Jump to content

Talk:Murder of Jo Cox

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.36.105.25 (talk) at 08:40, 18 June 2016 (→‎Isolated but targeted: Please do not interfere with my signing my own edit!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Sub judice UK

Requested move 17 June 2016

Death of Jo Cox → ? – Reopening given lack of consensus for final title Sceptre (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Jo Cox → Death of Jo Cox – Murder is pronounced by a court of law; we will move to the relevant title after verdict if needed. Mootros (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed, given that UK sub judice rules apply from arrest (i.e. already), any UK editor should be wary of adding any statement to the effect that she was definitively murdered, if that could prejudice a jury's decision over whether a defendant had the necessary mens rea or not. (However, I still think "killing" is safe to use. I don't exactly imagine we are going to see a trial decided on the issue of whether she died of natural causes...) --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the correct term for anyone killed while holding political office (usually by someone with political motive) was 'assassination'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.80.111 (talk) 09:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guy has a history of mental illness. It's possible he thought he was killing someone else. Or maybe Cox was just happened to be the first person he attacked in the beginning of an indiscriminate mass murder. It could be 'accidental' in either of those respect. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 02:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's delude ourselves that this was an "accident" or that it wasn't murder. When someone has their life taken by another person when they are stabbed and shot as they go about their business - that is murder. AusLondonder (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Murder has a specific legal definition. Depending on what the police and courts say, it could be manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility, for example. Per above, we don't want to risk commenting on a sub judice case. Smurrayinchester 10:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to “Killing”. I realise that the move to “Death” has already taken place, but we could be more specific, and this doesn't have the problem of implying intent. —ajf (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to "Assassination": well-documented ([1]) that Mair had links to neo-Nazi groups and, when arrested, shouted neo-Nazi slogans. The idea that the killing wasn't an assassination is frankly ridiculous. Sceptre (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a move to "Death of" due to UK Sub judice rules. This is Paul (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The British legal concept of sub judice is only advisory when it comes to an online encyclopaedia hosted in the United States. Sceptre (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well specifically this applies to English law, and as I've previously been led to understand, anyone from the UK editing this article runs the risk of breaching sub judice rules, and in theory could face prosecution. Under the rules of the English legal system murder isn't defined as such until and unless a jury reaches a verdict of murder. That also applies to many other countries that use English law, though excludes the US. This is Paul (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to Murder of Jo Cox or preferably Assassination of Jo Cox. Wikipedia should not be whitewashing this any further. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to "Killing..." "Death" is nondescript, and "murder" is uncertain until the legal process is completed. But, she was killed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: At the main article talk page there is a "Current/recent consensuses" - tag about how to refer to her death and also the perpetrator. Should that perhaps be transcluded here? Or do we have two articles, same subject, two debates? w.carter-Talk 22:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain or Support move to "Killing... Per the consensus on main article talk page it's premature for the editors of Wikipedia to be determining whether the alleged killer's reported fondness for far right material and slogans is more pertinent than their reported mental health issues. "Murder" and "Assassination" both imply the killer was of sound mind at the time of the attack which we have unusually good reason to doubt.
  • Support move to "Assassination of Jo Cox" (first choice) or "Killing of Jo Cox". To limit ourselves to the word "death" in this matter strikes me as deeply cowardly. We all die, but very rarely in this way. Any editor concerned about UK sub judice law can refrain from editing this article. Wikipedia is hosted in the US and is subject to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "assassination of" implies a clear political motive and whoever did it may have been mentally ill. We are limited by BLP policy and UK sub judice at the moment. Yes, I know Wikipedia is hosted in the USA, but also know that the defence at a trial looks at what Wikipedia has said and will complain if it carries material not supported by a UK court. This case is going to be a huge challenge for Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Was Lee Harvey Oswald insane? Was John Wilkes Booth insane? Who knows and who cares very much? Does a political killing somehow become "not an assassination" if the assassin is judged insane rather than guilty? I do not think so. As I see the matter, "assassination" in this case is an entirely appropriate term for this killing, even if the accused is judged innocent by reason of insanity. However, I am more familiar with US terminology than UK teminology. Does "assassination" in the UK connote that the killer was necessarily sane? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply The UK media sources are comparing this to the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, which is probably the best comparison at the moment. Unlike Ian Gow who was killed by the IRA, Jo Cox may have been the victim of a deranged individual, but some will always prefer "assassination" when a politician is killed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since I was the first to suggest the move to "assassination", I still want the article to end up there eventually. BUT that was before a bunch of legal issues popped up. Now I simply wonder: What's the hurry? Why can't the article just sit here for some days or weeks with a neutral description of her death until those legal issues are gone and then be moved to the appropriate title? This is after all an encyclopedia and we work on a grander time scale than a newspaper. This section is starting to look like some weird version of the Dead Parrot. w.carter-Talk 08:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Britain First"

The article says "Witnesses had reported that the suspect had screamed "Britain first" as he carried out the attack" and the reference is http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-36550304, this seems inaccurate wording: the reference only say of one witness, not witnesses, and we don't know the identity of the witness so we should add "reportedly" because nobody else could check.--87.7.234.222 (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I changed this to the singular, but then found another source citing two witnesses, so I changed it back with a reference. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cf. terrorist shooting?

Can somebody explain to me why the 2016 orlando nightclub shooting is described as a terrorist shooting but that isn't even mentioned in this article? I understand the motives of the shooter are not clear, but I think this should be discussed in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.5.149 (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See above. This case is "sub judice" - under investigation - and this means that we need to avoid going beyond the bare facts wherever possible. The article is clear that the suspect has been linked to far-right organizations, but it doesn't make the synthesis that it is therefore a political killing (the CPS have not called the attack "terrorism", although counter-terrorism police are investigating). The Orlando shooting is a bit different - FBI released information very quickly and officially dubbed it a terrorist attack. Smurrayinchester 14:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Murder" is a specific judicial pronouncement; "terrorism" is a more generic term that as such would not constitute a verdict in itself, even though the word might come up in a judgement or police statement. Mootros (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To cut the crap, a Muslim committing a political crime is instantly and hysterically proclaimed to be a terrorist; a non-Muslim who commits a political crime is given the benefit of the doubt for as long as humanly possible—at worst it's just a hate crime, but usually its just blamed upon some mental illness. This double standard bigotry is driven by politics, the media and peoples' inner prejudices. Hence, even though we are told that the Orlando shooter had sexual and mental issues, we can instantly assume he is a terrorist anyway because he is Muslim and claimed some unproven allegiance to ISIS—even though any Tom, Dick and Harry could rattle off a similar claim without an ounce of committment to it. On the other hand, the Cox-killer has proven links to politically extremist causes, makes a political proclamation during the murder, but the dots still don't join to make any link to terrorism! Hope that answers your question without the standard response hogwash.210.245.32.115 (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are various specific offences that one may commit under the Terrorism Act 2000, however. -- M2Ys4U (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can an editor familiar with UK sub judice law comment on whether or not the word "assassination" would be overtly problematic legally if used in this article? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, since it indicates intent and motive. I'm not a lawyer though. [stwalkerster|talk] 03:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sub judice

There seems to be some misunderstanding, so to clear it up, sub judice concerns in Britain do not effect the content of an American encyclopaedia. Whilst British editors, such as myself, should exercise caution, there is little reason to delete content that is freely being shared at this very moment in British news media. If the content of the article creates genuine sub judice concerns, then West Yorkshire Police or Crown Court clerks will almost certainly contact the Wikimedia Foundation office. Sceptre (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of thing isn't unprecedented, something I noted in this essay, which I wrote and researched after finding myself caught up in a shitstorm over an article about a previous legal case some years ago. This is Paul (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The history of this article and its discussion pages are worth reading, as some of the editing issues encountered there will no doubt arise here. This is Paul (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Without dignifying the call from a British-based editor to openly ignore British law with a response, WP:BLPCRIME does apply to all editors. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you tell me what part of BLPCRIME is being breached? Sceptre (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph speaks for itself:
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Generally, a conviction is secured through court or magisterial proceedings. Allegations, accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement are not a conviction. WP:BLPCRIME applies to individuals who are not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgments that do not override each other, include all the explanatory information.
Does that help? This is Paul (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Killing of Jo Cox"

Wouldn't "Killing of Jo Cox" be a more appropriate title for the article? I can understand why some might hesitate to call this "murder", as no conviction has happened. But is there any doubt that she was killed?VR talk 22:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not covered up ^^ there ^^ ?? 82.36.105.25 (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isolated but targeted

Neutrality and I have been a bit back and forth on this "isolated but targeted" sentence. As requested I'm bringing it here to discuss. My worry is that it doesn't have any real meaning ... that it's just a noise that the police made cos they couldn't think of anything better to say. Yes it was isolated, in that this @rsehole didn't kill 19 other people on the same day, or that his cronies, whoever they are or might be, likewise did not. Yes it was targeted in that it appears the murderer intended to harm or kill Cox, rather than a passing lollipop lady or Cliff Richard. But I honestly, with the best will in the world, do not see how this helps the article. It's unilluminating and borderline stupid, because it's so obvious and adds nothing. If they had said, say "Mrs Cox was shot" or "Mrs Cox has died" then then we probably wouldn't quote that ... because it's true but essentially meaningless/pointless or at last nothing-adding. That's my problem with this sentence. Best wishes 82.36.105.25 (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the meaning is fairly clear -
"isolated"—means that the killing was not part of some wider plot or conspiracy
"targeted"—not a random attack; the assailant went specifically after Cox
Neutralitytalk 22:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
... Which neatly summarizes what I said above. Sadly, it still does not render it meaningful or useful in this article. But you seem quite committed to keeping it, and I cannot be bothered to argue further, so jolly good and well done. Best wishes 82.36.105.25 (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Isolated" does not simply mean that other people were killed on the same day. The assassination of Ian Gow was not isolated, even though nobody else was killed by the IRA on 19 November 1985. It is therefore more meaningful than you seem to believe. "Targeted" does mean this was not a random attack, and therefore there is no danger to other members of the public even if the arrested person is not the perpetrator. Thryduulf (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPLC

Souther Poverty Law Center an "anti-extremism" group - are you kidding? https://archive.org/details/AGuideToUnderstandingTheTacticsOfTheSouthernPovertyLawCenterInTheImmigrationDebate --41.151.55.160 (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

lolno go away. Sceptre (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What nonsense. Go away. Neutralitytalk 00:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What the SPLC itself says is a primary source. When highly respected newspapers worldwide report on what they say, (as they have), then those are secondary sources and perfectly useful for inclusion in this article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Jo_Cox&oldid=725853511"