Talk:Carl Sargeant

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carl Sargeant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of death (suicide) should NOT be written as if it had already been established (contempt of court)[edit]

In England and Wales within the United Kingdom, whether a person has died (in a suspicious, unnatural or unexplained death) from suicide or not, is usually only formally and properly established, concluded or determined by someone called a coroner, in something called a Coroner's Inquest ... until the Inquest on the matter of the death of the late Carl Sargeant AM has been concluded, I would suggest that reports of suicide from even from such eminent and respectable journals as the Mirror, the Guardian, the Socialist Worker and the Morning Star should not be misused here in order to "jump the gun" before the coroner (and his jury, if there is to be one) has actually have the chance of finishing doing his (or their) job under the Coroners Act 1988 (1998 c. 13) [1] and the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (2009 c. 25) [2]. "From an unconfirmed suspected suicide", not "from suicide". (Under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (1981 c. 49) [3], which also covers the work of coroners and Coroners' Courts, the maximum penalty according to Section 14(1)(2) [4] is a fine not exceeding £2,500 or 2 years' imprisonment, or both. [5][6][7]: "Commenting on the results of an inquest could prevent a future criminal trial as the defendant may not be able to get a fair trial.") --- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 07:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is what the BBC stated here An ex-Welsh Labour minister who faced a party investigation into allegations about his personal conduct has taken his own life, it is understood. Wikipedia reflects what wp:reliable sources state. Telegraph: Welsh Labour minister Carl Sargeant takes own life days after being suspended over allegations of sexual misconduct The Guardian: Sargeant, a 49-year-old married father of two, is understood to have killed himself. North Wales police said on Tuesday that the death was not being treated as suspicious.Jim1138 (talk) 07:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between saying "it is understood ..." and quoting something as a fact. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that they don't say "died by suicide" or "committed suicide" (but please avoid the word committed) - it's possible someone kills themself and the coroner returns a verdict of death by misadventure. DanBCDanBC (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia follows what the sources say. If they are usually hedging, we should generally hedge as well. If they are usually stating something as fact then we should generally state it that way as well. I haven't looked at the reporting here to know how his death is usually being presented, but that is the standard that we are expected to apply. The rationale for focusing on sources is both that Wikipedia is verifiability not truth, and because the reporting news organizations are more likely to have an accurate understanding of what has been established and can be safely reported. Lastly, let me say that the wall of legal citations that you provided is largely a red herring. Wikipedia, a US-based organization with no substantial assets in the UK, has on many occasions felt entirely comfortable ignoring UK-specific laws and injunctions, just as we ignore laws restricting free speech that arise in many other non-US jurisdictions around the world. An individual editor may choose to tailor their editing to local laws (though legal attacks on individual editors are exceedingly rare), but as an organization Wikipedia is not worried beyond our internal need to accurately report what the relevant sources are saying. Dragons flight (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Dragons flight that the legal claim is a red herring; and prosecuting websites for this kind of distinction isn't the logical point of this law. That said, the sources (BBC and Telegraph) both use the phrase "took his own life," and neither use the word "suicide," so I've amended the article to reflect the words we have references for. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian says he "apparently killed himself"! Call the cops! AusLondonder (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The cops have already been called. They said they were "not treating his death as suspicious." What's your point? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian are in contempt of court, are they not? AusLondonder (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. They've included the word "apparently", which allows space for doubt. They've also avoided the use of the word suicide - it's possible for a person to kill themself and for the coroner to return a verdict other than suicide. DanBCDanBC (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not unless court proceedings are underway, as I understand it. In this case that would mean that an inquest had been opened. You might want to read e.g.this. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the categories that include his death as a suicide. Reliable reporting of his death refers to "apparent" suicide, etc. - as does the current article text - and there is no need to prejudge proper process so far as WP categorisation is concerned. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As was stated on ANI - the British legal definition of suicide may not necessarily be relevant. All that is relevant is what the sources say. AusLondonder (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
... and MOS:TIES. That is, we should use the terms used in British sources in preference to those used in other parts of the world. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure what TIES has to do with it. That's about national varieties of English. AusLondonder (talk) 08:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know. "Committing suicide" is essentially an Americanism - or, at least, a term based on the outmoded notion that suicide is a crime that is "committed" - and you will find that British sources do not generally use the term, which is part of the reason why it should not be used in this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
England and Wales decriminalized suicide via the Suicide Act 1961 (see Suicide legislation). There is some discussion over the meaning of the word "commit", but in UK it's almost always used in relation to a sin, a crime, an offence, a felony, etc. Can one commit a mistake? Usually one just makes one. Use of this phrase has been extensively discussed elsewhere, including with regard to cause of death in the infobox. I agree with Ghmyrtle here. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I actually agree with you on that. I'm not a big fan of the "committed" suicide wording. The dispute was about whether we could repeat sourced statements that he took his own life or be in contempt of court. AusLondonder (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, sources might risk being in contempt if they stated categorically e.g. "Sergeant took his own life" but not if they wrote e.g. "Sergeant is believed to have taken his own life". A matter of belief in not necessarily a legally established fact. I guess the circumstances of each case would be considered individually. We have a police statement here which makes the situation somewhat clearer. There seems little doubt. But, like Ghm has suggested, I don't think it's a simple as this. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of context is useful. The word suicide has two very similar meanings. There's the everyday English word where someone kills themself. There's also the legal definition where a coroner is persuaded, beyond all reasonable doubt, that a person killed themselves and had the intention to do so. That's a high burden of proof, so it might well be that the coroner returns a verdict of say misadventure while everyone else is saying suicide. DanBCDanBC (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect these "two meanings" may be distinct, but are positioned at two ends of a continuum of meaning. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: ongoing discussion over proposal to "Change suicide references to remove criminal allusion" here. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to say that a person may kill themselves, and most people would say that person died by suicide, but the coroner returns a different verdict. We shouldn't be restricted by he coroner's verdict. (Although people in the UK need to be wary of saying anything before the verdict is delivered) DanBCDanBC (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we certainly should be restricted by the coroner's verdict. It has legal status. Martinevans123 (talk)

Category:British politicians who committed suicide[edit]

Categories are, by definition, categorical. I'm really not sure that use of this particular category is yet justified. Normally one would await the outcome of an inquest before publishing such an unqualified claim. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I removed it - see above. 😊 Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honorific-suffix[edit]

I believe the honorific-suffix should remain, because of the rationale in the hidden text. But the link to the the abbreviation AM does not appear to be a valid entry for {{Post-nominals|country=GBR|}}. Is anyone able to fix this, rather than just delete it? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide categories, again[edit]

As far as I can tell the inquest has not concluded, so these categories are premature and erroneous. A case to remember, only a few miles away from Sargeant's, is that Gary Speed died of asphyxiation at his own hand but it was not suicide. [8] Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carl_Sargeant&oldid=1207803697"