Talk:Murder of Lee Rigby/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

EDL and HFH

Is this relevant: [1] "EDL leader Tommy Robinson started fundraising after the murder of soldier Lee Rigby in Woolwich on Wednesday. .. But a Help for Heroes spokesman said a fundraising web page set up by Mr Robinson would be closed, and no EDL donations would be accepted." Martinevans123 (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson is not his birth name, but one of the names that he uses. It may be worth mentioning that Help for Heroes turned down his donation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sick of all this stuff! I'm going to make more coffee and tweak my family tree for a bit instead! If that blooming image is still on the wrong side of the page, when I come back at 24.00 (Sydney Time) i'm going to throw my toys out of the pram. Amandajm (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

best edit summary I've seen in a while Martinevans123 (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion this has too minor relevance here to be worth mentioning. It might be worth mentioning in the article on the person and perhaps with the more general point on them not accepting political donations in the HFH article but those can be discussed in the relevant talk pages. Nil Einne (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

"Armed" police

The word "armed" continues to be returned after I've removed it as unnecessarily redundant. Is this a British thing? Are all police not armed in the UK? Joefromrandb (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Not as a rule. The majority of British police do not carry weapons, and armed officers tend to belong to specialist units. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Only a few police routinely carry firearms. [2] Please do not edit articles on the basis of supposition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Being a grump is no excuse for being lazy; at least take a few seconds to look into my edits before accusing me of something. I initially removed the word "armed" from "armed police shot...", as it's fairly difficult for an unarmed person to shoot someone. When the sentence was rephrased and the word "armed" was returned, rather than "editing articles on the basis of supposition", I asked here, on the fucking talk page. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

"You asked "Are all police not armed in the UK?" That looks like a supposition to me. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Indeed. But there's quite a difference between "editing articles on the basis of supposition" and asking for clarification of said supposition on the talk page. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You appear to have edited first, and asked for clarification afterwards... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Then you need to reread. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

'The word "armed" continues to be returned after I've removed it as unnecessarily redundant'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. When I removed it as "unnecessarily redundant" it was in the phrase "armed police shot...". An unarmed person can not shoot someone. When it was rephrased and the word "armed" was returned, instead of "editing on the basis of supposition", I asked for clarification here. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Armed police does not just mean a cop holding a gun, it also refers to the role and training of that cop. It may seem redundent to someone used to all police being armed, but here it has a specific meaning, so the word "armed" should be included.Martin451 (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

We perhaps need to insert a note mentioning this somewhere, either in the text if appropriate and sourceable, or as a hidden comment. We must be one of the only nations whose police aren't routinely armed, so it must be confusing to anyone outside the UK reading the term. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It shouldn't be necessary to add hidden comments to articles on the basis that people will edit them according to supposition. As for a footnote in the article, I can possibly see merit in this, though it seems a little excessive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, both are probably not needed if people do a bit of research. I've just added a hidden comment before seeing your reply, but I've no objections if you want to remove it again. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Police in Ireland, New Zealand, Malta, and - in a sense - Norway are not routinely armed. We do have Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom, which explains the role of armed police, so maybe we could link to that. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Must admit I prefer that. Linking to it sounds like a better idea as anyone who wishes to know more can click on the article. I'll do it now. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Image placement problem

Before we see toys flying, I'd like to start a new discussion about the placement, and outline my thoughts and get others to outline theirs.

MOS:IMAGES says "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text... An image should generally be placed in the section of the article that is most relevant to the image. " (emphasis mine)

The real problem of the image is that the 'Victim' section is so short that the image overspills the section on all but the narrowest screens. The guideline seem to give us two options. I simply refuse to have the image on the left in the Victim section because of the disruption to heading in the following section. It just looks sloppy and unprofessional. Likewise, if we were to space the section to accommodate the image (by using {{clear}}), there would be too much "air" and would again look sloppy. Although I have no preference as to which section, I'd offer that the image is probably more "relevant" to the 'Victim' section than the 'Attack' section, and should probably reside there within the former, but I don't feel strongly about this, and the image can go in the 'Attack' section as far as I am concerned because it doesn't disrupt. The image must, for me, be aligned right if it is to stay in the Victim section. I don't see it as particularly problematic as the guideline suggests its 'eyes' criterion is optional. But if we further examine the image, we can see that Rigby's right shoulder is slightly pointing forwards. His face is straight (parallel to the camera film plane) and his eyes are looking straight at the camera. There is no looking left or right. That means placement on either side would comply with MOS:IMAGES. I'd say it was perfectly acceptable where it is now. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 13:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

So breaking the line is part of what is bothering you? I must admit that I usually avoid it. But in this instance, the image crammed below the box looks worse, to my eye anyway. Neither arrangement is ideal.

Now you could let someone write a long biography and that would solve the problem.... well maybe not!

I disagree with you, while at the same time acknowledging that breaking the line in that manner is not good. Check out this one! Mona Lisa replicas and reinterpretations!!

Can't be bothered arguing! And I still can't find my great-grandfather...... I can find everybody else's but not mine.

Amandajm (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Oh. He is looking straight ahead. And given that, and the header-break if placed on the left, placement on the right is better. And it is more appropriate in the victim section. So where it is now seems appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Another possible solution would be to merge the 'Victim' section into the 'Attack' section. Shall I give it a try? -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 16:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Now that I've done the above, on a wider screen, the image interferes with the quote indentation. I will restore Victim section. Click on intermediate version in history to view. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 16:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

On that subject, I would suggest bringing the sections Suspects, Investigation, and Subsequent events up one level. --Epeefleche (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The section about the victim should be longer. An article about the death of a person usually contains much more info about the person. It is missing important biographical info, including his date of birth. Jim Michael (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

None of the mainstream media news stories seems to have given his date of birth, saying only that he was 25.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

York Mosque tea and biscuits

Was just debated by Vanessa Feltz on BBC Radio 2's Jeremy Vine Show:[3]. Professor Mohamed El-Gomati, who is an elder at the mosque, was featured. May be of marginal relevance, but is obviously part of the wider story. (Even The Sun shines down benevolently [4]) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Response time 2

I'm starting a new thread since I'm not sure if this will be noticed above given the length of this page and the age of that thread. Given the occasional comment and controversy over the response time, do others feel it would be expanding the response section to mention that the armed response team wasn't dispatched until 14:24 in response to the first calls suggesting one may be needed. Nil Einne (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've read mentioned that some criticised the delay, but I don't think it's a real issue worth dwelling on. It's had little coverage compared with other aspects of the case. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Would tend to agree with Oh on this.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The first 999 call did not indicate the need for an armed unit, and it was only subsequent calls that made it clear that one was required. Saying "the armed response team wasn't dispatched until 14:24" is being overly judgmental, as it was only four minutes after the first 999 call, anyway. There are only a limited number of armed units available at any one time, so they wouldn't have been automatically deployed to an incident that - on the first report - did not appear to merit it. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Now charges have been brought

Now charges have been brought it seems like a good time to add the {{Sub judice UK}} template to this page. I'll do this now just so anyone editing knows we have to take the sub judice rule into account, and hopefully no one will object. Paul MacDermott (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I certainly would not object. But before such a template has been placed, or indeed regardless of this before proceedings have begun, do editors have any more or less scope for expressing personal opinion? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• It will be the very first time I've seen the template being used, and I'm not sure to what end. Firstly, this article is tightly-policed by the current team working on it so any undesirable change is likely to be rapidly reversed. Secondly, the rules apply to comment within the UK. WP's servers are in the US and we are subject to US laws, which apparently allow for greater freedom to comment and do not take great heed of sub judice. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 23:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• To clarify: all contributors are subject to the laws of wherever they are, and the placement of the servers in the US doesn't nullify this. UK-based contributors certainly are subject to sub judice rules, and need to bear this in mind. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
• I see. So it's not a useless waste of time. And policing-by-(US)-colleague is not all that really matters? Does US law allow us to name the suspects as murderers? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• I was looking for this template a few days ago as I have seen it used before. For UK editors, it does not matter where the server is, you are publishing it. If the server is in the US, they are still subject to court rules. For international users (non-UK), it still matters as articles on wikipedia are published in the UK when they are read (according to UK law). If you put something on wikipedia, and I read it in the UK, it is classes as having been published in the UK. People have been extradited from the UK to the US on similar rules, so why not the other way around?Martin451 (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thats a bit over the top...I highly doubt that anyone is going to be extradited or even prosecuted no matter where they're living if they typed the "M" word! However, I do believe that under US law, reporters would say what they are charged with, as in charged with "M", and in what degree, be it first degree (premeditated) or a lesser "M" charge. I believe it would be best to only say what the charges are and avoid saying these suspects are anything except charged with a crime until the court determines what the outcome is.--MONGO 23:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• As far as the WMF is concerned, you have to agree to obey US laws (specifically those of Florida) to post on Wikipedia. That (usually) lets them off the hook. As for what other laws you are subject to, that depends where you are, but it is your problem. 'The servers are in Florida' isn't going to be much of a defence if you get hauled up before the beak in the UK... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hmmm. Wow. Glad that's all crystal clear then. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Innocent until proven guilty. I guess we can say what the charges are and then once the court determines what the outcome is, what they were found guilty of if anything. They might say the knife didn't fit?--MONGO 00:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• It's painful. I hate doing it. But I must admit. Andy is (except for his last sentence, quite possibly -- if UK law is in accord with some interpretations of French law on this point) correct.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the education. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

A year or so back we had a request for information to be removed from an article ahead of a trial, so I added the template more as a precaution than anything for those in the UK who may not be aware of the rule. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection

This article should be semiprotected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.190.135 (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a process for doing that. You need to go to WP:RFPP and give them a reason why you feel it should be projected. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This would happen only if there was a large amount of vandalism. Thankfully, the edit history shows few (if any) nonsense edits.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed yes, we don't protect pages unless they're subject to significant vandalism, or edit warring. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thankfully, there has been none of either of those here. So any RFPP request is likely to be refused. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 15:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with the above consensus that it is neither needed or likely to be applied. At this point.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Omar Bakri Mohammad

Omar Bakri Mohammad has made various claims[5] and has been commented upon by others [6]. He seems to be a significant part of the narrative around the incident[7] and request that his role be touched upon in the article. Regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Certainly we could include a mention of it as the article discusses the opinions of other controversial clerica. Reaction is probably the best place to add it. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not impossible that Omar Bakri Muhammad gave lectures to the attackers at some point. There is, though, a non-verifiable element of possible boasting about his influence. He has not been resident in the UK since 2005, and is banned from entering the UK.[8]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I should clarify, I meant his reaction to the attack may be worth mentioning. Any claims that he influenced the attackers are something entirely different. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Nick Robinson 2

I see mention of his comments has disappeared from the article, although I do feel that eventually we should include it. The Guardian says that Robinson was the first "to make sense of" what had happened, but caused offence after hquoting a third party source's description of the attackers. Robinson did break the news that the government had decided to treat the attack as a terrorist incident rather than a street stabbing. Even if the backlash was mainly on Twitter, which is suggested by The Spectator, it was still significant enough for Robinson to decide he needed to issue an apology. Here are a couple of further sources on the matter, anyway, one from each side of the political spectrum - The Spectator and The Guardian. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This may have been removed per WP:NOTNEWS. It is hard to imagine where Nick Robinson's brains were when he said this (e.g. would he have said that the attackers were of Jewish, Catholic or Protestant appearance?).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I looked through the article history actually, but nothing in the edit summaries stood out. I do agree though, one wonders what was going through his head. I guess there's room for it in Robinson's article as we have other controversies there, and of course, I added it to 2013 in British television as it does seem notable enough for inclusion there. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Was that third party source suggesting that in the UK it's generally easier to distinguish people who are Muslims from those of many other faiths, and much easier than it is to tell apart those who may be "Jewish, Catholic or Protestant"? Minorites are usually also easier to distinguish from a much larger majority? Or is it prejudical even to make such outlandish suggestions here? Martinevans123 (talk)

The black population of the UK is very heavily Christian, so the term "of Evangelical Christian appearance" would actually be more accurate, but again totally unacceptable and illogical. The judgement of them as Muslims was made on their words (they said they were), not their physical appearance, so it's not just political correctness to say that it was a totally ridiculous statement to make. Prof Wrong (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, the alleged attackers are persons of African appearance. The rant video clearly suggests an Islamist motive, but this would not be obvious from the faces of the attackers.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

What's most interesting is not what Robinson said, but that the description of "Muslim appearance" apparently came from "a government source". Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if we will ever get to the bottom of it. Muslims may be defined by how they look, in particular what they wear. But it's just plain stupid to say of anyone wearing jeans and T-shirt that they have Muslim appearance. <facepalm>-- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Clarity

Here are four statements:

1. The assailants charged at the police.
2. One assailant was brandishing a cleaver and the other a revolver
3. The police fired eight shots,
4. The police wounded both men.

• These four facts are all significant to the course of events and need to be stated as clearly as possible
• There are a number of ways of combining the events
• Active voice (i.e. they did this) rather than passive voice (i.e. this happened to them) is better in accurate reporting.
• Turning events into clauses "This happened when that happened because this happened" is to be avoided.
• We have four actions here, two of which were done by the assailants and the other two of which were done by the police.
• NOTE: even though the wounding happened to the assailants, it was the police who did the wounding. So rather than using the passive "The men were wounded", it is better to give the action to the subjects who did the shooting.

THis brings it down to two sentences, one about the assailants and the other about the police.

1. The assailants charged at the police, one brandishing a cleaver and the other a revolver. And in case there is doubt who did the brandishing: The assailants, one brandishing a cleaver and the other a revolver, charged at the police.
2. The police fired eight shots, wounding the assailants.

Please stop fiddling with these very clear statements and turning them into The men were wounded when they charged at the police etec etc etc. This stuff needs clarity. Wikipedia is not selling a news story.

Amandajm (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have no problem with either, until you raised objection to the formulation "The police fired eight shots, wounding the assailants," and how it might imply all eight shots wounded the assailants. I changed it following your suggestion, but during the course of the last few days, it somehow seemed to find it back at the wording you objected to. Earlier on, I changed that again with your objection in mind to wording that could no way be ambiguous.

  Oh, and I still object to the use of grade one prose, unless its use is absolutely unavoidable. You seem to dislike my use of semicolons, but they are not incorrect and help us get out of these "grade-oneisms" -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 15:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Abu Nusaybah

Is the arrest of Abu Nusaybah related to the Woolwich attack? The BBC claims is it not, but that he was related to Michael Adebolajo.VR _talk 03:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The article itself says he's not directly connected to this case, so it seems inappropriate to mention him here. If there's enough material about his activities then perhaps we can have an article about him as per Sheikh Omar Bakri, Abu Qatada, and others. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Although he is not directly related to the case, he is related to one of the suspects, and deserves a mention. How big that mention is, I don't know. But if he influenced one of the suspects, then it should be mentioned. However we really need to wait and see.Martin451 (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The entire rant

I am very strongly opposed to editing parts out of Michael Adebolajo's video rant.

It needs to be there in its entirety including:

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.

This is a very strong threat of violence. Once these raves are removed, there might be some readers who would find our edited version of his speech to be reasonable. We need to include the whole lot or none of it.

Amandajm (talk) 06:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, since the speech is not lengthy, there is no obvious reason not to quote it in full, and it provides important context for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)}

• I think you guys are missing the point, or I'm having problems making myself clear. Anyway, I'm out-manned and out-gunned. The field is yours. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 07:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that people would ask why the David Cameron part had been removed. I was surprised to see this, as the edited version spoiled the flow of the speech and risked giving a misleading impression per WP:NOTCENSORED, as Amandajm said.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying about "recentism". However, the topic is an extremely touchy one with human lives at risk. (This is my main reason for buying into a news article, when I normally stick to the less contentious subject of art and architecture.) Although the vast majority of Muslims who have spoken out have made their opposition to his actions (as a way of achieving a political aim) very clear, there are others who, reading the editted version, might simply agree with his motives and imitate his methods. The more rational that his speech appears, the greater likelihood of this happening. Any MOS recommendations are essentially recommendations. Common sense needs to come to bear on this. Your edits are just fine, as long as your intention is to push the assassin's barrow for him! I don't believe that is the case. Amandajm (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Touchy subject indeed. It's attracting attention from editors who focus on Islamic terrorism. I have the following points:

1. WP's role is not to soapbox or allow soapboxing. The assailant's rant in particular is an ultimate soapbox.
2. WP:UNDUE: Nobody has broadcast the entire footage; most have broadcast excerpts. If others can do it, so can we. Sure that there will always be some who want to hear the entire speech – they can get that off the internet like all the other trash out there; WP is not a tabloid. Our reporting of the event needs to remain sober and encyclopaedic.
3. WP:NPOV: only a Murdochian right-wing tabloid has the full transcript or the full video. we all know what types this rag appeals to.
4. it may appear like an insane rant to the right-minded, but to those potential recruitees within the line of sight of radical clerics, it's a divine message from a prophet to be quoted and requoted and acted upon. To the racist element out there, this would create grounds for hating Muslims even stronger than the act created on its own. It's potentially an incitement for "both sides" to commit racial attacks. The EDL and BNP are already agitating; there's talk that the French attack may have been inspired by this one. That's why there are laws in many countries against incitement to hate crimes.
5. I would reiterate that I am not proposing removing the rant in its entirety, just excerpting it to maybe two-thirds the word-count. Perhaps we can take coverage of the speech by, say, the Independent or AFP and quote that text. Yes, I would still remove the reference to David Cameron – it could easily have been Blair, or Bush or Merkel or Miliband. But it's important to keep the more general comment about "Remove your governments. They don't care about you." -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Althouth IANAL, simply quoting what someone said is unlikely to be incitement. Plenty of mainstream media sources quoted the David Cameron part of the speech. It would be getting into WP:NOTCENSORED territory to remove it because someone might be offended/radicalised after reading it. Also, the video of the full rant is now easily available on YouTube. I found it disturbing to watch, but it helps to understand the depths of fanaticism that motivated this attack.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

What trash there is on the internet is beyond our comprehension or control. What people say and whether it incites is defined in law, and only a court can decide. That does not mean we should apply WP:NOT#CENSORED to each and every piece of information as if it were worthy of inclusion. True that the speech may be "disturbing" to you and me, but it may be "inspiring" to budding jihadists; it may also be "infuriating" to ultra-nationalists. Many sources published various excerpts/extracts of it; no self-respecting part of the media has published it in full. I mean the only rag that published the whole thing is a right-wing "comic" read mainly by the nationalistic blue-collared, so we are already out of line with general news coverage and are being more tabloid than a tabloid in that respect. Applying the NOTCENSORED logic, you might argue/justify Michael Adebolajo's speech. But that is not what WP is for, and such an article will sink at AfD. Why don't we migrate it over to Wikisource or Wikiquote, refer to relevant parts and link to same. If they don't believe it fits within their scope, which is more specific than ours in matters of speeches and quotations, then neither should we tolerate verbatim citing of the whole fucking rant within these walls. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 06:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The Sun is not everyone's favourite newspaper, and its decision to publish the video of the entire rant was controversial. Personally, I do not find the transcript of the video as controversial as the video itself. Even if the Wikipedia article removed the David Cameron part, it would still be very easy to find on the web. Incidentally, many people have commented how bizarre it is that at 1:35 in the full rant, a woman with a shopping trolley walks right past Michael Adebolajo, and ignores him completely. This is the point at which the David Cameron part occurs. To draw in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there was a huge debate about whether to include the actual cartoons in Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and Lars Vilks Muhammad drawings controversy. The images remain, even though some pea-brained extremist might be offended to the point of violence by seeing them.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was also watching amazed at the woman walk right past the armed thug; it distracted me quite a lot from the "David Cameron" part of the rant. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 06:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The David Cameron part of the speech is here in a report on Australian television news, as part of Lateline.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Several points:

I'm not objecting to the "David Cameron" part of the speech per se. I am objecting to the use of the speech in its entirety, and would be open to discussion as to which parts can be cut out without rendering the message misleading. Like most tabloids, The Sun courts controversy. The Daily Mail is similar in that regard. I don't want to prevent people finding stuff (including porn) on the internet if that's what they truly want – that's not why I want the quote trimmed down (a string of six words would suffice in finding the rant on the net). Just like we need to use pornography to discuss pornography, the articles are encyclopaedic and not themselves pornographic in nature. I want a sober encyclopaedic article with a bit more restrained in using non-free or otherwise controversial content. That no non-tabloid has published in full is an important benchmark. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 06:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

By the standards of the Internet, the video is not violent/pornographic, they come far worse than this. The issue being raised is whether the rant is relevant to the article, or might cause the assorted headbangers on both sides of the spectrum to become enraged. I believe that a text-only transcript illuminates what was going on inside the head of the attacker, and the speech is short enough to include in full.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think I ever said that the video was particularly violent/pornographic, nor was that a reason to seek downsizing the quote. I've had the opportunity to thoroughly exchange views, and as I said already, I'm outnumbered and out-gunned, so it's the end of the matter as far as I am concerned. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 08:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

What I meant to indicate by referring to the "David Cameron part of the speech" is that this part is obviously a rant. It doesn't read as logical, and it is certainly very threatening. My concern is that after you have removed all the less rational bits, then you are left with just the rationale and it is that part which is dangerous and inflammatory, not the rant. This really doesn't seem too hard to comprehend, but so far the point I'm making seems to have been missed. Amandajm (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you find reliable sources that give the complete rant? If not, it is highly doubtful that the rant is accurate and notable enough to be included. This is not a reliable source, and furthermore it doesn't give a transcript. Someone mentioned the Telegraph, and that is a reliable source and I'll use that.

The reason for reliable sources is that they tell us what part of his speech are noteworthy enough to be included in this article.

If anyone wants to invoke WP:IAR and abandon WP:V, there must be very strong consensus to do so. I don't see any obvious reason to dismiss a core wikipedia policy.VR _talk 02:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding the claim that the transcript is wrong because it doesn't match the video - how can you be so sure that the video(s) is/are correct and not doctored?VR _talk 03:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Transcripts

It is beyond my comprehension that every transcript I have read (except the one first quoted) is inaccurate. Every transcript tidies up the language to make it grammatically correct.

• The speaker says "a eye" not "an eye"
• He says "Blessing upon Muhammad" exactly as you would expect him to do, as a Muslim.

Is Wikipedia really locked into using an inaccurate transcript, simply because the source is generally considered "reliable"? Amandajm (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have no real issue if the transcript ties to the source. The Durie blog is probably not ideal per strict interpretation of WP:BLOGS, but he's someone of note and the transcript seems more accurate (I agree with you there). -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we ought to go with accuracy. Having just written to the BBC, we may get a transcription there, just to get the record accurate. I hope so. Amandajm (talk) 10:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I actually prefer verifiability per RS as in here. Apart from exhaustivity, there's no reason to publish his entire rant. None of the main news bulletins and very few printed journals did that. The grammatical failure (to use the indefinite article) is but a small detail that we could probably lose with some of the quote farm anyway. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 13:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Amandajm, perhaps you would like to withdraw the offensive phrase "some stupid ignorant Christian"? Nick Cooper (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this just one "stupid ignorant Christian" doing all the translations, or is it a whole series of them? Or are those descriptors intended to be seen as self-evident and thus redundant? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Either way, it's still offensive, unnecessary, and pure supposition on Amandajm's part, not least because "blessing upon you" is not necessarily something "a Christian might well say" at all. Nick Cooper (talk) 06:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I should have put "stupid ignorant Christian" in inverted commas. I am sorry that I missed your objection and didn't respond immediately. I was away, up the country, celebrating the induction of a member of my family as a parish priest. What my comment was reflecting upon was the fact that these two young men had both chosen to put their Christian faith behind them, and that the speaker now no longer calls blessing upon his fellow humans, but rather upon the leader of his newly-acquired faith, having just chopped a fellow creature up with a cleaver. The irony of this was obviously too subtle or utterly misplaced. And, in fact Christians do call blessing on their fellow humans, but this is generally done by the pastor at the end of a service. It is in this context that blessing is familiar to Christians. Christians do not normally bless Jesus or any other deceased (or resurrected) religious leader. In Christianity, blessings come from Jesus, not the other way around.

Anyway, I have removed the nasty bit, and apologise to all who may have been offended by it.

Re the question of whether it was just one person (Christian or otherwise) doing the transcription, I think this is probable. All the transcriptions (except one on a blog) seem to have been copied from a single source, hence the identical inaccuracies. I have made this comment before.

Amandajm (talk) 06:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It is very rare for a killer's justification to be recorded and circulated so widely in the public domain. It is therefore imperative that the transcript be complete, correct and unedited. He mostly said "a eye" rather than "an eye", so that is the way we must report it. WWGB (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• WE have internet journalism and social media to thank for that. But that doesn't make it any more "historic" and worth keeping intact. Most news organisations saw fit to edit it or take quotes from it. Let's face it, it was a rant. My edit didn't remove anything of substance, except for a direct reference to the Quran, which we can reinsert or refer to in some way. What's so important about his repeating 'a eye for a eye'? It's already established that he is Muslim, cites from the Quran, can't use the indefinite article properly with vowels, and has a confused identity (note the inconsistent use of 'we' and 'you' throughout his rant). I maintain the deletion should stick. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oh, it may have been widely circulated, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's in the public domain. Even my edited version probably already quotes more than it should if copyright applies. IF we all agree that we MUST use the quote in full, the exact copyright status needs to be established. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The current source for the transcript is Mark Durie's blog. I don't see any reason why Durie or a blog is a reliable source. Bits and pieces of the transcript are found in reliable sources, and we should use those. If the entire transcript can't be found in any reliable source, then you gotta ask yourself "is the whole transcript of any notability?" Also we care about verifiability more than the truth here.VR _talk 16:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Um, now that the citations have been replaced, we're back to the 'old' problem that the rant we cite is inconsistent with the sources (it has been 'cleaned-up' for his grammatical mistakes etc.). I think it ought to be 100% tied to the sources, however wrong the sources are. I just can't understand the insistence on letter-for-letter accuracy in the quoted transcript. Not one of the sources draws attention to same or makes any analysis thereof. Ho hum...

  Also, I'd like for someone to tell me why African Spotlight is a reliable source. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

We now have two sources giving two different versions for the transcript: Guardian and African Spotlight. (CNN gives a much smaller version). Personally I prefer Guardian cause it has a more established reputation for accuracy. But the current wording is not found in either of those articles. We need to change that. If we put it in quote, then we gotta say it without modification.VR _talk 02:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I've changed it to the African Spotlight version, but I still prefer the Guardian one.VR _talk 02:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Does the "reliability" of African Spotlight need establishing for you? I have no idea where it stands. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the truncated (and incorrect) transcript while this matter is discussed. There is currently no consensus to depart from the complete (and correct) transcript. WWGB (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

IMHO there is nothing substantially wrong in the African Spotlight transcript. All of the sources cited have a few glitches, but there is no real doubt about the basic words used.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)at the risk of banging on the drum again, Vice regent at least seems to understand the basis of my concerns. VR understands the importance that WP:V takes over pure accuracy. We already had this discussion when arguing the "T-shirt vs Hoodie" issue but my counterpart (was it you?) didn't see it. WP is, after all, a tertiary source which relies mostly on secondary sources. Now, as has been pointed out by others (not just me), most secondary sources of repute have not published the entire speech for any number of reasons, that sends a clear signal that not the entire speech is notable. In addition, your collective obsession with preserving the entire rant, as well as the error ("a eye for a eye") seems to me to be in the way of executing our proper responsibility of faithfully and verifiably reporting secondary sources. It's not what WP:IAR is about. The grammatical mistake is an utterly trivial matter, and I certainly don't agree that it merits invoking the nuclear bomb. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 06:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is the text of the full rant in The Daily Telegraph, which disproves the theory that no UK news source has published it in full. Like the other sources, it has a few glitches but is basically accurate.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not accurate. It contains factually incorrect attributions such as "an eye for an eye" and "peace be upon you" which are just wrong. A transcript is not rocket science, you just have to l i s t e n. WWGB (talk) 11:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

That's called original research. I'm restoring the sourced version, and you are free to provide a different, but sourced version.VR _talk 12:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not original research at all. Listening is equally as valid a communication skill as reading. WWGB (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

So IanMacM, let's use the Telegraph version (put into a single paragraph)?VR _talk 12:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This is an instance when we need to go with the primary source: the video of the rant.

Apart from the blog, none of the transcripts are accurate as they all appear to be copied form the same original and no-one has checked their accuracy.

This Muslim man does not say "Peace be on you". He say "Peace be on Muhammad!", exactly as you would expect him to.

Whoever transcribed his statement as "Peace be on you" was not really listening, and simply over-layed his real speech their own expectations of what a "religious" person might say.

Amandajm (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• The Daily Telegraph transcript is passable, except for a key error at the end. He does not say "Allah’s peace and blessings be upon you.", he says "Allah's peace and blessings be upon Muhammad, as-salamu alaykum" as the actual video shows. It is necessary to invoke WP:IAR to avoid this error.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• I've made a request at WP:RSN. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 15:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth is not policy. Wikipedia:No original research is policy, and it states (correctly, in my opinion) that "transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources is not considered original research". If the video itself has been published by a reliable source, and we can produce a transcript that we can all agree on, then it can be sourced directly to the copies of the video which are available at reliable sources. The video should not be considered a primary source in this case, because reliable news organizations, by distributing it, are indicating that they believe it to be an accurate recording of what happened, and nobody has suggested otherwise. Sources do not have to be text. – Smyth\^talk 10:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• If there's another website with the whole speech we can access... There are quite a few editors out there who would disagree that The Sun could be considered a reliable source. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 11:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The Sun is not a RS for most news stories, but the newspaper's website did publish the video of the full "rant speech", which ITV News declined to do. The real issue has been not whether The Sun is a RS, but how accurate the published transcripts are. The Telegraph and African Spotlight versions are passable, but they still contain errors and omissions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Why the fascination with a "transcript"? The audio statement IS the citation, is the evidence. If you listen to the audio, and follow along with the words in the article, there are no errors. The evidence is therefore reliable and verifiable, which is all that is required by Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

BBC News version I am pretty sure that he says "Remove your government", not "Remove your governments". This is another flaw in the Telegraph transcription.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Bursting/bussin' our guns?

As part of the ongoing effort to keep everyone happy, someone has introduced a transcript from Nigeria News which says "bursting/bussin' our guns". All of the other transcripts are agreed on "busting our guns". TBH, I am not sure what this means, but this is a poor transcript and should not be used as a source. Even the Daily Telegraph transcript is better than this one..--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't much mind so long as our text is consistent with the transcript being cited. One person keeps on replacing citations hoping to find the "perfect" transcript whilst keeping the speech as he wants it, but we keep running into inaccuracies within the citations. I don't know why absolutely zero sources transcribe 'a eye for a eye', but the fact is despite all the insistence on absolute anal "accuracy", nobody can find a transcript that says that for all the trying. We should stop changing sources whilst keeping the "accurate text". We should go with the most accurate "non-blog" transcript and maybe cut out the "wrong bits". -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 10:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Article deficiencies

Some important things not right about this article:

1. It needs to say it is a terrorist attack, as they are being charged with terrorist offences[9][10] and the media also classifies this as a terrorist attack.[11][12][13][14][15][16]
2. It is also clearly Islamic terrorism, and it should state this.[17][18][19][20] 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.
3. How it was carried out makes it considerably more notable than other murders in the UK, in that it was extremely brazen, made in broad daylight, a public area, and the attackers remained at the scene boasting of their act until police arrived to charge at them. Almost every media report says this. This should be summarised somewhere.
4. "Both assailants were shot" - this is extremely misleading, when it misses out the fact they were shot as they were charging towards police with weapons.
5. "attack was condemned by political and Muslim leaders in the United Kingdom[8] and in the worldwide press." - isn't this obvious? Is there any political leaders that would not condemn a murder? Also very odd it says Muslim leaders, yet fails to mention the attackers were Muslims doing it in the name of Islam.--Loomspicker (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Response Point 4. has been dealt with, within the introduction Amandajm (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Response Point 1, agree, made bold change in 1st sentence, see if consensus is there. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Beheaded or not?

It seems unclear if he was actually beheaded (i.e head completely severed), or partially beheaded i.e they failed in their attempt to behead. The telegraph link says 'attempted to behead'. Personally I think it was a failed attempt, doing something like that with that cleaver tool he had is not easy.Oxr033 (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Even if they had succeeded in removing the head from his corpse, the term "beheading" strongly implies that the victim is still alive at the time, which I understand not to be the case here. Prof Wrong (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Just reflect the Reliable Sources. Avoid the temptation to engage in Original Research (wp:OR), enticing as it may be. If the RSs are in conflict, and it is not clear (without engaging in OR) which is correct, indicate "some sources say x, and some say y." If highly controversial, write: "some such as ... say x, whereas others such as ... say y."--Epeefleche (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• There have been cases where people have been beheaded after death. As it is unclear whether he was beheaded, and the cause of death after his post-mortem[21], we should be careful what we include, remember wp:there is no deadline.Martin451 (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes -- we should be careful; but we should carefully reflect what the RSs say. Not carefully delete it.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Following the sources is good, as always. I would actually have removed all mention of it outright if I wasn't aware of there being something ritualistic with beheading in Muslim culture. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't read Prof Wrong's comment about the implication that he was alive, and I changed it back to "behead" which is the usual term in English. "Take his head off" is clumsy. What they were seeking to achieve was a ritual beheading, whether the victim was alive or dead.

Amandajm (talk) 06:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

"What the sources say" doesn't mean their exact words, though, does it? If so, WP would simply be a collection of quotes. Prof Wrong (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Now, you say it is "the usual term", but how often do you actually talk about people cutting the heads off of dead corpses? Personally, when I read the word, I immediately thought "execution". When I found out they'd hit him with a car and stabbed him already, I thought how horrible it must be to be lying helpless while someone does that to you. As pointed out above, it is not a matter of public record whether he was alive at that point or not. Clearly they were seeking to replicate a ritual beheading (as per the various hostage tapes several years ago), but we'd still need an RS to state that. I just think it's a really loaded word. Prof Wrong (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

If it is a word used commonly by RSs to describe the act in question here, I don't see a fair objection to its use. And use -- "take his head off is clumsy, IMHO, and unless it has greater traction in the RSs describing this act, I can't see cause to opt for that description. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The term may be associated with legally sanctioned executions, but its use is clear here. One can behead a flower. Rothorpe (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Rothorpe I think you mean "deadheading" a flower. 82.47.140.234 (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Right, but a daisy or dandelion... Rothorpe (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Death of Lee Rigby, with an option to move again to Murder of Lee Rigby if the current murder trial results in a conviction. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

---

2013 Woolwich attack → Death of Lee Rigby – This is in line with similar articles at this stage of events. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to submit that, alternatively, Islamist terrorism in Woolwich (2013) or some variation thereof, is the clearest and most accurate way of describing the incident. Quis separabit? 16:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support per nominator. Many articles about similar incidents have used this title format. While I prefer Murder of Lee Rigby, a format that is used in literally hundreds of articles about murders where there have been no convictions (see the discussion above for proof and context), I will be satisfied with this alternative unless/until a conviction is secured. Wikipedia always encourages specificity over vagueness, and "murder" is specific and "attack" is extremely vague. Per all mainstream reliable sources and the involved authorities, this is indeed a murder. And of course the article will not violate WP:BLP by claiming or even implying that anyone is guilty of the crime unless there's a conviction. However, I am perfectly willing to compromise with this proposed title, which is also more accurate and specific than the current title. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 08:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• No objection request is perfectly in line with current practice, AFAICT. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 08:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support, though I think Murder of Lee Rigby would be better. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 09:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Filelakeshoe, I totally agree with you, as I stated above. Would you be willing to start a move request for it? I think it would much more productive to have both of these move requests taking place concurrently, to save time. I do like Death of Lee Rigby as a second choice option, but feel that Murder of Lee Rigby is best, more appropriate, has precedence, and in no way violates BLP policy. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 10:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

So "Murder of Lee Rigby is best", we have two named men who explain on video why they killed him, and we have no other suspects. But we can't actually say that they murdered Rigby, because that breaches BLP? Hmm, interesting. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, the two guys were clearly off their heads. It's perfectly possible that the charge willget reduced to manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility. We cannot prejudge the outcome of legal and medical investigation. Prof Wrong (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's a perfectly reasonable suggestion. And I quite agree. Except that what is "clear" to wikipedia editors is not always acceptable. We have no WP:RS of their being "off their heads." I think there is a large disconnect between the use of the word "murder" as in "has been legally convicted of murder" and what any sane person, looking at the available evidence from the media, would immediately describe as "murder". Of course, the outcome of legal procedings is sometimes wrong. And many people, even after they have been fully identifed, commit murders and escape justice. This does not make them innocent of murder. It just means they have not been legally convicted. Wikipedia still has to be guided by due legal process, of course, even if it is flawed, and however long it takes to complete. But by the same token, where there is little or no doubt as to the identities of the killers, how can an article title which uses the simple phrase "Murder of" be justified? The two killers here may never reach trial. But if they do survive their intervening custody, until they are convicted, we'd have to use the politically correct "Suspected muder of" or "Alledged murder of" - both painfully clumsy in my view. In the real world, I'd argue there are few reliable sources saying "These men murdered Lee Rigby" only because reporters don't want to state the obvious, not because they have ethical misgivings or fear legal censure. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

We have no WP:RS, so we don't write in the article that they were off their heads. And whether it's clear or not is actually not relevant, because we similarly have no WP:RS saying the contrary -- no published report has confirmed their sanity.

Now, you may argue that everybody would call this a murder, and you may be right, but that is a prejudicial view, because it implies so much in terms of intent and responsibility, even if it doesn't directly reflect the definition in legal codes. Murder means intentional, volitional and responsible. Intent and volition have been openly admitted by the "suspects", but responsibility remains in question.

And as for the journalists, I think you're wrong. Can you imagine the almighty sh*t-storm that would be unleashed on any newspaper published such a statement if these guys were to walk on a technicality? You think Operation Weeting and the Home Affairs committee gave the press a bad time? This would be a trillion times worse. Prof Wrong (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, good job we're not a newspaper, eh, pandering to the latest whims of Fleet Street? And yes, I'm sure Operation Weeting got a lot of journalists really worried. That roadside justification was good enough to convince me all off three pre-requesites, I'm afraid. But then I'm not a lawyer. Perhaps they'll refuse legal aid. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The act was an attack on the British people purposefully undertaken to invoke dread & fear. Jason from nyc (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Whether that's true or not, your comment violates NPOV. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. NPOV refers to reliance on sources instead of original research. There are no sources that say the perpetrators knew the victim personally. All the sources make it clear that the attack was against a stranger because of his position in the UK military. In addition, many of the sources say it was a terror attack. It is clearly NPOV to point out that the nature of the attack was against the UK, was to instill fear and terror, and (when sources support a motivation) that it involved religious and political motivations. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I figured you would. :p --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

No, the act was an attack on a British person purposefully undertaken to invoke dread & fear in other British people.

To describe is as an attack "on the British people" only serves to invoke the dread and fear the attackers hope for. NPOV means not doing the terrorists' job for them, surely...? Prof Wrong (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment No objection I only raise this as a point to think on - I took a quick look at a random few "Death of X" articles and in those articles the person targeted was pre-meditated and often notable in their own right. In this case the facts seem to be that although the attack was premeditated, the specific person targeted wasn't. Would the page rename help people locate the article if they wished to read about it? News media commonly still refers to it as the Woolwich attacks (or some flavour of). No objection from me regardless, just some thoughts. CaptRik (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

CaptRik, I appreciate your well-intended comments, but if you are referring to all the "Death of (name)" articles to which I alluded earlier, there were no convictions in any of those cases (as with this one) and the alleged motives or circumstances of all these murders really have no relevance. While your points may or may not be true, they violate WP:NPOV. And of course it's impossible to make blanket determinations about hundreds of murder articles, much less after taking "a quick look at a random few "Death of X" articles", as you indicated you did. I used the following as UK examples: Murder of Penny Bell, Murder of Kelso Cochrane, Murder of Linda Cook, Murder of Melanie Hall, Murder of Billie-Jo Jenkins, Murder of Martine Vik Magnussen, Murder of Robert McCartney, Murder of Lindsay Jo Rimer, Murder of George Harry Storrs, and Murder of Jean Townsend. And I used these US examples: Murder of JonBenét Ramsey, Murder of Andre Marshall, Murder of Jaclyn Dowaliby, Murder of Jill-Lyn Euto, and Murder of Suzanne Jovin. There are hundreds more for many different countries. Finally, it really doesn't matter at all if the rename will make it easier for people to locate the article because an article's title is not intended for that purpose. That's what redirects are for. By the way, if you have no objection, as you stated, would you mind changing your opening from "Comment" to "No objection", as an editor above you did? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 11:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for a well reasoned reply. I appreciate I didn't look thoroughly enough at similar articles and also after taking a look through the WP naming policies I have no objection to this article being renamed. Thanks CaptRik (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You're cherry picking, 76.189.109.155. Many terrorist attacks are merely mentioned in the person's biography (Paul Marshall Johnson, Jr., Nick Berg, Ali Akbar Tabatabaei, Alan Berg). If more than one person was killed it most certainly needs a named-article (1993 shootings at CIA Headquarters, 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing, Centennial Olympic Park bombing). The interesting exception is Achille Lauro hijacking where only Leon Klinghoffer was killed. Sometimes the murder has broken away from the bio as in Death of John Lennon which supplements John Lennon. Interestingly enough the death of Malcolm X isn't broken out thus making the article way too long. The naming practice seems to be led by the material but not always. Since the bulk of the material in this article is about the attackers and the public response, it shouldn't be a "bio". But while there is only one victim, we have the option of using a name-event or a "Death of X" format. Unlike Lennon and Malcolm X, this wasn't a personal attack against a known victim. I suggest we stay with the current format as it is a political/religious event and most of the commentary in our article supports that. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Citing 15 articles most certainly is not cherry picking. And there are hundreds more. And if a topic is notable, then it qualifies for having its own article. So if a person killed in a terrorist attack is notable and has an article, then of course it will be mentioned in that article. So I'm not sure what the point of this comment is: "Many terrorist attacks are merely mentioned in the person's biography". Are you saying that this incident should not have its own article? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

CaptRik, you're very welcome. Thanks for the update. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support since it was my idea in the first place. Angr (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Haha. Very valid point, Angr. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support since we now know know the victim's identity. For reasons of sub judice we should move to 'Death' rather than 'Murder' as there will be an ongoing investigation and legal proceedings. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support but would prefer Murder of Lee Rigby since to suggest it was anything but murder is facetious pedantry. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This isn't about Lee Rigby. He wasn't targeted for who he was; he was just an anonymous soldier. We should name the article after the common search terms so that people can find it easily. What people are looking for: London + machette + attack. I'd favor London machette attack. Woolwich is part of greater London. We don't need 2013 because this is the only notable machette attack in London. Jehochman ^Talk 13:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's about Lee Rigby - you know, the guy who got murdered. "Machete" is debatable, as it's currently not clear if one was actually used, as opposed to the initial report simply using it as a synonym for a large knife/cleaver. Also, if you think this is "the only notable machette attack in London" then you obviously haven't heard of PC Keith Blakelock, which isn't the only machete murder there's been in London, anyway. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. A random soldier was killed. His identity is not a defining feature of the article. WWGB (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

He is the victim in one of the most globally-covered events in the world. Therefore, he's no longer random. Most crime victims who become internationally known were random before the incident. But your comment, "His identity is not a defining feature of the article", is very interesting and one that should be seriously considered. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Upon re-reading the article, it does in fact present Rigby as the "defining feature of the article". Read the lead, which is intended to summarize the most important points of the article. Whether the way the article is being presented is appropriate or not would need to be discussed. But I supposed we'll see how the editing evolves. In any case, thanks for bringing up such a valuable point to consider. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Woolwich attack is clearly the WP:COMMONAME for this incident. In addition, any reader who wouldn't recognise '2013 Woolwich attack' as referring to this incident, is clearly not going to know that 'Death/Murder of Lee Rigby' refers to it either, so it offers no advantage on that score. Quite the opposite infact - to the uninitiated, 'Death/Murder of Lee Rigby' could refer to any number of incidents/motives/places, whereas most reasonable people would assume '2013 Woolwich attack' refers to some kind of attack in a place called Woolwich that occurred in 2013, which is good enough as a starting point. I don't recognise any of the other articles listed above as being about this sort of incident, so it's hard to put any weight on that argument at all. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Some great points, Gruesome. In fact, you've convinced me to seriously reconsider my !vote. But let me ask you this: Why not 2013 Woolwich murder instead of the more vague 2013 Woolwich attack? Why "attack" over "murder". We know that Wikipedia always prefers specificity over vagueness. (All of the mainstream reliable sources and the involved authorities say it's a murder.) I wish, though, that you would look at some of the other articles I mentioned above. I'd like to hear your views after browsing a bunch of them. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

To me, the title chosen should be the one most recognisable in a Google search. While Woolwich murder and Woolwich attack are both currently common in sources, I don't see how 'murder' helps anyone not familiar with the incident to recognise it. There were 99 murders in London last year, some of which either deserve or already have Wikipedia articles I would have thought. I doubt there's any that are about attacks in Woolwich in 2013. Bearing in mind that on Wikipedia, calling something an attack in a non-warzone in these times, basically means terrorism, and more often than not, will involve murder. To illustrate that - London attack is already a redirect to List of terrorist incidents in London which obviously has a link to this article, whereas London murder goes nowhere, and gives all sorts of random articles in the search results, none of which appear to be of any use to someone looking for this article. Similarly, Woolwich attack already redirects here, whereas Woolwich murder goes nowhere (although I'd have no objection to it coming here). Gruesome Foursome (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support move (keeping the current name as a redirect). 'Death of Lee Rigby' is more precise, and seems to me more encyclopaedic; I know we're not supposed to speculate, but I expect that the media will tend to refer to this event by Rigby's name rather than by the lication it occurred (compare, for instance, Murder of Yvonne Fletcher). 'Murder of Lee Rigby' might be better still, but we should avoid that title until there's been a conviction. Robofish (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Whilst I do much prefer Murder of Lee Rigby moveing to Death of Lee Rigby is a good second choice. as for this not being about a named individual I offer Murder of Yvonne Fletcher as an example of another murder/ death where the victim was an anonymous WPC to the attacker. I do agree (as I have made clear above) that there is an argument for retaining 2013 Woolwich attack per WP:COMMONNAME but it is ambiguous and could mean anything from the cause of a nuclear winter to some passer by stealing WiFi passwords. --wintonian ^talk 18:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support The who and what details are more significant than the when and where. But we seem to disagree on the what. Guardian and Reuters used murder. BBC, Telegraph, and Los Angeles Times used attack. New York Times and Huffington Post used killing. New York Post used slay. How are we supposed to come to a consensus? I prefer killing of rather than death of, but anything is better than the current title. --beefyt (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

"Slaying of Georges dragon" - now there's a trend I hope doesn't catch on over here. --84.92.56.128 (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support, though I'd prefer Murder of. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I am probably going to get shot down in flames by some pepole for saying this but... There are 4? pepole (inc. me) who it would seem have a preference for "Murder of Lee Rigby, so is it going to be worth it to hold a second round of discussion after the conclusion of this round? i.e. "should the article be moved to the winner of round 1 or Murder of Lee Rigby?". Either way I think there is a very strong case for moving it post trial judgement (assuming there is a trail that is concluded) if there is a conviction. --wintonian ^talk 03:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest leaving it for a few weeks, until things have settled down. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Wintonian, I've noticed and said the same thing. There are actually five editors in this discussion, so far, that prefer Murder of Lee Rigby: ilelakeshoe, Nick Cooper, Wintonian, Exploding Boy and 76.189.109.155 (me). That's 1/3 of those who have !voted. They all say that this proposed name is fine but that they'd prefer Murder of Lee Rigby. There's absolutely no reason that there cannot be multiple move requests happening at the same time. In fact, that's the best way to do it, for convenience and to save time. After all, if only one were done at a time, someone could request a lousy idea and we'd all have to wait potentially weeks before starting another request. Further, if this one gets approved and implemented, then the chances of another move request being approved right after that will be slim. And, as has been shown, there are literally hundreds of articles with the "Murder of (name)" format for cases where there have been no convictions, so there's clearly precedent for it and no violations of BLP. Even admins have said that. So, yes, it most certainly would be allowed and appropriate to begin a move request for that and therefore have two proposals being discussed at the same time. I've seen articles where there have been five or six move request proposals happening at one time. Actually, the best way to have done this would have been to have one discussion where there are multiple choices, and then each editor !votes for their preferred choice: A, B, C, etc. But multiple, concurrent move request proposals is totally fine. So if someone wants propose Murder of Lee Rigby, so that no time is wasted, do it. For the record, this is proposal is my second choice. It's good as an alternative. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I have created Death of Lee Rigby as a redirect for the moment, since Murder of Lee Rigby was already a redirect. This is not to prejudice this discussion, but is simply an interim measure while the discussion is yet to conclude so that readers find it easier to navigate to the article. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 13:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, IIMH. Great idea. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The individual who died in this incident was not targeted, or notable, in his own right; he appears to have been attacked because he was identified as a member of the British armed forces. The attack happened in Woolwich, in 2013, and the current title is sufficient. Brocach (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Article was created before we knew his name, avoid "murder" as matter is sub jucide. PatGallacher (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

 Removed

• Oppose. At bare minimum it should be "killing of". A person can be killed without anyone committing a crime. "Death of" is stupid. Sounds like "death by natural causes. And "death of a salesman". Nobody dispute that he was killed. 193.120.22.171 (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment no. It is a killing. Call it that. Not all killings are murder. So lets not be stupid and group it with death by natural causes. And death of a salesman. 193.120.22.171 (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support move to Killing of Lee Rigby. Per BLP we can't call it a murder unless someone has been convicted, and "Death of Lee Rigby" is too vague. AniMate 02:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Your support of another option would mean you're really an oppose. :p We need some alternate move requests. Or we should have had one discussion with mulitple options to choose from. And there are hundredss of "Murder of..." articles where there has been no conviction. Read up, which includes a list of the UK ones. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

So why are you asking me to redact my use of the word murder? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

No one asked that you redact the word murder. You were asked, per BLP policy, not to state as fact that someone specific is guilty of murder, prior to a conviction. There's a huge difference between the two. In any case, this matter has been settled at BLP/N and AN/I and your statements have been removed by the closing admin. So time to move on. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

We could include Suspected murder of Lee Rigby as a compromise for those arguing 'Sub judice' :p - well if other pepole are happy for me to throw in ac ouple more move templates then I will later, but I don't want to do just be because I wan't to and 1 other editor is encouraging me to? Besides I'm a little hesitant as it start looking messy and disorganised. --wintonian ^talk 04:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The dust doesn't seem to have settled yet. Why the rush to get it "exactly" right? There is no deadline. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 04:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support moving to either Death of Lee Rigby or Killing of Lee Rigby, with a slight preference for the latter. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Death of Lee Rigby, closer to what the press are currently using. Opposed to murder of Lee Rigby. Also death of Lee Rigby it is easier to include some of the other related events, other arrests, anti-muslim reaction, and the supposed copy-cat attack in Paris.Martin451 (talk) 07:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Question. Hi Martin, for what reason(s) do you not favour use of "murder of Lee Rigby"? Do you see it as a violation of WP:BLP policy? "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured" - so we have to remove rather a lot from this article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I feel that "Death" is more neutral. I would prefer "murder" not used unless there is a conviction. It is indisputable that Lee is dead, but not indisputable that he was murdered until a criminal trial or inquest has ruled it was murder. In reply to you comment to the IP above, we cannot say a specific person committed a crime until that has been decided in a law court, even if they admit it live on TV, they are still innocent in the eyes of the law, and neutral reporting. We owe it both to the suspects, and Lee to give the suspects a fair trial. There is nothing worse than court cases getting thrown out because of press reporting, which has happened in the past, and here wikipedia could count as press.Martin451 (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your reply. Do you really think it will ever be possible to find 12 jurors who are wholly unaware of this case? I'm not sure that Mr Obama has many doubts that Lee Rigby was murdered. Nor who murdered him. But then, he doesn't edit wikipedia, does he? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC) p.s. I think it's possible that other "media outlets" are slightly more culpable than wikipedia in the blaming of the two individuals we have all seen on our TV screens and on YouTube?
        • Yes it will be difficult to find a neutral jury, but wikipedia should not be attempting to influence the outcome of any future trials by making assumptions of guilt , wikipedia is WP:NPOV. Wikipedia even though it is based in the US could still be held in contempt, and so could its editors. You may have no doubts as to the innocence or guilt of the suspects, but I am reminded of the recent Boston Bombings article where some editors were trying to push for people to be name who have since been exonerated.Martin451 (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
          • While I think this is a more clear cut case than the Boston Bombings, it seem the police are still investigating the possibility of conspiracy or other joint action. But of course I can't say that, even though it may have been blazened across countess TV channels and newpapers - this is Wikipedia where reliability counts for more than "truth". Especially if there's a court case pending. My wiki-blinkers must have fallen off. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Regardless of what the papers say, the argument against "murder" is valid. If it were later to be revealed that the attackers were both suffering acute paranoid mental disorders, the charge could well be reduced to manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility -- or even dropped entirely. To describe the crime as "murder" presupposes that the perpetrators as "murderers", and therefore is legally shaky. Prof Wrong (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
          • As I have suggested above, I think there is a disconect between the popular and legal uses of the word murder. It appears that the gap between the two meanings, at least in the UK, is progressively growing wider. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. This strikes me as going against policy, namely WP:COMMONNAME. Google news search for "woolwich attack" returns ~75,000 results [22], while "Death of lee rigby" returns less than 1,000 [23]. Even when adjusting for only recent articles (past 24 hours), the results for "woolwich attack" are more than 250 times more common (1600[24] vs 6[25]). Mohamed CJ (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Then it's a good job Google Search results have no bearing on policy then. Those results (even just in 24 hours) are still inflated by other attacks (rapes, fights, attacks, muggings) in Woolwich (and the history of Woolwich) and the 75,000 are not in any way reflective of how common this combination of words is. You also narrowed the Lee Rigby scope by searching for "Death of lee rigby", instead of just "Lee Rigby" (what about murder of Lee, Lee was killed, etc). That's deceptive to then present it as evidence. Exactly why Google Search results shouldn't shape policy or impact on decisions except in exceptional circumstances. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support move to Murder of Lee Rigby, although "Death of" would be an improvement on the current title. It's too vague given that there is a single, identified, victim. Captain Seafort (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Brocach, He was killed randomly, not targeted. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose As everyone else has stated. The motives and the perpetrators have more relevance. The only thing notable of the victim is that he was a soldier. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support move to "murder". I don't understand the objections based on the notion that the victim "wasn't targeted". In what sense wasn't he targeted? If he could comment, I'm pretty sure he would say he felt targeted. It was an attack on an individual, not a district of London. Formerip (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • • As distastful as this line of thought is, he'd also probably be intelligent enough to know that someone staking out Woolwich barracks probably weren't waiting for him specifically to emerge. Your last line is irrelevant anyway, as clearly the context here is meant to be an attack in Woolwich, not on Woolwich. Although arguably waiting outside Woolwich barracks to kill a random soldier is indeed an attack on the district of Woolwich (with the choice of barracks being as random as the choice of individual). Gruesome Foursome (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I do hope you don't get taken to ANI for suggesting that the two individuals named in the article were responsible for the murder. Who would ever deduce such a thing, even if not directly told? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

As has been clearly explained to you several times Martinevans, there is a major difference between (1) saying there was a murder and (2) claiming as fact that specific individuals are guilty of that murder before they have been convicted. FormerIP did not do the latter, which you falsely implied, as you did and for which you were reverted by an administrator, who explained to you that it was a BLP violation. All of us are well aware of the massive global coverage of this story, but our jobs are to edit an encylopedia, not a newspaper, and to protect its integrity by adhering to BLP policy. Everyone fully understands where you stand on this matter, so I suggest you drop the proverbial stick to which so many editors like to allude. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• • The article name should be changed to: 2013 Islamist murder in Woolwich. Quis separabit? 00:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Would you support the move of the article 2011 Norway attacks to 2011 White supremacist masculinist mass murder in Norway, too...? Prof Wrong (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• No to Islamist, it is just too wrong.Martin451 (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That is neither more nor less than political correctness, the power of which in Britain is one of the main reasons for the UK's sorry state. Quis separabit? 00:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Quis is being facetious or not, but of course an Islamist was not murdered (as the suggested title actually implies), nor of course can we refer to someone's religion in an article title like this. But I really like Martin451's simplicty in saying "it is just too wrong" for so many reasons. ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sure you do like Martin451's simplicty. Perhaps I should have worded it thusly: Islamist terrorism in Woolwich (2013). Quis separabit? 02:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose move...unless its to "2013 Woolwich terrorist attack".--MONGO 01:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The soldier's identity is not a defining feature of the article. - Joxemai (talk) 08:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I think it was quite a defining feature for him and his family. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Stop this right now. You have crossed a line here. It is one thing to discuss what best fits as an article title, it's quite another to be claiming that if you prefer one version over another you're disrespecting the victim or his family. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I am suggesting that a very salient feature of this incident is the identity of the victim, and that includes his name. That's quite regardless of my personal reaction to the grief of his family. I am making no suggestion that User:Joxemai IS disrespecting anyone. I'm pretty sure he or she is not. Apologies, Joxemai, if that is how you interpreted my comment. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
        • I accept Martinevans123 user's explanations. - Joxemai (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support. "Attack" is not only vague, but it's also not very neutral. "Attack" carries possible connotations of scale, and is heavily coloured by its frequent collocation with the word "terrorist". Until and unless the suspects are found to be part of an organised group, I am very uncomfortable by the pre-judgement presented by the word "attack". Prof Wrong (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support, through I'd prefer the "Murder of" variant. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Although I support a move to "death of..." we do have articles titled along the current format. One I've found today is Eastbourne manslaughter, which is a Featured Article, so if we do decide to stay with the Woolwich attack as a title then there seems to be no problem with that. The media are calling it the Woolwich murder, so maybe that's the title we should use once any legal proceedings are concluded. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Two years on, if someone in Taiwan or Australia wants to talk or search about this incident, I guess they will use "Woolwich attack" and most of them will fail to recall the soldier's name. I think the current title is more recognizable at present, and will remain so in future. Cheers.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Woolwich Attack is vague, even with 2013 added. Lee Rigby was not notable until this event so call it Murder of Lee Rigby or Death of Lee Rigby. Someone else pointed out that we can't call this "Murder of Lee Rigby" because the killers haven't been convicted yet. That seems a bit odd to me since Lee was clearly not killed by accident, nor did he commit suicide. He was clearly murdered, whether these guys knew what they were doing or not. Taking a life is a murder by definition isn't it? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Support but would prefer "Murder of Lee Rigby". It's not Wikipedia but sites like ODMP.org memorialize the victim/heroes and never mention the murderer. You will never find a perpetrators name there. While Wikipedia should cover the topic more fully and neutrally, it's quite clear Mr. Rigby was murdered and this simple title keeps the focus on the loss of the victim and the search/arrest/conviction of his killers. Glorifying the act into something sensational is more than what can be supported and arguably it should never be sensationalized. It was a senseless murder and unless something comes out and changes that, it should be written that way. --98.165.103.145 (talk) 08:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

An article about a person's death usually includes his/her name in the title. Hence Death of Lee Rigby is better than the current title, which is vague. Killing of Lee Rigby is better still, as it is more accurate - no-one is claiming that his death was due to natural causes, suicide or an accident. Jim Michael (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.