Talk:Murder of Lee Rigby/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

More on the victim, less on the perps

This article is a disgrace. There is just a wee paragraph containing brief, choppy sentences about the victim Lee Rigby,however, there is a lengthy section on the perpetrators. Who gives a fuck about them. There needs to be more info on Drummer Rigby. It doesn't even mention that he had a son or that he was returning from duty at the Tower when he was set upon and brutally murdered. Then again this is what I have come to expect from the PC Wikipedia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Random homicide victims are seldom notable, whether in this article, 2012 Aurora shooting‎, Boston Marathon bombings etc. The perps are notable because of the scope of their crime and the extensive coverage. Rigby's kid is not relevant as we are not writing a biography. I sense your distaste for Wikipedia, so why do you bother reading and commenting? WWGB (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I've added a mention of his son and his workplace, both of which are relevant background. I agree that the article is flawed in certain respects, but calling it is a "disgrace" does little to improve it. Equally, comments suggesting that experienced and respected editors should leave are unworthy and unnecessary. Let's move on and try to make it a better article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Who said anything about leaving? Move on indeed. WWGB (talk) 07:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The article already gives most of the known info about Lee Rigby, but this is not very much, e.g. his date of birth is not in reliable sources. The structure of the article at the moment is choppy, but WP:NORUSH applies here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Lee Rigby was killed because he was a soldier, and because it was apparent from where he was stationed that he was recently returned from Afghanistan. Nothing about Rigby's history, other than that, appears to be relevant in any way to the event which took place.

His wife, ex-or otherwise, has nothing to do with his murder. Neither does his girlfriend/fiancee. Neither does his son. All those elements are critically useful to news-media who are trying to exploit every possible sentimental connection in order to gain readership. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a commercial news agency.

It has been my suggestion all along that the more personal details are left out, because, although it seems to have bi-passed a lot of readers/editors who want all the personal details in, there are certain ambiguities about his situation which make it desirable to leave the stuff out altogether, rather than often the wife to whom he is still legally married. I keep saying this and I really wish that I didn't have to!

I think it is fairly obvious that knowing the background of the assailants is essential to getting a clear picture of the events. Therefore the histories of the assailants is of critical importance to an encyclopedic report of how the events came about.

Amandajm (talk) 08:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

We are not here to give the minimum information necessary. We here to give a rounded, balanced, encyclopedic article based on reliable sources. Some information on Rigby's background - the fact he had a son, and where he had worked on that day - is well within what is appropriate to include here. Incidentally, it would be interesting to know what you think the "certain ambiguities about his situation" might be, and to what extent that thought is based on your own OR. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Just like in the movies, it's the villains who set the agenda, plotted the plot and done the deed. The victim – a sitting duck target when he was ambushed – could have been any soldier. Having said that, if the victim had been a four-star general, the probably would be a whole lot more about the victim. But not much known about the soldier is of direct relevance to the murder, and there's little point milking the tabloids about his choppy family life, so background about right, IMHO. It's not WP's job to right wrongs; WP is not a memorial either. See Murder of Yvonne Fletcher. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 08:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• WP:Memorial We are not here to write a memorial on the victim. There is very little in the public domain about Lee Rigby, and some of that relates to his family life. He did a charity skydive in 2010 which could be added, but it will be difficult to find more.Martin451 (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Donations to his favourite charity after his death may be notable, but skydiving prior to his death has no significance to the article. We are not building a biography, but rather reporting a news event and its aftermath. WWGB (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't include anything ambiguous; we state info from reliable sources. It is not in dispute that he was separated from his wife (the mother of his son) and engaged to someone else. What each of the three people involved planned or expected is in doubt, hence we don't speculate on that. The personal life of the dead person is usually described on an article about the death of a person. There is no reason for this to be an exception to that. He is not still legally married, although he was until his death. Jim Michael (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty hard to argue Wikipedia isn't writing a memorial in these cases, when it makes the idiotic choice to name the article after the victim, even though it doesn't help readers one bit. If you don't want the article to be about Lee, then don't rename it to include his full name. Simples. This was a terrorist attack in Woolwich in 2013. 'Lee Rigby' is no more defining or helpful to the reader than those other terms. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

So is Wikipedia the idiot? Or is it the closing admin who is the idiot? Or is each of the editors who supported the consensus a contributory idiot? Else can an "idiotic decision" be made by sensible editors? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Seeking a resolution to the audio statement dispute

Rather than continuing to edit each other and bashing our heads, can I suggest we try to achieve a compromise? I am not opposed to having a "shortened" version of the statement, but I cannot agree to errors such as the "eye for a eye" and "peace and blessings" parts. I also do not think we must find a written transcription, the audio statement is the reference and is acceptable under WP:TRANSCRIPTION. If someone wants to have a go at a shorter statement, without the common newspaper errors, I would be interested to support it. WWGB (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I have had a crack at reducing the statement, others may want to cut back further. WWGB (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your contribution. The "Mohammed" part is conveniently at the end, and it's omitted from most articles that refer to the videoed rant, so I would support leaving it out as inconsequential. However, unfortunately, quite a few sources have mentioned the "eye for an eye" [sic] – a saying which sources seem to say are fairly common in islamic retribution situations and which some may want put back. But it's also one that sources have universally erred on. I'm currently thinking that it can be reinserted, if required, as narrative and maybe outside of quotes. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 14:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The statement "we must fight them as they fight us" remains in the article, which says essentially the same thing as "eye for eye" without the contentious misquotes. WWGB (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess so. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 14:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Advice and comments received following my request at RSN for the record and for the sake of completeness of the discussion. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 23:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
• In principle I agree with this solution. I think that any part of the speech that is quoted by a reliable source and is not erranoeus should be included, and the rest should not.VR _talk 00:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm glad it now seems to be sticking at judicious use<famous last words?>. The problem we had with that solution is that there was insistence at one point that the speech be included on an "all or nothing" basis. That editor hasn't yet commented. ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 00:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. Any editting of the speech is not in the interest of the public. Once we start cutting out bits, and deciding what is in and what is out, we are on dangerous ground.

• If you removed the more threatening rant, for example, then the speech becomes a more rational statement than it was.
• If you remove "Peace be on Muhammad", simply because almost every single newspaper has copied each other and they all have it wrong, (Peace be on you) then you have removed one of the most singularly ironic elements of the whole rant. Here we have a young man, killing in the name of faith, and then calling peace on his leader.
• Let me put it to you that any so-called "reliable source" who has transcribed "an eye" for "a eye" and "Peace be on you" for "Peace be on Muhammad" has indicated themselves, in this instance, as unreliable and, as such, in this instance ought not be quoted or referenced on the material in the transcription.

You simply cannot say "Well, they are in general reliable, and so, even though we at Wikipedia know that they have transcribed this wrongly, we are going to quote them and cite them, regardless of the facts, and what we know (from the primary source) to be true.

• This is an instance where you simply cannot let an MOS recommendation on the use of primary and secondary, and reliable and unreliable sources, get in the way of truth. Wikipedia rules are recommendations. They not set in cement and gold-plated. They can be changed, and are.

I believe that in this instance we have an obligation to the public to go with the primary source. To insist on applying the MOS to a point that we knowingly publishing error as fact is reprehensible.

• Think outside the box!

Amandajm (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Disagree too, per Amandajm and WWGB passim. Rothorpe (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, watch the actual video, the final part is "That's all I have to say. I mean, Allah's peace and blessings be upon Muhammad, as-salamu alaykum." The fact that not one "reliable" source has managed to get this right is depressing, but should not override WP:TRANSCRIPTION.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes but... there have been a number of opinions, among which SilkTork (talk · contribs) said: "I suggest using the Sun page hosting the video as an external link per WP:ELYES3, so the whole speech is available for those who wish to consult it; and to only use the relevant parts of that speech which have been quoted by reliable sources. Placing the entire speech in the article would be inappropriate per WP:Undue, as that would be Wikipedia editors giving the entire speech an importance not given by reliable sources." SO it really doesn't matter. None of the reliable sources judged those details important enough to 1/mention or 2/get it right; and here we are bashing each others heads over their inclusion. The sources got the essentials right, so let's just quote those bits and be done with it. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 05:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The current version in the article is OK. The final sentence of the rant is a typical example of an honorific in Islam. It would make no sense as "Peace be upon you". --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Reliability. The source is either reliable or it's not. If part of the rant is quoted inaccurately by the source, then the source is not reliable in this instance.

It follows, therefore, (and this should be obvious to anyone who cares about accuracy) that even citing a source that we know to be inaccurate is inappropriate.

It is inappropriate for two reasons:

1. If we leave the whole accurate transcription, (as per primary source) then it does not reflect the "so-called reliable" reference
2. If we publish an editted transcription that only gives those parts of the speech which the "so-called reliable" source has actually got right, then the result will be that people will look at the reference and read all the bits that the "so-called reliable" source has wrong, as well as those bits bits they have got right.

Question, OhConfucius, you keep trotting out Wikipedia MOS to support a case for the inclusion of sources that you must (by now) acknowledge as unreliable (in this instance). Why are you so determined about this matter, in the face of 1. Truth, 2. Accuracy, 3. Arguments pointing towards it being against the general public interest to water down the extremist nature of the rant?

At the risk of being both personally rude, and blasphemous, I must say that you seem to be treating the Wikipedia MOS and some of the daily papers as if the were the Holy Word of God.

Your insistence on imposing the rule at the expense of fact is beginning to be so annoying that it is positively trollish!

There cannot be resolution, as long as you insist on either quoting or citing any source that portrays the primary source incorrectly.

Amandajm (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• I am not inserting "a reference that [I] know is inaccurate". I know it's inaccurate, and in what way, but wasn't going to let that get in the way of writing a good encyclopaedic article based on reliable sources, as is customary. Please read up what is and isn't a reliable source. The facts in RSs don't have to be correct, we should be just able to cite and attribute it. And if we leave out the inaccurate bit, like most reliable sources haven't cited the speech in full, then surely the issue is moot? Please also note that I am not calling on or using the MOS. I am invoking WP:RS and WP:NPOV, both of which are policies and not mere guidelines.

  You insisted on including the speech on an "all or nothing" basis. I think you know it's rather unfair because we are obviously dutybound to give it due weight. Although I felt and still feel that giving excessive platform to this extremist is the wrong move, if only from an encyclopaedic point of view, but it's not Wikipedia's job to right the wrongs of society or of the British government in Syria – or wherever MA was objecting to Western killing of Moslems. I don't know if you have had the opportunity to listen to full speeches of some of these "mad mullahs", but the government obviously feels strongly enough to have made publication a crime. And here we are doing the same, but apparently re-publishing it in the name of making the guy look like a violent and dangerous lunatic. I feel strongly that that approach is all wrong, but I was about to give up my fight as I was clearly outnumbered.

  Then someone tried to insert various citations that were obviously inconsistent with the quoted text. I had an issue with that. It wasn't just me. You will also note that I sought opinions from WP:RSN. The others began to come around to no longer citing the entire rant. But you have been totally intransigent in refusing to have it any other way – no to sensible judicious use of quotation. Read your own words above – you're sounding like you're on your own anti-jihad jihad. And you have the nerve of implying that I'm trolling. Anyway, I don't need your threat of being blocked. I'm not afraid of you. You don't own the article, so please stop behaving as you do. You have been more imposing and forthright, than I am, so it's likely any block would probably involve you as well. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 15:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Response re Doctored videos

• The footage appears continuous
• To a lip-reading person, the words and the lip movements match.
• The time lapse between the murder and the video reaching public media was short.

Amandajm (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

All that is your own analysis and hence original research.VR _talk 20:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Response to VR re WP:IAR

Yes, that is exactly what is needed here. I knew the option was somewhere but didn't know where to find it.

• OhConfucius, let me direct you to Wikipedia:Understanding IAR

There is a line that reads: If there's a better way to do something than what the rules say, do it the better way.

Another of the instructions says: Just be bold, use common sense.....

This is beyond doubt one of those instances.

OhConfucius, you have repeatedly

• insisted on ignoring the MOS with regard to the placement of photos. Despite the fact that I am a artist and Wikipedia art editor who has had a previous life in layout design, I have let you have your own way, even though (to my eye) it looks ghastly.
• You have insisted on editing the assailant's speech, and inserting your own edited version. You cannot enforce the use of your own edited version in the article, because your edit is POV.
• Your reasons for making the edit are principally to justify the use of a secondary source, rather than the primary one, and you are doing this in the admitted knowledge that the source itself is inaccurate.

I have said several times already that, in Wikipedia, Common Sense overrides the written recommendation. VR has kindly referred us to WP:IAR. I am calling upon this rule in reverting your POV selective-editing of the statement, and the citing of an erroneous source.

You cannot mislead the Wikipedia public by citing a source that you know misrepresents what was actually said.

You are making Wikipedia look absolutely ludicrous by insisting on doing this! Any thinking person who reads this discussion is going to really wonder how a group of Wikipedia editors could know that a media statement about a current event (involving something as serious as terrorism) is wrong, and then knowingly publish the erroneous material, in preference to an accurate statement, just because the group bowed to the pressure of an individual who insisted on applying the rule, rather than the facts!

I cannot let this pass because I consider the citing of an erroneous source, and the doctoring of a direct quote in order to fit an erroneous source in order to fit an imaginary rule to be entirely unethical.

Amandajm (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:IAR should only be invoked in obvious cases, where simple common sense can be used to resolve something. This is actually a dispute between users and the normal policies (WP:V, WP:NOR etc.) apply. I am disputing that "this is beyond doubt" a common sense case. I absolutely insist upon verifiability and the onus is on you to provide the reliable source.VR _talk 20:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• While discussing accuracy, we keep forgetting notability. Even if he did say "peace be upon Muhammad", how can a user show that statement is notable enough to be included unless it is mentioned in reliable sources? The best thing is to simply leave that part out unless it can be cited to a reliable source. Notability is decided by reliable sources, not by our own analyses.VR _talk 20:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Response to what appears to me to be sheer idiocy

1. The reliable source, in this case, is the primary source, as you are aware.
2. Your use of a source that you know is inaccurate is a compromise to the integrity of Wikipedia, regardless of how much it complies with the rule. You are presenting this source as an accurate source, having editted out the inaccuracies. Anyone who wants to read the entire transcript will look to the source, and be misinformed.
3. You have given no indication that the source is inaccurate, although you know that it is. To me, it is beyond belief that you can go on using the Daily Telegraph as if it was a "reliable source", knowing full well that in this case, it is not.
4. Rather, you have abrogated responsibility by stating in the text that the source is the Daily Telegraph. This doesn't remove your personal ethical obligation to your reading public. In fact, from an ethical point of view, it stinks.
5. The careful edit removes much of the rant. What you are left with is a much more balanced and reasoned statement than the attacker actually made. You careful edits, in the name of Wikipedia, have left something that now resembles Shakespeare's version of Brutus justification for the slaying of Julius Caesar. If you are going to quote it at all, then it needs to be there in its entirety, including those parts that you consider "non-notable".

Let me just explain to you the difference between us and the press. We are a small group concentrating on bringing together the facts about one significant incident.

• I cannot speak for you, but I feel my responsibility to my reading public very strongly. If the subject is a purely academic one and I get it wrong, then perhaps some kid will get their homework on Leonardo da Vinci wrong. If the article concerns an act of terrorism that is current news, then getting it wrong may inflame a potentially dangerous situation. Watering down a crazy rant until it sounds like a rational argument might just encourage some interested reader to take up the cause.
• The media, unlike the editors of this article, pass from one story to another. (They write, essentially, attention-grabbing stories) Something shocking like this event is good news for the media, not bad. The people who copy-pasted and published the inaccurate transcription have long gone onto something else. They don't care whether it had a few minor problems- it sold the news on the day.
• I put it to you that our responsibility goes further than that. You cannot override ethical responsibility simply by saying, "Oh well, some news editor got it wrong, but we'll keep our noses clean by giving the source." I personally, couldn't live with myself easily if I were to allow the rules of a manual to override the truth.

I frequently find myself in discussion with academics who lampoon Wikipedia for its inaccuracy, for the unreliability of its processes and the fact that this sort of thing can happen.

You have successfully justified all the very worst things that I have ever heard said about Wikipedia.

Amandajm (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Honestly Amandajm, you are simply repeating what you said without listening to the rest of us. I do not "know" that the Telegraph is inaccurate. I only know that the Telegraph is disputed by a video. A video that could have been edited.

"Watering down a crazy rant until it sounds like a rational argument might just encourage some interested reader to take up the cause" is just ridiculous. Are you accusing us of inciting terrorism here?VR _talk 03:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Reply

1. I have said this already: 1. To a lip-reader, the words and the lips match. 2. There are no apparent cuts. 3. If the video was doctored, then it was done in an extremely short time period, by someone with extraordinary expertise. 4. There is no reason to imagine that the video was doctored.
2. I am most definitely not accusing you of "attempting to incite terrorism". You are perfectly well aware of that fact. What I am stating is that by selective editting (in order to match the faulty transcript and use the so-called reliable" source, you have ended up with a version of the speech that sounds more reasonable than the speech actually was. My belief is that your intentions are very much other than intention to incite terrorism. I think you are trying to do the right thing, but selective editting is not a good way to go about it, when it is clear that the transcription is faulty.

The only part of the Telegraph transcript that is clearly wrong per WP:TRANSCRIPTION is the final sentence, which says "Allah’s peace and blessings be upon you." This can be left out without substantially altering the overall thrust of the rant.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Reply

If you accept that the video is correct, and the Telegraph transcript is wrong, then you are aware that there are several differences, all small, but adding up to inaccuracy. You continue to reference the faulty source, so that others will continue to use the reference.

• I don't have a dog in this argument. But Amanda, the utmost conservatism is required when WP is covering such an emotive topic, laden with multiple jagged rocks in terms of the fuzzy interface between race, culture, religion, geopolitical resentment, and straight-out criminality. The media should be used very cautiously as sources, since they have an inherent conflict of interest in trying to sell lots of copy. And let's not forget that the media were used with stunning success as a tool by these nasty men, and fell right into the trap.

  It's clear that emotions are running high on this page, too: we can't afford that. Could you cool it, please, and try to work with the concerns of fellow editors? And no more bolded shouting? Tony (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Reply You are right Tony. It requires conservatism. Editting out bits in order to match a source known to be erroneous isn't conservatism. The primary source, readily available, is the only appropriate source and the most reliable source to use, in this instance.

I have appealed to the Times to review their transcript, and am waiting on their response.

Amandajm (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a great idea! If any of the reliable sources (including the Telegraph) updates their webpage, then we should follow suit.VR _talk 04:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

David Cameron speech

I think we need to cover David Cameron's speech to the House of Commons today, and the task force he's established to look at radicalisation. Here's a link from the BBC. It's a bit late in the evening now for me to do anything, but if nobody gets round to it I'll put something together tomorrow. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I did hope to do something with this yesterday, but the real world got in the way, so I thought I'd do it this morning. Here goes anyway. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Draft paragraph on Cameron task force and Commons statement

The UK government established a task force to look at ways of stemming the growth of Islamic extremism in Britain, focusing on the radicalisation of worshippers in mosques, university students and prisoners. The task force – chaired by David Cameron – had its inaugural meeting at 10 Downing Street on 3 June, and includes Cabinet Ministers, and representatives from the police and intelligence services. Later that day Cameron made his first House of Commons statement on the Woolwich attack, saying that lessons must be learned from it. "When young men born and bred in this country are radicalised and turned into killers, we have to ask some tough questions about what is happening in our country. It is as if that for some young people there is a conveyor belt to radicalisation that has poisoned their minds with sick and perverted ideas. We need to dismantle this process at every stage - in schools, colleges, universities, on the internet, in our prisons, wherever it is taking place."

As ever any thoughts are welcome. Thanks, Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thought I'd go for it as no one's objected to this. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Sky News quote

"Sky News, which showed only a still image of a black man with bloodied hands, received "a handful of complaints". Should this be worded like this? Should his name be here or what? RocketLauncher2 (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I have changed "a black man" which seemed quite racist, to "one of the attackers". Of course, he was not named at the time. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Source says this: "A spokesperson for ITV revealed that they had received around 400 complaints since their broadcast of the attack which saw one man, now named as Lee Rigby, killed apparently by two men, one of whom was broadcast speaking directly to a camera phone with bloody hands and still holding a meat cleaver." and "Sky has told The Drum that it has received ‘a handful of complaints’ despite not airing the video but showing a still from the video instead." No mention of any "black man with bloodied hands". Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

References

• This is political correctness going out of hand. I accept the source doesn't actually say "black man" but we shouldn't talk about it as if even applying a descriptive label was taboo. The article clearly enough implied that it was referring to an image not a million miles from this one. How would you describe the man, then? Maybe "British Nigerian" without mentioning the knife or the blood? But that would be plain wrong in descriptive terms. The American penchant for "African American" is just a joke.

  Or this man? Or this man?Avoiding the 'race issue' isn't always an option. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I would describe him as "one of the attackers" (personally there are a few other descriptive words I might use, but I'm not allowed). One might say "a man in a black knitted hat". Or "a man dressed in a black jacket with a hood". If you feel what I've put really is "political correctness going out of hand", then please change it back to "a black man". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm happy enough to go with what the source explicitly said. But it was just a general remark about political correctness. People look at the picture, and apart for the woolly hat, there are three things that would strike you about the image. One's the blood, another is the weapon...
      • .... and another is that he's not Asian. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Oh what was that the BBC quoted someone in government said the person looked like? ;-) All fun and games... -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 12:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• "Sky News, which showed only a still image of a black man with bloodied hands.." Simples. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 01:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

"Death of Lee Rigby"

Isn't it amazing how quickly an article can plummet down a Google search when you rename it? This article was the top result for both 'Woolwich attack' and 'Lee Rigby' before the rename. Now it's nowhere. So now, not only is the mythical person who only knew his name screwed as far as finding this article goes, so are the vast majority of real people who were all already smart enough to be able to associate '2013 Woolwich attack' with it if they did, or use some form of that as a search term if they didn't. So well done for that, I guess. The irony being, if Woolwich Attack isn't the WP:COMMONAME (it so clearly is), then some combination of Lee Rigby with 'Murder' is easily the most common name when incorporating 'Lee Rigby'. 'Death of Lee Rigby' is nowhere as far as COMMONAME is concerned. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Not many people are referring to this as merely an attack, which is verging on a euphemism. Millions of people know the name Lee Rigby now. Jim Michael (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Not many refer to this as the woolwich attack? Are you serious? A ludicrous claim like that is disproven in seconds using the computer infront of you right now. Search on 'Woolwich attack' and you get an entire page of results almost exclusively identifying the main topic as "Woolwich attack" (ie they use this phrase first in the title, followed by a colon, eg "Woolwich attack: Latest news..." ). Search on 'Lee Rigby' and you get all sorts of results - it appears at the start, middle and end of titles, in various contexts. Some of them not very nice, such as "Lee Rigby will burn in hellfire ...". Only one even uses it in the sense of a topic, eg "Lee Rigby:". Ironically, at least two of the results also use the phrase Woolwich attack in the topic context, "Woolwich attack:". And at least two don't even use it in the title. This is the first page of results! So, quite clearly, the argument that Death/Murder of Lee Rigby was ever a more common name for this incident than Woolwich attack is absolutely ridiculous. So what does it matter if millions of people know the name Lee Rigby, when it's pretty obvious every single one of them will also know that's the name of the guy killed in the 2013 Woolwich attack? What you need to explain here is why you think the people who don't know his name, should no longer be able to find this article on a Google search of 'Woolwich attack'. Because those are the people this ridiculous rename has screwed over, not the people who already knew both his name and where/when/how he was killed. Even now, many hours after the rename, Google has not moved this article into the first page of results for a search on 'Lee Rigby'. The firm of Lee Rigby Solicitors are on that page for crying out loud! What has that got to do with the Woolwich attack? Absolutely nothing. And yet a search on 'Woolwich attack' gives an entire first page of results soley about this incident, with the Wikipedia article now languishing closer to the bottom than the top, because this rename has undoubtedly caused Google to give it less prominence on a search of Woolwich attack, in favour of the sort of sources that do. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Gruesome, you really need to calm down. You've only been editing a few months and already have been blocked five times, including an indef where you were then given another chance. I don't want to see you get permanently banned. Raging at nice editors over something as minor as an article title is inappropriate. You need to stop this ongoing argument about Google searches because it's based on a completely flawed premise. We don't care about or consider search engine results when we decide on article titles. We follow WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAME. Period. Wikipedia has tens of millions of articles. All that matters is that there was lengthy discussion among dozens of editors, and consensus was reached as determined by a very experienced and highly respected admin. It's over. Time to move on. And for the record, Jim Michael did not say that not many people refer to this as an attack; what he said was that not many people refer to it "merely" (only) as an attack. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Gruesome, you made some really good points in the discussion, which I had mentioned there. However, consensus was reached for the new title, which does have precedence. In the RM discussion you said, "To me, the title chosen should be the one most recognisable in a Google search", but the problem is that we do not title articles based on convenience for Google searches. And if readers come to Wikipedia and search simply for "Woolwich attack" or "Lee Rigby", they will automatically be redirected to the article. Very often, the process for determining the article title for an event is not cut and dry, so WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAME guide us well in getting over those hurdles. Interestingly, many editors who supported the move indicated that "Murder of Lee Rigby" was actually their top choice, which is why the closing admin indicated that if/when a conviction is achieved, the article may be moved to that title without the need for another RM discussion. Of course, Wikipedia has hundreds of "Murder of..." articles. Anyway, thanks for your participation in the discussion and the good points you presented. Jim, your comment certainly has merit. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we've already established that entering Woolwich attack in Wikipedia brings you here. And yes, Lee Rigby comes here too. So what? That was true before the move. This article is not called Woolwich attack or Lee Rigby, so those will always be redirects, whatever the chosen title actually is. The only thing that's changed is that typing those into Google now gets you nowhere near this article considering they were both the first non-news result before (Woolwich attack seems to be rallying, but Lee Rigby is still nowhere). So that helps who exactly? If TITLE (ie COMMONNAME) was not written with those people in mind, with the aim of helping people quickly find and recognise an article based on key search terms, then who were they written for? Who are these mythical readers who don't care about being able to find a Wikipedia article in Google, but do care if the article they get to using a redirect is called one thing or another, even though the redirect they used always went to that same article, whatever it was called? I think you're not talking about any kind of reader at all, you're talking about editors. There's a big difference. I've known what this article was called ever since I Googled 'Woolwich attack' and found it. If I erased my memory and tried this again, I am screwed. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The change was enacted not 12 hours ago, you have to give some time for Google to crawl the page with its current name and you'll see how it goes back at being in the top results for 'Woolwich attack' and 'Lee Rigby' in a few days. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

As I've said in another section of this talk page, I believe that killing is a better decription than attack or death. What is the reasoning for more the more vague terms being used instead of Killing of Lee Rigby? Jim Michael (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe the reason for using death is because it is a more neutral term. We can objectively state that a person died with no concerns whatsoever, while the fact that he was killed or murdered involves many subtleties regarding WP:NPOV. I could be wrong though. Cheers. Gaba ^(talk) 21:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Having viewed the video, watched the news and read the newspaper reports, I don't see many "subtleties" about this killing. Both suspects are now charged with murder. That's a fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I favour the title Killing of Lee Rigby. Although it may appear to be murder, there are many instances where what appears to be murder is eventually not found to be the case, for example where it is determined to be an act of war, or where the assailant's mental capacity was impaired. Until the trial takes place and concludes, I think it could be prejudicial to describe this as murder. But "Death of..." does not reflect the circumstances in this case - there can be no dispute that he was killed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The name "2013 Woolwich attack" was used before the name of the solider was known, and it there were at least 3 other titles used before that. Article titles often change in the early days of current events, and for good reason, it is better to be initially circumspect then choose a good title. It does not matter that the page is going down the google search, we are here to create an encyclopaedic entry, not to become fashionable.Martin451 (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Martin451, well stated. Especially the last sentence, which is totally on-point. And just for kicks, I did a Google search for "Woolwich attack" a few minutes ago and this article was the #1 result. Haha. And a "Lee Rigby" search put it in the top 10. So Gruesome's claim that this article has disappeared from or dropped significantly in the Google results is simply untrue. But it doesn't matter because it's irrelevant. The fact is that there was a lengthy MR discussion, dozens of editors participated, consensus was reached, no policies (including WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAME) were violated, and a very experienced admin reviewed and closed it. There were some good points made by editors who opposed, but it's time to move on. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't usually use a vague term when a more precise one can accurately be used. It is not disputed that Rigby was killed. No-one is claiming his death could have been due to natural causes, an accident, misadventure or suicide. There are articles such as Killing of David Wilkie. Jim Michael (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It's pointless to rehash the same arguments all over again. Everyone can read the lengthy RM discussion. Time to move on. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Just a brief note on the close, since it seems to have gotten people's backs up. Whilst I personally also think "Killing of..." would be the most appropriate title, there wasn't sufficient consensus for it at the RM. On a pure headcount, "Murder of..." and "Death of..." come out about equal; I plumped for "Death of..." since a) it was the default move option that the RM was discussing and b) there are some potential sub judice concerns with using the term "Murder" (though not, I think, enough to have denied moving to that title if there had been a clear and overwhelming consensus for it). I'm fully amenable to having the decision challenged at Move Review if anyone thinks I misread the outcome, and I'd be happy to see another RM to move the page to Killing of Lee Rigby take place if it's deemed necessary. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Who cares about Google searches? The goal of WP is not SEO, but encyclopedic fact. Anyone who wants to search Wikipedia is welcome to come here and do so. Meanwhile, Google will sort itself out based on the same web of links that make most WP articles rise to the top of related searches, regardless of search terms used. In fact, even now at Google.fr, I'm getting the redirect page "2013 Woolwich Attack" as the first hit for "Woolwich Attack" (excluding the Google News results at the very top, that is). Prof Wrong (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Believe it or not, there are still people in the world who have not heard of Wikipedia, or if they have, are under the impression it doesn't do newsy stuff like this. If you or others don't want those sort of people to know about this article for whatever reason, fine, but nobody should be under any illusion that there isn't a penalty to choosing a name that ranks low on Google, whatever nonsense has been advanced to support it (and despite all the noise about consensus, I still don't see what that actual reason is supposed to be, not in WP:TITLE terms anyway). Gruesome Foursome (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If the rename didn't violate WP:COMMONNAME (which is part of the policy, WP:TITLE), then why the hell is it no longer at the overwhelmingly common name? For all this noise about 'consensus', it's a basic obvious fact that no good reason was given in the RM for why WP:COMMONAME should be ignored in this case. So quite obviously, a great big massive truck has been driven through the TITLE policy in renaming it to this ridiculous 'Death of' title, which isn't even the second most common name! (Lee Rigby murder is, for obvious reasons). And while I did not say Google results are what decides Wikipedia titles (but they by necessity guide us in what the WP:COMMONAME is), whichever way you cut it, the fact that the move has resulted in the article dropping right down the Google results for both 'Woolwich attack' and the even lower 'Lee Rigby', (which is still the case, on my PC anyway, to both 6 and 8 respectively), sure as hell doesn't help Wikipedia, does it? Unless people can tell me why less readers and less editors is a good thing for an encyclopedia. And I've never seen a single article titled 'Death of (person)' in any 'real' encyclopedia. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Gruesome, I'm afraid that your rage in every comment you post is hurting your cause and earning you no sympathy. The bottom line is that no policies were violated and, as you've been told repeatedly, we do not care about where we place in Google results. And your contention that an "overwhelmingly common name" for this article exists is highly fallacious. Obviously, if that were the case there would not have been such a lenghty RM discussion with numerous opposing arguments. WP:TITLE and WP:TALK are not black and white; they contain quite a bit of gray, which is why RM discussions exist and are decided by consensus. Those polices guide us down the road to resolution when no obvious title exists. I would suggest that you stop posting all your comments with such a hostile tone. It's serves no useful purpose and will only hurt your reputation. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Get real. Less noise, more facts, please. There's no common name? What are the various competing names in use for this event? Which sources use them? How evenly spread are they? Wikipedia doesn't give a damn about Google results or how readers find articles? Name a single policy or a guideline that even comes close to arguing for such a patently ludicrous position. The lengthy RM discussion contained numerous arguments that defeated the policy of WP:COMMONNAME for this case? Which ones? Whose arguments? What points? To me, the only argument that seems to have been made that wasn't just pure personal opinion or total irrelevance was the presence of "hundreds" of other 'Murder of' articles. It was a rubbish argument though, because it not only doesn't reference any policy, it completely ignores the fact that there are hundreds of 'year, place, attack' articles also. It also fell down when it was realised that there appears to be only one 'Murder of' article that comes close to being the same kind of incident, the Murder of Yvonne Fletcher. A title which ironically shows up all the sub judice and BLP points made here to justify 'Death of' over 'Murder of' to be complete baseless waffle, also. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Gruesome, your ongoing pattern of posting comments with such a hostile or otherwise uncivil tone is disturbing and disruptive. It makes it impossible to have a productive discussion. Therefore, there's no point in continuing. While it's certainly understandable that some editors disagree with the decision - as with many RMs - the fact remains that consensus was reached after lengthy debate among many editors. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Not true?

You may want to do some editing to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Woolwich_attack#Anti-Muslim_attacks

in the light of this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10093568/The-truth-about-the-wave-of-attacks-on-Muslims-after-Woolwich-murder.html

Kittybrewster ☎ 15:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It does seem like the wave of "islamophobic" attacks is more of a small ripple. Six thrown bacon butties and a dozen ninja suits being pulled off? Hardly Kristallnacht, is it?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

That's remarkably dismissive, considering the fire-bombing of the Grimsby mosque (with children inside at the time), and the burning of the Islamic centre in north London yesterday, to name but two. You would also be advised to tone down your offensive comments. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

And you're not showing yourself as anything other than a bigot, Fergus. "ninja-suits"? It's not only islamophobic, it's also racist (Japanese and Semitic people being rather different from each other). Not only that, but my tailor just had a heart attack at the idea that anyone would confuse a loose-fitting cotton garment for a moderately-close-fitting silk one!! Prof Wrong (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kitty, if you think the wikipedia article is deficient just go ahead and edit it. Someone already has done something along those lines. See if you think it needs more. --Flexdream (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I suspect there's enough information out there for an article about Tell Mama. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Paul, have a go at creating an article. Do you want a hand? --Flexdream (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Deyka Ayan Hassan

[1] Noteworthy? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we'd need a better sauce than that. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 23:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)This T-shirt fits better.

Obviously I need to ketchup. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC) LOL / groan -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 07:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not: see WP:BLP1E. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Police arrested a student who complained to them about receiving threatening messages after she used Twitter to say that people wearing Help for Heroes T-shirts "deserve to be beheaded" as news broke about the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich, a court heard on Friday. Deyka Ayan Hassan went to her local police station after receiving hundreds of vitriolic responses to her comment on 22 May, hours after the soldier's death, including threats to rape her and kill her by burning down her home. However, she was later arrested after telling officers that she had tweeted to her 600 followers: "To be honest, if you wear a Help for Heroes t-shirt you deserve to be beheaded." She said it was a joke about the design of the item of clothing bearing the name of the military charity. The 21-year-old, who is studying English and politics at Kingston University, was ordered to do 250 hours of unpaid work, having earlier admitted a charge of sending a malicious electronic message. from The Guardian -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 23:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the source, WP:BLP1E applies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Er, that BLP1E thing applies to the subject of an article, I'm pretty sure it doesn't apply here. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 23:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

That said, I don't think the idiocy of one student (and all too predictable idiotic responses), deserves inclusion as the tweet doesn't mention Lee Rigby. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Not really enough long term notability, has issues with WP:DUE and WP:RECENTISM.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Interestingly, only the student got arrested, not those who threatened to kill or rape her. So does this mean I'm allowed to say people who say people who wear Help for Heroes T-shirts should be beheaded should be beheaded? -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 07:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• This item is what's commonly referred to as a "coatrack". -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 07:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the Daily Fail refers to it as a "t-shirtrack". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

An eye for an eye

Sorry, I can't keep track above... Why is "an eye for an eye" omitted? The video provided by Newsweek, which ran an article on this, says "an eye for an eye". ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The transcript writes that, and the video says that. The quote in the article isn't exactly justifying them both... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

For some reason, the "eye for an eye" part is not currently in the article, although it is in the Daily Telegraph transcript. It should be in the article as part of the quote.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the quote is VERY different from the transcript... And the video! Why? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

There is an extensive debate at Talk:Death_of_Lee_Rigby#Transcripts, FWIW my transcript of the full speech is at User_talk:WWGB#Woolwich_rant.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• can of worms. It's been stable for a while, and I'd rather there not be an exhumation of the dearly departed equine. I've now made it clear that the quote is an excerpt. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 14:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

There was a stable agreement, which acknowledged differences between the video and the transcript, and that nothing would be included in Wikipedia which was not consistent with the video. Now there seems to be some slippage back to the DT being some kind of source for truth. Everyone knows it is not. WWGB (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

If not done already, why not just post the whole transcript to Wikiquote. Then if we linked to that from here, anyone who wanted to read it in full could do so. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

He actually seems to say ".. is a eye for a eye and a tooth for a tooth.. "? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. And that is one of several reasons why it is generally agreed that the DT "transcript" is inaccurate. WWGB (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The question of the spelling is a side issue. What matters is that Eye for an eye is a key part of the "justification" for the attack.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)the current version now does not reflect the transcript, although I'd say the difference between "going to" and "gonna" is purely in the accent, and that doesn't make the transcript "wrong". As to the other changes, I don't care to re-listen to the rant, and that should be ellipsed if we can agree to those being transcription errors. But please note that I shifted the ellipses when I aligned to the transcript just now. We couldn't reconcile the transcripts and the missing "an", so these were omitted. I believe someone said, and I agreed, that "Through [many passages in the] Koran we must fight them as they fight us" effectively means "eye for an eye", so this was excised to allow reconciliation with the DT transcript. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 16:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I opened a can of worms, but it seems wrong to change "an eye for an eye" (which IS what he said in the video) to something of the same meaning but presented differently (Through [many passages in the] Koran). I do not want to follow the transcript, rather the video. How can you miss such an important phrase (an eye for an eye)? I watched the video posted on Newsweek and it seems to me that he made a slight "n" sound. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 03:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this becoming forensic! Adebolajo uses the expression twice. The first time time he says "a eye for a eye", the second time "an eye for a eye". Most reported transcripts get both wrong and repeat "an eye for an eye". There are other, worse errors in the transcript, which have already been well canvassed. WWGB (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm open to emphasising the supposedly retaliatory motive for the killing in the body of the text in introducing the rant, perhaps with some reference to "eye for an eye" – maybe "a tooth for a tooth" is better because sources don't diverge there – or using indirect speech, but I still think we need to go with the transcript where it is not wrong. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 04:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Separated?

Re this edit: Most media coverage said that Lee Rigby was separated from his wife, but this story in The Evening Standard says "Drummer Rigby married in 2007 but had apparently separated from his wife and had started seeing a woman who is serving with the Royal Military Police in Afghanistan. She was today flying back to Britain. He married Rebecca in her home village of Southowram, near Halifax. They are understood to have separated shortly after the birth of their son and he had recently begun a relationship — although his estranged wife had been hoping for a reconciliation."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

IP edit reverted. WWGB (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Rebecca having hoped that Rigby would return to her does not contradict the fact that the couple had separated and that he was engaged to someone else at the end of his life. Many people want their spouse to return to them despite there being a new relationship. We do not have any reliable sources that contradict the personal info currently in the article. Jim Michael (talk) 10:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Trial date

I've started a new section "Legal proceedings" for mention of the trial date, though it may need to be moved elsewhere. I think eventually this article will need a rewrite to better organise the information. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Please use the complete text

One of the assailants justified the attack to a bystander, who was filming the scene:

"The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British solidiers, and this British soldier is one, is a eye for a eye and a tooth for a tooth. By Allah, we swear by the Almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone. So what if we want to live by the sharia in Muslim lands. Why does that mean you must follow us and chase us and call us extremists and kill us? Rather you are extreme. You the ones. When you drop a bomb, do you think it hits one person, or rather your bomb wipes out a whole family. This is the reality. By Allah if I saw your mother today with a buggy I would help her up the stairs. This is my nature. But we are forced by the Qur'an in Sura at-Tauba [Chapter 9 of the Koran], through many, many ayah [verses] throughout the Koran that [say] we must fight them as they fight us, a eye for a eye and a tooth for a tooth. I apologize that women had to witness this today, but in our land our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your governments. They don’t care about you. Do you think David Cameron is gonna get caught in the street when we start busting our guns? Do you think the politicians are going to die? No it's going to be the average guy, like you, and your children. So get rid of them. Tell them to bring our troops back so we ca.., so you can all live in peace. Leave our lands and you will live in peace. That's all I have to say. Allah's peace and blessings be upon Muhammad "

— Michael Adebolajo, complete text of speech from The Sun video

--79.192.20.118 (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• The article has been stable for many days, and the version of the quote agreed upon has been arrived at through much discussion. Please can you read the talk archives on this exact topic, and offer a substantive argument of how to posting would not be in violation of our policies. In the meantime, I'm reverting the change. Thanks, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 04:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I show the parts which have been omitted in bold:

"The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British solidiers, and this British soldier is one, is a eye for a eye and a tooth for a tooth. By Allah, we swear by the Almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone. So what if we want to live by the sharia in Muslim lands. Why does that mean you must follow us and chase us and call us extremists and kill us? Rather you are extreme. You the ones. When you drop a bomb, do you think it hits one person, or rather your bomb wipes out a whole family. This is the reality. By Allah if I saw your mother today with a buggy I would help her up the stairs. This is my nature. But we are forced by the Qur'an in Sura at-Tauba [Chapter 9 of the Koran], through many, many ayah [verses] throughout the Koran that [say] we must fight them as they fight us, a eye for a eye and a tooth for a tooth. I apologize that women had to witness this today, but in our land our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your governments. They don’t care about you. Do you think David Cameron is gonna get caught in the street when we start busting our guns? Do you think the politicians are going to die? No it's going to be the average guy, like you, and your children. So get rid of them. Tell them to bring our troops back so we ca.., so you can all live in peace. Leave our lands and you will live in peace. That's all I have to say. Allah's peace and blessings be upon Muhammad "

The most important parts which have been omitted are:

1. But we are forced by the Qur'an in Sura at-Tauba [Chapter 9 of the Koran],

2. That's all I have to say. Allah's peace and blessings be upon Muhammad

I think that the "eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth" part can be omitted, but this two parts are realy important. This two statements show the islamic nature of the attack and to omitt them would be apologetic about the aims of the terrorists!--79.192.24.138 (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Even David Wood (Christian apologist) uses the reference to Chapter 9 of the Koran. Look at Jihad Returns to London: A Reply to Prime Minister David Cameron--79.192.24.138 (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

There has been a problem with finding a reliably sourced transcription of the whole speech. The Daily Telegraph transcription is broadly OK apart from an error at the end. The Telegraph transcription also excludes the reference to Sura at-Tawba. The speaker in the video does not refer explicitly to Chapter 9, which contains the verse At-Tawba 5, which has been a source of controversy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it is better to use text of the video of The Sun at http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4938855/Pluck-of-cub-leader-who-challenged-Woolwich-terrorist-who-wanted-to-start-war-on-the-streets-of-London.html#ooid=NsYnl0YjpAihnTQKlOXYP0AuMGHftw00 than to exclude the mention of Chapter 9 of the Koran!--79.192.24.138 (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The speaker in the video says (IMHO) "But, er, we are forced by the Quran in Sura at-Tawba, through many, many ayah throughout the Quran that we must fight them as they fight us, an eye for a eye [sic] and a tooth for a tooth." He does not refer explicitly to any chapter or verse in the Koran.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

He refers explicitly to Sura at-Tawba (Chapter 9 of the Koran).--79.192.24.138 (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Qisas (قصاص‎), an eye for an eye (lex talionis) is not in Chapter 9 of the Koran. It is part of the Code of Hammurabi. The problem here is WP:TRANSCRIPTION. There are no fully accurate transcriptions of the speech.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

He does not quote Sura at-Tawba but he mentions this chapter of the Koran and that should be made clear in the article.--79.192.24.138 (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• I must presume you've now read the archived discussion on this. Just like Adebolajo felt "forced" by the Koran to murder Rigby, we are "forced" by our policies to use third party reliable sources, and to report without undue weight. Although the video is much quoted, The Sun fails the WP:RS test. The Telegraph transcription is the one we all back because, though imperfect, it still captures most of what was said; we merely excised some minor parts, for one reason or another – and that it also helped us with WP:UNDUE was a definite bonus. As to what David Wood had to say, I've not seen much coverage of his views, which must be regarded as fringe for our purposes. I would also suggest that the essence of the attacker's message has been accurately and adequately conveyed, and I really don't see – and none of the reliable sources we cite – consider the final two phrases (starting "that's all I have to say") important enough to cite accurately, if at all. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

What policy is it that forces us to not make our own transcript? According to WP:TRANSCRIPTION "transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research". The video is available. At the time I made this edit I checked that the transcription at the time was accurate (though missing a final part spoken in Arabic, I believe). Evercat (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

"Terrorist attack"

I t think the lead should refer to the attack as "political violence" and not a "terrorist attack" for 3 reasons.

1. The definition of "terrorist attack" typically refers to attacking civilians. The attack was clearly against a soldier (for being a soldier) and therefore it is not a "terrorist attack" by definition.
2. Despite the fact that there are links cited for the use of "terrorist attack", there are also references which questioned the applicability of the term. for example see [1] [2] [3]
3. [WP:Label] specifically advises to we avoid using contentious labels, specifically citing the word "terrorist".

I know this is going to open a can of worms, as certain editors have a strong inclination to respond rather forcefully to suggestions like this. However, I am hoping we can debate this dispassionately and come up with a solution. There are many reasons why this should not be called "terrorist attack" in the lead and very few reasons why it should be. Poyani (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

There might be a fair point to be made about how even-handedly the term "terrorist" is applied on WP (there is no reference to "terror" in, for example, NATO bombing of Yugoslavia). However, Poyani, I don't think your premise is correct. "Terrorist attack" typically refers to an act of violence intended to cause fear in a population to political or military ends. This definition is met because of the public nature of the murder, the statement made by one of the killers immediately following the crime and the fact that the killers appear to have courted attention and publicity. Formerip (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. But our own definition of terrorism (on the terrorism page in wikipedia) states the following "Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians)." A "soldier" is by definition, not a "civilian". Aside from the actual definition (which I suppose is a case of Original Research anyways), should we not at least point out that the use of the word "terrorism" to describe this act is disputed? See [1]. Poyani (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Always be slow to trust Wikipedia. Can you find me a dictionary definition that specifies the targeting of civilians? Formerip (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Please also note that on wikipedia we do have a policy regarding the use of the word "terrorist". It is WP:Terrorist Poyani (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Per the policy, I don't see what would be wrong with something like "has been described as...", if you like. Formerip (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Although Rigby was a soldier, he was targeted whilst off-duty and not at a military facility or in a warzone. Jim Michael (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually Formerip's solution is very good. We should say that it "has been described as a terrorist attack by the British government" with a reference. That is far more factual and encyclopedic. Does anyone have a link where David Cameron or one of the ministers or someone in the British police/government describe the murder as a "terrorist attack"? Poyani (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that Defence Secretary Philip Hammond was quoted here as describing it as a "terrorist action": "I think it reminds us how vulnerable we all are, but it also reminds us, by the response of the public, that we are not going to be cowed by this kind of terrorist action." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

That works. Please make the change. Write that "the attack has been described by UK officials as a "terrorist action". Poyani (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Um, are you topic-banned here? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

@ FormerIP: ' Noun 1. terrorist attack - a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims ' ~ www.thefreedictionary.com Beingsshepherd (talk) 04:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

So, just theoretically, if an off duty serviceman is murdered, without his identity being known to the murderer, that can't be terrorism? But we are not here to decide amongst ourselves, whether it was a "terrorist act" or not, but simply to report what WP:RS might have said. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

If it wasn't a terrorist attack, why would they be charged with terrorist offences?? Also from Talk:Death_of_Lee_Rigby/Archive_3#Article_deficiencies

It needs to say it is a terrorist attack, as they are being charged with terrorist offences[2][3] and the media also classifies this as a terrorist attack.[4][5][6][7][8][9] It is also clearly Islamic terrorism, and it should state this.[10][11][12][13] The attacker proudly speaks to a bystander, mentioning "eye for an eye", "Allah", "Sharia", "Koran". It's also known they converted to Islam. And also shouted Allāhu Akbar during the attack.

The sources above clearly trump the three you've provided.--Loomspicker (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly...if the sources call it a terrorist incident and they are charged with terrorism, then it's pretty clear we are just basing the infomation on the sources.--MONGO 17:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Legal Implications

As this talk page's top points out: this case is the subject of an ongoing legal trial (paraphrased).

Could we please make an effort to mention that the two named men are hitherto merely *suspects*?

When I first found this article, it was extremely damning. Beingsshepherd (talk) 04:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

The statement "we have killed this man today" puts them way beyond "suspects". WWGB (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME still applies, though. This is an unusual case, because the video footage and the identity of the two men in it is no great secret.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hypothetically, the video may show someone speaking and acting under duress. Whatever one's opinion of the evidence, legally, the two men are *suspects* and that's how the article should treat them. Beingsshepherd (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

As with many other warnings and indications on Talk Pages, editors often ignore templates, such as the "sub-judice" one already added at the top of this Talk Page. I wonder do you have any suggestion for practical improvements to the mechanism, the timing or the 'policing' in the use of this particular template? Personally, I still find it rather bizarre that the press can plainly describe the event as murder, and the two sole suspects as "killers", but that we can't describe them here as murderers (even at this Talk Page). I suspect that duress may be less of an issue than mental culpability. But I'm not sure that Ian Brady became any less of a murderer when, in 1985, he was declared "criminally insane"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm unclear how the hierarchy/authority aspect of Wikipedia functions; this is about all I know:

' Angela Beesley Starling, a spokeswoman for Wikipedia, explained to WND that all the website’s encyclopedia content is monitored by users. She said the administrators who deleted the entries are volunteers. “Administrators,” Starling said, “are simply people who are trusted by the other community members to have access to some extra tools that allow them to delete pages and perform other tasks that help the encyclopedia.” ... ' http://neveryetmelted.com/2009/03/09/blatant-obama-bias-by-wikipedia-administrators/ Beingsshepherd (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Whats your point?--MONGO 03:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

' whats to suspect? they admitted ot[sic] the crime) ' *sigh* MONGO, under UK law, one's presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law; not until one confesses (note: the article even has a heading naming them as: 'Suspects'). Please revert your revisions.Beingsshepherd (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Hang on, so you are suggesting that, now he's been arrested/detained/charged he can no longer be described as an "assailant" but only as "a suspected assailant"? Is he also now suspected of making a public confession videoed on someone's phone? suspected of holding a meat cleaver dripping with blood? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

He can't be formally named an assailant without a conviction. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a kangaroo court of public opinion.

I suppose, if well sourced, one can claim there's evidence of a main suspect doing the aforementioned things. Beingsshepherd (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

I'm not sure what you mean by "formally named". Wikipedia just reports reliable sources. If they say that someone has been assaulted, then the person or persons responsible are assailants. No legal charge, detention or conviction is required. There is so little doubt about this fact, in this case, that I am very surprised you are making such an issue of it. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

for•mal (ˈfɔr məl) adj. 8. made or done in accordance with procedures that ensure validity: a formal authorization. ~ www.thefreedictionary.com

It's not officially determined who is responsible. The law courts have yet to decide.

' Sue Hemming, Head of the CPS Special Crime and Counter-Terrorism Division, said: ...

"This man is now charged with serious criminal offences and he has the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that nothing should be reported which could prejudice this trial." ' ~ http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/403629/Michael-Adebowale-charged-with-Woolwich-murder-of-Drummer-Lee-Rigby Beingsshepherd (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

We are not the media and we do not cave in to wikilawyering. If a reliable independent source says " X and Y killed Z" then we report that without adding pussyfoot terms like "suspected". WWGB (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

That's correct...we just report what the reliable sources say.--MONGO 15:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

' Woolwich attack: MI5 knew of men suspected of killing Lee Rigby '

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-soldier-lee-rigby-mi5 Beingsshepherd (talk)Beingsshepherd

Yes, good source. Here's a descriptive phrase that I would gladly add, in quotes if necessary, to the article: "The two suspects in the butchering to death of a British soldier.. " Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

That source uses that terminology? OMG they must be stealing our words and not giving us credit!--MONGO 19:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I approve of 'two suspects', but think that 'butchering' is too sensational a description for this context. Beingsshepherd (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Cleaver. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes...."too sensational"....hum...they tried to decapitate Rigby....sounds like butchering to me.--MONGO 13:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

' butch·er (bchr) n. 2. To kill brutally or indiscriminately. ' ~ www.thefreedictionary.com ~ too subjective. Beingsshepherd (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Exactly...see....you learn fast.--MONGO 18:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Except that definition is for the noun. For the verb, the same source says: "tr.v. 2. To kill brutally or indiscriminately." I would describe the killing as brutal and I think that's quite an objective description. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

' bru·tal (brtl) adj. 1. Extremely ruthless or cruel. ' (same source) that's objective is it? Beingsshepherd (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Frankly, yes IdreamofJeanie (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

' (of a person or their judgment) Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts ~ ' http://google-dictionary.so8848.com/meaning?word=objective It cannot be described factually, as ruthless nor cruel. Beingsshepherd (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

What a bunch of wikilawyering nonsense....--64.134.173.235 (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have just undone what looks like a knee-jerk edit by someone who couldn't possibly have reviewed my edits properly. Only trying to help here. 188.28.21.120 (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have left an explanation for my revert, which was not a "knee-jerk", below, in a new section. Had you considered making an account with which to edit here? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC) p.s. some of the edits did help. I read each of the changes in that last edit and assessed their value. Or did you mean that I'm someone who is just incapable of reviewing anything "properly"?

Recent edit

Some of the changes in this recent edit by an anon ip editor, may be improvements, in terms of a simplifcation of language. But I see nothing wrong with the use of the word "assailants" instead of the word "men". I am also concerned that other wording, explicitly agreed, with regard to clarifying which police were armed, has been lost. What do other editors think? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I recall discussion why the first arrivers did not confront the killers. It was agreed to report that they were unarmed (as are most British police) and waited for an armed response team. WWGB (talk) 10:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I also recall the discussion, and think the police clarification needs to go back in, for reasons mentioned above. Paul MacDermott (talk) 10:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I've restored "armed police," but haven't reviewed the other edits in detail. Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I object to the word assailants, as it's incongruous with the 'Suspects' heading and prejudices their pending court case, which we're asked to be cautious of at this page's top. Beingsshepherd (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Which legal dream-world are you living in? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The one in which people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Beingsshepherd (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

There are quite enough eye-witness reports, repeated by multiple WP:RS sources worldwide, to support the notion that the two men first deliberately drove into Rigby and then proceded to hack him to death. They are killers. The only doubt is whether or not a conviction of murder will be secured in court for each of them, because that is a future event. "Not yet proven guilty of murder" does not suddenly mean these men did nothing wrong. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I propose we include the eye-witness reports from reliable sources, let the court decide their culpability, then later add its verdict (amending various article sections if and where necessary). From my own research, many of these news articles are inconsistent; naming the accused as both suspected and guilty. I believe that publishing multiple allegations as facts, is dishonest and jeopardizes their right to a fair trial. Beingsshepherd (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

You seem to be in denial that MA and MA killed Rigby. They were seen in the act by dozens of people. There is absolutely no doubt that they killed him; they have admitted as much. Outcomes of the trial may include insanity, but no outcome can overturn the fact that they killed. We do not need to promote terms like "alleged" and "suspected" when the nature of the event is beyond question. This is not some unseen homicide in stealth or darkness, when the involvement of the perpetrator(s) must be proven. WWGB (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It's irrelevant what our opinion on the pending case is. We debase: due process, this encyclopedia and our own integrity, by passing off speculation as truth. Beingsshepherd (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Speculation? As I said, you are in denial of the facts ..... WWGB (talk) 05:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Floral tribute

The Daily Mail gets quite a harsh time at Wikipedia, but its images are often very good. Pictures, unlike tabloid text, can't really be unreliable. This source speaks for itself and I think might be a useful addition to the article. I'm surprised that the spontaneous floral tributes from members of the public, do not feature in the Reactions section at all. Surely, at least a single short sentence is needed? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Pictures, unlike tabloid text, can't really be unreliable. *snort* What, the camera never lies? Are you unfamiliar with Photoshop? Have you checked that it satisfies Wikipedia's copyright requirements? Beingsshepherd (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

I'm not sure I suggested uploading anything covered by Daily Mail copyright. But really enjoyed your *snort" there, Beingsshepherd. Thanks ever so much. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Nor am I (after a cursory glance at their corners) & not at all ¦] Beingsshepherd (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Had I lived in London, I would have gone to the scene and taken some photos that could be uploaded to Commons. The photos on Flickr are not much help, as the floral tributes are copyrighted. Generic images of floral tributes may not be all that useful, what the article could do with is a photo of the area where the attack took place. I put in a request at Talk:Woolwich, but no luck yet.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I was, in fact, suggesting a sentence, with that Daily Mail article as a source. (At least until any photographs become available). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

What an awful idea, a picture of a mawkish shrine, isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia? 188.29.143.12 (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no shrine. Cut flowers die and get cleared away. I was not even suggesting a picture. The huge banks of flowers, laid by the public, were featured throughout the press. I was simply suggesting an acknowlegedment of this fact, together with a link to a sourse that has good quality images and video clips of what was a spontanous out-pouring of public grief and sympathy. The treatment at Death of Diana, Princess of Wales is a similar case. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The treatment of Diana was mawkish in the extreme — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.118.80 (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Then perhaps you need to suggest some changes at that article. I think you mean "the treatment of Diana's death". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The reaction of the public at the time and subsequently is notworthy. There's no reason not to mention floral tributes. A sentence cited to the Daily Mail is perfectly appropriate. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed....actually there was apparently many that were upset when the flowers were eventually removed as well. There are numerous reliable sources that cover this matter.--MONGO 14:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)