Jump to content

Talk:Thomas Mair (murderer)

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

Inevitable question

[edit]

As per Murder of Jo Cox, is Mair best described as an assassin or a murderer? I guess the result of the current Move discussion there will inform any decision. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. If that is the consensus on the Murder of Jo Cox page, then I would support a move as per consistency. HelgaStick (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As creator and main contributor of the article, perhaps you have the privilege to just go ahead and change it? The Requested move could then be hastily removed, saving a lot of time. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I can't move the page. Thomas Mair (murderer) already exists as a link redirect to the Murder of Jo Cox page. HelgaStick (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I guess we'll have to !vote and hope for a speedy close. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 November 2016

[edit]
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: page moved. HelgaStick (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Mair (assassin) → Thomas Mair (murderer) – "Murder" is the correct description of the Murder of Jo Cox. There is an extensive debate at Talk:Murder of Jo Cox over whether to describe her killing as "Murder" or "Assassination". The prevailing view is that "Murder" is the correct term. This article should be named consistently with that one. MrStoofer (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tally (S/O/N): 8/0/3

Support

[edit]

Oppose

[edit]

Neutral

[edit]

Discussion

[edit]

Note: I have deleted the extra revisions of Thomas Mair (murderer), so it should now be possible for a non-admin to move this over the redirect. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I've moved the article now as there seems to be consensus here. HelgaStick (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Notable for a single event

[edit]
Note: The editor who performed the closure was blocked for sockpuppetry. If the closure needs a review, you may go to WP:administrators' noticeboard --George Ho (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By breadth of support 8 editors support merging this article to Jo Cox, and 2 are opposed. Policy based arguments are limited and of roughly equal value. There is a consensus to merge this article to that of the victim. On the separate issue of trimming, only half of those who support merge also support trimming the article, and several of the other merge supports have actively opposed this. Further, it can be assumed that those opposed to merging altogether probably oppose trimming, also. Therefore, there is no consensus to trim the article and the merge should be done in a way that preserves all content (very minor copyediting to remove duplication should be okay). Once the merge is completed, a new discussion could occur about whether the merged content is now UNDUE for the Jo Cox bio, though. DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This article appears to be a blatant contravention of WP:ONEEVENT and I would support it being deleted. --MrStoofer (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Trim and merge. Firstly, the whole of the second half of this article should be removed. It deals with the murder and its aftermath, not with Mair, the article subject, and unnecessarily duplicates the "Murder..." article. Secondly, I agree with This is Paul - he is no more notable (indeed, less notable) than, say, Thomas Hamilton (murderer) (who is only a redirect). Information about his background and links can be included in the "Murder..." article. We should be wary of glorifying murderers by giving them standalone articles when there is doubt over their notability as individuals. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per the reasonings offered above, with which I concur. Keri (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge per reasoning given by In ictu oculi. Adding biographical detail about Mair in other articles would make them appear bloated. HelgaStick (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How many other articles did you have in mind? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was meaning in terms of a possible merger to the Murder of Jo Cox page. That should focus on the murder of the subject and if this article were to be merged there, it would become too lengthy to read IMO. HelgaStick (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is considerable duplication between the articles, which would clearly be removed in a merger. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the article is now getting bigger. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Any trimming though should be limited to duplication, not a reduction in scope. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim and merge, as per Ghmyrtle above. I see that this proposal has now been open five weeks, so perhaps a non-involved close can be expected soon. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim and merge, for reasons given by others, a huge amount has been written about LH Oswald, little about Mair, none of it outside this single event. If kept, trim very heavily, whole sections are copy pastes of the Cox article. Where are the sources describing Mair as a terrorist? Why was he not tried under terrorism charges? This appears to be pure OR and to not even meet the 'everyday' meaning of the word.. Pincrete (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I read this right, 8 editors support a merge and 2 oppose it. In the circumstances, I'll propose an admin closure at WP:ANRFC. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it makes much difference, but it's actually 7:3. However, if I may add my own analysis of the discussion:
  • Two oppose votes point to Category:American criminal snipers, such as Lee Harvey Oswald. This is merely an argument of WP:OSE. In particular, the Oswald case was quite different to the Mair case, as the former was also murdered himself, aside from being an assassin. One of those votes state that Adding biographical detail about Mair in other articles would make them appear bloated – WP:ASZ. The other oppose vote states that this person has received more than enough coverage to warrent his own article – WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. As I said in my vote, looking at the sources available in the article and online, virtually all of them concern the Cox murder, and show Mair is only notable for that. Given everything said, the consensus is pretty obvious. Linguisttalk|contribs 15:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Note: The editor who performed the closure was blocked for sockpuppetry. If the closure needs a review, you may go to WP:administrators' noticeboard --George Ho (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

[edit]

At a glance, some of the passages in this article, particularly those covering the EU referendum, appear to be original research. This is Paul (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assassin category

[edit]

I'm taking this to the talk page for discussion, but I'm scratching my head as to why this discussion is even needed. There seems to be a lot of consternation against categorising Mair as an assassin at all, despite a preponderance reliable sources saying so, using either the unsourced claims that "assassin" is not used in British English or the assertion he wasn't an assassin because either Cox wasn't important enough or Mair was "mentally unstable.

Categorisation is cheap and it is completely possible to categorise Mair as both an assassin and a murderer (indeed, assassination is a type of murder!). Sources that use the term "assassination" or "assassin" include:

  • Daily Mail: "'Jekyll and Hyde' assassin was a loner who scoured himself with Brillo pads because of cleanliness obsession and spent his life on mental health drugs";
  • SPLC: "Accused British Assassin Thomas Mair Attended Racists' 2000 Meeting";
  • Simon Flint QC, defence counsel for Mair: "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"
  • Searchlight: "I write as Nazi assassin Thomas Mair begins a whole-life sentence for the murder of a well loved MP, wife and mother and an advocate for the long-suffering people of Syria."
  • The Conversation: "Yet, it was the shocking assassination of MP Jo Cox that will forever serve as the most painful reminder of what 2016 has stood for"
  • IBT: "One of the [National Action] slogans – "Death to traitors, freedom for Britain" – was uttered by political assassin Thomas Mair, after he killed MP Jo Cox during the EU referendum campaign in June 2016."

I'm limiting these to, mostly, British sources, but there are a plethora of non-British sources too. Sceptre (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion was exhausted, via the RM above, over the article title? Surely Categories should simply reflect the article title and the main content of the article? Perhaps there is a case for having a sub-secton in the article which discusses use of the word "assassin", etc., by some publications/ commentators? At the moment it seems to be tangential and/or assumed. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) As far as the RM goes, both sides of the argument provided good reasoning. After MoJC was moved to its present title, the RM went over two weeks without any discussion before I closed it. Any more move discussions will give us a dead end, but, as far as the inclusion of "assassin" etc. in the body of the article, I'm tempted to file just one more, once-and-for-all RfC for this to finally put an end to this long dispute. I do think, however, that Martin's idea above of a description of the use of the term "assassin" by others is worth considering. Linguist Moi? Moi. 14:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "white nationalist" doesn't appear in the article, but it is a legitimate category and used as such. There are more sources for the use of assassin more generally in this article than there are for Rosanna Choudry, and declining to do so in this case to fellate the COMMONNAME policy is systemic bias at best, and a grave violation of NPOV at worst; there is no legitimate dispute in reliable sources that this wasn't an assassination, but plenty of sources that say that it was. Sceptre (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had assumed that "neo-Nazi, white supremacist terrorist", in the first senentce, was close enough. If not, then that Category should be adjusted or removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
e: the parallels to Robert Bradford (Northern Irish politician) are striking. So what makes that an assassination but this not one? Sceptre (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly the context of hundreds of years of bitter Irish sectarian division and paramilitary activity? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And there hasn't been that for fascism whatsoever? In any case, your argument boils down to original research, and original research that contradicts reliable sources at that. Sceptre (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying there have been hundreds of years of bitter fascist activity and paramilitary activity in West Yorkshire? But I think Robert Bradford (Northern Irish politician) is probably best kept as a separate discussion. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does at least three race riots over the span of twelve years, a concentration of BNP councillors around the Spen Valley, electing a BNP MEP in 2009, Leeds being the base of Redwatch, and fascist demonstrations seemingly monthly count? And, as it turns out, there are a decent Guardian article about fascist organising in West Yorkshire (which, as it turns out, fits Mair's activities clearly). Sceptre (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I thought, again, this dispute is not getting solved. I'm filing a final RfC. Linguist Moi? Moi. 16:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Assassin or not?

[edit]
Result pending: Now that this RfC has run its course, I'm closing it, so consider this a housekeeping close. However, I'm not going to determine and enforce a result, as A) I think it is best that an administrator determines the result, given the arguments presented both in the RfC and in the move discussions above and on Talk:Murder of Jo Cox, and B) per the ongoing merge discussion above, the article is likely to be merged with and redirected to one of the Jo Cox articles (Jo Cox and Murder of Jo Cox), so a result will be enforced there instead of in this article. I will file a request for formal admin closure at WP:ANRFC, and I ask that the closing administrator strike my closing comment here when determining the result (non-admin closure). Linguisttalk|contribs 14:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal 1 is passed--Not-withstanding the some-what limited participation in the RFC, there is a well-justified consensus to include the Scottish assassins category in the article per the abundance of WP:RS on the issue.At the same time, there is unanimous consensus that proposal 2( devoting a section to the issue) is unwarranted.Winged Blades Godric 08:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Added content at 08:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This has been filed in an effort to finally solve the dispute over whether the murder of Jo Cox was merely a murder or assassination. A new RM is out of the question, so in line with the comments in Talk:Thomas Mair (murderer)#Assassin category, which one of these should be included in the article, and why?

  1. "Assassination" categories, such as "Scottish assassins".
  2. A new section (in both this article and Murder of Jo Cox) on the murder being referred to as an assassination by multiple sources.
  3. Neither of the above. Nothing on an assassination.
Linguist Moi? Moi. 16:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1: Categories

[edit]
  • I think that the categories should be included, as the term "assassin" has been used by a number of sources. If the consensus is to use "murderer" in the article text, that's fine, but an assassination is a specific form of murder and these categories are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, I would tend to agree that the "assassination" categories should be reinstated in the article.
However, an entire section on the use of the term "assassination" seems unwarranted; unless a discussion about this term in particular relating to Mair appears in reliable sources, this should be avoided. HelgaStick (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was obviously an assassination, and the sources reflect that, so I'm at a loss as to why describing it as such is getting so much opposition with so little sources to back up said opposition. Likewise, I think that a whole section would be to give undue weight to the Louise Mensches and Katie Hopkinses of the world who do little more than professionally spew excrement on Twitter. Sceptre (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the category should be included. Aside from the 'some sources' argument, I think it legitimate to look at the purpose of categories, which is to 'tie' similar topics, in this case the 'tie' is murdered public figures, and someone looking at such a subject might well be interested in this case as well, I therefore think it legitimate to use the category, even though I do not think this is a 'clear cut' assassination, neither do the majority of sources. So my vote should not be read as agreeing to anything other than category inclusion. Pincrete (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Pincrete above, I'm supportive of the inclusion of the category under the general utility argument; cats are an organizational feature, and though they may not blatantly violate the precept of NPOV, they do require some common sense adjustment with regard to verification. For example, suppose we were talking about an article regarding a cosmonaut. Certainly in the article text we would call him a cosmonaut, but if we had a master category for all the world's "astronauts", I would not object to the inclusion of said cat in said article, even though technically it deviates from the label used in the majority of sources and some of the nuance of the distinction is lost, merely by nature of how categories function as a technical matter on this project. Likewise, sources may or may not support the label "assassin" for purposes of the prose in this or the Murder of Jo Cox article. Regardless, we are able to extrapolate (without recourse to original research) that this is a man who killed for reasons that were at least partly linked to ideological motive, and that the subject is therefore one which people searching the assassin cats might reasonably want to know about. We have take great care not to stamp our own interpretation on top of the content that the reader finds when they get here, but they'll never find the article to begin with (not through a category anyway) if we don't use realistic pragmatics in how we list entries. However, I also agree with most who have commented so far that a dedicated section to the nomenclature used to describe this slaying is probably uncalled for in this instance. Snow let's rap 06:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2: New section

[edit]
  • Inappropriate. As a seperate section, however there is no reason to not include such speculations WITHIN existing text sections, possibly the 'affiliations' or 'trial'. I am acting on memory now of coverage, but that memory says that sources were wrestling with where the balance between a disturbed person and a political killing lay, with no clear resolution. Expressing that would probably demand a more nuanced text than the one suggested in this RfC and would be better served by working it into present text. Also quite unnecessary to duplicate content in murder and perp articles, choose one and put a single sentence in the other. Pincrete (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3: Neither

[edit]
  • Inappropriate. Of the 7 cites I opened (11, 21, 31, etcetera) none of them refer to it as assasination. The WP:Categorization says a central concept of WP:CATDEF, the WP:DEFINING characteristic that WP:RS commonly and consistently define the subject as having. This just isn't passing a casual check of is it prevalent in most sources as a defining characteristic. (As an aside, there also is the mechanical issue that there seems no category for British or Scottish assassins in Assasins by nationality] to even make use of. ) CHeers Markbassett (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't add assassin category - use murderer category instead. The Wikipedia article on Assassins (redirect from Assassin) covers the medieval Nizari Ismailis. The introduction to Assassin (disambiguation) states:
Assassin originally referred to members of the medieval Ismaili order of Assassins. Assassin may also refer to: Assassin, one who commits a targeted murder or assassination
The hatnote for "Assassins" states: "For the modern act of murder, see assassination." My opinion, the subject is a murderer, not a medieval Nizari Ismaili. Might have committed an Assassination, but that is also a murder.--Rpclod (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
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.

List of chip shops Mair never visited?

[edit]

Sorry for the sarcastic section title, but so much of the content here is off-topic and borderline WP:COATRACK.

The section "The far right in West Yorkshire" has about 4 paragraphs about the history of the far right in West Yorkshire, concluding "Despite these factors, Mair appeared to have little direct involvement in such groups locally." So, why is it there? The fact that there may be a strong far right presence in West Yorkshire, but Mair was not directly part of it could be said in a sentence ( I just did, nearly).

The 'Murder of Jo Cox' section, despite copying acres of text from the Jo Cox page, and fairly POV content about the racism of the Brexit campaign, completely fails to include a summary of the basics, Who? When? What happened? How? A paragraph or two because this article will be read by people not from the UK who do not know these basics, and those acts are the fundamental reason for the article existing at all.Pincrete (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the article is already looking less unhealthy. ... 5 hole salt shakers instead of the normal 17 holed ones to try and get people to use less salt on their meals. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_Mair_(murderer)&oldid=1246048920"