:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ok EEng, now listen up. Continue to accuse me of "owning" this article and I'll be thinking seriously about taking this to ANI. Your whole attitude throughout this discussion has been juvenile at best. Either contribute seriously or find something else to do. This is Paul (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm really scared. More at User_talk:EEng#Murder_of_Jo_Cox. EEng 21:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And as I said there, I don't believe your contributions were particularly constructive, or that you actually intended to improve this article. Your edits were poorly thought out, and even more poorly put into practice, and your subsequent behaviour leaves a lot to be desired. There are issues with this article, and I've no doubt it would benefit from a visit to WP:GOCE, but it needs the attention of someone who actually has a working knowledge of UK police and UK law, which you have clearly demonstrated you do not have. This is Paul (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination vs. murder

Generally, the neutral way to describe the killing of a politician for politically motivated reasons in assassination. Technically, assassination is (usually) a form of murder, unless for some reason the usual legalities of the state are not in place, but on articles like Ian Gow or Airey Neave for example, we describe their deaths as assassinations. I've changed the reference to Ian Gow in the introduction on this article to reflect that (also we generally refer to PIRA actions as paramilitary activities rather than "terrorism"), but shouldn't we also be describing Cox's death itself as assassination? Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Jo_Cox&oldid=799795730"