![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
Have someone a free picture to illustrate this page and place it on Commons? -- H2O( talk) 16:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jo Cox has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
is it reasonable to add template:WikiProject European Union to this article ? EdwardLane ( talk) 18:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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 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)
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)
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 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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
![]() | This
edit request to
Jo Cox has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jo Cox has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
Removed it again since Wikipedia cannot be bound by any laws except the US. Varith ( talk) 04:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Um.... videos are not covered under Open Parliament License. They have agreements. George Ho ( talk) 07:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
Have someone a free picture to illustrate this page and place it on Commons? -- H2O( talk) 16:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jo Cox has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
is it reasonable to add template:WikiProject European Union to this article ? EdwardLane ( talk) 18:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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 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)
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)
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 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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
![]() | This
edit request to
Jo Cox has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jo Cox has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
Removed it again since Wikipedia cannot be bound by any laws except the US. Varith ( talk) 04:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Um.... videos are not covered under Open Parliament License. They have agreements. George Ho ( talk) 07:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)