Jump to content

Talk:Murder of Jo Cox/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

"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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
Could you tell me what part of BLPCRIME is being breached? Sceptre (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)
... 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)
"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)
Thank you. That's a clearer argument for inclusion, which works better for me. I'll shush now on this particular topic. :) 82.36.105.25 (talk) 11:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Suspect

The supporting reference 10 for "Thomas Mair was a former psychiatric patient[10]" does not support this statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.51.55 (talk) 10:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The statement was probably sourced to the Mirror[1] at some point. I've removed the statement until there's something other than a second-hand reference in the Mirror. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Assassination?

Closed as this duplicates ongoing discussion elsewhere on the talk page concerning the article title. TompaDompa (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why isn't this article called Assassination of Jo Cox? The perpetrator probably knew what he did and she was his target so I'm curious. There are multiple reasons for death but attack on elected politician is different, thus I find the term Assassination better and I think it should be renamed. Thanks for your replies. Itsyoungrapper (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Itsyoungrapper:: See ^^above^^ in sections "Requested move 17 June 2016" and "Sub judice" for full debate about that. w.carter-Talk 10:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Killing of Jo Cox"

Closed as this duplicates ongoing discussion elsewhere on the talk page concerning the article title. TompaDompa (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

Is this not covered up ^^ there ^^ ?? 82.36.105.25 (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Refdump

Not happy that at least one paragraph covering the attack is cited from Mail Online, so looking to other sources with the same information. This is Paul (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  • "Jo Cox's Last Words: 'I'm In Too Much Pain'". Sky News. British Sky Broadcasting. 18 June 2016. Retrieved 18 June 2016.

SPLC

Souther Poverty Law Center an "anti-extremism" group - are you kidding? [2] --41.151.55.160 (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

lolno go away. Sceptre (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
The commentor is absolutely correct. They are not known for being exactly 'neutral.' 68.19.2.136 (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
The SPLC is very well-respected for their work on anti-extremism. And as for the documents revealed by the SPLC: "Experts said Friday they believed the invoices to be credible and pointed out that the now-defunct organization had a British branch in Leeds, close to where Mr. Mair lived." (cite). Neutralitytalk 22:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
What nonsense. Go away. Neutralitytalk 00:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)
"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)
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)
There are various specific offences that one may commit under the Terrorism Act 2000, however. -- M2Ys4U (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
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)
Probably, since it indicates intent and motive. I'm not a lawyer though. [stwalkerster|talk] 03:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
"Assassination" is not a legal term as such. In common use it assumes a deliberation that the death of the political person was not accidental and that the killing was wilful. But no judgement has yet been made that would allow such assumption. Mootros (talk) 10:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd beg to differ. It might not be on the books in OAPA or whatnot, but any judge with a brain (most have one) will make a finding as to what constitutes an assassination. I suspect many have done so in libel and defamation cases. They'd probably refer to a dictionary and rely on the plain and ordinary meaning. If we were to rely on what wikitionary has under its 'assassination' entry, this would meet the definition of an assassination. You're all free to refer to your own resources on this matter, but they won't differ substantially. This is an assassination. Terrorism is a bit more of a loaded term- it has some squishiness. I know the SJW types enjoy calling everything they can 'terrorism' because the only form of logic they've been taught is calling things a double standard and then screaming racism, but I'll have none of it here. Label this an assassination dammit.Encycjwp (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Lone wolf terrorism

I put a link in the see also. As this is subjudice we cannot say IT is lwt, but we can link in the see also as its connected and mo suggests this strongly. Please do not revcert NOR remove without explaining here whY you think such a link is not appropriate NOT JUST REMOVE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.68.97 (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/17/was-the-man-who-killed-british-mp-jo-cox-a-loner-or-a-terrorist/ is a source that makes this clear https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/17/was-the-man-who-killed-british-mp-jo-cox-a-loner-or-a-terrorist/ there are many of these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.68.97 (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

As I explained in my edit summary, "likely is not enough - needs to be confirmed (incl. terrorist)". Take the advise of the Financial Times article you've linked in your edit: "Jo Cox: tabloid caution on attacker should apply in all cases". Let's wait and see what the investigation results in. Shall we?--TMCk (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) First of all don't shout. Secondly, the term is not one commonly used in the UK. Both of the sources you quote are from the Washington Post, in a country that does use the term quite frequently to describe such incidents. I have no problem with re-adding this if the BBC or other UK media sources start to use it, but at this stage the full details of what happened are unclear. This is Paul (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
It's too speculative about the motive and not really necessary.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

International reaction

Does this section pass the guideline for flag icons ? They keep showing up and I keep reverting them. Mlpearc (open channel) 15:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

That guideline talks about "nationalist pride." I hardly think that applies here. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Doesnt need flags, in fact I am not sure we need an "International reaction" section that just says x leader says sorry etc. MilborneOne (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Maybe that would be a good reason to add to add the guideline? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't follow. Could you clarify? TompaDompa (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
The guideline for flag icons says nothing about not using them simply because of what's used as a section heading? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Somebody always adds flags to this type of section. They aren't needed, regardless of what MOS:FLAG says.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
So, we agree that MOS:FLAG, as it stands, is irrelevant to which section heading has been used here? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It's true that "somebody always" add flags and statement to these "Reaction" sections, but when the article cool down, those sections are removed or split off in most cases anyway, such as with 2015 Copenhagen shootings or even Charlie Hebdo shooting where the "Reaction" section has been split into an article, without flags. I'd say no to flags, it makes for a more, well, 'dignified' style for the article. w.carter-Talk 16:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment I support having the flags. They serve as a visual aid to the reader.

This is the very context they exist for per MOS:FLAG "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government" - astonishing anyone would suggest we ignore the MOS because we don't like it AusLondonder (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with AusLondonder and support having the flags. No cogent argument has been made against them, and I certainly fail to see that (per W.carter) there is anything "undignified" in a display of national flags. As for comparisons with other articles, Reactions to the September 11 attacks uses flags in precisely this way. Eric Pode lives (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Please don't misquote me, I did not say that flags as such are undignified, I was referring the over all style of the article and I like articles to be as crisp and uncluttered as possible. It's a matter of taste. There are also the International reactions to the war in Donbass no flags but countries linked, International reactions to the Charlie Hebdo shooting no flags and instead sections for all countries, Humanitarian response to the 2015 Nepal earthquake no flags and sections for countries, all rather high profile cases I would say. Also MOS says "may be relevant" not "must be included" which is why we are having this discussion. MOS is not ignored. w.carter-Talk 19:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
As AusLondonder says, the MOS guidance seems to cover exactly the situation here. I don't see how "a matter of taste" can override that? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
MOS:FLAG says, "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government..." I do not see how MOS:FLAG applies here, Jo Cox does not represent all those flags. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Surely "the subject" is the government representative making that comment. As with fatalities of aircraft disasters, we don't expect one single flag for the article subject? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)We seem to be deep into semantics now. I read that sentence as 'it is optional to use flags in articles' but I don't think that "subject" in that sentence refers to (in this case) Jo Cox, but to the one issuing the statement in question. I may be wrong though... w.carter-Talk 20:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with that interpretation. This incident has prompted international comment, and these statements have been made by heads of state or government, or other fairly senior representatives. Therefore "flag icons may be relevant". They are certainly not compulsory, so whether we choose to include them or not is indeed a "matter of taste". I, AusLondonder, and those who have added them think they help the reader navigate the article; W.carter, and perhaps others, think they "clutter" the article. Eric Pode lives (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Such an interpretation seems quite fair. I have no strong view, but certainly no objection to use of the flag icons. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
If the flags are to remain, then we must surely remove comments by the likes of Andrew Little, Hillary Clinton and Gabrielle Gifford who do not speak on behalf of a nation. WWGB (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Sub judice template wording errors

(1.) It is not so much "sub judice", but it is "sub judice" because of something else; namely, because there are both civil and criminal, as well as statutory and common-law penalties, against an act or acts amounted to "Contempt of court", which is defined by the English Common law, as "an act [or acts,] or [an] omission [or omissions,] calculated to interfere with the administration of justice". So the normal, usual legal terms in use in England and Wales are in fact "contempt", or "contempt of court", rather than "sub judice" (which is normally, correctly used in England and Wales to describe restrictions on civil rather than criminal proceedings). https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/contempt_of_court/ http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49

(2.) Any legal restrictions in this particular case APPLY IN AND TO PERSONS RESIDENT IN ENGLAND AND WALES ONLY.

(3.) In this particular instance, there is no such a thing as a "UK jurisdiction". A charge of murder, for an act which took place in England and Wales, directly concerns only England and Wales. In this case, there is only "the jurisdiction of England and Wales" to speak of, not a "UK jurisdiction", so-called.

(4.) The other legal wordings are American, Canadian or otherwise not English or British; they are certainly NOT correct in the British or English legal context; e.g., solicitors and barristers are not described as "licensed to practise law" in England and Wales: Solicitors are "admitted" into the Law Society of England and Wales as members [and become regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority]; whereas Barristers are "called to the [General Council of the] Bar [of England and Wales]". The Law Society and the Bar are self-regulatory bodies of solicitors and barristers, respectively. NEITHER the Ministry of Justice nor the English Judiciary directly "licence" barristers and solicitors.

-- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, this is a matter for the template. We've had this debate before when B-list celebrities have taken out injunctions to prevent reporting of their extramarital affairs or whatever. If the injunction was obtained in London, does it apply outside England and Wales? Probably not, but Wikipedia is cautious when the material is available via an IP address in England and Wales. There is a lot riding on this, and the article should follow normal rules of WP:BLPCRIME which should be enough to prevent controversy.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
But "contempt" only applies to the people themselves who are or who were (at the relevant time) actually physical residents of England and Wales, not the IP addresses. The Wikimedia Foundation themselves are not bound by English contempt of court laws. Well, you certainly have spent more than enough time on Wikipedia throughout the years, can't you also find the time to split the Template into three, whilst you are here?! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 06:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
All Wikipedia articles are covered by the Wikipedia:General disclaimer at the bottom of every page, but some people never get round to reading this. The sub judice template may not be perfect, but it is used on some articles to remind people that aspects of active court proceedings may be covered by reporting restrictions. This is important, because in the age of the Internet a person may not realise that anything on a Wikipedia page can be read immediately by millions of people. Wikipedia content is hosted under U.S. law, but as the General Disclaimer points out, contributors have to consider the laws of their own jurisdiction as well.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Marine Le Pen

I'd agree that the statement by Le Pen is unusual, apparently explaining or indeed partially justifying the killing. But Le Pen is a single politician, not a national government leader, or even prospective government leader. Has this comment by widely reported in the English language press? At the moment we have only a single French language source. The sentence is also tagged with a request for clarification. Is the inclusion of Le Pen's comment justified? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The English translation of what she said in French is accurate (it was on Twitter here on 17 June), but the rest of it has some problems with WP:OR. The tweet doesn't refer explicitly to the death of Jo Cox. Marine Le Pen isn't a major French politician, but like Geert Wilders she gets a lot media attention. I'm in favour of removing this because the tweet is being subjected to an interpretation not in the sourcing given. There is some more English language coverage here, but since Le Pen never referred directly to Jo Cox, better out than in.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
More coverage here. I don't think it's true to say that she "isn't a major French politician", by the way -"Le Pen is running again for the French presidency next year and polls suggest she could make a strong showing." Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, reading that article, Le Pen's comments, with regard to Cox, seem pretty level-headed and moderate. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

First killing of a sitting British MP unrelated to Irish republicanism since that of Spencer Perceval in 1812

I think this killing of a sitting British MP being "the second in British history that was unrelated to Irish republicanism (the first being that of Spencer Perceval in 1812)" is at least as relevant as it being "the first in which the victim was a woman or a member of the Labour Party". I therefore think the former should be added to the WP:LEAD (assuming the latter belongs there in the first place). As I understand it, it was removed from the lead on the basis of not being mentioned later in the article (the lead is meant to summarize the entire article).

To my mind, the appropriate course of action would be to add it at a suitable place in the article body and keeping it in the lead, rather than removing it altogether. Thoughts? TompaDompa (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Definitely all of the points mentioned above belong in the wider context section. As for the lead, personally I think the existing balance is about right (firsts and not the "first since..."). Though given that a week is a long time in politics, I don't dispute that 200+ years is a very long time. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 02:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
It shouldn't be in the WP:LEAD if it is not mentioned and expanded upon later in the article. It's also somewhat tangential to the death of Jo Cox, as this is a 21st century event.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Ronald Cartland was killed in action during World War Two, which isn't the same as being killed on your own doorstep. However, there is a need to avoid WP:OR and most media sources have confined themselves to saying that Jo Cox was the first sitting MP to be killed since Ian Gow in 1990, and that she was the first British female and Labour MP to be killed. The article isn't a history lesson about Irish republicanism.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm aware of the WP:OR (or specifically WP:SYNTH; all the information is apparently already on List of serving British MPs who were assassinated) issue. I tried, unsuccessfully, to find a reliable source for the statement. That being said, it should be possible to get the message across while keeping it in compliance with WP:NOTSYNTH.
Of course the article isn't a history lesson about Irish republicanism, but it isn't a history lesson about the Labour party, women, or even assassinations of sitting MPs, either. What makes it interesting/relevant is the historical context. TompaDompa (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I thought we had to use WP:RS to support any claim. Anywhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
We don't. The second paragraph in the lead over at WP:OR makes that clear. It says: "For example: the statement "the capital of France is Paris" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed." Just to clarify: I'm not saying that applies here. TompaDompa (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Yes, "the capital of France is Paris" is a statement, but not a claim. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
There are many things that her death wasn't related to, and Irish republicanism is one of them. As well as being WP:OR, there is no need to state it in this article - it is not relevant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Nigel Farage comments

This is a rather distasteful accusation, IMHO, but since it's been made I wonder if we should include it somewhere. This is Paul (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not as distasteful as people swinging to remain in as a kind of tribute to Jo Cox, as we've seen in the lastest polls. It's still not worth adding though. Let's not make this too political. CassiantoTalk 00:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

List of serving British MPs who were assassinated

I see she already appears at List of serving British MPs who were assassinated, on the basis of a single UK press source, which in turn is based of Hilary Clinton's message? The Daily Telegraph itself seems to just say she was "murdered". Shouldn't that list wait until things are decided here? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Once again I am not a lawyer, but this source seems to know what it is talking about. It says:

"There is one category above this in terms of seriousness: a whole life order must be passed for murders of ‘exceptionally high seriousness’, currently indicated by factors such as:

  • two or more victims involving specified aggravating features
  • murder of child involving abduction, sexual or sadistic motivation
  • murder for political, religious or ideological cause
  • previous conviction for murder"

This assumes that a person has been found guilty of murder, rather than manslaughter of the grounds of diminished responsibility which might result in the person being detained in a mental hospital. This is why I am against using "assassination" at the moment, but some people are less worried about doing this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

At the very least WP is currently internally inconsistent. This article is titled one way; that list categorizes the death in another way, which many editors who have commented here seem to disagree with. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The way I see it is that, currently, most sources (at least in the UK) do not use the word "assassinated". In time, as histories come to be written, that word may be used more and more if her killing is seen as clearly for political reasons, as it almost certainly will. At the moment, too much is unknown about the perpetrator's background and motives. But at the same time it seems reasonable to me for her to be included in that list - "British MPs who were killed" is inadequate, and the article itself is, I think, useful. So, I can accept some (probably temporary) inconsistency until more is known, and don't think we need to rush to try and impose a consistent line while we are still in the uncertain aftermath of the killing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC).
That list should probably be deleted as a fork of this one. Nonetheless, I think Ghmyrtle is right. I have stated several times my objections to renaming this list or to using the terms "murder" or "assassination". Those grounds do not apply to those lists, provided the suspect's name is kept out of them (as it currently is). I do have an issue with that list being linked to from this article though, given that inconsistency. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Sovereign country Cox was an MP for

Someone's twice added "United Kingdom" after "England" to describe where the constituency is, on the grounds that the "sovereign country" should be stated. Twice this has been reverted, once by myself because I feel it's really not necessary. Readers will generally know that England is part of the UK, and "British" is used to describe Cox.--A bit iffy (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, constituencies are those of Parliament of the United Kingdom, so Batley and Spen should be located in UK not England. But I quite agree that Birstall itself can be located only in England. Also in the infobox? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, hadn't noticed UK is in the infobox too. Perhaps unnecessary there also, but I'm not really bothered.--A bit iffy (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, We should always wherever possible avoid lists that sound like a Y5 exercise book front going England, UK, Europe, Earth etc. It never ever reads well. DBaK (back after a bit of a break. But it's still me!) (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
That is complete rubbish. Listing the country in the infobox at the very least is appropriate. No one is suggesting we list Europe or Earth. We are here to inform readers. Not everyone will be aware of those technicalities. It always amazes me how much some editors loathe the concept of the United Kingdom. It's also plainly sensible and consistent. AusLondonder (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I've heard it said that England is, in fact, a country. That doesn't mean people "loathe the concept of the UK". Martinevans123 (talk) 07:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear Martin. Everybody in the world, excluding people on a tiny island in the North Atlantic, regard country as meaning sovereign state. Like Poland. England is not a country in the commonly understood and accepted context. The RfC at Jeremy Corbyn rejected that argument overwhelmingly. AusLondonder (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear Aus. You need to take you argument to England. The fourth word in, in fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
From Talk:England:

"The issue whether England is a country or not has been repeatedly raised.

The outcome of discussion is that England is a country. This has been confirmed in formal mediation with respect to Wales, though the general issues are common amongst England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales."

In other words, the issue has already been settled. TompaDompa (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I added UK to the lede, twice. Once because it was missing from the article with (if I recall correctly) absolutely no links to the article on the country Cox was an MP for.

Not one.

I'm not even sure the sub-country (England) had any direct links either, tbh.

The second time I added it was when I noticed it had been reverted without discussion. That's fair enough, and I'm not bitter about it: somebody was being WP:BOLD, right? And discussion is taking place now. :)

However, my counter-argument to the idea that we don't make the article look like a "Y5 exercise book" (what is that? Fifth form? P5? I'm confused by this new terminology tbh!) is this:

Why not just stop at Birstall?

Everybody knows that Birstall is in West Yorkshire, which is in Yorkshire, which is in England, which is in the UK.

Right?

No. Not right. We shouldn't make assumptions.

As for Cox being described as British in the lede - big deal! Do you know how many Americans that don't know the difference between English and British? Or England and Britain and the UK etc? Even some English people seem to be confused, fgs!

Now I appreciate as much as anyone how the UK is kinda unique, with its four countries within a country. But it's not really rocket-science. The UK is the sovereign nation state. That is the country the British people are from, first and foremost. That is the collective nationality and the country which issues passports and offers protection and aid for its citizens when at home or abroad.

I would have preferred to remove 'England' from the lede, however, I didn't want to offend political sensibilities. To be honest, right now I'm all for moving forward by removing England from the lede and replacing it with UK. I agree with AusLondoner when they say that it is ridiculous to suggest that adding the country name into the lede is, in any way, equivalent to adding Europe, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Andromeda etc etc.

I think the manual of style should include, if it doesn't already, a guideline for consistency on this matter: in the lede, always include the country of origin/significance. Include "Texas", "England", "Northern Ireland", "Normandy" etc further in the article, where more detail is required.

The lede and the infobox should most definitely both include the sovereign country the person, place or thing is a part of. One or both of them should be wikilinked.

The editors should make the assumption that the reader does not know where England is (or more importantly, WHAT England consists of - just asked a collection of US citizens and you'll get many varied answers with varying degrees of accuracy). Mentioning Europe or Earth is just being super-extraneous(!) or pedantic.

My alternative suggestion would be the following:

On 16 June 2016, British politician Jo Cox died after being shot and stabbed multiple times in the United Kingdom, shortly before she was due to hold a constituency surgery. A 52-year-old local man, Thomas Mair, was arrested in connection with Cox's death and subsequently charged with her murder and other offences.

The incident was the first killing of a sitting British MP since the death of Ian Gow in 1990, and the first in which the victim was a woman or a member of the Labour Party.

Cox was the Labour Party Member of Parliament for Batley and Spen in West Yorkshire, England.

Also the infobox should have United Kingdom wikilinked for ease of use to the reader. The article on Jo Cox should also be changed accordingly.

What say ye? --98.122.20.56 (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know England was a "sub country". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC) p.s. Andromeda? you're not really a local, are you?

Being stabbed in the United Kingdom makes a change from being stabbed in the neck or chest. I'm not sure why there is a fascination with having the "sovereign country" in the lead at the earliest possible opportunity, as it leads to weird wording. The existing wikilinks and the infobox are enough for an interested reader who does not know that England is in the United Kingdom.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Brendan Cox BBC interview

We need to include some of this, though I'm not sure exactly what and how much should go in. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Why do we? It's unsubstantiated guesswork, as far as I'm concerned. CassiantoTalk 18:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
While some of this is his opinion about what happened and we need to wait for the legal process to run its course to determine that, there are the two things that occurred to me we might want to add; he talks extensively about her thoughts on the state of politics, and rules out standing for her constituency. This is Paul (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
His comments that "She was a politician and she had very strong political views and I believe she was killed because of those views" should certainly be included - they are directly relevant to this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
So where do we draw the line in terms of including people's theories? CassiantoTalk 19:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree with you, Ghmyrtle. I'd have thought Brendan Cox's comments are probably going to be infinitely more meaningful and relevant than all of the "international reactions" put together. I'd draw the line at one or two sentences. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree that we should limit this to two sentences, but is anyone going to take the time to answer my point about where we draw the line in terms of introducing people's consipiracy theories? CassiantoTalk 19:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I hardly think conspiracy theory is the appropriate term here. Do bear in mind the guy's just lost his wife. This is Paul (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
It's hardly fact at this time either, is it; but I thank you for your insinuation that I've referred to Brendan Cox's opinion as a conspiracy theory. I'd now ask you to explain what we do in the event that various conspiracy theories are added, which they inevitably will be. CassiantoTalk 19:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
In that case I apologise for misinterpreting your words; I certainly wasn't insinuating anything. As for your concern about adding various conspiracy theories, I don't think that would be very constructive. This is Paul (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
No problem. But my question still remains unanswered. Surely adding this could potentially open the floodgates. CassiantoTalk 20:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it necessarily would, but there are plenty of people watching this page who would make sure that didn't happen, myself included. This is Paul (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. CassiantoTalk 21:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Floodgates?? That sounds like a bit of a conspiracy theory... Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, and I'm surprised you question sceptically that this wouldn't happen. Everything added with a theory attached is, at this time, conspiritorial. We are only choosing not to say her husbands isn't as he is just that: her husband. CassiantoTalk 21:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Sure there may be conspiracy theories. But just from looking at Brendan in that interview, I'd be totally amazed he'd ever be part of any conspiracy. Sorry, it's just beyond the realms of my imagination. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Off the top of my head, I can't think of anyone who would be able to judge the most likely reason why Cox was killed. I'm not sure we'll get much sense out of Thomas Mair. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I have added the most pertinent parts of Brendan Cox's comments. They are not part of a "conspiracy theory" - they are her husband's views and as such worthy of being noted in the article. If they had come from someone less personally involved, they would probably not have been reported. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Terrorism protocols

I realise that many sources like this refer to "terrorism protocols" without further explanation - but what is the link to legislation we should use to give further explanation in this article? One of these pieces of legislation specifically, or all of them as a bundle? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to say without more detail; it may be the Terrorism Act 2000 which is the general piece of legislation for terrorism in the UK. At the moment, Mair has been charged with murder and that is as far as it goes.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The Management of Terrorism Protocol.[3] It is related to the 2000 Act, but the most relevant wikilink is probably practice direction. I'm not sure I'd recommend either. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 17 June 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: moved to Killing of Jo Cox, which is a title most editors agree on. SSTflyer 06:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


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

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)

  • 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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
  • Support move to "Assassination": well-documented ([4]) 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)
  • Support a move to "Death of" due to UK Sub judice rules. This is Paul (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
PS: We do not know whether the perpetrator was motivated purely by political ends, or whether his mental health was a factor. Until this is resolved we should not say "Assassination...", which requires a political motive. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not an either/or proposition. He can be mentally ill and have a political motive. Sceptre (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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 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 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)
  • 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)
  • Comment: I think when you give your name in court as "Death to traitors, freedom for Britain", there is very obviously a political motive. Sceptre (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
    Comment: Sources describing the death as an assassination (c.f. Ian Gow): Clinton, Hollande, The Nation, TIME, National Post, Scientific American, Toronto Star, etc. It's also completely possible, and simple, to describe this as a murder or assassination without prejudice to the ongoing trial or Mair's culpability or mental state. Indeed, John Hinckley was eventually found not guilty by reason of insanity, but everyone recognises his shooting of Ronald Reagan as an attempted assassination. Sceptre (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Nobody is questioning what media is calling the killing. The caveat discussed here has to do with some British law and the WP guidelines about calling an event like this murder or assassination until after the trial. AFAK Ronald Regan was American so that shooting did not have to adhere to British law. That shooting was also some time ago and trials have been held and things sorted out. As will this article too when the leagal sysem has finished grinding. There are some better explanations of this at the main article's talk page. w.carter-Talk 13:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
"Assassination" isn't a legal term. Why are we generally fine with calling this assassination on other Wikipedia pages, but not here? Sceptre (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Probably because those pages don't have as many editors with legal skills watching them. This is a red-hot article related to issues that will determine the future of a country, I think we should tread veeery cautiously here. Most other articles about similar cases have already been tried in court, so no problem there. w.carter-Talk 14:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Note: In the common law of England and Wales, "assassination" is seen as an aggravating factor in murder, but is not a separate offence. So labelling it "assassination" makes the assumption, as far as common law is concerned, that it is a murder. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Nonsense. The facts surrounding aggravating circumstances exist independent of a conviction. That's why they're heard in the sentencing phase, post conviction. If my client stands trial accused of GBH and is denied bail due to a positive test for cocaine, but is subsequently acquitted, would commenters here tread lightly and proclaim that the said person is not a drugs user? By any measure, he is. Encycjwp (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Assassination is also unambiguously a type of murder in the British English language, which this page is presumed to use per MOS:TIES. References to pages and publications written in American English using the terms "assassination" are therefore not particularly relevant. Dtellett (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Support move to Killing of Jo Cox Murder of Jo Cox rather than the American sounding "Assasination of Jo Cox". I also think it rude that the article was renamed, mid-discussion, and have reminded the editor in question of our rules. CassiantoTalk 08:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment "Murder of Jo Cox" is pretty much a non starter at the moment due to a combination of WP:BLPCRIME and UK sub judice.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, but as has already been pointed out, a killer in a case like this might be found guilty of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and detained in a mental hospital. In this type of instance, "Murder of X" would be wrong even after the trial had concluded.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support move to "Killing of ..". It's not possible to use "Murder of .." (yet) because of UK sub judice rules. "Assassination of .." sounds too American and has a specific meaning in law of England and Wales that pre-supposes murder, i.e. it's a type of murder. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support move to "Assassination of Jo Cox". We're all clear on the definition of this. It's fairly plain and ordinary in its meaning. Why we're still debating it is absurd. As for the 'legal' nature of it amounting to an objection, I'd like to point out that this incorrect. There is no statutory mention of ASSASSINATION anywhere. It is an aggravating factor considered in sentencing, same as drug use, mental quirks not amounting to insanity, whatever else. And the 'too American' objection is just too far. As if only one country on Earth has assassinations. Please. This probalematic American word isn't denied to the Lord Mountbatten's assassination by the IRA, even on bloody wikipedia. Some people are trying very hard to get this topic labeled a 'terrorist attack' for personal SJW reasons and nothing else. It isn't a simple murder, as Jo Cox was no civilian. She was a politician- in national office no less. If anyone here thinks the page dedicated to the Assassination of Julius Caesar should be re-labeled the Death of Julius Caesar, let's get on that and be consistent.Encycjwp (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Who exactly is "trying hard to get this topic labeled a 'terrorist attack' for personal SJW reasons"? Our article Murder in English law says "Assassination, contract killing, killing to subvert the justice system (such as killing a witness, etc.) are aggravating factors." Does this not mean "aggravating factors in murder"? Or are you just saying the article is plain wrong? And you think Cox's being a MP makes her "not a civilian"? I'd also suggest that your Julius Caesar example is a ridiculous strawman. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC) p.s. but I'd agree that the CPS makes no mention of assassination here.
There are advocates for that above. As for the rest of this, I am not sure most people grasp what an 'aggravating factor' is. There's a laundry list of factual findings with a very wide margin on some schedule somewhere. They do not have anything to do with an actual verdict, so I do not know why people keep bringing up sub judice. It isn't relevant. This is a matter of public importance, and information which the public is entitled to. The fact is that this was an entirely politically motivated, unlawful killing, aka an assassination. And the Assassination of Caesar is entirely relevant. I wouldn't quite put Jo Cox on his level, but assassination of senators, consuls and tribunes was something of a ritual in those days. It acts as an important measuring stick for our parameters, of which use of the terms 'terrorism', 'killing' and 'murder' clearly fail.Encycjwp (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
It's "sub judice" because he's not been convicted. Of anything. His trial has not even begun. He's not even entered a plea. He's not even admitted his real name. It's a pretty simple concept. In my view "killing" certainly does not fail - it's 100% reasonable at this stage. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
It's dead letter law that is effectively unenforceable, probably hasn't been enforced in decades (remember those 'super injunctions' that we all laughed at Ryan Giggs for?) and probably unconstitutional under various bits of European civil liberties law. And your entire point can just as easily go the other way in favour of labeling this an assassination. He will never, ever be convicted of assassination per se. Especially not without an equally worthless legal declaration that he is a killer and then guilty of whatever under OAPA. But an assassination describes a very well-established set of publicly-known facts surrounding the situation that we all know as part of the public record. Instead, a bunch of people who enjoy arguing are droning on about pointless formalities like this in a half-hearted attempt to maintain objectivity at the expense of, well, objectivity. It's a bleeding assassination. End of debate. Encycjwp (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Presumption of innocence is a principle not "a dead letter law". Please excuse me if you think I am "droning on about pointless formalities", but I don't think it's "end of debate" just because you are tired with it. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, but Brutus was never convicted of an unlawful killing. He was pardoned along with all other co-conspirators almost immediately and well before any senate trial. He also died (as did almost all of the conspirators I think) before Octavian could declare them murderers. Thus, by this standard, the entire title Assassination of Julius Caesar is a libel on the character of a man who, by all measure, never met the procedural or legal grounds for being an assassin or murderer.Encycjwp (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Did you know that we are in fact living in 21st-century Britain, and not in the Roman Empire of 44 BC? The content of your User Page is quite instructive. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
You can't argue for a presumption of innocence in one breath and then turn around and deny it the next. Never mind that such a presumption is only afforded by the state to the defendant. This was an assassination. Be consistent. Be logical.Encycjwp (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment If this goes for or against assissination: When he was arrested he said he was a ‘political activist’, and police have found articles about Mrs Cox at his home, along with ‘extreme Right-wing and white supremacist’ material.[1]
Thomas Mair was also known to have bought books from a US-based neo-Nazi group, including guides on how to build homemade guns and explosives, according to an anti-hate campaign group in the US. Among them was a manual on how to make a homemade pistol.[2] Read this article for proof, not just biased information and more proof. Pretty safe to say that it was pre-planned and politically motivated.DJBay123 (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3648569/Death-traitors-freedom-Britain-nation-utterly-sickened-death-Jo-Cox-revolting-new-low-suspect-utters-chilling-words-court.html
  2. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/17/jo-cox-suspect-thomas-mair-bought-gun-manuals-from-us-neo-nazis-group-claims
Those are perfectly fair and valid points. Ones that would very likely be made in the prosecution case in a trial with judge and jury. Can you see what I'm saying? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC) ...now where did I put that special Father's Day gift for Jimbo Wales?
Funny you should mention that, since Jimbo is already on this case but in a slightly different capacity. w.carter-Talk 10:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
That's the sort of useful thing a co-founder and promoter should do, I think. And a sensitive response. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Halfway move to "Killing?" (subsection for easier editing)

There have been objections to that too, see top of this discussion. Let's not open another can of worms unless we absolutely have to. w.carter-Talk 11:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I must have missed those, sorry. I wonder could you point out where? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
It starts at the third entry under the move-suggestion box. However, reading though the argument now I realize that we are past that stage now. (My bad, it's been a long discussion...) It was based on "No allegation is made that any specific person was responsible.", which is no longer true, so unless anyone else can see another obstacle I'd go for a halfway move to "Killing" to appease all those who want a more dramatic name for the article and cannot wait until the verdict for a proper move. Then again we might be in for another barrage of comments about why the article was not moved all the way to "assassination" or "murder" while we were at it. w.carter-Talk 13:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. To answer W.carter - because "Killing..." is undoubtedly true, accurate, and well sourced, and "Assassination..." and "Murder..." are contentious. We should improve the article - by incremental steps as appropriate - and that applies to the title as much as to the text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
You are quite right of course and the situation was solved by Ghmyrtle's good comment. Will you excuse me while I go away and remove my foot from my mouth? w.carter-Talk 16:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • He will have another opportunity to enter a plea at his bail hearing tomorrow. I'm not sure we should really expect one. If he did plead guilty, I guess we'd then want to change to murder. "Assassination" still seems a real long shot as far as the UK judicial system is concerned, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, but prefer "assassination" or "murder" – we are being way too needlessly conservative with the title of this article. British news media are completely fine with calling it murder, even with the case sub judice. Sceptre (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It has nothing to do with sub judice. Speaking personally, if I felt that supporting the correct article title under policy would put me at risk of crossing that line, I wouldn't offer an opinion, in the knowledge that there would most likely be consensus for an appropriate title without my opinion. It's WP policy that matters here. "Murder" would breach WP:BLPCRIME unless we chose not to name the person who has been arrested. "Assassination" would breach ENGVAR (far more liberally used in US English, very high bar in British English, to the extent that the previous sentence also applies to it). I presume most people would agree that "murder" or "assassination" and aggressively refusing to name the man arrested would be a worse solution than "death" or "killing" plus naming. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • " "Murder" would breach WP:BLPCRIME unless we chose not to name the person who has been arrested." No it wouldn't. You can describe an act as murder without making culpability on the accused, and the British news media are doing this easily. Despite being more likely to be found in contempt of court by saying that. Sceptre (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if he would be classed as such, but if British news media is fine with describing it as murder despite much stronger contempt of court and libel laws, then there's no spiritual breach of BLPCRIME. Sceptre (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I won't deny that in the real world, many people, including respectable journalists, think Cox was murdered, or even (like Hilary Clinton) that she was assassinated. But this is not the real world, it's Wikipedia. I don't see the words "spiritual breach" at WP:BLPCRIME. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
BLP is designed to ensure we don't libel people. There is zero possibility of the page move constituting libel. Sceptre (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
We seem to be discussing in the wrong section here. This move has already been made. I assume you are advocating a further move to "murder of" or "assassination of". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment With regards to the sanity of the killer, see Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan by a man who was declared legally insane as a result of the incident. That wasn't at all politically motivated - Hinckley was trying to impress Jodie Foster. But it's still called an (attempted) assassination. It doesn't particularly matter whether the killer was sane or not (under whatever legal or conventional definition we want to use.) It's still an assassination. Smartyllama (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
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.

Effect on EU Referendum

Closed because discussion is veering off-topic, and apparently has nothing to do with improving the article. This is Paul (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did Cox's death have an effect on the referendum? This article in the Telegraph suggests there was a "surge" of support for the remain side: [5]. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

But that article doesn't attribute the surge in support for remain to her death, which seems to be what is being suggested here. This is Paul (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure how a direct causal link could ever be proven. But such a huge jump is unlikely to be just coincidence? 20.133.0.13 (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
First of all this is not a place to speculate on such matters. This page is for discussions about improving the article, not for conspiracy theorists with nothing better to do to put forward ideas without substance. Secondly, I believe a similar pattern emerged in the Scottish referendum. This is Paul (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The Telegraph title was "Remain surge back into the lead in wake of Jo Cox murder". I'm not just making idle speculation for the sake of it. The Guardian has this headline "Nicola Sturgeon: Jo Cox death will inevitably affect EU referendum" : [6]. Or is Sturgeon just a nobody? 20.133.0.13 (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

What you fail to grasp, however, is that this is all speculation. I am now closing this discussion as off-topic because I feel it is not about improving the article. This is Paul (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
And I'm saying the article would benefit from mention of these views, even if they are speculation. They are widely held. You could at least ask for another editor's opinion before closing. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archiving

Just a note to say that since this page currently exceeds 100K I thought it was time to set up page archiving. I've set it to archive anything without any replies after seven days, which should hopefully be enough time to generate any discussion. Please feel free to revert if you disagree with this decision though. This is Paul (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Quotes

We are into WP:QUOTEFARM territory I'm afraid. All but a few need to be summarised. --John (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Those quotes were used as a fig leaf from which to protect the article's existence, at a time when there were really no grounds for it existing at all (there is just about enough content to justify a stand-alone article without the quotes now, but only because it contains a mini-bio of the suspect and a blow-by-blow account of his movements since). As such I think you'd find it difficult to get rid of as many as you'd like. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree about WP:QUOTEFARM, because the reactions and quotes are way too long in proportion to the rest of the article. As time progresses, they will be pruned as they are classic WP:NOTNEWSPAPER material.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Bloody hell I'm sick to death of this. Firstly, the suggestion this article only just passes criteria to exist is frankly ludicrous. Please see the two AfDs. This article is quite substantial with the trial still to come. This incident attracted days of international headlines and had political ramifications. The reactions should absolutely not be "pruned" slyly once less eyes are on the article. A small number of reactions is entirely appropriate and highly notable and of historic value. It never ceases to amaze me the effort some editors devote to reducing articles. AusLondonder (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The WP:QUOTEFARM policy exists for a reason, and this article is well into quotefarm territory. It has been said many times before that an encylopedia article about a tragic event does not need to contain a long list of condolences and flag icons with people all saying pretty much the same thing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't see what specific part of that policy actually applies here. The quotes don't dominate the article. The quotes aren't used where paraphrasing would be more appropriate. Their use is justified and clear. The list of quotes is neither long nor does it consist of statements that are "the same" AusLondonder (talk) 08:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree - the quotes section is over-long and needs trimming. Few of them say much more than "sorry it happened" - which is good to hear but of no encyclopedic value. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
As stated in the edit summary, it is possible that some will feel that I have gone too far the other way in pruning the international section. However, I have retained every country from the international section, which there was consensus was too long. I hope that by using my edit as a starting point we will be able to restore some semblance of balance (it is possibly too short, but closer to the right length than the previous version). The domestic section would take a bit more thought and I'm reluctant to be bold until I see how my international section edit turns out. The domestic section should obviously contain quotes from relevant people and leave the reader in no doubt as to the strength and nigh-on unanimous reaction, but does not to be as long as it currently is to achieve this. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
About time someone tackled this, though I have to confess to being one who added a few quotes. To my mind, the important people to mention here would be Barack Obama (because he telephoned her husband), Gabrielle Giffords (as she was involved in a similar incident), and a couple of others. Perhaps also include Nathan Cullen and Phil Twyford, since both knew her fairly well. In the domestic section, the important figures to mention are Cameron and Corbyn, and Brendan of course. The paragraphs discussing the various tribute events, recall of parliament, tribute CD, etc, could largely stay as they are since they contain far fewer quotes. I think the main problem was the international section, and the number of quotes that were basically saying the same thing. This is Paul (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Edited to reflect your comments (also added Merkel given that approximately half of the original section was dedicated to European countries). StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Great work, just had a look through it and it's starting to read much better now. I think eventually we'll have to split reaction into a couple of smaller subsections as it's getting quite cumbersome to edit. Maybe something like political reaction for all the public figures, and other reactions for her husband, Glastonbury, the tribute events, etc, but there's no rush for us to do that. This is Paul (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

BNP leaflet claims

I spotted this on the BBC website and wondered whether we should add it somewhere here. There are allegations that the BNP sent out a leaflet accusing Jo Cox of "misguided action" by "helping Muslims" who might go on to join Islamic State, though the BNP have denied responsibility. The leaflets were distributed in Dewsbury, and the local MP has raised the matter in Parliament. In this particular case I think we should wait to see what happens (i.e., who is responsible), but I guess ultimately we should probably reflect that while the overwhelming majority of reactions to this incident have been sympathetic, there are a small minority who have attempted to politicise it. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a risk of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER here. I'd like to see this pick up sustained coverage over a longer period of time than a news report.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Well, sorry! :( Parsley Man (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)
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)
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)
zzuuzz,

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)

I've removed the link; the existing references use a small 'f' in their reports. Later accounts[7] 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)

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Jo_Cox/Archive_1&oldid=1087720328"