Jump to content

Talk:Murder of Jo Cox/Archive 2

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

Requested move 23 November 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

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

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

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

Support

Move to "Assassination of Jo Cox"

  • Move to Assassination of Jo Cox. To quote the judge, "the murder was carried out to advance a political cause of violent white supremacism". -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
    Previously discussed at a number of other, similar, articles I think e.g. Murder of Lee Rigby. Not the charge under which conviction was secured? Is an RfC needed here? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
    I don't think there were any charges for the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, and I don't think there's even such an offence in the UK. But that doesn't make it any less the case. Previous move discussions here have favoured this title (and the assassination categories are sure to follow). -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
    It's seen as an "aggravating factor" for Murder in English law, not an offence in its own right. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
    WP:COMMONNAME applies: if the media are calling it "assassination" we should too; if the media are calling it "murder", so should we. Keri (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
    The Kennedy case is different because BLP doesn't apply there; Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin would have been a better example. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
    There's still plenty of time for it to change, but the media are going with the act as "murder" and the perpetrator as "right wing terrorist" so far. The Independent explains that "The prosecution, as was the case when trying the Lee Rigby murderers, wanted the jurors simply to decide whether he was guilty of carrying out the murder, and not to consider his motives", although Sue Hemming, head of special crime and counter-terrorism at the Crown Prosecution Service, said: "motivated by hate, his pre-meditated crimes were nothing less than acts of terrorism designed to advance his twisted ideology." So I'm still not persuaded that Wikipedia should unilaterally name this the "Assassination of..." JFK's murder, otoh, is almost universally reported as such. Keri (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
    To clarify my position, in the absence of a consensus to move to "assassination of...", I also support a move to "murder of.." as the next logical step. With a very recent conviction for the crime of murder, I wouldn't expect many sources to describe it as anything else. I suspect this will change over time, as the defence lawyer said to the jury, "You and you alone will determine whether Thomas Mair ... will be forever remembered as the man who assassinated Jo Cox".[2] -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support move to "Assassination of Jo Cox", per zzuzz. Sceptre (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support move to "Assassination of Jo Cox": difference between Cox and Lee Rigby is that she was specifically targeted as a politician who was pro-immigration, pro-refugees, etc. Lee Rigby was targeted not because of his political beliefs but because of his profession. See Assassination of Spencer Perceval, or the 'Assassination' sections on the articles for Ian Gow and Airey Neave. Describing the act as an assassination is not 'glorifying' Mair's actions, but merely draws attention to the political nature of this event. Jackb1992 (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support move to "Assassination of Jo Cox", which is the most accurate title (an assassination is a murder with political motives). Murder of Jo Cox is the second-best possible title, and the current title ("Killing") is the worst option. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 00:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
    Per WP:COMMONNAME, please link your multiple reliable sources which call this the "assassination of Jo Cox". Keri (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support move to "Assassination of..." because it's more precise. Wikipedia itself defines Assassination as 'the murder of a prominent person, often a political leader or ruler, usually for political reasons or payment.'. There's no doubt that's exactly what this is. Julianhall (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The doubt in my mind (aside from whether sources use the term - they don't) is whether she was sufficiently well known before her death to be described as "prominent", or a "political leader". In my view, she wasn't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Likewise. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Well exactly. She was not prominent and in no way was she a political leader. To say that this was an assassination would be, at best, POV or SYNTH. MrStoofer (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Support either

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

Oppose

Neutral

Discussion

Move to "assassination" or "murder"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

  • Oppose - mainly on the grounds that it's only been two days since the name change to "Murder of..." was agreed, ergo the arguments to make the name change to "Murder of..." are still valid and still trump any arguments for "assassination". If traction is to be gained for the move to "Assassination" then really a month or two should be waited to see what the man on the clapham omnibus calls the act - "murder" or "assassination". Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as per charge, closing statements of Richard Whittam QC, judge's summing up, verdict, WP:COMMONNAME and news coverage (and serious doubts over the veracity of Mair's own self-deluded claim to really be a "political activist" in any meaningful sense). Many people regard "assassination" as more appropriate to US English, for whatever reason. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Firstly, the term is not the most widely used in this case in reliable sources, at least in the UK. Secondly, it is, at best, highly debatable whether, at the time of her death, Cox was sufficiently well-known a figure to be described as "prominent", "famous", or "important". To the wider world, she simply wasn't. I accept it's a marginal decision either way, but in cases like this we should err on the side of the unambiguous, clear, and (now) uncontentious word "murder". Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ghmyrtle and Keri above. I'd need to be shown evidence of common usage in WP:RS to support this rename. Although granted it is not in the dictionary definitions, I would see assassination as usually associated with a plot by a group, rather than an individual with a history of mental illness. Rwendland (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I think List of assassinations, List of assassinations in Europe, and List of assassinated American politicians show that to be a misconception. But perhaps that is the source of the idea that "assassination" is an Americanism. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 22:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is no significant use of the term "assassination" in reliable independent sources, it is not the established common name of this event. WWGB (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. Per WP:RM#CM, "Do not put more than one open move request on the same article talk page". This second request seems to breach that requirement, as the original move request is still open above (although a decision has been implemented). WWGB (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose because "Assassination" violates numerous Wikipedia policies, including:
    • WP:COMMONNAME: The name used by reliable sources is "Murder", not "Assassination".
    • WP:POV: "Murder" has a strict legal definition (which this incident meets) and perhaps a less strict non-legal definition (which this incident meets). It is arguable (i.e. a matter of opinion) whether this was an assassination. Was Jo Cox prominent enough before her murder to qualify? I would say no, if you say yes that is a POV. Was Mair motivated by a defined political purpose in the sense required for an assassination? I would say no, if you say yes, that is a POV. The fact that so may people think this was not an "assassination" in the proper sense shows clearly that this is a matter of opinion (i.e. a POV). Wikipedia should not offer a view one way or another on whether this was an assassination.
    • WP:SYNTH: Because reliable sources do not call this an assassination, for Wikipedia to call it an assassination requires editors to take the definition of "Assassination" and apply it to this incident. Even if this did not involve a POV (which is does), applying the definition would be synthesis and we do not do that per WP:SYNTH.
    • I see that WP:PRECISE has also been cited. The meaning of "murder" is precise and this incident was a murder, no doubt or debate and that is what reliable sources say. Whether it was an assassination depends on a rather vaguer definition - the fact that we are arguing over whether this was an "assassination" shows that that word is vaguer and involves the application of a POV.

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

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

Neutral

Discussion

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removed source

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

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

Bernard-Carter Kenny died before the attack took place?

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

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

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

Merge carried out - undue?

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

More explicitly mention terrorism?

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

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

Original research

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

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

Terrorism again

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

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

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

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

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

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

This [3] covers the no-longer-applicable sub judice issue, as well as why the CPS didn't use 'terrorist' until after the trial. Mair is identified as neo Nazi by multiple sources which don't use the term liberally such as the Press Association [4] FT [5] and Sky News. [6] Dtellett (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

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

References

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

Reactions

So there's now a draft article at Draft:Reactions to the murder of Jo Cox, which I'll attempt to bash into some kind of order over the next few weeks, with a view to adding back the completed version as a replacement for what's currently there once it's finished. As 53KB the section is a little over half of the current version of this article, and needs a complete revamp. I won't have time to do much with it for a few days, but will do what I can. Anyone is free to edit the draft, and contributions and suggestions will be very welcome. I eventually plan to get this up to the standard of GAN, but it's going to be a while before it's ready. This is Paul (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Bernard Carter-Kenny

User:EEng, you say in your summary for this edit that Bernard Carter-Kenny is a "non-notable"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I guess I wasn't thinking. I presume the GM makes him notable. Can you find a source and add his name to the article here, with link (even if red)? I gotta run right now. EEng 18:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
His own recent death made the headlines e.g. The Indy. He might even warrant an article in his own right. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Loyalist connections/sympathies?

The article seems to play up the neo-Nazi/fascist angle on Mair (conveniently vague or non-British ideologies), but there appears to be more that would lean towards Mair being some kind of homegrown British loyalist-style chauvinist. First of all he was Scottish and Scots who are overly enthusiastic about being "British patriots" tend to fit a certain mold. Indeed, Mair wrote a letter to a publication called South Africa in Exile in 1991, where he bemoans the deaths of John McMichael, terrorist leader of the Ulster Defence Association and fellow "British" Scotman George Seawright of the terrorist Ulster Volunteer Force. These domestic sympathies would appear to be far more relevant for the article than talk of the Ku Klux Klan or the SS, since they are (A) British (B) involved in political killings. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Tend to agree. But without valid WP:RS sources in support, that all likes like WP:OR. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Reversions on 9 September 2017

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

No, I believe everything continued to be sourced to exactly what it was sourced to before (though an intervening paragraph break seems to have confused you). I'm perfectly familiar with the superficial details of UK police practice one learns from watching Prime Suspect and Masterpiece Mystery and Vera. You, however, might practice giving more thought to what helps the reader understand the subject of the article, rather than wasting his or her time and attention by stuffing it with pedestrian or obvious details and multiple quoted descriptions of the gun and so forth. EEng 19:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
You think that the fact UK police are routinely unarmed is a "superficial detail of UK police practice" puts the value of your contribution into perspective. Please stick to improving articles on other crimes. 81.154.245.211 (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, in that case, I must be familiar with the minutiae of US law enforcement because I've watched a few episodes of Law and Order and CSI, not to mention Columbo (I'll be applying my expert knowledge to a few articles a bit later on). But seriously, this article is on quite a few watchlists, so perhaps we can ask others what details they think are appropriate and not appropriate. This is Paul (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Christ, you two really take the prize. My point, "obviously" (though, it seems, apparently not), is that every reasonably informed person knows that police in the UK do not routinely carry firearms – and that, in fact, one could even have gleaned that fact from such pop-culture sources as those I listed. EEng 21:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
That isn't what you said. Just a suggestion, but maybe it's time to stop digging, eh? This is Paul (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I put obviously in quotes with you in mind. EEng 21:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
But we don't need "pop-culture sources". We don't assume "reasonably informed persons", thanks. We just want facts. Christ, give yourself a prize, why dontcha. For nothing. 81.154.245.211 (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
The article's owner was conjecturing about my knowledge of UK police practice, not that of our readers; to help you, here's the quote: It also appears the editor is unfamiliar with some aspects of the UK, for example, that UK police are not routinely armed. Nor we were talking about sources to be used in the article. Do try to keep up. EEng 21:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
The article has no owner. Your self-styled "improvements" kinda suck. 81.154.245.211 (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
You forgot to link WP:OWNER to educate me. Anyway, look, you two enjoy yourselves, really. EEng 21:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
ok EEng, now listen up. Continue to accuse me of "owning" this article and I'll be thinking seriously about taking this to ANI. Your whole attitude throughout this discussion has been juvenile at best. Either contribute seriously or find something else to do. This is Paul (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Now I'm really scared. More at User_talk:EEng#Murder_of_Jo_Cox. EEng 21:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
And as I said there, I don't believe your contributions were particularly constructive, or that you actually intended to improve this article. Your edits were poorly thought out, and even more poorly put into practice, and your subsequent behaviour leaves a lot to be desired. There are issues with this article, and I've no doubt it would benefit from a visit to WP:GOCE, but it needs the attention of someone who actually has a working knowledge of UK police and UK law, which you have clearly demonstrated you do not have. This is Paul (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't believe... you actually intended to improve this article. Spoken like a true article owner. EEng 23:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Since I feel like I was bullied yesterday, firstly by EEng, then later by all their buddies at WP:ANI, into accepting EEng's preferred version of this article, then I now have a decision to make. Do I a) take this matter to WP:DRN, b) take this article off my watchlist, or c) leave Wikipedia altogether? Right now the third option is looking very tempting, but I'll think on it for a couple of days. This is Paul (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
@This is Paul: my apologies, I had assumed that since everyone agrees that my version of the article is best, no-one needed defending from anyone else's flawed opinions. I have merely been a little busy, and it turns out that the descriptions of the gun need some trimming, and perhaps some of the descriptions of the 77-year-old, but almost all of the rest needs to stay. Thank you for defending the previously good status of the article. MPS1992 (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Assassination vs. murder

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

It depends how the sources we have describe the incident. Very few of them have called it an assassination, although I note it would fit with our article's description of assassination, which calls it "the murder of a prominent person when executed by a third party or assassin, often a political leader or ruler, usually for political reasons or payment". Cox was a prominent politician, and she was killed for political reasons. In the voice of Wikipedia this article should be as neutral as we can make it. This is Paul (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
"[Mair] believed liberals, leftists and the mainstream media to be the cause of the world's problems." Irrational and sad beliefs but clearly political motivated murder. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
The press calls it both a murder and an assassination. Both are correct - assassination is a type of murder. "Assassination" is more precise. We should use assassination in the title, and both terms in the article. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems to be the standard for politicians like Assassination of John F. Kennedy or Assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Claíomh Solais (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Both Kennedy and Lincoln were considerably more notable politicians than Cox; and they were in the US, not UK. So, the comparison is not really valid. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Can we not rename the article "Right-wing terrorism in Europe (2016 - present)"? Contaldo80 (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
If this is humor, I have misunderstood it. Do you mean that comment humorously? MPS1992 (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
No. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Amazed

I'm quite amazed that this edit can be made without any discussion here whatsoever. We've all agreed that we're getting a separate article on Mair then, have we? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh come on, you've known me long enough to not be amazed. This section, like the entire article, is grotesquely overdetailed. Mair was a fascist neo-Nazi racist anti-Semite. We get it. Do we really need to know which specific magazines he subscribed t and how much he spent on those various subscriptions? Do we need long extracts from his paranoid correspondence to these publications? Random available information on a meeting he attended? I think if you look closely you'll see I summarized quite adequately what the article used to say in, I would estimate, ten times the words. If there's something I took out that you feel would help paint the picture better, add it back of course. EEng 22:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
So, do we get one or not? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
My opinion is that we certainly do not need an article on Mair, per WP:BLP1E, but the trimming that has been done appears to have been more severe than necessary, and we should look carefully at whether some of the material that has been removed should be reinstated as adding to readers' understanding of the background to the crime. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Thinking about it more, I agree with Ghmyrtle that Mair should not have a separate article, because even if he's notable he's best covered in the context of this article. Absolutely add back anything that you think adds to the reader's understanding, as my intellectual faculties had become somewhat numb after reading to the end of all this material, and I could easily have missed something that should have been kept. For insight into my approach to such material, see WP:ASTONISHME. EEng 22:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

You all need to think very carefully as to how much you understand about this murder, lest I very soon explain to you how stupid it is to imagine that the detail of the event being outside a library is a trivial detail. If you cannot work out why it significant, then you should not be opining on what should be included. Given sufficient time, I could explain it. Very, very, slowly. MPS1992 (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

All of us, yeah? Go ahead, I've got all the time you need. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear that. MPS1992 (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Martin and I have never minded being talked down to. By all means explain. Explain the significance of the sandwich shop too, while you're at it. EEng 23:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I will. And I am glad that you feel safe in each other's presence. MPS1992 (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
More to the point, we feel safe in your presence. Shall we just wait here quietly? EEng 23:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Is it challenging for you to do so? I would not want you to feel uncomfortable. MPS1992 (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Is what challenging? Will you be explaining the library mystery anytime soon? EEng 23:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I will be. Although it would help to know why you imagine that it is a mystery. Please go to the bathroom rather than keep fidgeting like that. MPS1992 (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, we look forward to it. See you later. EEng 23:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Not telling? All right. MPS1992 (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've been thinking about this, and I guess I have a question. I don't see anything about Cox having any medical training. So why was doing surgery for people? And why in a library? Shouldn't that have been at a hospital or clinic or something? I'd appreciate it if you would explain that. EEng 02:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The surgery mentioned in the article is a meeting with her constituents (the people who would be able to vote for her in her district). This is a British English term so I'm not sure if it would be clear to people outside Britain. Like some of the other editors, I'm increasingly finding your attitude to editing this article worrying and tiring in equal measure. It doesn't seem to be based on trying to win friends and influence people.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, because for a minute there I thought she was doing bootleg medical procedures in a library. Anyway, we've been promised for some time now a revelation of why a particular specific fact – that she was on her way to a library when she was killed – is somehow important to emphasize for the reader. MPS has gone mysteriously silent. Maybe you can fill in for him. EEng 05:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
See Surgery (politics) - now linked. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I can't see much of a problem here. She was on her way to the library to hold a routine meeting with her constituents and was killed outside the library by Mair.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
You don't seem to have read this thread very carefully. What MPS said to his fellow editors was You all need to think very carefully as to how much you understand about this murder, lest I very soon explain to you how stupid it is to imagine that the detail of the event being outside a library is a trivial detail. If you cannot work out why it significant, then you should not be opining on what should be included. Given sufficient time, I could explain it. Very, very, slowly. Now, are you able to explain to us in what way the detail of the event being outside a library ... is significant, or are you stupid like the rest of us? EEng 05:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Be careful here, as you are running into WP:CIVIL issues. I do not believe that the fact that the murder took place outside a library is a "trivial detail". It is simply reporting the fact that she was on her way to Birstall library for a meeting with her constituents, and was killed outside the library. This is relevant information for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
To expand, the reason why it is relevant is because Mair had probably seen in the local newspaper that Cox would be holding a constituency surgery at Birstall library on 16 June 2016, so he knew where to find her on that particular date. If I wanted to kill my MP today, I wouldn't have a clue where he is.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, so just to be clear, you don't understand why MPS makes a big deal about the murder having happened outside a library any more than we do. All right, well, thanks for trying. I guess we'll have to wait for the big reveal from MPS. EEng 05:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
EEng, no-one's taken in by your confusion over surgery. Even Americans can't be that stupid, can they.[FBDB] Let's not get fixated here. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC) ....grrr, you bait-spoiler, you... [FBDB]

Wait, I just figured it out! According to some accounts Hypatia was killed by an ignorant mob while on the way to the library. Is that it? Is Jo Cox a kind of Hypatia figure? Is that why the library is significant? Wow, that's deep! EEng 17:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Terrorism Act 2000

Just to revisit this question. For an act to be defined as terrorism in UK law does it have to meet the criteria of ALL sections of the Terrorism Act 2000 or just some? For example, Mair's act would appear to fall inline with Section (1) (c), but (b) ("to intimidate the public or a section of the public") is far more questionable, since, unlike recent Islamic terrorist attacks in Manchester and London, or say retroactively the David Copeland nail-bombing attack, where the aim is to indiscriminately attack the general public (whoever happens to be there at the time), Mair appears to have deliberately targeted a specific individual political actor for assassination, rather than the public at large or random people. This appears to be the crux as to whether or not we should put this in the category of a terrorist incident. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Terrorism Act was not used, so this is moot. There's an interesting article about this on the BBC. As for the terrorism case management, which is a procedural thing, this can be used in "a case ... that a judge of the terrorism cases list ... considers should be a terrorism case" (p24). It seems to me the real test here is what the reliable sources say. For the record my opinion is that it is considered terrorism. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Claíomh Solais is pushing original research. Just stick to what the sources say - don't try and come up with your own opinions. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

"He had searched the internet for information about..."

I'm sure I've searched for information on half of those topics at one time or another. What are we supposed to impute from the mere fact of Internet searches? Does reading the Wikipedia page on Hitler make one a Nazi? It seems counterproductive for an encyclopedia to suggest that curiosity about a topic implies support for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.227.18 (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Expanding on the motivation for the murder - Syrian refugees/Muslim grooming gangs?

The convicted man responsible for Mrs. Cox's murder is understood to have strong white nationalist or Nazi sympathies, as he had correspondence with ethnonationalist organisations in South Africa, and had a small library of books about Nazism and Nazi politicians. The article lead implies she was possibly murdered for her pro-Remain stance on the European Union a week before the referendum, but there's isn't anything on the page about Cox's passionate advocacy for Syrian refugees, and her calls for more to be accepted into the UK, alongside her calls for the UK to be more committed to military intervention in Syria. Furthermore, the attack took place a day before 15 men seemingly of Pakistan Muslim origin were sentenced to 160 years for the sexual abuse of a vulnerable schoolgirl. The sentencing took place at Leeds Crown Court, Mr. Mair's nearest crown court.

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/crime/how-100-men-were-able-to-prey-on-one-vulnerable-halifax-schoolgirl-for-two-years-1-7969702

Many other cases have come to light in and around towns surrounding Leeds and the north of England by the time the murder took place. I would have thought, given the (admittedly) limited information we have about Mair's motivations - some radical nationalist magazine correspondence from 25 years ago, his silence in police interviews and the courtroom, that these two elements, the record high numbers of refugees entering Europe from the MENA region, and the uncovering of dozens of systematic sexual abuse cases at the hands of organised Muslim groups from Mr. Mair's area, (which the Jay report shows was covered up or downplayed by people he would deem 'collaborators') would be equally if not a stronger motivation for carrying out this murder than Mrs Cox's stance on the European Union membership to a white nationalist or Neo-Nazi? If we look back over the last 20/30 years, opposition to non-white immigration has been a far stronger force within British Nationalist parties like the BNP/NF/EDL, and European Union membership has not featured prominently in their cause.

Admittedly, most news sources did not mention these two factors, which is understandable given the political climate at the time, however Jo Cox's wikipedia page does mention her pro-refugee advocacy, so I think it may be worth inserting something about this in this page.Oxr033 (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

No. If independent reliable sources do not synthesize these assumptions about these coincidences, then Wikipedia will not do so either. MPS1992 (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
No, because it is WP:OR, which says "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves". Mair was obviously a far right and white nationalist crackpot, but the Syrian/grooming angle is speculative.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Given the man did not appear to defend himself in court, isn't it equally speculative to imply, as the article does, that her murder was in some way connected to the EU referendum? The source cited for this claim over the course of this article appears to be a series of articles from the Guardian, which quotes some of his letters sent to a South African separatist organisation 25 odd years ago. I personally don't see any evidence for it, the Guardian does only mentions the referendum in passing and I don't think an editorial piece which tends towards the speculative necessarily means it's an independent or reliable source and should be taken at face value. I therefore do not think the EU referendum should be given prominence in the article lead. Alas, my links from a Google search of "jo cox grooming" doesn't being up any sources that seem to be independent or reliable, which is understandable given the context.Oxr033 (talk) 02:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the current wording in the WP:LEAD and the "Perpetrator" section is potentially misleading. There is ample evidence that Mair was a far right crackpot, but the claim that "Mair had singled out Cox, a "passionate defender" of the European Union and immigration" is based more on an interpretation of The Guardian article here than something Mair actually said. It's not a good idea to put words into Mair's mouth, because as you say, he didn't go into specifics about the motive beyond ranting about "traitors, freedom for Britain". Maybe he was getting worked up over the EU referendum campaign, but he didn't cite this specifically as his motive.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
We cite what reliable sources have to say about his motive, not our personal interpretations of his words. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
The current wording in the article is WP:OR-ish about his motive. The Guardian article itself is somewhat in the realms of speculation, as Mair himself never gave a reason for specifically targeting Cox, or said that the EU referendum campaign was a factor. There is a risk of giving undue weight to the Guardian article on this issue. The judge's sentencing remarks are closer to the facts of the case, and don't contain the speculative material which has crept into the Guardian article. The judge said "It is clear from your internet and other researches that your inspiration is not love of country or your fellow citizens, it is an admiration for Nazism, and similar anti-democratic white supremacist creeds where democracy and political persuasion are supplanted by violence towards and intimidation of opponents and those who, in whatever ways, are thought to be different and, for that reason, open to persecution." No reference to the EU referendum campaign, or a specific reason for targeting Cox.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Jo_Cox/Archive_2&oldid=1091479649"