Talk:Murder of Lee Rigby/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

June 2014 memorials

Plans to add Rigby's name to the Armed Forces Memorial and for a memorial in Woolwich both have an element of WP:CRYSTAL as they have not happened yet. The article should be updated when there is more information.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Well I suppose you're technically correct on the first issue, though this source suggests his name is now included [1] and this one shows his name drawn out ready to be added [2]. If nothing else shows up i think those should be sufficient proof but i guess we can wait a week or two. As for the Woolwich memorial, well that has so much coverage that now CRYSTAL becomes irrelevant because the controversy and campaign is of significance itself, and i don't' think I implied it had actaully been built, therefore I intend to restore that material.--Shakehandsman (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The part about the controversy was trimmed because it seemed to be excessive and have WP:RECENTISM issues.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Well the outcome is quite recent and no doubt things would need to be tweaked once the memorial is built, but the controversy/campaign are clearly of note, and in addition to the various sources there's a lot of radio coverage and even the backing of Boris Johnson. I'm very much in favour of making the text as concise as possible, but the campaign and the opposition to the memorial need inclusion, they're actually much more significant than any material on the Armed Services memorial--Shakehandsman (talk) 08:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Shakehandsman I think inclusion of the campaign and opposition are of interest and of value. AnarchoGhost (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The material reverted here is too long and newsy in style. There needs to be a long term perspective about what will be notable in twelve months' time. Also, as far as I can see from the sourcing, Boris Johnson did not have a change of heart as he never opposed the memorial.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I tried to trim what was added, but it has now been completely removed. The article again just says this, in the Victim section: "In June 2014, plans were announced to add Rigby's name to the Armed Forces Memorial in Staffordshire, and for a memorial in Woolwich." 23 words seems too little and I think it may also be in the wrong place? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm in the process of re-adding it. It was misleading because it may have given the impression that Greenwich Council and Nick Raynsford said an outright no to the idea of a memorial when they did not. Raynsford's concern was "It would not in my view be helpful for the site where Lee Rigby was murdered to be marked in perpetuity by a memorial as this would be a continuing reminder of the brutal murder and might attract undesirable interest from extremists. It is worth remembering that the memorial to Stephen Lawrence, the teenager murdered during a racist attack in South East London in 1993 has sadly been the victim of unwanted focus and vandalism on a number of occasions."[3] According to this BBC News story, Greenwich Council said that the Army had not requested a memorial in Woolwich.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Sorry, I did not realise. That quote from Nick Raynsford certainly puts the opposition into much clearer perspective. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Shomrim

Re this edit: [4] is a primary source and gives no detail about the Lee Rigby incident, and this source (which I can't get to work at the moment) is not from the mainstream media. Overall, this doesn't seem to have the due weight required for its own paragraph. It also appears to have been added by a single purpose account which may have a conflict of interest here.[5]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Quite agree. A secondary source, which shows a direct link between Shomrim and the Muslim community in these circumstances, would be required. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Including this seems undue to me, and looks like boosterism for the Shomrim more than anything else. (an archived copy of the hackneyhive source can be found here [6]). AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Have removed cite to Shomrim website as seemed to be redundant, as well as being still "under construction." I guess the question of WP:UNDUE now rests on the relative quality of the remaining two sources - Al Jazeera and the local hackneyhive.com. Other sources here are UK mainstream newspapers. Not sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I also agree that the material breaches UNDUE--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

A third source, fro Huff Po, has now been added. But no input here from the editor concerned. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, I hope you are now satisfied with all the sources. VarifiedEditor (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Just added another link to a vice.com article that explains Shomrim in more depth, and also makes reference to the good relationship between Shomrim and the Muslim community. -- VarifiedEditor (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Your last source was largely irrelevant to this article, so I have removed it. I don't think that consensus has yet been positively established on the value of this paragraph. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The lack of mentions of Shomrim in the context of the Lee Rigby case by a range of mainstream reliable sources (BBC, CNN, Telegraph, Guardian etc) is the real worry. It is possible to find mentions of anything on the web if you look hard enough, but a Wikipedia article needs to give due weight to the mainstream sources. Also, if VarifiedEditor has any affiliation with Shomrim, it would be best not to make article edits involving it, per WP:COI.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair point, however Al Jazeera and The Huffington Post and Vice are major news channels both in the UK and worldwide. This was also covered in the local Hackney Gazett, which is part of the Archant (media group), this was also featured in many other worldwide channels who quoted those original articles. -- VarifiedEditor (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Shomrim (neighborhood watch group) ‎ has its own Wikipedia article where the Lee Rigby link can be mentioned, but it probably isn't notable enough for a mention here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Tend to agree. Just because the murder is very signifiicant to the group, does not necessarily mean the group is significant to the story of the murder. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Islamophobia

In the section 'anti-muslim backlash', anti-muslim attacks are described as "islamophbia", which is clearly not NPOV at all. It should be called what it is in the heading, anti-muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.101.6 (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

see Islamophobia. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Which says "While the term is widely recognized and used, both the term and the underlying concept have been criticized." Some people do not like the word because of its pseudo-medical connotations (Doctor, I'm suffering from Islamophobia, is there a pill for it?) What is being described here is old-fashioned racial and religious prejudice.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Details on couple jailed for YouTube videos

There is a sentence in "Subsequent events" which reads: "On 14 March 2014, a married couple from London were jailed for posting videos on YouTube which condoned the death of Lee Rigby, with one video describing it as a "brilliant day"." This seems hopelessly bland, rather implying that it was a random couple who were simply being foolish like the student mentioned in the previous sentence (who is named). I tried to make clear that this was of a rather different order by giving what I believe to be pertinent detail, as follows: "On 14 March 2014, 23-year old Royal Barnes, who had previously been convicted for threatening members of the public while taking part in Sharia patrols in London, and his wife Rebekah Dawson were jailed for posting videos on YouTube which condoned the death of Lee Rigby, with one video describing it as a "brilliant day"." This was reverted on the basis of WP:BLPNAME. While I understand from this that it may not be desirable to name Royal Barnes' wife (though she is named in both the citations now given), I cannot see what is gained by obscuring (to all those readers who don't take the time to look at the actual citations) who Royal Barnes is and what he has done: i.e. he was also a member of the Sharia patrols in London, and had immediately before the YouTube conviction been convicted of threatening members of the public as a member of that patrol. Surely it is relevant to spell out the nature of Royal's activities, given his conviction. Or is there some higher consideration I've overlooked? Alfietucker (talk) 08:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The two people involved in the YouTube incident are not major players in the death of Lee Rigby and fail WP:BLPNAME for this article in my view. They are named in the sourcing given at [7][8], so it is not an attempt to hide the names. Royal Barnes was jailed for five years and four months, and Rebekah Dawson was jailed for 20 months. This implies that the court considered Barnes to be the more guilty of the two. It is a conundrum whether to name both or neither. Incidentally, I also wonder whether Deyka Ayan Hassan [9] meets WP:BLPNAME for this article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The student Deyka Ayan Hassan, mentioned in the previous sentence, was sentenced for a lesser crime to 250 hours of unpaid work, and is named. So yes, I rather think that if we don't name Barnes and his wife, then we shouldn't name her. But I do feel that missing out all detail about Barnes, only identifying him as part of a couple which posted certain YouTube clips, presents "a significant loss of context". I think it is only right to give at least some of this context, and if you feel we shouldn't name them then I propose including some information about their activity given by both the citations: "On 14 March 2014, a married couple from London - who pleaded guilty of disseminating a terrorist publication - were jailed for posting videos on YouTube which condoned the death of Lee Rigby, with one video describing it as a "brilliant day"." Alfietucker (talk) 09:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Barnes knew Michael Adebowale, so he was not a complete outsider. Barnes pleaded guilty to inciting murder in a post on Facebook, which his wife did not, which is probably the reason for the longer sentence. Deyka Ayan Hassan's name should definitely be removed because it was a foot in mouth tweet. The wording suggested for Barnes and his wife looks OK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this. Alfietucker (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I personally agree with Alfietucker, that his previous history is of great significance, otherwise it sounds like just a couple who did a stupid video rather than deliberately doing it. --VarifiedEditor (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Legal aid

Is the part about the Legal aid really necessary? The bottom line is that when a person lacks sufficient funds, they will be granted legal aid. Is The Sun attempting to say "If you have committed a sickening crime, you should not have legal aid?" This is a tabloid attempt to whip up controversy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It is worth a brief mention because it received a good deal of coverage.[10][11] Some of the criticism misses the point, because the costs of a high profile trial at the Old Bailey would be into six figures, and a person is entitled to a fair trial regardless of what they have done.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I do think that what I had written about Rigby's father's opinion on this should be included. It's neither right nor wrong, but adds to why we include this figure - a relative of the deceased was highly critical of it. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Rigby's father is entitled to his opinion, but when a person qualifies for legal aid it makes no difference what they have done or what the verdict at the trial turns out to be. Rigby's father said "There wasn't even a defence – they were on camera boasting about killing Lee. The system needs to change."[12] What he appears to be saying is that entitlement to legal aid should take into account the likely verdict before deciding on whether to award it, a change that is unlikely to happen. Other media sources noted the legal aid costs in the case, but did not comment on whether they were justified or not.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Race of the Murderers

Why doesn't the article mention that the race of the murders was black?Jonny Quick (talk) 09:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

So you think "black" is a race? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC) (... do you think the article should say Rigby was "white"?)

Why does our article on Harold Shipman not say that he was white? Possibly because it isn't relevant. The killers appear to have been motivated by political/religious extremism rather than by race - though the article does state that they are British of Nigerian descent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

British of Nigerian descent is the wording in the article. Lee Rigby was killed because they were following a distorted version of Islam, not because they were black.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the "race" (or ethnic origin) of the two murderers might be relevant in an analysis of why they decided to espouse that distorted version of Islam in the first place. But the article is about the murder of Rigby, not about the lives of those two individuals themselves. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that there would be appropriate sources on the above. The language used in the screeds of the murderers suggested that they saw Islam as one united community, rather than for example supporting black Somalians (who incidentally, seem to have their disputes with the equally black Kenyans and Ethiopians rather than the West). Unless I'm reading you wrong, I can't see a link. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not claiming there would be sources to support that contention. My point was it's not the subject of this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Brusthom Ziamani case

I was 50:50 on whether to include this because it is not directly related to the Lee Rigby case. Nonetheless, the sourcing is clear that he was inspired by the murder of Lee Rigby and wanted to do something similar.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it fairly belongs in the Reactions section. This was part of the sworn evidence at his trial. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't see why it's not relevant, but it should probably not take up more than a sentence. Formerip (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I've put a sentence on another case of an attempted copycat. This has ended up with a conviction at the Old Bailey, so it is hardly minor, but again as a tangential item should not have too much information on it. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Kazi Isla's friend, Harry Thomas, was interviewed, but without showing has face, on the BBC Six O'clock news this evening. So I'm not sure he shouldn't be named in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The point is about how due it would be to name him, as a) it is a tangential detail to the murder of Lee Rigby and b) he did not commit any of the crimes that he was being set up to do. If there was an article on this individual case (there should be if the perpetrator is given a heavy jail sentence) we would definitely name this attempted patsy. But here, there is no gain in naming him, but somewhat more to be gained by naming the criminal who was grooming him. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a new alleged copycat case here. However, it is still at the trial stage.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Photograph of Fusilier Lee Rigby

The Photograph of Fusilier Lee Rigby has the incorrect copyright attribution and is not a UK Crown Copyright photograph and therefore is not available under the Open Government Licence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UKMinistryofDefence (talk • contribs) 08:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, the photo is on Wikimedia Commons here and is credited to Henry Szymanski. What should its licence be? The image was originally on this MOD page, as the Wayback Machine shows, which is why the uploader concluded that it had an Open Government Licence. It is no longer on the page of the MOD press release.[13]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, This is not a UK Crown Copyright photograph and is not available under the Open Government Licence meaning that the Photo has the incorrect copyright attribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UKMinistryofDefence (talk • contribs) 13:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

If it is copyrighted in any way, eg if Henry Szymanski claims a copyright on it, then the image cannot be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. Please could you be a bit more specific about the licencing requirements for using this image. See also Commons:Choosing a license.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, The photograph is not available for use under the OGL, the copyright is owned by Mr Henry Szymanski and only he may licence it. It seems that the image cannot be hosted on Wikimedia Commons so what is the next step?UKMinistryofDefence (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It cannot be hosted on Wikimedia Commons unless Henry Szymanski releases the copyright. It could be used in a Wikipedia article with a fair use licence. I have pointed this out on Commons.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The image has been speedily deleted from Wikimedia Commons. Now the image may need to be uploaded to Wikipedia with a fair use licence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• I had a think about whether to bring back the image with a fair use tag. Since the image is already available in the article via Tribute to Lee Rigby, Manchester Day Parade, 2 June 2013, it is no longer in the article as this seems sufficient.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

This article in today's Mail says that there has been a copyright dispute over the image.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Fyi, there's another photo of Rigby, File:Drummer Lee Rigby 1.jpg, that is definitely by an MoD photographer. —innotata 20:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that one looks good enough to use as a lead image here. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Done, I've rejigged the images.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

Chris Spivey was convicted but not sentenced yesterday.[14] I was 50-50 about adding this, because it is pretty much routine for people to say that events such as 9/11 were a hoax (which Spivey also does). This is not illegal in itself, but Spivey was convicted of harassing the Rigby family by accusing them of being in on the hoax and publishing their home addresses.[15] Spivey is due to be sentenced on 27 August. Spivey's website is currently offline.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Spivey received a suspended sentence.[16] I'm not sure if this has enough WP:10YT notability for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Attack in Wales

I wondered whether this should be added, or whether it was enough on topic. Zack Davies seems like a wacky person who might have done something like this anyway. Also, it occurred well after the killing of Lee Rigby. Should this be included?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I changed my mind, because one of the witnesses at the trial heard Davies say: "Come here, this is for Lee Rigby." This suggests a direct rather than vague motivation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Lee Rigby memorial

According to the Sun on Sunday today, there will be a permanent memorial to Lee Rigby in Woolwich.[17] It will be in St George's Garrison Church in Woolwich, rather than at the scene of the incident, which was rejected by Greenwich Council because of fears that it would become a focal point for Islamist and far right extremists.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

"armed with a gun"

The gun was a rusty "cowboy gun" from the 1920s and incapable of firing. (That this was the only gun they could get testifies to the effectiveness of regulation on Great Britain.)

Image of gun: http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/01876/gun_1876532a.jpg— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.198.41 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you provide the full link to The Sun article? (not that it could be used as a source for the article). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC) And could you sign you posts, using four tildes, thanks.

The OP is right. The gun has not received a great deal of attention because it was not used in the attack. It was "a rusty Dutch KNIL 9.4mm revolver that was 90-years-old."[18] and was not loaded.[19]. Nor could it fire, as it was considered to be "antique/obsolete calibre" and exempt from the Firearms Act 1968.[20] The article could make this clearer, as thanks to the UK's stringent gun laws, the attackers were unable to find a real gun, only an antique.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• When armed police arrived at the scene, Adebowale pointed the gun at officers, who opened fire and shot off his thumb.[21] There is a high-res CCTV image of the moment here. At the time, armed police officers would not have known that it was not a real (ie capable of being fired) gun.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Michael Adebolajo "suing over teeth lost in prison"

This is in the news today, but is it notable enough for a mention here?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

murder - non NPOV

It does not seem appropriate to describe this incident as a 'murder'. Considering the motivations of the attackers, the identity of the victim, and the political context of the action, we have to understand this event as something beyond a mere crime in the British state.

Take the following article for example, which is not offering the same blatant partisan judgement in its use of language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden

I feel such bias is not suprising, with most of our media and contributing user base drawn from the west (NATO-aligned west in particular) and with this being in huge conflict with violent islamism. Nonetheless, it is unacceptable for an enyclopedia to reflect such bias.

81.107.247.220 (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

They were found guilty of murder by a jury in December 2013. It is the job of the article to reflect what reliable sources have said, not what they should have said according to personal analysis or original research.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Tough. The murderers were convicted of murder in a properly constituted court of law for murdering Lee Rigby. End of. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Those arguments make the assumption that rulings of the British state constitute objective truth. I wonder how many articles you might feel fit to insert non-neutral language into based on the rulings of the north korean justice system. Please think about that; if you find yourself applying that argument inconsistently, you have discovered your bias.

I bring to your attention the article I previously provided as an example. Much like Lee Rigby, Bin Laden was killed illegally as considered by the state he was in. Much like Lee Rigby, its legitimacy was contested amongst different groups and powers. Why then is the belief of one set of powers taken as encyclopedic fact?

There is no consistency in thr argument that you are applying. It displays bias. My argument is not borne of 'original research', but of seeking to consistently apply a NPOV to this encyclopedia, as is its purported intention.

81.107.247.220 (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

This is getting into WP:SOAPBOX territory. I'm not going to discuss the Death of Osama bin Laden because it is beyond the scope of this talk page. Lee Rigby was an unarmed off duty soldier who was killed on a London street and his two killers were convicted of murder by a jury. Regardless of the political or religious circumstances involved, I don't call that a brave or big thing to do.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Nor do I ask you to, nor would it would be appropriate to. Just like it isn't appropriate to pass judgement on this killing by applying a non-NPOV label of another kind. You are quite right that this is soapbox territory, this article's use of a loaded term is pushing an agenda.

Your concern of whether the act was "brave" or "big" is telling. Nobody mentioned anything about that, these are concerns of judgement coming from your own mind. Your thoughts on what is and isn't appropriate for this article are clearly influenced very much by a value-laden partisan judgement, and you are of course part of a huge majority in this way. I always find it funny how modern western discourse assumes for itself the impartiality that it, quite rightly, finds lacking elsewhere. Please try to detach yourself for a moment and consider- what will history make of it?

Reply if you please, but I shall leave you to those thoughts.

81.107.247.220 (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I really can't understand what you are getting at here. Britain is not perfect, but people do not have the right to go around the streets killing unarmed people and saying that this is acceptable for a political or religious cause. I also resent the suggestion that believing this makes me "clearly influenced very much by a value-laden partisan judgement".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The definition of murder under English law is "The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the King (or Queen's) peace with malice aforethought express or implied". Since the killers deliberately set out to kill somebody that day, admitted to their crime in its immediate aftermath, and due to the overwhelming evidence that was presented against them at their trial, they were convicted of murder. What else would you call it? This is Paul (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

There has been no argument made to state this attack was acceptable. That would be a subjective judgement unfit for an encyclopedia. Similarily, labelling it as unacceptable would be a subjective judgement unfit for an encyclopedia. The 'murder' label conveys that subjective judgement of unacceptability. It is certainly true that this was murder according to the British state, and that should be reflected in the article. It should not be described as such in the title, where the context of that judgement cannot be reasonably conveyed. Much like the article I previously mentioned, 'death of...' or 'killing of...'would be far more appropriate. That would be an objective description of the event without implict judgement.

81.107.247.220 (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You can whitter on with your sophistry to your heart's content. This was a crime in the jurisdiction in which it happened, determined by a jury in a properly constituted court of law to be murder, and will remain described as such. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

There has been no doubt from the start that it will remain titled as such. It will be the long course of history that breaks the hegemonic control of knowledge, not my wikipedia postings. I merely help.

Given your argument, I trust you'll be lobbying hard for the Bin Laden death article to also be renamed in such a manner? I'm joking, of course, I don't think there's a high chance at all that you'd apply your logic consistently when it risks undermining your politically dominant narrative. Thank you for discussion, I'm glad I was able to help shine light on these increasingly scrutinised biases. History rolls forth.

81.107.247.220 (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to know a bit more about the person saying this, as there is a huge amount of axe grinding going on here. If a person is found guilty of murder by a British court and this is reported by reliable sources, the title of the article will be "Murder of", in line with WP:BLPCRIME. Phrases like "hegemonic control" and "narrative" are straight from the vocabulary of Dave Spart in Private Eye.[22]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hegemony is a well understood idea within social science, and narrative is an entirely non-contentious term to describe the recorded presentation of events. 81.107.247.220 (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and the record shows that the murderers were found guilty of murder in a properly constituted court of law, hence we call this a "murder." End of. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, because the talk page of individual articles isn't the place to debate Wikipedia policy as a whole. Wikipedia articles are not social sciences essays where personal analysis is part of the game. Articles are limited to what reliable sources have said. Hegemony or otherwise, BBC News says that Lee Rigby was murdered, so that is what the article says.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

"Murder of Lee Rigby" doesn't tell the whole story, not at all. But I don't really know what else we can call it, so I think it has to stay. El cid, el campeador (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

BBC "Ambulance" Episode 1"

Program air date 27 Sep 2016. Available on iPlayer 22 days. Video coverage of Paramedic crew enroute to crime scene and transporting a 22 year old suspect with leg wound from gunshot. A police officer riding along chats with suspect when they recognize that they both had attended school together. An editor familiar with topic may want to add the program and some details from video to this article.[23] Kyle Andrew Brown (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kyle Andrew Brown: Could you be a bit more specific about why it involves the murder of Lee Rigby? It is an hour long documentary about the London ambulance service, but I haven't really got the time to watch it all. Also, iPlayer videos are not an ideal source as they usually expire after a month.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• OK, had a look and there is a 30 second edited video clip here One of the crew in the ambulance describes how he attended the Lee Rigby attack, and thought that it was a gang incident until he saw it on Sky News. It is fairly tangential and not really worth mentioning in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, the program is about the London Ambulance service. They build an entire storyline about arriving at the murder scene, placing a suspect in the van, and show a revealing conversation between the suspect and a medic in the van who knew each other in school. It is hardly tangential to the murder investigation to have video placed at this time and place.

• Regarding the availability of programing on the BBC iPlayer that "expires". Broadcasts are archived in a variety of places besides iPlayer. A statement that video was captured of an incident by a broadcast network/program is valuable to an investigator searching source material.

• What is really "not worth mentioning" to one reader is of consequential benefit to another.Kyle Andrew Brown (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

It has WP:TOPIC issues because it is only a brief mention and doesn't really add to a reader's understanding of the attack. It could be left out without any significant loss of context.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

See Also Section

The very first link in the "See Also" section links to Udham Singh, an Indian freedom fighter who assasinated a British Governor for authorising Jallianwala Bagh massacre. I do not think this link is relevant since it is over 70 years old, not related to Islamic terrorism and there are plenty of more relevant and applicable links which deal with Islamic terrorism in Britain and in London are available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.237.77.33 (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Udham Singh may be rather tangential, so it could be removed. What do others think?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok so I can't believe this is still here and my edit was reverted. So Wikipedia editors, please try to answer this question using LOGIC and not your hidden agendas

Udham Singh - a Sikh who shot dead British soldier Michael O'Dwyer in 1940

1. Why is this the first link in the "SEE ALSO" section
2. Why does the text mention "Sikh" even though the killing was not religiously motivated. Do you mention the religion of every person in  all other sections as the very first thing. 
3.  Going by your logic, should we include Jallianwala Bagh massacre as a "See Also" in Mumbai Terror Attacks since in both cases the victims were Indians and both were perpetrated by foreigners

King's Arms - Woolwich pub, site of IRA-bombing in 1974 Why is this link the second when there are plenty of other relevant, new and religiosly related attacks to list. The edit was reverted saying that the order is "alphabetical". I don't know which alphabet that particular editor was talking about but it surely wasn't English alphabet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.237.77.33 (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I've removed Udham Singh because the link is not clear cut in this case.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Someone apparently very much wants this to be included. Could this person explain why? Kleon3 (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It was restored in this edit but I agree with 123.237.77.33 that it is somewhat tangential here. The article could live without it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Stabbing attack? No

Re this edit: Rigby was knocked down by the car, and the attackers then attempted to decapitate him, nearly succeeding.[24] This wasn't a stabbing attack like the 2017 Westminster attack or the June 2017 London attack. It's misleading to give this impression.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• It is pretty regularly described as a "stabbing" [25], [26], and Rigby does appear to have died of kinfe and cleaver inflicted wounds.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Search engine results can be misleading. This cite from The Guardian says "The savagery of the murder, in which Rigby, 25, was repeatedly stabbed and hacked at the neck by a cleaver, shattered community relations when mosques were attacked." Evidence presented at the trial from eyewitnesses said that the primary purpose of the knife and cleaver attack was an attempt to decapitate Rigby. They had no need to stab him as he was already unconscious (originally I said disabled here) and lying on the ground after being hit by the car at 30 - 40mph.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

:::::*(Changing your comment - especially a significant change - after a fellow editor has responded is regarded as a kind of dirty pool. you probably weren't aware, but do not do it again. If you want to make a change, yo must clearly mark the fact that you are doing so.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• But he wasn't dead.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not disputing that. But an attack can have multiple modalities. This one was a Vehicle-ramming attack and a stabbing/knife attack; and it was a murder, a beheading and a terrorist attack - and can probably be described from a number of additional angles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• Readers coming to this discussion should understand that this is not' about changing the text of the article. I merely added adding Stabbing as a terrorist tactic (which includes a list of Islamism-related attacks with blade weapons) to the "See also" section. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• WP:OWN is a problem here. I suggest that we let other editors weigh in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you didn't like me changing "disabled" to "unconscious" in this edit. It is based on the sourcing here which says "Like a "butcher attacking a joint of meat", Michael Adebolajo, 28, and Michael Adebowale, 22, then set about the unconscious man with a cleaver and knives in a "serious and almost successful" attempt to saw off his head, Richard Whittam QC, prosecuting, told the jury." I was simply trying to reflect what the sourcing says. All along, I have been trying to say that Rigby was not stabbed to kill or disable him, like the recent attacks in London. He might well have died from being hit by the car and the attackers primarily wanted to decapitate him; the eyewitnesses at the trial were clear about this. Anyway, I've had my two cents' worth and would welcome comments from other editors to prevent us from going round in circles on this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• It's not that I didn't "like" your comment. It's that I had assumed that as an editor with long experience you would be aware of WP:REDACTED. I had assumed that as the editor who had had the largest number of edits on this page, you knew the details of the incident, and responded accordingly. My comment makes less sense in light of your changed edit. This is why we have a rule against doing what you did. Now you know, you can folow the instructions and properly mark the change you made.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it makes a great deal of difference to the thrust of the argument and clarifies the wording, but I've pointed out that it was changed. From the accounts given by the eyewitnesses, Rigby was not killed in a stabbing attack. He was run down with a car and knocked unconscious, and then the knife and cleaver were used in an attempt to decapitate him. This is significantly different from what happened in the 2017 Westminster attack or the June 2017 London attack. The infobox here doesn't say Stabbing as a terrorist tactic. On the day before the attack, Michael Adebolajo went to Argos in Lewisham and bought a knife sharpener and five-piece knife block set, costing £44.98.[27] This isn't in the article because it doesn't add much context and is somewhat overdetailed. Pretty much anyone can go out and buy a kitchen knife set without questions being asked, which is why knives make an ideal low-tech weapon for Islamic extremists. The Home Office pathologist described Rigby's wounds as "fractures to his back that could have been caused when he was driven into by a car at the start of the attack and "numerous and very deep" wounds to his neck, some of which it would have taken "severe force" to inflict. He gave the cause of death as "multiple incised wounds".[28] This is in line with eyewitness accounts of the event. The attackers seem to have been obsessed with decapitating Rigby, and nearly succeeded. I suspect that they wanted to parade around the street holding his severed head, in the style of an Islamic extremist propaganda video. None of this is really consistent with the phrase "Stabbing as a terrorist tactic" which was added in this edit. It could be argued that the murder of Lee Rigby fits in with the general pattern of the use of knives as easy to obtain low tech weapons, but the death of Rigby was not a stabbing attack, as virtually the entire use of the knife and cleaver was an attempt to decapitate him, and he was already unconscious at the time.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Subsequent events section: relevant? biased?

Recently there has been some section blanking of the 'Subsequent events' part of this page. In the edit summaries of those blanks, the complaint has come up that this section is biased and/or irrelevant.

I would argue that having an aftermath or subsequent events section on a page concerning a murder is nothing new, and is justified in this case due to the existence of several (~30) sources in this section detailing further events such as a Parliamentary inquiry, the response of the Ministry of Defense, and a few other controversies that stemmed directly from this incident.

If anyone else would like to discuss, feel free. Gilded Snail (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Biased

Hope Not Hate is a far left group and using them for statistics regarding "anti Muslim backlash" is beyond laughable. This whole article reads like an apology for Islam and its core beliefs. In other words, this article is massively biased and not impartial. Articles are meant to stick to the facts, not push an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.180.91.225 (talk) 06:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

There was undoubtedly a rise in hate incidents following Rigby's death and there is another source here. As for the claim that the entire article is biased, this is unimpressive unless specific points are made.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Adebowale sentenced for attack at Broadmoor

This is in the news today. However, it doesn't seem notable enough for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)