Talk:Violet Gibson

A joke?

(from France) Is this a joke ? If Violet eventually was released without charge at the request of Mussolini it was only because a deal had been made with England, so that -as here rightly stated- she could spend all the rest of her life in an upscale mental asylum. Please just check, in excellent Richard O. Collin's biography, The Irish baron's daughter and Mussolini's nose. 194.254.169.6 11:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC) L. Nemeth

Untitled

Are you asking whether it was a joke that she was released without charge? --Aimaz (talk) 12:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Violet Gibson/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Classified as start class because there is now relevant information, a biographical picture and links to explain the topic but requires more work before it can become B-Class.--Aimaz (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 09:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 10:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Insanity?

I think it's interesting that people at the time thought (and this 21st Century article also suggests) that Violet Gibson was insane because she attempted to kill a fascist, when a couple of decades later, millions of American soldiers were given medals for doing the same thing. It just shows how the tide of public opinion ebbs and flows! Ianbrettcooper (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

They thought she was insane because she told the police afterwards that she did it "to glorify god", add to that the two years in a mental (1922-1924) institute prior to the assaination and the attempted suicide in 1925. The plaque they put up for her is sort of a joke: "a committed anti-fascist". Geddit? Committed. 220.100.119.229 (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Links to similar incidents

So I think that Murder of Jo Cox and Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan are very similar to this, though apparently someone disagrees. Do you disagree with both - or just Jo Cox ? 220.100.119.229 (talk) 07:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Many thousands of public figures have been murdered/assassinated (or attempted to be murdered); why pick out these two? Nedrutland (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

In the case of Reagan, it was a lone-wolf (same) the person was nuts (same) ambushed Reagan with a revolver (same) at close range (same) as he left an engagement (same) and was ultimately unsuccessful (same), and ended up spending the significant remainder of their life in a mental institution (same) and ultimately resulted in an increase of support for Reagan (same). Jo Cox I agree is a bit more tenuous, Muir was a lone wolf (same) had mental health issues (not quite to the same extent perhaps) he attacked at close range (same) and used a modified hunting rifle and knife (different) as she left an engagement (same) and was ultimately successful (different), and it resulted in not really much of a change to the status quo (different). I wanted to include Jo Cox, because it is a little bit more contemporary, more European, and because perhaps those who would cheer at the raising of a plaque to Violet Gibson, should draw comparisons there. Personally I find political motivated violence abhorrent.

Can you cite a few of the thousands of examples that you assert to exist that are so similar ? Lone wolf, close range only please. 220.100.119.229 (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I think your assumptions of Gibson as a "lone wolf" is not so clear, as it seems. The Dictionary of Irish Biography by Cambridge University Press raises various questions on whether she was working alone or in fact had connections antifascist groups or to catholic modernist dissidents see here. That alone makes any comparison you mentioned somehow worthless. Best, --LH7605 (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you could allow Nedrutland to come back on his point (which I think I've rebutted) I'll respond to yours separately. 220.100.119.229 (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Answer me this. Do you think she was nuts? 220.100.119.229 (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

How is this relevant? Also, I don't like the way of phrasing potential complicated and serious mental illnesses (I neither confirm nor deny that I think she actually suffered from a mental illness) as "being nuts"...Best, LH7605 (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

If you think she was nuts, then the comparison to Reagan fits better. If you think she acted from political motive then the comparison to Cox is closer. With no opinion, you would be in the include both camp. Clearly we aren't opposed to including 'See Also' sections. 220.100.119.229 (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Please avoid the non-enyclopaedic terms for "diminished responsibilty" et al., including on the edit summary and Talk page. You choose two examples of many which are dissimilar to each other. Why not a range of attempts (successful or not) on leaders seen as authoritarian: Hitler, Brezhnev; why not attempts on figures in Rome: Pope JPII; why not attempts on leaders by a possible 'lone wolf' with diminished responsibilty: Spencer Percival.

The two you have chosen are not close analogies and I find you picking Jo Cox (murdered by a sane fascist) offensively inappropriate.

The only relevant 'see also' is Assassination attempts on Benito Mussolini. Nedrutland (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so you had me going with Brezhnev for a minute or two until I realized - Brezhnev wasn't even in the car that was shot at, as a result I'm going to include the criteria "must injure intended victim". I went through the list of assaination attempts on Hitler, and there is nothing even close (what is it with Germans and bombs?). The Attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II smacks mostly of cold war intrigue, and though the article is somewhat confused, suggests accuplices and possible state backing. We could get into the long and storied tradition of American presidential assainations but the close-range kind tended to have some poltical motive, Garfield is probably the closest. The list of assainations attempts on Mussolini is a good addition.

Please avoid the non-enyclopaedic terms for "diminished responsibilty" et al.,

Is that a rule for talk pages? I don't think it is.

The only relevant 'see also' is...

That's what we are discussing.

offensively inappropriate.

I'm interested in this. Do you consider one just, and the other terrible? That's the only way I could see the comparison being offensive. As mentioned above: I find all political violence abhorrent, and the comparison seems reasonable as outlined above. I'm never offended by words, only actions. 220.100.119.229 (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a rebbutal to the above ? 220.100.119.229 (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Anything at all? 220.100.119.229 (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Zip ? 220.100.119.229 (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The only relevant 'See also' link is the Assassination attempts on Benito Mussolini article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree - csn you come back on the points sbove substantively ?1.75.211.193 (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

No. The way Wikipedia works is with consensus. You've been bold and inserted your preferred your content. You've been reverted. The next stage is to WP:DISCUSS, per the process outlined at WP:BRD, not to edit war by re-inserting your preferred version while discussion takes place. Two editors have reverted you, and you don't have consensus for the addition. I have already set out my position, in my contribution of 9:46 yesterday, and if I was to expand on that, I'd agree with Nedrutland - many thousands of public figures have been murdered/assassinated (or attempted to be murdered); why pick out these two? I'm now going to revert to the consensus version, per WP:BRD, should discussion continue. If you gain consensus, then it'll be changed back to include your insertion. Don't edit war. Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

To counter the points I made above please give 'thousands' (your words - I'll settle for hundreds) of an attempted (and actual) asssaination of a defacto state leader that drew blood from a close range attacker armed with a revolver, lone wolf only, ideally mental health plays an ambiguous role. When you've given up you'll understand my short list. Also consensus based on what ? The other editors left the dicussion without address the responses to the points I made. Claiming consesus and then shutting down the discussion is not how wikipedia is supposed to work. Additionally would you be albe to clarify the WP:HON question below? 220.100.119.229 (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The "lone wolf" theory is heavily challenged, as I already stated above. Also, her mental health issues are not so evident, as they once were portrayed. Your "see also" list is heavily based on these two aspects, which is historically challenged, to say the least. In order to stay scientifically reliable, please do not insert these two samples. Best LH7605 (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Again - no. We are not your performing seals, anon IP. There is a consensus against inclusion, because at least two of us, possibly three, do not agree that the comparison you have made is valid. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I've read the discussion above and I agree with the consensus against including the links to Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan and Assassination of James A. Garfield. I do not see what they add. The article is already in the Category: Failed assassins. Tacyarg (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Undent

Wow the pile on is real, I'm feeling the WP:BITE. Okay. So explain to me this - you haven't actually addressed the points that I made, and yet you claim consensus? How is this WP:TALK, this feels more like a POV pile on (do you guys have a club house?). Before you get all defensive and 'assume-good-faith': Why is their a List of right-wing terrorist attacks, but yet List of left-wing terrorist attacks got booted out of article space so that IPs can't edit it?

To address your incomplete responses to my points:

The reasonable interpretation of events is that she acted as a lone wolf out of madness: given the servant slashing earlier, the two years in the mental institution immediately prior to her time in Italy, the talk about becoming a matyr, she later cited a "Jodie-Foster" motive, but I think that was 'sign this to get out of jail' confession framing somebody that elements in the establishment wanted framed, who, interestingly I can find no biographical details of. I'd love to get a stub article on that guy.

The Jodie Foster (her confession) motive aligns with the Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, which if you think madness-plus-impress-stranger, is the motive aligns.

If you assume that confession was just fed to her, then feet-not-touching the ground madness aligns with Assassination of James A. Garfield

Your argument was that:

A) there are "thousands" of attacks like this one. I've stated criteria by which the linked examples are in a small set with this attack. This is "scientifically reliable" (reliability is related to engineering. The term associated with science is repeatability - but that isn't relevant here, I think the term you mean is "statistically significant", but again that's only tangential, the key word is relavant, my argument outlines why they are)

B) "The "lone wolf" theory is heavily challenged, as I already stated above." - great: it's not the only interpretation of events. But it is an interpretation of events. Therefore it's not unreasonable to include links on the basis that it's WP:NPOV. To be clear I'm not suggesting changing the lead, but including two see alsos to articles that I think are relavant. That does not seem like a balance issue.

C) "your performing seals" whoa. AGF after the mansplaining Wikipedia. Nice. Your dissmissive argument was that there were thousand of other examples - It's not unreasonable to ask you to produce some to back-up your argument. I'm still waiting.

D) "Also, her mental health issues are not so evident". Errr. Okay so modern secondary sources would like to paint her as some kind of anti-facist icon - sure include that stuff. But at the time she'd already spent 2 years in a mental institution (mostly for the servant slashing I think) and went back into a mental instituion for the rest of her life when she returned to the UK. You can claim some vast right wing conspiracy (sources?) to keep her locked up - but the reality is that she'd just shot someone on the street after previously slashing someone with a knife. From what we can see, she was at the very least prone to violence. Without access to her medical files or the testimony of her doctors it's very difficult to know about the nature of her mental health issues. On that basis that none of the secondary sources have any evidence to the contrary, disregarding the judgement a decade of doctors seems a little unreasonable. To me, she seemed Bipolar, and she probably committed both attacks during a manic episode. Not considering the possibility that mental health was the root cause of the attack would be WP:NPOV given the overwhealming evidence for it.

I've outlined why your argument doesn't hold. And there is a reasonable WP:NPOV interpretation for including the links. The pile on is irrelevant to NPOV. 220.100.119.229 (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining me what I am trying to say while accusing WP of mansplaining, that's great class (see here for "reliability" in a non-engineering context, I actually knew what term I was using and why). Also, great work on doing your research about heavily biased wikipedia, ommiting left-extremist terrorism. (see A), B), and C).). To those points where you challenged my statements:

B): read again, what you wrote, it says it all. It is not possible to link to other events just based on "an interpretation of events". That actually is unreasonable. If we had evidence that she was a lone wolf, it would be different but not based on this heavily challenged interpretation (again, see above in my initial statement for link).

D): your 100-years-later-internet-diagnosis on her mental stability and whether she shot "during a manic episode" does not convince me at all, is dangerous and presumptuous (see Wikipedia:No original research). I don't think that including links to other events based on your "I have a feeling she was bipolar" is the way to build an evidence-based encyclopedia.

As my time is limited and I am not intending to feed any form of trolling, this will probably be my final answer in this discussion, unless real new evidence comes up. Best, LH7605 (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow. Okay. I wasn't talking to you - I was talking to Bastun. Is Bastun a WP:SOCK of yours ? Since you haven't addressed the point that the incidents are comparable because there aren't a 'thousand' comparable incidents - I'll assume you (Bastun/LH7605) concede that point. And move onto the mental health question. If only we had an expert contemporary opinion about her mental state... oh wait the doctors. Writing me off as a troll is a classy way to build consensus. Thanks 220.100.119.229 (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Applogies - it seems yourself and Bastun didn't indent between comments (I've fixed that now), so it wasn't clear there were two of you posting when I read it. I retract the sock accusation. However the 'edit-summary' "most likly final answer from my side, unless there is new evidence.". "My side" - my side of what ? 220.100.119.229 (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Came back to give an example of why I don't think these links are justified. Murder of Kriss Donald has two See alsos, Murder of Ross Parker and Murder of Richard Everitt. These look to me like helpful See alsos, as the similarities are close - all three articles say in the lead that these were racially motivated murders. The similarities between Violet Gibson, Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, Assassination of James A. Garfield and Murder of Jo Cox do not seem to me to be close in the same way. Tacyarg (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

You were quoting and "correcting" me directly, how were you not talking to me...Not my fault you missed to look at the signatures. The socketpupping allegation, alltough already retracted, is unjustified and wrong. With from my side I mean, "from me" (except you bring good new arguments and not new ad hominem attacks). Best, LH7605 (talk) 09:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not now, and have never been, anyone's sock. SPI is thataway, report away... My comment indentation was correct (and I've restored it now), as it was you I was responding to, IP. "Mansplaining"? What?! I've no idea of the gender of any contributor to this page, bar me. IP, with respect, I think this is a case of I didn't hear that. It is not up to any of us, (Nedrutland, LH7605, Tacyarg or me, to list any number of comparable cases for you or do any other work for you. We have all stated our cases as to why we don't think the additional articles should be listed. To expand somewhat on my participation - I came here because RTÉ published an article on its website and news app during the week. I'd never heard of the incident or Violet Gibson before, so came here to read the article when I saw we had one. Two things struck me - was there another photo that could be added (turns out the one used by RTÉ and the BBC are public domain, so I uploaded it); and the inclusion of the Reagan and Garfield articles in the 'See also' section seemed really jarring, so I removed them. The WP:ONUS is on you to achieve consensus for inclusion. There is no "pile on". There are several editors who have read your opinion, and disagree. Move on?. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

MOS:HON

I was going to raise the introduction of the courtesy title "The Honorable", since MOS:HON suggests that they should be not be used in Wikipedia's voice, but I've never seen a guideline so contradicted even in it's own examples and sub-guidelines - i.e. WP:NCBRITPEER seems to directly contradict it as does the example Arthur_Conan_Doyle. I'm not sure the current state is correct, but I don't pretend to understand how to reconcile MOS:HON with WP:NCBRITPEER, especially as I'm not clear there is a form that can exist after a comma in the same way as Joe Public, 6th Baron of Nowhere in particular. 220.100.119.229 (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)