Talk:Jo Cox/Archive 1

Archive 1

Date of death

Date of death seems premature. Can it be removed until confirmed. 46.247.8.130 (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Death confirmed by press conference circa 5:15PM BST. Can someone please add the recent death template? 58.160.129.238 (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done by someone else. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Picture

Have someone a free picture to illustrate this page and place it on Commons? --H₂O^(talk) 16:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Speculation

This talkpage is not a forum for speculation about the circumstances surrounding her death. Wikipedia only publishes what reliable sources say- all speculation on this talkpage will be removed. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Much better! Up until 5 minutes ago, the article stated, with ZERO proof, that he yelled Britain First. 76.112.63.254 (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

This BBC News story quotes an eyewitness saying that he "shouted "put Britain first" at least twice beforehand."[1] It's early days yet but has reliable enough sourcing for the article. It isn't necessarily a reference to the Britain First group. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2016

Early career

Following her graduation, Cox worked for as an adviser to Labour MP

Remove "for" for sentence clarity.

Thoughtmatters (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

wikiprojects

is it reasonable to add template:WikiProject European Union to this article ? EdwardLane (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Assuming you mean to the talk page of the article, then I say yes. MPS1992 (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I search the word "Europe" on the page and it comes up with her being a secretary to Neil Kinnock MEP and the referendum campaigning being cancelled. Although any project can tag anything they like, I'm not sure this is relevant. There is more I could say here on why that could be included but as a Brit I am tongue-tied by the law. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Question Time

I've mentioned that Question Time and This Week have been cancelled by the BBC following today's incident, but can only find this Digital Spy article as a source at present. I'm sure other outlets will mention it in due course, so we'll need to replace it with a better source when that happens. This is Paul (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hm, there's also the Daily Express or the York Press confirming it, neither of which are great sources. Hopefully a national, non-tabloid newspaper will mention it. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Also mentioned at 6:25 on [2]. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The BBC itself would be a source. Its own news service quotes its own Twitter account: https://twitter.com/BBCNewsPR/status/743486698768707585 Uncle G (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Photo

I'm not convinced the photo meets WP:NFCC -- given that she was a public person, surely we can obtain a free image of her even though she is deceased. To that effect, I have messaged several Flickr users to request they relicense photos of Cox: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. We'll see if I get a response... Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The first criteria states that no free equivalent is available or could be created. None is currently available, and obviously one cannot be created now. Therefore the current justification on criteria 1 is acceptable, though I completely agree that trying to get a currently non-free image made available would be the preferable long term solution. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

What the alleged murderer supposedly shouted

Most (if not all) UK media outlets are reporting that the shooter is, according to witnesses, said to have yelled "Britain first" during his attack on Jo Cox, including right-leaning newspapers:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/16/labour-mp-jo-cox-shot-in-leeds-witnesses-report/ http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-cox-shooting-britain-first-8210521 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3644847/Woman-MP-Jo-Cox-stabbed-shot-twice-man-makeshift-gun.html

So why has this information been deleted from the article?Oulipal (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

TV News here interviews eye witness who says he never heard it:

https://twitter.com/Jamin2g/status/743464352066453504 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.205.1 (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Temporary chief constable of West Yorkshire police gave a press conference about an hour ago and said, "Clearly, as this inquiry is at an early stage and we have an individual under arrest, we are not in a position to discuss any motive at this time." (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jun/16/eu-referendum-live-osborne-brexit-budget-leave-tories) Seeing that there are conflicting reports, maybe there should at least be the qualification "reportedly"? Shayday~enwiki (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

To me, saying 'alleged' makes a lot more sense and is in line with what reports are doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.95.190 (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

For reference (since it has been removed for not being "reliable"), Breitbart London states that the local who claimed to have heard the shout, identified as Hicham Ben Abdallah, has later admitted that neither he had actually heard any shout.[9] User2534 (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The reliable sources quote a Graeme Howard and Clarke Rothwell as eyewitnesses saying the attacker shouted "Britain First". [10][11]. Hicham Ben Abdallah - a man near to the scene who was actually quoted by the media giving other details, has said he didn't hear those words.. There's a reason why Breitbart isn't considered a reliable source... Dtellett (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Outlets have reported more than 1 witness hearing that though. I'm sure all will be known soon after police go through his records and history.

In some reports they quote a man who said he heard it through the grapevine having been away from the scene, but I saw with my own eyes on the news an actual witness telling the news what he heard. There is that testimony and a response by a group, which I would deem notable. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the above - this is early days, but it is important enough and well-sourced enough to report (with the "reportedly..." caveat). And, as Dtellett noted, it appears that it was not Mr. Ben Abdallah that reported the 'Britain First' comment, but two other witnesses: Mr. Howard and Ms. Rothwell, per The Independent.

Breitbart's "report" on what Mr. Ben Abdallah did not hear does not negate what the other two witnesses did hear.Neutrality^talk 03:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

ENGVAR in sourcing

Engvar has presented a problem that I haven't encountered before. As a result of the differing standards for the use of the word "assassination" between British and American English, we have reliable sources which are using the word "assassination" and editors in good faith, backed by a reliable source, using the word. However in British English there is a very high standard for the correct use of that word – an intended killing based on pre-motivated political beliefs, whereas in American usage if a politician is killed they are said to have been assassinated whether that definition is met or not. How do we square this circle? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be killing for now, as that's the British English way to describe it. In the British sense as described above, it isn't an assassination, as there isn't yet evidence that it was a pre-meditated attack based on political beliefs. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, is there any way of adding an editnotice to the effect of pointing towards talk page consensus that "murder" and "assassination" should not be added at this stage? I can't remember how to do editnotice, nor can I remember whether it is within policy (or technically possible for non-admins) to add them to article pages. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Should article use the word "murder" prior to a conviction?

I got a little ahead of things above, there has been extremely limited discussion on whether this should be described as "murder" (though sufficient consensus on "assassination". My view is that it shouldn't prior to a conviction or admission to that effect – at this stage it is best referred to as a "death" or "killing", depending on the context in which the word is intended to be used. I don't dispute that there are sources out there that use it, though those are primarily American English sources. As with assassination, given the different standards for use of the word in the different varieties, we should therefore defer to what the majority of British English sources use. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It becomes sub judice if the attacker is charged with an offence. At that point the British media will stop referring to it as murder until a verdict to that effect is reached. However, I share your view that it should not be described as murder at all because even though it is legally OK it could still prejudice any future trial. I hope your "jump the gun" pun was unintentional... Firebrace (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow... can't believe I didn't see that. Edited... StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

As said at greater length elsewhere, I too would say defer to our legal protocol. As far as reports on the killer's background etc suggest, this is likely to be the sort of killing that could a century ago have been bluntly called the act of a "lunatic".Cloptonson (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Murder of Jo Cox

There is sufficient independent notability for the first fatal attack on a British MP for a quarter of a century for a separate article. Coverage relating to the suspect and the motivation are not best covered in the biography of the victim. Please assist at Draft:Murder of Jo Cox. AusLondonder (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

It may be worth considering the discussions on this page about the use of the term 'murder'. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Jill Dando doesn't have a separate article for her murder, but this article may if there is a consensus for it. At the moment, there isn't much to go on, and as already pointed out, "Murder of X" has WP:BLPCRIME problems.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Getting the timeline right

Flagging up these edits: [12] (edit summary: from scheduled time of surgery (13.00-14.00) she was arriving see [13]) and [14] (edit summary: multiple sources say surgery was already over). There was confusion among the news media when initially reporting this as to whether she was arriving at the surgery or leaving it (or even on a lunch break). Pinging the two editors concerned (Rodw and Rcsprinter123) so some consensus can be reached over this. Carcharoth (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

This source seems the best one to use: 'Jo Cox murder: How democracy's darkest day in decades unfolded', The Telegraph. That article states: "Her fortnightly surgery had been advertised as beginning at 1pm at Birstall library, but she had arrived seven minutes early". It also contains many other details, which doubtless many sources will report and re-report over the coming days. Carcharoth (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I changed it from leaving her surgery to "scheduled at" based on her own web site, as there was confusion in the initial reports. This is supported by the Telegraph reference given above.— Rod ^talk 05:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I made the change make to 'before' with this edit. Carcharoth (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Security context

This BBC News article ('MP's killing raises questions about security') mentions two earlier high-profile examples of attacks on an MP, one of which is not yet mentioned in this Wikipedia article. This Wikipedia article mentions the attack on Stephen Timms in 2010, but does not yet mention the attack on then-MP Nigel Jones in 2000 in which Andrew Pennington was killed. See also the attack section of the Nigel Jones article. It is probably worth mentioning the attack on Jones as well as the attack on Timms, given that the attack in 2000 resulted in a death as this one in 2016 did. The source would also provide some of the wider context relating to the security of MPs at these meetings and the pressure incidents like this put on the desire to maintain open democratic traditions. See also 'Jo Cox killing is an assault on democracy' (BBC News). Carcharoth (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Also from BBC News ('Jo Cox MP dead after shooting attack') – Mrs Cox, 41, is the first sitting MP to be killed since 1990, when Ian Gow was the last in a string of politicians to die at the hands of Northern Irish terror groups. Gow was assassinated by the IRA. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 07:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You should both see this edit and this edit. For the latter edit summary, notice the existence of List of serving British MPs who were assassinated for wider context. Uncle G (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I've added the Jones/Pennington example. Uncle G, are you saying the removed material in the second edit you pointed out should be restored in the other article? Carcharoth (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

"Surgery"

I have no idea why this edit is so controversial, but apparently it is, so here goes.... For speakers of American English, the sentence "On 16 June 2016, Cox was shot and stabbed multiple times in Birstall, West Yorkshire, where she had been holding a surgery with her constituents." is totally baffling. "Surgery" for me (an educated American) means an operating room. I would like to introduce "(meeting)" following the word "surgery" so that Americans can understand the intro better. This is akin to providing a gloss for any other unfamiliar word. See WP:JARGON: "Avoid excessive wikilinking (linking within Wikipedia) as a substitute for parenthetic explanations such as the one in this sentence." Thoughts? Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I guess it is a confusing one, since the term surgery has a number of meanings. As well as the act of performing surgery itself, in the UK the term can refer to any arrangement where people arrive and wait for an interview with somebody, such as a politician, doctor and even in an academic setting. People also refer to a doctor's office as a surgery. One solution could be to link to the Wiktionary article surgery. This is Paul (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I can see how the word on its own might baffle you but it is in context. What else could "holding a surgery with her constituents" mean? It shouldn't baffle anyone for more than a couple of milliseconds... Firebrace (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

There's also the article Surgery (politics) that we could link to. Anyone unsure of the term could click on that for an explanation. This is Paul (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh...we already do...guess it's late and I'm getting tired. This is Paul (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I have some sympathy for American readers, but the problem as I see it is that 'surgery' and 'meeting' hold two different meanings in UK English. Surgeries, as described above, are a series of individuals talking about sometimes personal problems with their MP in a one-to-one situation. Meetings, even 'constituency meeting' in American English as our Surgery (politics) article recently suggested, have a ring of either standing on a stage or sitting round a table, in a one-to-many or many-to-many situation. Though Jo Cox wasn't actually in the library at the time, it does convey something about the up-close accessible and personal nature of being a local British MP, something the media is already highlighting and we may hear more of. Meetings (plural) would possibly be more accurate than meeting (singular), but this seems less than ideal for similar reasons. 'Clinic' may be a better translation for Americans, though I wouldn't really like to see it in the article. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

It's the commonly used term in the UK for such meetings. This is an article in British English, so it should continue to use it. A link to Surgery (politics) is good, though. UaineSean (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no sympathy for American readers, as translations of Americanisms aren't spoon-fed to readers who read and write British English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.197.202 (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is written in British English. It is incredibly easy for American readers to click the wikilink for "surgery" and find out what it means. Please do not insist that everything on Wikipedia is dumbed down for an American audience - it is frustrating because, as pointed out above, we do not expect the same here in the UK, and because it betrays a very poor esteem of the average American's intelligence in your eyes. Zcbeaton (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree, we don't need to Americanise the article, especially when it has a Wikilink to it. Still, calling it a surgery meeting seems fine to me, to distinguish it from medical surgery. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article should not use the term "surgery." Yes, I can see the message above that, "This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, realise, aeroplane), and some terms used in it are different or absent from other varieties of English." However, "meeting" is a word in British English, just as it is a word in other varieties of English, and as far as I can see there is no reason it should not be used in place of "surgery". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, I see our less-gifted non-British users are struggling here. What's the issue? Can't click on the link to Surgery (politics) to educate yourselves more on what this term means? Should the lead have explanations of Batley and Spen after that link, for example? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Please try to avoid being deliberately rude. While it may be easy for people to click on a link, there should be no difficulty in including a brief explanation of the term "surgery" for those who are unfamiliar with it. Including such an explanation is not "dumbing down" Wikipedia, it is fulfilling the proper function of an encyclopedia, which is to explain things to people. Why should anyone object to that? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

So you know what Batley and Spen is without the need for it being spelt out to you directly after the link in the article? Should we dumb that down too? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

More rudeness. And your response is irrelevant, since I've already explained that including a brief explanation of something is not "dumbing down". The Batley and Spen example is totally different from "surgery", as it is defined by the article at the outset ("the constituency of Batley and Spen from her election..."). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Not irrelevant at all. So much for your own knowledge. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You might want to review WP:CIVIL. It is still policy as far as I know. Insisting on inter-personal conflict for the sake of it does nothing to strengthen your position. As I said, explaining things to those who do not already understand them is the purpose of an encyclopedia, and so there should be nothing wrong with briefly noting the meaning of a word. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

And that's why we have links to other articles to explain them, instead of repeating them again and again. That's how WP works, incase you didn't know that. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

There should be nothing briefly noting the meaning of a word, for the benefit of those not interested in reading another article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The lazy and ignorant? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and those pressed for time, those with unreliable internet, and so on. TompaDompa (talk) 10:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

As an American living in London, I have to say that I disagree with the attitude that good writing for a global audience constitutes "dumbing down". It takes little effort, particularly when attention is called to the issue, to find a way to write it clearly so that all readers can understand. The suggestion that they can click away to learn what the terms means is not good enough. Here is some quick work towards a solution. From our entry Surgery (politics) "A political surgery in British politics is a series of one-to-one meetings that a Member of Parliament (MP) may have with his or her constituents, at which a constituent may raise issues of concern, in much the same way that a person may directly consult a GP in his or her surgery (a "surgery" being the term for the GP's workplace, an "office" in American parlance)." What we have now in this article: "On 16 June 2016, Cox was fatally shot and stabbed outside a library in Birstall, West Yorkshire, upon leaving a constituency surgery scheduled for 1:00 pm." What I recommend: "...upon leaving a constituency surgery (series of one to one meetings with constituents) scheduled for 1:00pm."

I think this change is uncontroversial and will satisfy everyone and does not constitute "dumbing down". I would make the change myself, but could be perceived to have a conflict of interest, though obviously not one on this point of writing style.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Be bold! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The shooting took place a few minutes before 1pm, so it was before the constituency surgery, not "upon leaving". See here for one source confirming this. Several sources get this wrong, so look at several sources before deciding which are right here. Carcharoth (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

If I may be so bold as to add a non-British, non-American perspective to the issue: The word "surgery" on its own is highly likely to cause confusion (the problem is not just that the word isn't understood, but that it's misunderstood) to speakers of English that are not British. That includes Americans, but more importantly speakers of English as a second language (i.e. the vast majority of the people who speak the language). Most of those have no horse in this transatlantic linguistic feud. Adding a link to the term admittedly ameliorates the problem somewhat, but adding a few explanatory words solves it outright. Refusing to do so strikes me as being uncooperative for the sake of preserving the “Britishness” of the language in the article. TompaDompa (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

OK TD, instead of the abomination to mankind that is currently "...where she had been holding an advice surgery (i.e. a series of meetings with her constituents)..." instead have "...where she had been holding a a series of meetings with her constituents..." ? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not think that is an improvement. MPs holding "surgeries" is a familiar part of British politics and are quite distinct from "meetings" so your suggested wording would mislead British readers. Better to have advice surgery followed by a gloss for those not familiar with the term. Nedrutland (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Though "MPs holding surgeries is a familiar part of British politics", advice surgeries does little for those unfamiliar with British politics at this level of detail. Were this an entry about politics we might expect the reader to learn the term, but in this context, a biography made notable by a violent death, insisting on familiarity with British usage doesn't serve the interest of a worldwide audience. Something like "holding one-on-one meetings with constituents" is instantly understandable by all, and British readers will hear a little click inside their heads that says "oh yes, surgeries", but no one will hesitate. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like a good reason to remove the term completely. It's not just a series of meetings, it's an advice surgery. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

There's some background about surgeries in this BBC article. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

If it helps US editors, the almost direct equivalent of these constituency surgeries is the open door meetings held by some US representatives, such as this example: Open Door Meetings - "to discuss issues or problems you might have with the federal government". Though I get the impression that UK MPs can act on behalf of their constituents on an even wider range of issues, effectively acting as an advocate on their behalf on an issue, though mostly local ones. The 2011 Tucson shooting is described as a 'constituent meeting'. Can I ask the US editors here if there is a difference between the 'open door meetings' I linked to at the start of this post and the 'constituent meeting' as described in the Tucson shooting article? Is there a subtle difference? Carcharoth (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

As a reader with English as second language, but (I believe) at a fairly proficient level, I very much support the editor who wrote above that writing just "surgery" is all too easily misunderstood, so some indication that this has nothing to do with the medical specialty "surgery" would be good. British arguing against this should perhaps ask themselves if they believe the incidence is so insignificant that few Nonbritish can have any interest in it.

"Surgery" is currently used three times in the article - in the lead, in the body, and in a caption. I think an expansion or explanation of the term at just one of those three instances would suffice - I guess the one in the body is the obvious choise. And, in fact, it currently reads:

On 16 June 2016, Cox was fatally shot and stabbed outside a library in Birstall, West Yorkshire, prior to attending a constituency surgery scheduled for 1:00 pm.

I actually think this is already an acceptable solution, as wikilinking "constituency surgery" more or less drives home the point, even if a reader does not mouse-over or click the link. Still, I think an explanatory note would be even better; here's my best shot:

On 16 June 2016, Cox was fatally shot and stabbed outside a library in Birstall, West Yorkshire, prior to attending a surgery (series of one-on-one meetings with constituents) scheduled for 1:00 pm.

--Nø (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I put "an open door session of meetings with her constituents". Is the "one-on-one bit essential? Some surgeries are turn up and queue to see the MP (i.e. "drop-in", which is what this one was), some are appointment only. I see someone has put something in the lead section now as well. Carcharoth (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• This is exactly what wikilinks are designed for. We link complicated words so that anyone who doesn't understand the phrase can click on the link. Why the hell do we need to spell this out? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll quote WP:JARGON, as was done in the opening post: "Avoid excessive wikilinking (linking within Wikipedia) as a substitute for parenthetic explanations such as the one in this sentence." TompaDompa (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not jargon, it's a normal British word. I don't know what a "big-box store" is, but I wouldn't expect the article about Council Bluffs, Iowa to spell it out for me. If I'm curious, I'll click on the link. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The other approach is to explain first and then wikilink in parentheses. For example: "where she had been due to hold drop-in meetings at an open door advice session for her constituents (known as a constituency advice surgery)". How does that sound? I'll try that out in the article. Carcharoth (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Awful. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Some people like to click links, others like to have things explained for them. It is a balance and a question of style. There is no one correct answer here. I'll leave it for now, and maybe a consensus will emerge later. If anyone wants to change or revert my changes, feel free. Carcharoth (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We're sacrificing style by using clumsy language. It seems we're pandering to the WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. This is not American Wikipedia. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, please note that the addition has been controversial from the get-go. It should be removed until consensus is reached. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

If we're going to explain "surgery", why not explain "all-party parliamentary group" or any other terms that are only likely to be understood by readers of British English? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Far enough (re: the removal), but your edit re-added the gloss I had removed from the body of the article. You may want to remove that as well and take more care when reverting. Carcharoth (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

It may not be jargon, but it is somewhat esoteric. It shouldn't be controversial to say that a significant number of people are not familiar with the term—people that are familiar with a homonym. It's not that the word doesn't mean anything to them, but that it means something else to them. The word therefore causes unnecessary confusion. Calling it an "advice surgery" or "constituency surgery" removes that problem, as would an explanatory parenthetical. TompaDompa (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

All the mentions of "surgery" in the article follow either "advice" or "constituency" anyway. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but that wasn't the case when the discussion started. To be clear, I don't take issue with the current solution (though I would personally prefer an explanatory parenthetical), but I did take issue with simply wikilinking the word "surgery" with no further clarification. TompaDompa (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

As above: "advice surgery" is pretty clear it might not be a medical procedure. Many political terms such as "Cabinet" also have the potential to confuse. Can see some potential for clarifying "constituency surgery" mentioned later in the body, not least because pointing out that this level of interaction with the general public in their local offices is something all MPs are expected to do on a regular basis is actually pretty relevant to the circumstances of the attack and reactions to it, but would look a bit clumsy in the lede. Dtellett (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

If you're knowledgeable enough to do it yourself, I say be bold! TompaDompa (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

"Campaigner on issues"

The lede currently says that Cox was "a campaigner on issues relating to the Syrian Civil War, and also founded and chaired the all-party parliamentary group Friends of Syria". This is appropriate because all the reliable sources mention her Syria work as being significant -- perhaps the most important part of her work.

However, anyone reading the lede is left not knowing whether "Friends of Syria" was an organization supportive of al-Assad (the exact opposite of Cox's views), nor is it made clear whether "a campaigner on issues" means that Cox advocated one thing or another.

Extensive coverage in reliable sources talks about Cox arguing that Syrian refugees (especially children) should be welcomed in England, and similar things.

I already included this in the lede earlier, only for it to be removed, perhaps based on a misunderstanding. I am reluctant to re-add it without discussion, but I would invite any objections to a very brief mention of Cox's reliably sourced focus and views (a few words), on the end of the existing sentence in the lede about Syria.

If someone can improve the wording or find a better way of making the lede clearer while covering the required bureaucratic wording of parliamentary group etc., please go ahead and do so. MPS1992 (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Two articles, one subject, two discussions

On this talk page there is a Consensus note about what to call her death and not to name the perpetrator. On the sub-article's (Death of Jo Cox) talk page the debate about what to call her death is still very much up and running and the suspect is described in detail. Should not these two articles covering the "same" subject in many aspects be coordinated somehow and follow the same policy for consistency? w.carter-Talk 22:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You'd think so. I'm unsure how we achieve it though... StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Knowing the ol' Pedia, probably Divine Intervention, but still... w.carter-Talk 23:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the least worst option is to let the editors there continue to edit the shiny new article, and do our damned-most to keep this article up to scratch? Not a cat in hell's chance of that article being deleted (I tried), and I've yet to see this article expand to a point where the death section requires a trim on length grounds.

Even the folks whose arguments I respected at the AfD were leaning towards keep, so I can't really complain about the article's continued existence (though I can and do continue to disagree with it). But I think you'd have some trouble achieving consensus for changing the tone of that article. Heck, there is darn nearly a consensus on that talk page for moving the article back to "murder", or to "assassination", on the basis that reliable sources use those words. How that ties in with WP:BLPCRIME I do not know. I would genuinely like to know, to help me improve my judgement in future cases. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Naming the suspect

I saw the name of the suspect get removed.

There are sometimes cases when people are arrested and charged, but only referred to in media reports as "X-year old [gender]". That would be an outrageous breach of BLP to name such a person. In this case, the suspect is named and the name is reported by reliable media. Being named across media for being a suspect in such a case would go down in history, whether or whether not the suspect is guilty.

I would like to have some input from our legal specialists on the protocol here. '''tAD''' (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The BLP issue is combining the naming of the arrested person with the insistence on a few editors on the use of the word "murder". I'm not a "legal" expert, but that's the compelling Wikipedia-based rationale for achieving consensus on the issue above. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I researched and wrote an article that covers some of this a few years ago, if that helps. I know essays aren't Wikipedia policy, but it may help to shed some light on the matter. This is Paul (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Going by your essay, how can using the living suspect's name, plus the word "murder", possibly pass NPOV? Surely it amounts to a presupposition of guilt, which is in and of itself POV. The best way therefore would be to name the person named by reliable sources, but refrain from using the word "murder". StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Not quite sure what it is you're driving at there, but I had the following paragraph in particular in mind:

It should be remembered that any person accused of a crime is regarded as being innocent until proven guilty, and caution should therefore be taken in naming any individuals connected with a case. Ideally, any jurors sitting at a trial are not supposed to have formed an opinion about the case before hearing the evidence. Because of Wikipedia's popularity it is possible that an individual sitting on a jury may read an entry concerning a case they will hear, thus colouring their opinion before the evidence has been presented. Therefore, the inclusion of details of suspects, or even lengthy descriptions of events surrounding the case, could potentially jeopardise the trial.

This is Paul (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay. But we have plenty of users who would choose not to take a blind bit of notice of English law (and in some cases, go out of their way to break it). Focussing on ENGVAR, and on whether the combined and gratuitious use of "murder", "assassination" and the suspects name are compatible with BLP policy and NPOV is a far more inclusive way to go. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I suppose if we word it carefully there wouldn't be a problem, by that I mean making it clear the person is a suspect. I personally favour avoiding terms like murder without a conviction. This is Paul (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You might want to review List of assassinations in Europe#United Kingdom on this score. There is a named individual in a column headed "assassin(s)", right now. There's a similar arrangement at List of serving British MPs who were assassinated. And of course both articles have assassination in their very titles. Uncle G (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The suspect should not be named in this article (or on this talk page) and the name should be removed from other articles. The current phrasing: "A 52-year-old man was arrested in connection with the attack" is fine. Though having said that, many sources are now naming the suspect. The identity of the suspect is not likely to be disputed, what should be avoided is speculation on any potential verdict in relation to any suspect that may later be charged. Hence avoid any words that imply a legal verdict before any such verdict is reached, or any charges before such charges are brought. Carcharoth (talk) 05:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you should all look at Death of Jo Cox where his name and family are all over the article. WWGB (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Moved to mainspace at 06:36, 17 June 2016‎ (just after the comment above). But you have a point. I just edited that article. The identity of the suspect is clearly established, in multiple sources. I think any speculation on the motive should go. It is notable that the police are refusing to confirm various aspects of this, quite rightly waiting to see if more witnesses come forward, and whether more information emerges, and they will then decide on what charges to bring. Carcharoth (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The suspect has now been charged with murder and satisfies the Wikipedia criteria for publication. His name is available in reliable sources around the world. WWGB (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree with WWGB that it's ok to publish the name of the suspect. Just adding this here to help establish new consensus to remove that part from the {{consensus}} tag at the top of this page. w.carter-Talk 08:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I think a lot of users are conflating the done thing in Britain with Wikipedia policy. On this matter, Wikipedia policy is the more restrictive. From WP:BLPCRIME: "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."

The underlined points my emphasis for the benefit of those unwilling to read four sentences. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree here. No-one has yet been convicted. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

He is mentioned as "arrested in connection with" and "charged with murder" in the article, this is supported by police statements in reliable sources. It is not said that he did the crime nor is he referred to as "murderer". w.carter-Talk 09:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The article states that Jo Cox was "murdered". It's not for me to determine whether or not this is an appropriate statement at this time. But the existence of that statement (which has been added and removed numerous times, but seems to have been in the article more often than not time-wise) makes naming the suspect incompatible with policy. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I have varied the term to "slain", a less-legalistic expression. WWGB (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Given the amount of things that "reliable sources" get wrong, it isn't always helpful to follow what they say. There is a guide to UK reporting restrictions here. The judge allowed Thomas Mair to be named, so this in itself isn't a problem. What is more of a problem is introducing material that might prejudice a trial. Lawyers for the defence will look at this article, so be careful out there.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Following on from Ian's point, my concern is the length of time WWGB's edit will stick, given past form. I have no intrinsic objection to the suspect being named as having been charged, if there is a consensus that this is conditional on us not referring to the death as the two words there is consensus not to mention it as. And I have no intrinsic objection to the opposite scenario either (not naming the suspect but using those words). It's the combined use that is problematic, and which clearly does not comply with BLP policy. Personally I think the article needs an editnotice to the effect of whatever consensus we reach. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 09:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

An editnotice about not calling it a murder or assassination is (and has been for quite some time) already at the top of this talk page. I've added a <!-- --> note to "slain" in the text. Let's see if that holds. w.carter-Talk 10:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Misquoted Independent article

Just thought I should bring this to the attention of others, since a user keeps adding this and similar edits, which is a misquoting of this article from The Independent. Although the headline talks about her "campaigning tirelessly", at no point in that piece is she described as "a tireless campaigner". She may have been described as "a tireless campaigner" elsewhere, but to attribute that as a direct quote from that article is misleading. I've reverted it, and added something from the piece in the body of the text. This is Paul (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I have fixed the quotation. Thanks for spotting this. MPS1992 (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from some googling with quotation marks, it stems solely from the phrase "Jo Cox remembered as tireless campaigner and aid worker", used as headline by ABC News and others. TompaDompa (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

I've just looked through this article's history and read this talk page, and want to thank you all for the thorough and responsible job you're all doing. A difficult topic, very well handled. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Death/assassination?

Would it be appropriate to rename the "death" section and title it "assassination"? Perhaps not enough is known to warrant the title change, or a new sub-section (under the "death" section). But I would appreciate some input on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolsvilleowner (talk • contribs) 17:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I think assassination is used mainly for US deaths, and is rarely (if at all) used in the UK. None of the UK sources are saying she was "assassinated". Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no indication that she was assassinated. — Richard BB 18:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Descriptions of previous attacks in the Death section use the word assassination, attempted assassination. Can this be consistent? 208.87.234.201 (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

America does not use a variation of English consistent with the one we should use here. But regardles of variation of English, to use the word "assassination", we would need to be certain that she was specifically targetted for political reasons and that the intent was to kill. At this stage we do not know. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

For the record, the Oxford Dictionary of English defines assassinate as "murder (an important person) for political or religious reasons". Wiktionary defines assassinate as "To murder someone, especially an important person, by a sudden or obscure attack, especially for ideological or political reasons" and assassination as "killing or murder for political reasons".

At any rate, I think "death" is too nondescript. Alternatives may include "killing", "murder", and "assassination". If she hadn't also been stabbed, I'd argue in favour of "shooting and death". TompaDompa (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Using those definitions then assassinate is definately not appropriate at present as there is no evidence of "political or religious reasons" as yet. To say this at the present stage is speculation, until the police state this then I don't think wikipedia should assume it.— Rod ^talk 19:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense, the individual is reported by multiple witnesses to have screamed 'Britain First' and proceeded to brutally butcher a prominent pro-immigration pro-remain politician. The political basis for this assassination, even if conducted by a mad man, is blatant. 129.12.22.215 (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

"Murder" should be avoided until the attacker is convicted of murder. It could be that he is convicted of manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility, in which case describing the killing as a murder would have been defamatory. Best to use "killed" or "fatally shot". Firebrace (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

"Murder" is the word used almost universally in news reports about this case. If anyone has any issues about Wikipedia using the word, simply quote one of the many respectable sources verbatim. Regarding being the first, "... dying after an attack" is too restrictive; no MP has been, for example, poisoned, or had their brake cables fatally cut, for 25 years. It is also not restrictive enough in that it also includes someone being attacked, and later falling under a bus. Anyone wanting to be pedantic could consider "dying of injuries sustained in an attack" (but that's not what the sources, which we must follow, say, they say "the first murdered"). "Assassinated" is also the wrong word, it's again too restrictive. If a dozen MPs had recently been killed in fights in pubs, Cox would still have been the first to be assassinated. but not the first murdered. Pol098 (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS would seem to apply in this case. The motive has not been clearly established. Reliable sources are also reporting that the bystander who has been quoted about the gunman's allegedly-yelled phrase made it all up. Shearonink (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Why would he not only lie about something like that but then admit to lying about it? Firebrace (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Who knows. It's just something I read earlier today in more then one source, so the sources are differing. I think it is better to wait and see what the investigation possibly brings to light and what reliable sources state as the story develops. Discretion is called-for at this time and in this case. Shearonink (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Fair point. News sources are reporting what they believe to be the case in good faith (in that there is no correlation between reporting of the alleged quote above and political affiliation), but that is different from reporting the purported quote as an established fact. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

"Assassination" is the wrong term to use unless and until it's determined the killing was a premeditated attack for political ends. But the reliable sources quote two separate eyewitnesses stating that the killer shouted "Britain First", and the claim above that reliable sources suggest they have subsequently admitted they "made it all up" simply isn't true. Dtellett (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Speaking as one of those who heard the news of her death after 5.15pm, on my car radio, I would be inclined to resist calling it an assassination until/unless there is proof it was politically intended. The way witnesses reportedly saw her fatally injured suggests a deliberate killing but it would be legally premature to name it a murder in absence of an inquest and court verdict. (I am aware had this happened to a counterpart in France, newspapers would already be calling the suspect "the assassin" pre-trial.) I note here (I tried to put it in the text) that historically she is the first British woman MP to die after being attacked, an unenviable distinction.Cloptonson (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

You all might want to review List of serving British MPs who were assassinated while you are here. Uncle G (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• This was very likely a political assassination. However, we should avoid using that word until/unless reliable sources identify some kind of social/political motive. I expect that to happen soon, but for now we should wait. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
• This was an assassination. I think that enough time has passed, and based on the available evidence, we can now safely say this was a political assassination by any generally accepted understanding of the term. And I support the introduction of the word into the text of the article, perhaps in the lead and opening sentence of the section on her death. We need to call things by their proper name and use the best descriptive terms available for events. She was assassinated and we need to say so. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Stating it in bold does not make it so. You'll need a reference to evidence that this was politically motivated before stating that. Currently, the information available is that someone who calls himself by the name Death to traitors, freedom for Britain has appeared in court. WP:NOTNEWS still applies, as well-stated by Shearonink above. Bazza (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Also for more info about this, please see the section below "Naming the suspect" and the discussion on Talk:Death of Jo Cox#Requested move 17 June 2016. This discussion is presently held in three places. No attempt to coordinate this into a single and comprehensive discussion have been successful so far. (There is a Barnstar waiting as a reward for whoever solves how this can be done and make it happen.) w.carter-Talk 17:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Labour was not, and is not, the majority

I keep seeing where she won the seat with an increased majority for Labour in the 2015 elections. That is wrong for two reasons. First, Labour did not form the government prior to the election. Second, Labour did not win the majority in the 2015 election. The Conservatives won the majority in the 2015 election. Labour did gain seats, but it was not a majority. DavidSteinle (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

It was an increased majority for Labour in that constituency. This is Paul (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The term majority refers to how many votes were cast for Jo Cox vs. the other candidates in the same constituency. In this case she had a majority of 6,051. The previous MP had a majority of 4,406. It is perfectly normal in British English to say she won a majority, and the majority was increased. The national election is not really relevant. Now that's clear, I'll be changing it back. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

British usage dictates that we use the word "majority" – it is treated as the unqualified term for the difference between first and second even when the winner has a plurality of the vote. If this issue were to surface again I would suggest "majority over the Conservatives" (less ambiguous whilst not moving away from British usage). StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

A Labour majority over the Conservatives might make things less clear. I'd suggest some fiddling to place more emphasis on the majority within the constituency if there's a continuing problem. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I Too Have "a history of psychiatric problems"

But rather than murdering people, I work tirelessly to put an end to the stigma against the mentally ill.

[Living with Schizoaffective Disorder]

I respectfully request that "a history of psychiatric problems" be reworded in such a way as to not imply that those of us who have such a history are violent.

Thank You For Your Prompt Attention To This Matter.

12.155.34.75 (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC) Michael David Crawford

Firstly, I agree that not all mentally ill people are violent and that the article should not give this impression. Perhaps more importantly, the article should stick to known facts about Mair's mental health and not use terms like "reportedly", which is journalistic slang for "we don't know whether this is really true or not." Mair's behaviour in court today led to the magistrate requesting a psychiatric report, so this issue isn't going to go away.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2016

Please edit the HTML comment on the infobox variable death_place. At the moment it has Birstall spelt wrongly, with only one L: please add in the second L. Thank you.

In addition, for precision you might want to edit the "Leeds hospital" currently given into "Leeds General Infirmary". The LH tag is a bit generic and it's probably better to specify LGI or Jimmy's - but ITV.com inter alia specifies LGI.

Thanks!

82.36.105.25 (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I've corrected the HTML comment in death_place. MPS1992 (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. DBaK (back after a bit of a break. But it's still me!) (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2016

Please insert a link as early in the article as possible to the article Death of Jo Cox.

I would suggest that the link could be in the second sentence if you edit this:

from her election in May 2015 until her death 13 months later in June 2016,

to this:

from her election in May 2015 until [[Death of Jo Cox|her death]] 13 months later in June 2016,

- giving us this:

from her election in May 2015 until her death 13 months later in June 2016,

- but whatever works would be fine. My logic is that her death is necessarily mentioned early in the article, and needs a link from there; at the moment, readers wait till quite a way through before they get a link.

Thank you for your attention.

82.36.105.25 (talk) 09:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Done Hi @82.36.105.25: I've performed this edit for you. st170e^talk 14:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. DBaK (back after a bit of a break. But it's still me!) (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Sub judice

I removed the sub-judice warning. I am not sure why that box should even exist on wikipedia. It is not there for any other country's laws.Varith (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

And I have reinstated it. It is now standard practice to include it where appropriate, since British editors are legally bound by it, regardless of where the Wikipedia is hosted/based, or what you think. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Removed it again since Wikipedia cannot be bound by any laws except the US. Varith (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The sub-judice template is there for editors within the UK jurisdictions who might want to edit this article - they need to be notified of possible legal implications of writing about Jo Cox, her assailant and other related matters. While it is true that the Wikipedia servers are hosted in the State of Florda within the United States it is also true that this Wikipedia has a worldwide readership and worldwide community of editors. If this template can keep someone from possibly making a legal mistake, why is that such a terrible thing? (And there are sub-judice templates for Ireland, Hong King, Bermuda, and Gibraltar.)

I think the sub-judice template should stay on this talkpage. Varith, if you think this template should be removed then you should probably open an RfC to see what the consensus is from the editorial community. Shearonink (talk) 05:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Someone always says "Wikipedia content is bound by U.S. law", which is true, but the Wikipedia:General disclaimer says that people also have to consider the laws of their own jurisdiction, which is what the sub judice template says. I've also commented on this at Talk:Killing_of_Jo_Cox#Sub_judice_template_wording_errors. The trial in the Jo Cox case is going to be a lot more important than a civil law injunction preventing the reporting of some B-list celebrity's extramarital affair.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Killer's motive

I'm astonished by the apparent attempt by certain editors based in Britain to remove any mention of the killer's stated motive. He is self-identified as part of "the nationalist movement in the U.K.", as the SPLC source indicates. Furthermore, his "Britain First" cry during the killing, and his subsequent "Freedom for Britain" cry (which he stated as his name) during his initial appearance in court, clearly indicates he's primarily a British nationalist. That doesn't exclude the fact that he's also a white nationalist. White nationalism is obviously usually an inherent part of British nationalism today, although one of several aspects, along with e.g. anti-EU sentiment, Islamophobia and so on, which also seem to be part of his motive. --Tataral (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Well, he's probably/certainly one of those things, but at the moment it would be original research to say he's definitely one thing or the other. There's simply not enough evidence (and reliable sourcing) to say definitively "this person is a XXXX nationalist". Laura Jamieson (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
• (e/c). You may be right but it's not what the source says. It quotes him as saying: "“The nationalist movement in the U.K. also continues to fight on against the odds. … Despite everything I still have faith that the White Race will prevail..." No mention there of "British nationalism" - it is by no means necessarily the same as the "nationalist movement in the U.K.". Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

If the point has to be covered in the lead, it should be covered in the body as well. I concede that the point trying to be made is made in a restrained manner ("self-identified" with mid-sentence citation), but I do not believe it is justified in the lead of this article given the existence of Killing of Jo Cox.

Removal might be seen as trying to disrupt the article to prove a point, and I am unwilling to make an edit other than to remove. Please therefore can someone take whatever course of action they feel best complies with WP:LEAD taking into account the subject matter of this article and the subject matter of Killing of Jo Cox. Whether that be moving from lead to body, covering in lead + body, or removing altogether is up to you – personally I feel that it does not belong in this article's lead due to the existence of Killing of Jo Cox, but that's just one opinion. All three of those courses of action, including the one that I least-want to happen, would be more appropriate than covering it in the lead and then not in the body. Thanks, StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME and UK sub judice apply here. The magistrate requested a psychiatric report on Thomas Mair as his behaviour suggested that one was necessary. The motive may not have been to impress Jodie Foster, but a fuller picture needs to emerge.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Pinging everyone who has commented in this section so far: @Tataral, LauraJamieson, Ghmyrtle, and Ianmacm:

Personal view – I'd prefer that the final paragraph of the lead returns to this version (the reason I have not reverted to that version is that I acknowledge that a number of editors would be minded to revert). But if we are going to go further than that and discuss the suspect's political views, I really wish that at a minimum we would return to using the phrase "self-identified"/"self-identifies". No view offered on the body, or on the lead of the article about Cox's death. Though I would politely remind those who decided that Killing of Jo Cox was ready to be a stand-alone article 18 hours after her death, that they achieved a consensus for one. This article's lead should therefore be a summary of a summary of her death. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Tricky license but maybe a possible photo?

Browsing for a photo I found a pic here entitled "Jo_Cox-Public_Domain" (This is the name of the pic when you upload it). Digging a bit further it is evident that it is a screenshot from a video on parliamentlive.tv. This is published under something called Open Parliament Licence. Is there some editor here who can say if this license is compatible with uploading screenshots from this on the WP? w.carter-Talk 11:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It's definitely a screenshot from British television coverage of parliamentary proceedings, but I'm not enough of an expert to say what the licensing is. It may be PD, but I'll leave that to others. It is similar to C-SPAN, which is often used on Wikipedia because it is PD.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

If that screenshot is indeed under Open Parliament License then we can use it, we merely need to link to its source and the OPL description. It is of course, being a screenshot, not a great photo though. Laura Jamieson (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Screenshots are never great, but if it is currently the only free photo available we can't be too choosy. If this is free, then it makes the fair use of the current photo invalid. Also, we don't need to use this exact photo, we have the video and can easily pic another better screenshot from it. Just time it for best possible angle. w.carter-Talk 12:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Also the whole website is published under Open Parliament License, including her page on the site with this photo and this and if we can publish material under that license, we can't use a fair use image for this article. w.carter-Talk 12:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

A file (File:Jo Cox, British politician.jpg) from the Parliament website is now uploaded with the links mentioned above. I'll replace the fair use image and see how it goes. w.carter-Talk 12:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

In the event that it does not qualify as a free image due to some sort of incompatibility with our licences, it would nonetheless make a better non-free justification than the previous image under NFCC#2. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for covering that possibility as well. Also, to be on the safe side, it's only uploaded here on the WP and not on Commons. That may follow later if everything turns out well. w.carter-Talk 15:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I think there might be a problem with these images. The Open Parliament License page links to this page and under "Exceptions" we have "All photographs of individual MPs and Peers on the biographical pages and Committee pages are the exclusive property of Dods and are protected under international copyright laws. The photographs may not be reproduced, copied, stored or manipulated in any form without the written permission of Dods unless for non-commercial purposes, provided permission is sought beforehand and the photo is credited.". It also looks like the screencap of the video is copyright. Laura Jamieson (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Think I'll leave the final verdict to someone who knows more about licenses than I do. w.carter-Talk 16:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

So you've got a case of one non-free photograph where the copyright holder has paid very little attention to restrictions, and one which has explicitly said that use must be non-commercial and put a very high bar on commercial use (when we require commercial to consider an image free). Both require non-free justification, but all-in-all probably best to restore the original. Both instances could be justified as a non-free image, the difference is that the latter copyright holder has given a stronger indication that they care about the manner in which it is used. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It's worse than that: "Photographs taken by and credited to the Press Association or istockphoto are the copyright of these two external and commercial organisations. Their photos are used predominantly in the news stories." means this commercial photo isn't licensed at all under the Open Parliament Licence. I'm therefore switching back to the previous one for now, but it should really be possible for someone to ask for a decent photo to be made freely available. Certainly, thousands of people will have taken a photograph of her, in one or the other context. --PanchoS (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Even Jimbo Wales is on the case. Let's hope someone succeeds. I have sent request for donating photos to several news sites and another editor is doing the same at Flickr. w.carter-Talk 08:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Um.... videos are not covered under Open Parliament License. They have agreements. George Ho (talk) 07:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

As a side note, I removed an image from the body of the article. I feel we are justified in using a non-free image in the infobox if no free ones are available (as no new ones can be created, our only hope is someone releasing a previously unreleased image, or relicencing a non-free one as a free one). No way can we justify using multiple non-free headshots. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 06:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Place of death

I've amended place of death from Leeds to Birstall per this report about her inquest, which says: "The detective [Det Supt Nick Wallen] said she was pronounced dead by a doctor in an ambulance outside Birstall Library". This is Paul (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Assassinated British MPs

The question: Should we add Jo Cox to this category? I know it was debated at length previously at Talk:Thomas Mair (murderer), but this article is a somewhat different case. To my mind, whether or not we add it depends on if the press commonly used the term. All and any thoughts are welcome? This is Paul (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to support the inclusion of the category (Category:Assassinated English politicians seems to also be an option). There's a number of supporting sources at Talk:Thomas Mair (murderer) and Talk:Murder of Jo Cox which I won't repeat here. The debates on those pages focused mainly on what common name to use for the title of the articles - this is a distinct argument from whether assassination is a correct label. I think the weight of the murder conviction, the established political motive, terrorism associations (even if it's not organised), and the targetting of sitting a MP are enough to include this category. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems an obvious yes to me. Sources in previous discussion, clearly fits the brief description of assassination offered by Wikipedia as a murder of a prominent person for a political reason (more so than that of Spencer Perceval), and does not preclude the Murder of Jo Cox article continuing to emphasis the more commonly used legal term "murder" to describe the event.Dtellett (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems completely obvious to me too. I can't see any argument against it whatsoever. She appears on this list: List of serving British MPs who were assassinated. She was indeed a prominent person, was indeed murdered, was indeed murdered for political reasons (although that does not seem to be essential for designation "assassination". Why is it controversial?BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Assuming that's not rhetorical - I think this is a hangover from the debate about whether to use Thomas Mair (assassin) and Assassination of Jo Cox as titles for the respective articles. It's fairly reasonable to conclude we shouldn't include assassin(ation) in the titles, and that we shouldn't individually categorise Mair as an assassin, but as I say above it's a different debate - and not generally supported by arguments that it wasn't actually an assassination. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

She was murdered, not assassinated. You can't really use a wiki article as the basis of your claim. If anything, that article should be renamed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It's quite possible to be both murdered and assassinated. Take a dictionary definition of assassination, "to murder (a usually prominent person) by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons" (Webster), or "Murder (an important person) for political or religious reasons" (Oxford). We have the important person and the motivation. Reliable sources, "U.K. assassination casts shadow over 'Brexit' campaigns" (USA Today), "The far-Right 'terrorist' who assassinated Labour MP Jo Cox" - (The Telegraph), plenty more.. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. She was assassinated and she was a British MP. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)