Talk:Murder of Lee Rigby/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Suspect's statement

The full statement by the attacker isn't included here yet.

I've transcribed a section here:

"The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers.

And this British soldier is one. It is an eye for eye and a tooth for a tooth. By Allah, we swear by the almighty Allah, we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone.

So what if we want to live by Sharia in Muslim lands? Why does that mean you must follow us and chase us and call us extremists and kill us?

Rather, you lot are extreme. You are the ones that, when you drop a bomb you think it picks one person, or rather it wipes out a whole family. This is the reality. [...] If I saw your mother today with a buggy I would help her up the stairs, this is my nature, but we are forced by the Koran [...], through many, many ayah throughout the Koran, that says we must fight them as they fight us, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I apologize that women had to witness this today but in our land women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don’t care about you."

The full video is here: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4938855/Pluck-of-cub-leader-who-challenged-Woolwich-terrorist-who-wanted-to-start-war-on-the-streets-of-London.html#ooid=NsYnl0YjpAihnTQKlOXYP0AuMGHftw00 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.70.194 (talk) 08:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

At the very end of his statement, he clearly says As-salamu alaykum, but it seems to be left out of the transcript on the Wiki article. Why is this left out? I edited the article but somebody reverted it, I can't see any reason why.

EDIT: The person recording him in the Sun video can be heard saying 'true', after Adebolajo says 'Or rather, your bomb wipes out a whole family', not sure if this is noteworthy or not? I haven't heard anyone mention it so - probably notOxr033 (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It's now there in the article and is linked. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

There is some discrepancy between the transcript cited and the actual words spoken which can be clearly heard in the two films of it. There exist more accurate transcripts from more reputable sources than the source currently being used. So I have reverted WWGB's‎ incorrect transcription and his incorrect accusation of the "disgraceful cleansing of Adebolajo's statement" . I have cited The Times and The Toronto Sun's transcription.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you edited his speech? Why - there is no need to read a transcript, I have seen the video and heard it with my own ears. There is no need to edit it, leave things out, or selectively quote his words, when we have his full statement alreadyOxr033 (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Some links to information on suspects

An article from Lincolnshire news has a good profile of suspect Michael Adebolajo. Can anyone add the information to this article? Luconst 13:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you give a link?(Lihaas (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)).

Whoops! I forgot to post the link. But here it is - http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/Profile-Woolwich-machete-attacker-Michael/story-19069449-detail/story.html#axzz2U7frNYZP Luconst 14:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Dual wolf?

I have a problem with the characterization of our two perps as Lone Wolves. I removed it, but was swiftly reverted, because somebody's righter than me. As far as I understand, you haven't earned the right to be referred to by the term of art "Love Wolf" if you were acting as part of a conspiracy with a like-minded individual. To illustrate, Lone wolf (terrorism)#List of lone wolf terrorism contains not a single incident perpetrated by more than one individual. Muhammad and Malvo weren't lone wolves, etc. ad nauseam. -- Y not? 14:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

And with two more arrests, and an apparent connection to Anjem Choudary [6], we have what appears to be a terror cell... I don't want to do it myself, having been once revert, but can someone else remove "lone wolf" form the infobox? -- Y not? 18:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me the names of the perps should suffice. Maybe another listing for motivation where lone-wolf wouldn't be applicable. Just another example of jihad. †TE†Talk 19:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I did what you suggest. -- Y not? 19:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

As always, this should reflect what is used by the sources, not what we think the terms refer to. Whether it's "correct" to call them lone wolves or a cell is not ours to determine.204.65.34.238 (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Ive seens a source call it lone wolves (incidentall it came after I added it here). Lone wolves don't have to be one person, they have to act independtly of groups. Which so fa r the sources don't incidate this is part of a conspiracy(Lihaas (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)).

@Amandajm:Re this edit Choudary said: "I would not consider him to be a member of the organization I don't think he was intellectually affiliated, he was a contact. He used to attend some stuff, ... If you are a practicing Muslim male and you want to do something then you'll probably come across us at one time or another so I don't think you should be surprised that he's been attending some of our activities." This comment doesn't seem to support the view that Choudary "knew him well". -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 14:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Clarify "drummer"

The articles identifies the victim as "Drummer". Does this mean drummer, somebody who plays a drum? Or is it some obscure rank? Is it both? Should we capitalize it? --beefyt (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It is as you have linked some one who plays the instrument. --wintonian ^talk 20:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorted>?(Lihaas (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)).

Thats a good article to link to, only Military drummer links to drummer thoughts? --wintonian ^talk 22:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Does WP hae an article as such? If so either redirect to that or if not then create one.(Lihaas (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)).

Any idea why he is always identified in the media with the prefix "drummer"? I thought it might actually be his first name, the way hey refer to him - and I had to look it up to confirm that it was only his job in the army band. So why is this title used in every reference to him? EuroSong ^talk 09:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, "Drummer" was his rank. It is the equivalent of private in the British Army for members of a Corps of Drums below the rank of lance-corporal. The Corps of Drums is part of a British infantry battalion which has the dual role of playing drums on parade and acting as a headquarters defence/machine gun unit in action. Its members (led by the drum major, a senior NCO) are both trained drummers and trained infantrymen. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Significance of "female" officer doing first shooting

Is her gender significant? Are female officers so rare in Britian that we identify her gender then assume male when gender is not specified? Is that why only the female officer has her gender noted? Is it significant that she took the first shot?

What is significant about her being female, and can we source this significance and elaborate? -166.137.209.154 (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources indicated the details. We may not thing it significant but perhaps a researcher looking at an ecncylopaedia does. Remember WP is not only for editorsLihaas (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)).

Given that one of the alleged attackers apologised for having women see the attack, I could see it as pertinent, but it would be nice to have a wp:rs say something.Martin451 (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, agreed 100%. AQlso seen it in the source. either the guardian yesterday or al jazeera(Lihaas (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)).

Lihaas, researchers should not be using encyclopedias as sole sources. No idea what you mean by only editors. I am reading the article, not editing it, after all, so why would I ask a question about content based on the article being for editors only? Does not parse. Yes, Martin, reliable source stating a significance is required, newspapers lately regurgitate, and first source I saw with emphasis on female cop was Daily Mirror followed by al Jazeera, neither suitable for reliability for this info, female significance. We would not use the Der Tzitung count of folks in the situation room, after all. -166.137.191.19 (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

No one should be using Wikipedia as a source for anything. It's not even a real encyclopedia. --50.149.124.107 (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Quite - the whole point we say "police officer" in the first place is that specifying the gender is irrelevant. Just as we don't normally comment on the ethnicity, religion, educational background or marital status of the officer in question, we have no need to refer to their gender. Prof Wrong (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, not that many armed officers in the British police are female. Female police officers are very common, but remember that most British police officers are unarmed and armed officers belong to specialist units. Her gender is also interesting given the sexist remarks made by the murderer ("I'm sorry your women had to see this"). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Race

its quite clear from the pictures (and I wasn't the first person to add this) that these perpetrators are black. THat is factual evidence, they showed themselves on video. [7](Lihaas (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)).

I removed the "black" from the lede for poor grammar and for its inappropriately broad characterization by race.The nationality and descent of one attacker is discussed elsewhere in the article. The attributed motive for the attack was religious rather than racial, and I see no obvious reason to stick in an arbitrary racial description into the lede unless race becomes a matter of primary importance in the attack.. Acroterion (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Remember WP:BLP applies to this article, not only with the recently deceased, but with the alleged attackers and alleged conspirators. It also applies to the talk page. Remember also that this should also be edited in accordance with UK law with respect to potential future court cases.

Out opinion of the necessity is irrelevant to the fact of all information being provided. There are video clip )(which they sought out) that indicate they are clearly black. If its not in the lead that's fine, but it has to be in the article.

YHou can't seriously deny seeing the images that they were black. WP:COMMONSENSE(Lihaas (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)).

You can also describe the clothes they are wearing from the pictures. Is it reported as significant information is the standard for Wikipedia. "Reliable evidence" sounds like a court standard. We should just write an article from the available reliable information and let courts decide evidence matters. -166.137.191.19 (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I see it doesn't even mention they are Nigerian just described as Christian. Virtually every publication describes them as black and the videos clearly show them to be as such. No wonder Wikipedia has the bad reputaion it does resulting in teachers prohibiting their dtudents from using it as a source.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, political correctness! Whatever happened to WP:SPADE? We don't use euphemisms to describe death, but race is just too sensitive... Of course he's not Nigerian, he's Black British. A timely reminder of my college days when I used to cringe at these trendy lefties insisting on using "non-sexist, non-racist language", and those cringes come back every time I see something like this, or the term "chairperson". ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 07:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Machete is inaccurate

None of the weapons here is a machete. The correct media sourcing says a knife and a meat cleaver, the sourcing with the word machete is inaccurate. The man who talks to the camera on ITV News is not carrying a machete.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No probs. Correct it on the page per BOLD and COMMONSENSE.(Lihaas (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)).

The problem is the sourcing itself, which is inconsistent. Some of the eyewitnesses used the word machete in initial reports, but none of the photos shows the men carrying one.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

We have to go by reliable sources, not our own interpretations of pictures. It could be that they had a machete, and dropped it. However many people will have rarely seen a machete, and would not know what one looks like, especially in the heat of the moment.Martin451 (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a mistake, some in the UK were using the terms Machete and Cleaver interchangeably. From the interview with the French woman Ingrid Loyau-Kennett, it's clear the assailant had a meat cleaver, not a longer Machete (the long knife used for chopping down jungle foliage)Oxr033 (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, so there's no evidence of machetes at the scene of the crime, and therefore it would be wrong to continue that myth. However, it seems a bit extreme to expunge all machete references from the article. As it is now established as part of the "mythos" of the attack, does it not merit explicit mention and clarification? Prof Wrong (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It's just a language problem, some use the word interchangeably. I think witnesses to the crime used the word in error.Oxr033 (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The weapons shown could easily have been purchased in a kitchen shop without arousing suspicion. A machete is not so easy to buy in the UK, and might have caused suspicion, particularly as the men were known to the intelligence services.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the witnesses used the word in error, which seems worthy of mention in and of itself, particularly given the implications that IanMacM raises: a machete is not a common thing in the UK, and is regarded as a weapon. In fact, in my youth, it was one of the bogeyman words of street violence -- these young folk with their machetes. Prof Wrong (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Motive

What happened to the motive section? Doyna Yar (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

[8] -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that being Islamic fundamendalists they also racially targetted the man because he was white. They didn't find a black man walking the streetss to kill and behead then exclaim "We will never stop fighting you", Obviously this is an East meets West conflict, and the targetted a western man aka white. It is a racist attack and to say otherwise is just political correctness gone crazy. If this is not a racist attack then by that logic the Travyon Martin Attack wasn't racist either!!--Collingwood26 (talk) 05:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is 'pretty clear' at all. You seem to be coming to conclusions all by yourself in your own head. Nowhere in his 'statement' did he mention the race of the soldier, or did he mention race at all.Oxr033 (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

"East meets West", eh? Can I suggest that you look at a map...? Much of Africa is further west than the bulk of Europe, and Nigeria, the country where the suspects don't even come from, is in line with Western Europe. The "foot" part of Italy is further west (edit: I mean "east", obviously) than it.Prof Wrong (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Prof Wrong (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

After attack, but before police

WP:NOTFORUM

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I'm struggling to understand what the passers by/ bystanders did during this 15 - 20 min time frame. Apart from the woman who seemed to engage them in a debate on world affairs whilst they danced over the body trying to get on You've Been Framed and Crimewatch, what were the others doing? Playing scrabble with them? Why did there seem to be no 'fight or flight' reaction with people either running away in a mass panic or turning into 'have a go heroes' and detaining the attackers? Have the media tackled these questions or is it just me that finds the activity during this period quite strange? --wintonian ^talk 04:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I called up the location on GMaps. It seems that the nearest cop shop is on Market Street at its junction with Bathway – 5 minutes' walk from Wellington Street junction with John Wilson Street. That being the case, response time = "atrocious". -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 04:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

What the police said (The Guardian): Police tried to rebut claims of a delayed response saying they were first called to reports of a man being attacked in the street at 14.20. Four minutes later they were told by witnesses that one attacker had a gun, at which point, 14.24, officers in an armed response vehicle which patrols London's streets, were ordered to the scene. Five minutes later, at 14.29, the first unarmed officers arrived at the scene, and at 14.34 armed officers arrived and two of them opened fire, and a Taser was also fired. WWGB (talk) 05:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Out of the corner of her eye, Loyau-Kennett said, she saw the bus start moving. It was going to leave without her and she had to go. She figured the police were going to get there any second. So Loyau-Kennett got on the bus and left. [9] - All incredibly normal. --wintonian ^talk 05:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The technical term is Diffusion of responsibility. --beefyt (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Article title

This discussion has resulted in the move request proposal below opened by IanMacM. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why the euphemistic article title, "2013 Wolwich attack"? Why not be specific and title it 2013 Woolwich murder? Clearly, this is a murder. And, most importantly, all mainstream reliable sources and authorities involved in the case say it's a murder. While no one has yet been convicted of murder in the case (even though there are videotaped confessions) it is nevertheless still a murder. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 05:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hmm now that we know the name of the victaim should it not be Murder of Lee Rigby like Murder of Jason Gage for instance? Mind you the media are still referring to it as the "Woolwich attack" which fits with WP:COMMONNAME at the moment, although not a requirement. --wintonian ^talk 05:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Here are a few examples of other articles where there were no convictions: Murder of JonBenét Ramsey, Murder of Andre Marshall, Murder of Jaclyn Dowaliby, Murder of Jill-Lyn Euto, and Murder of Suzanne Jovin. There are many others. So why isn't this article titled Murder of Lee Rigby? And, relatively speaking, there are just about as many Google News results for "Lee Rigby murder" as there are for "Lee Rigby attack". But, again, "attack" is very vague, and "murder" is specific and very reliably sourced. Wikipedia always encourages specificity over vagueness, whenever possible. "2013 Woolwich attack" is a great third choice for an article title. 2013 Woolwich murder would be much better. And Lee Rigby murder would be the best. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 05:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)Here's a good example from the British/ London point of view Murder of Yvonne Fletcher. --wintonian ^talk 05:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Wintonian. Yes, here are other unsolved murders in Great Britain: 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. There are many others for other countries. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 05:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thinking more about it 'attack' could mean anything from the bombing of Woolwich Arsenal in the last war to North Korean/ Cheese computer hacking - very ambiguous. --wintonian ^talk 05:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The two attackers (whose identities are known) are likely to face trial in the UK. It is not good Wikipedia practice, or in line with WP:BLPCRIME, to jump the gun and use the word murder in these circumstances unless a conviction for murder is obtained in a court of law. In some of the other cases mentioned above, a person was never arrested or charged. The unsolved cases are WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and do not apply here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Since no conviction for murder has yet taken place, I'd support a move to the neutral Death of Lee Rigby. Angr (talk) 05:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Killing of Lee Rigby or is that too emotive and WP:POV? --wintonian ^talk 05:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

IanMacM, it doesn't matter at all if anyone's been convicted yet, as evidenced by the hundreds of other unsolved murder articles titled "Murder of (name)". Per reliable sources, we clearly know the crime (murder) and the victim's name (Lee Rigby). Whether anyone is arrested or convicted is irrelevant. The fact that Lee Rigby was murdered will never change. And thank you to Angr for his very commendable and logical attempt at presenting a temporary, compromise solution (Death of Lee Rigby). I was impressed by that suggestion. I do, however, feel that based on the hundreds of other similar articles, the most appropriate title for this article is Murder of Lee Rigby. It's perfectly accurate and specific, per reliable sources. WP:OTHERSTUFF may apply in situations where there are only a few other unambiguous or minor comparisons, but certainly not here. The fact that there are literally hundreds of other articles with the "Murder of (name)" format reflects clear precedent. But more importantly, such a title in this case is very accurate per the reliable sources. I appreciate all input, though. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Wintonian, to answer your question, I feel that Killing of Lee Rigby is not too emotive or POV (he was killed, after all), but the word "killing", again, is vague. Not all killings are murders. ;) I love your enthusiastic participation in attempting to resolve this matter. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The UK has strict sub judice rules, and as an example the article Murder of Tia Sharp was not named in this way until Stuart Hazell was convicted. Murder is not a suitable word for this article's title at the current time.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

IanMacM... First, you are incorrect about Murder of Tia Sharp. That article was titled the day it was created, August 7, 2012, just four days after her disappearance was reported. There was no conviction until May 13, 2013. So please be accurate about your claims. Second, the UK's (or any other country's) rules or laws carry absolutely no weight with regard to editing Wikipedia. We only follow Wikipedia's policies. Also, it makes no difference at all where the event happened; this is a global encylopedia, not a UK one. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not an "OMG free speech" issue, and is in line with Wikipedia precedent where active court proceedings are likely.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)}

Please re-read my prior comment. You are simply incorrect about an indiviual country's laws having any bearing on how we edit Wikipedia, and about the Tia Sharp article not being named until after there was a conviction. Your claim that the Sharp article "was not named in this way until Stuart Hazell was convicted" is flat-out wrong. I showed you the proof for that, but there was an edit conflict while I was updating so maybe you didn't see it. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The article was titled Death of Tia Sharp until 16 May 2013. It was moved after a debate at Talk:Murder_of_Tia_Sharp#Requested_move. This is normal for articles about UK court cases.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, Murder of Tia Sharp shows that title on August 7, 2012, the day it was created, three days before Hazell was arrested, and nine months before he was convicted. In any case, as I mentioned earlier, the other editor's suggested title of Death of Lee Rigby would be much better than the current one, but Murder of Lee Rigby would be the best and most accurate. Even though I have shown 10 examples of UK "Murder of (name)" articles where there were no convctions, I would not object to Death of Lee Rigby unless/until a conviction is secured, but the current title needs to go. Thanks for the update. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a redirect. The fact is that Wikipedia article titles (including cases outside the UK) do not use the word "murder" if active court proceedings and a murder charge are likely in the immediate future. This would violate WP:BLPCRIME. Any suggestions for renaming the article without the word murder are welcome.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

There would be no violation of WP:BLPCRIME with the title Murder of Lee Rigby because there would be no statements stating or even implying that anyone is guilty of the crime; only that someone was murdered. We base our content, including titles, on reliable sources, and the mainstream reliable sources say that Rigby was murdered. And any suggestions are welcome, even if they may not be the best options. In any case, multiple editors have suggested Death of Lee Rigby as an alternative (for now}, but I don't believe you've commented on it. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 07:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Death of Lee Rigby is a possibility, and is consistent with other articles at this stage of events. This could be proposed with Template:Requested move here on this talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I'd be satisfied with that title for now. Can you do the requested move? I do appreciate your input. We just disagree a bit on the title. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 07:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

IanMacM, nice job. I see you initiated the move request. I do prefer Murder of Lee Rigby more, but if that's not an option, this is acceptable to me. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

By the same token we should avoid saying in Wikipedia's voice that it was a murder. --John (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Obama's response

President Obama has made a statement about the attack. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/23/statement-president-attack-london — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.27.24.201 (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Done I added content to the "Response" section with this edit.

Reverted. So far, it seems that it is purely a local murder, although possibly by Islamic extremists. Rhetorical comments and soundbites should be avoided in these cases because this is not encyclopaedic. As it's a single murder and there is no international dimension, I'd say the rhetorical comment from across the pond definitely out of place. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 08:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the revert, as I requested. IP 223, I will certainly not restore the content because I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other. But of course I don't know if you will object to the removal or if any other editors will restore the content. Sorry. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 08:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Right, sure, that is why I cannot find it in any of the American news sites, except for the LA Times NY Times Wall Street Journal Huffington Post Christian Science Monitor Times Picayune Denver Post Seattle Times, well, except for all of the American news sites as far as I can tell, because British soldiers are knived to death on the streets of London every day. Except for the fact that every thing I just said is not true, because it is a huge international event because young British soldiers are _not_ brutally murdered by looneys every day. -166.137.191.17 (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Tabloids as sources

Per WP:BLPSOURCES we should not introduce or restore tabloid sources to this article. There are loads of better sources and anything that can only be found in a tabloid is by definition not suitable for this article. --John (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Response time

Is 20 minutes a typical response time for a murder in London? Do any of the sources discuss this? In an American major city heads would be rolling over this response time. -166.137.191.19 (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

American here. I have to agree that to us this seems like an unbelievably long response time. Could the article include some sort of explanation why it takes that long to summon police in this town. It's an obvious question that any American reader would have. We should answer it. Jehochman ^Talk 13:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Brit here, the 20min response time is for armed police, they are most likely stationed at a police station ready to respond to an incident once it's been reported and once their specific help is requested. Couple that with the time taken to actually travel there it's probably not unreasonable. I'll see if I can find any comparison though... CaptRik (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Could an explanation be added to the article? Unarmed police arrived within 2 minutes, but stood around uselessly (?) waiting for armed police to arrive 20 minutes later. This is typical in the UK because of... Jehochman ^Talk 13:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

This was the response time for Specialist Firearms Command (SCO19). Ordinary police officers in London are unarmed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Can this be explained in the article, noting the location of the command, and also provide an explanation of whether unarmed police were present, when, and what they did (e.g. crowd control, preventing suspects from escaping). We should not assume that all readers are familiar with London's police force. The reader needs context to understand the article. Jehochman ^Talk 13:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It is understandable that Americans will find the response time here remarkable, but a London Bobby is unarmed, and would have to call in SCO19 if firearms support was necessary. Furthermore, there were concerns that the attackers might have been wearing suicide bombs. This needs to be clarified in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Deconstructing a few paragraphs from this source, here's what happened according to Assistant Commissioner Simon Byrne:

14.20 - first 999 call about a man being attacked, but with no mention of a gun
14.24 - first 999 call that mentions a gun, armed response unit assigned
14.29 - first unarmed officers arrive at the scene, establishing a cordon and waiting behind it for the armed response
14.34 - first armed response officers arrive

If correct, this seems normal to me. Armed police are not common, even in London. And if as it appears, the first unarmed officers on scene had already been told they might have a gun, then staying behind a cordon until the armed officers arrived, and them then shooting them as they advanced, would all seem standard procedure. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

9 minutes for the first bobbies!? I had no idea that response times were so different in UK versus US. So is this outer London, a suburb? I am learning from this article but will now research more about police norms the world over. 9 minutes for an active assault! Thanks for the timeline. -166.137.191.17 (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

This timeline also shows ten minutes for a specialized armed unit. This still seems long, but not outrageous, and it seems as if it could be within reason, unlike twenty minutes. -166.137.191.17 (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In one article I read it stated that they are not stationed at a police station ready to respond but roam the streets of London in their response car. Given the nature of the incident and the proximity to Woolworth barracks could the MoD Plod not have decided that they could have asserted joint jurisdiction citing a potential threat to the barracks? I am of course aware that 99.9% of the time they would never have authority outside of the barracks walls. --wintonian ^talk 18:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The MOD police would not have been on the same radio talk groups as MPS so wouldn’t have necessarily known about the incident. Had the met no had any units available they would have probably asked MPD/CoLP/BTP to assist. 10 minutes for a Trojan unit in London in actually quite good compared to county forces which are usually 20 minutes plus. Considering the ARV was probably north of the Thames, to get to south east London in less than 10 minutes is a good response time.86.178.37.125 (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

British citizens?

In the Suspects section it says that both suspects are british citizens but in the lead it says that one is and the other is unknown? These two statements need to be reconciled.14:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.76.235 (talk)

His rank

Given that 'Drummer' is Rigby's rank it should be stated as such, especially considering that this man was killed for his position in the armed force, and for that reason I have restored my edit to include his rank before his name. --Battlehawk08 (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems obvious. -166.137.191.17 (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You'd think so wouldn't you, however people kept altering it back to without the rank, so I wanted to make it clear. --Battlehawk08 (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I doubt very much "Drummer" is a rank; it's more like a job description. I've taken it out of the lead, but left it in the 'victim' section. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Drummer is very much a rank in the British Army, the Army would not be putting his 'job description' into its press releases they would put his rank, Drummer. The British Army has a lot of different names for various ranks, indeed if he wasn't a Drummer and was just a normal soldier in the 2nd Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, his rank would just be 'Fusilier' rather than 'Private'. I have restored the rank, stop unilaterally altering it back. Please note that Wikipedia itself has this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_%28rank%29#United_Kingdom which clearly shows Drummer as an equivalent rank to Private, when I get time I'll find an off-site link to back this up. --Battlehawk08 (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Once again removed 'Drummer' from the lead, which is to summarise key elements of the subject. Taking it out has nothing to do with a lack of respect for the dead. WP is not a place for according respect. If Rigby was killed for being a drummer, then it should arguably be in the lead. But he was not – Rigby was killed because he was a soldier in the British Army, the fact he happened to be a lowly drummer is an unimportant fact. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 14:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not backing down on this, is rank should be reflected in the lead. If you want to remove it ask for more opinions. One word which makes it more accurate hardly stops it being a summary.. --Battlehawk08 (talk) 16:01≈, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is conventional to give the rank of people who are killed in a military context. However, I think a more appropriate link would be to Private (rank)#United Kingdom, where the various equivalent ranks are all listed, and an onward link to Military drummer is available should the reader be interested – Smyth\^talk 15:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that although Rigby was a soldier in the British Army, he was not killed in a military context. He was in the UK, off-duty, off-barracks and not dressed in military uniform. So whatever conventions of a military death, this is not one. His rank is of no consequence as far as the lead is concerned. Note that I'm not saying it's unimportant (full stop), which is why I've left it in the first sentence of the 'Victim' section. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 15:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Battlehawk that his rank "Drummer" should be in the lead sentence. You two can come to an agreement as to whether it links to Private or Drummer. Sounds as if we need a new article on Military Drummer, or is it a section in some other article? Amandajm (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that although Rigby was a soldier in the British Army, he was not killed in a military context. He was in the UK, off-duty, off-barracks and not dressed in military uniform. So whatever conventions of a military death, this is not one. His rank is of no consequence as far as the lead is concerned. Note that I'm not saying it's unimportant (full stop), which is why I've left it in the first sentence of the 'Victim' section. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 15:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been reverted with the comment "Drummer IS his rank". But then what is the use of linking Military drummer? That page does not specify rank at all. – Smyth\^talk 15:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted to your version. It is clearly more important to link to Private (rank), as it unambiguously shows what his rank equivalent is, and there is an onward link to Military drummer, anyway. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems like a good solution to me. Amandajm (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

His rank was not private, any more than an Royal Artillery gunner is a private or a Royal Engineers sapper is a private. His rank was drummer, which is equivalent to private. Not sure why that's hard to understand. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

"British citizens" is an embarrassing code-word

The article drills home the fact that the suspects were "British citizens"? "British citizens" is a weasel word, because the fact that they may or may not be legal British citizens has no bearing whatsoever on the attack, it is clear from their statements that they don't identify as British, they don't identify with their legal citizenship, they identify with their ethnicity. The attacker referred to "our countries" meaning Muslim countries, and "your government" meaning the British government. Saying he is a "British citizen of Nigerian descent" is a convoluted politically correct euphemism; is he Nigerian or not? Was he born in Nigeria or in Britain? What does "British citizen of Nigerian descent" mean? That could apply to someone who just arrived a few years ago, but it's like it's deliberately trying to give the impression he was born in Britain. Was he?

The article says the other man is "believed to be a British citizen". Again, why is his legal citizenship important? The other man is also believed to be a Muslim, why not say he is believed to be a Muslim? Clearly, their religion and/or ethnicity had much more to do with these attacks than their current passports.

It's very telling that in the eyes of wikipedia, it's important to mention that Muslim terrorists are "British citizens", but it's not important to mention that the indigenous white non-Muslim victim is a "British citizen". Was the victim a British citizen as well, and if so, why not mention it like you mentioned it for the suspects? KillerBoogie (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

If someone is a British citizen, it is a statement of fact to say that they are. As for the rest, we base articles on published reliable sources, not on the opinions of contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Where have I suggested including opinions? If we're going to include every "fact" about the terrorists regardless of how important it is, then I will change it to say that they are Muslims, since it is a statement of fact that they are Muslims, and that's more relevant than their citizenship. Was the victim a British citizen too? KillerBoogie (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added a source for the belief that they are both British citizens of nigerian descent. Does this suit everyone? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Why is their citizenship important at all? What was the citizenship of the victim? KillerBoogie (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

If the sources we cite consider it significant, so do we. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a convenient crutch. Find a "reliable source" that says what you want, then defer all responsibility to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.42.89 (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I have cited a source which considers it significant that they are Muslims. KillerBoogie (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

At the end of his speech to the cameraphone, he also said 'tell them [the politicians] to bring our troops back, so I'm not sure it's that clear cut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxr033 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the current state is acceptable, being that both bits of information (British and Muslims) is mentioned. KillerBoogie even though I consider your last edit to be reasonable you might want to read WP:POINT, just to avoid future possible issues. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Confusing 'suspects' section

Adebolajo and Adebowale were the named suspects, yet one reference to a newsnight interview mentioned a "Adebole". Please can someone clarify... -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Adebole seems to be a spelling mistake. From what i've seen the first two names are accurate.Oxr033 (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal details

Can anybody define Rigby's marital status? He is married and separated, has child and partner. partner lives with child. Partner/wife was returning from OS when attack happened.

are "partner" and wife same person?
Is child the child of wife or different partner?
Was it wife or partner that lives with child?
Was it wife or partner interviewed on TV?
etc, etc etc

This needs to be handled with care. What are the facts, and how relevant are they?

Amandajm (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not a biography nor a memorial. Whilst I agree that it could do with a little clarification, it's important not to go overboard. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Clarification:

Rigby had both a wife and a girlfriend in the military.
The child is the child of the wife, who is referred to ambiguously in one of the cited articles as "partner".
Wife, not "partner" (as in girlfriend) lived with child.
Wife has stated that she and Rigby were "looking forward to continuing their lives together". This appears to indicate that the marriage was "permanent" and the "separation" due to circumstance.

Let me stress that discretion is needed.

Amandajm (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Military servicepeople are not usually described as separated from their spouses due to the spouse staying home. I understand from the news that Rigby was separated from his wife and in a relationship with a woman who was also serving in Afghanistan. Jim Michael (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. All that may be correct. However, read what is written above. Amandajm (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Brief outline of situation added to victim section. Biographical info is an important part of an article about a person's death. Jim Michael (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Wording query

Amanda: I'm a little confused about the relationship of this statement (and Ohconfucius's previous version) with the Guardian report:

"The assailants remained at the scene. The Metropolitan Police received a distress call at 14:20. Unarmed police arrived at 14.29, set up a cordon and remained behind it.[18] Armed police arrived at 14:34. The men charged at them, one brandishing a machete and the other a gun. The police fired eight shots, wounding both the men.[14][19] A gun, knives, and a machete were later seized at the scene. Rigby was later pronounced dead.[6]"

I suggest a comma after "cordon" (you use the Oxford comma after "knives", I see—my own personal preference), and a semicolon after "it", to soften the effect of the succession of stubby sentences. Backref issue in "them"—does it refer to the armed or the unarmed police? If we don't know, it needs to be reworded. "Later" × 2 is unfortunate. You could remove "the" before "men.[14]" Tony (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Sizing images

"You are the only editor who wants it at this size, it is standard practice to have upright for upright images. It is too big otherwise) "

IanMc, "It's too big otherwise" is an extraordinary statement! Too big for what?

Read the manual of style on images. It is not "standard practice " to have upright for upright images. It is recommended that images of long narrow form, e.g. a painting of a tall skinny Egyptian God which is used as the example in the MOS, are sized as "upright", otherwise the image extends halfway down the article and leaves little room for other pictures.

Pictures that are portraits ought at least to have the face clearly visible and identifiable. Reducing something more than necessary just because it has vertical form is ridiculously pedantic, and a mis-application of the MOS. And that remains the case, even if there are more than one person here who is unaware of it. "upright picture" does not enforce some "upright format" rule. Check Wikipedia:Picture tutorial#Upright images Amandajm (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Upright was added to the image by three different editors in these edits: [10][11][[12] When an image is next to a block of text, there is nothing unusual about doing this, as it gives the best size at a range of screen resolutions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Default size is good for landscape images with not too much detail. When an image is vertical, with a 3:4 ratio and not much detail (as in Rigby's portrait), default setting makes it 33% larger. Too large, IMHO. I'm glad I discovered the |upright| parameter. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 15:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

As a person who deals with images all the time as an artist, art historian and teacher, I highly value the image. You appear to regard the image as something of a necessary nuisance. However, your average person seems to like images.

Contrary to your opinion, I think that default thumb size is too small for many/most horizontal images to be seen in any detail. I know it for a fact, because I go around correcting the ridiculous errors that editors make in their alt-descriptions, simply because they haven't really looked at the image in front of them.

What-is-more, putting an image that plainly needs to go to the left on the right side of the page is contrary to the MOS. Another editor has appeared who is of the same opinion. Use your eyes. Compare the two arrangements. It is clearly obvious which looks better.

Amandajm (talk) 08:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Were u talking to me when you said " You appear to regard the image as something of a necessary nuisance"? Images are good. WP is an encyclopaedia, not an art gallery. Big isn't necessarily good, but an image that is the right size is good. Anyway, it might look better to you on the left, but you agree that it's a MOS violation, as it screws up the section headings. We would not have this problem if the 'Victim' section was three times the height it is now. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 15:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
How do you like the new head-and-shoulders crop? -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 15:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Mention surge in EDL support?

About a week before the attack I saw the EDL's Facebook page had about 19-20k likes. By the morning after the attack it was 90k and the last time that I checked was 116k. This is a near six-fold increase and makes the EDL more supported on Facebook (used by a great deal of Britons, especially the youth who are more left-wing) than the governing-in-coalition Liberal Democrats (90k). I know that some people like pages to disagree with them but that is unecessary because the EDL's page allows comment from non-members. Also, Tommy Robinson's video about the attack was trending on the main page of Youtube to an overwhelmingly positive reaction, despite how many left-wingers jeer and troll at everything that he says. Indiasummer95 (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:original research. Unless and until reliable sources state that the EDL has had a surge in support, and state that it is due to this incident, we won't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/23/attacks-muslims-spike-woolwich-attack 'went into overdrive' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiasummer95 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Certainly EDL members are busier, but none of this clearly demonstrates an increase in support. —innotata 15:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I've seen several reports of an increase in interest but did't think it was important enough (disclosure: I put some of the activities in the article). Can't tell if interest is support, however. If you find sources and it isn't WP:UNDUE show us. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Increase in attacks against Muslims

This BBC story says there has been an increase in what it terms "anti-Muslim incidents" since the Woolwich attack. I haven't read through the latest version of this article, so don't know if we've covered it. But if not, we should include something. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've put in a line a few days ago and I see it is still there. It starts: "Reports of an increase in anti-Muslim incidents ..." I noticed in this report and other reports a item about the arrest of two individuals for "hateful" tweets. Being a Yank, I'm not sure what kind of speech would lead to an arrest aside from actual threats. That could be interesting. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The arrests were under the Public Order Act 1986 which has been used before by the UK police relating to the use of Twitter, famously in this case which led to a man being jailed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the background on the UK laws on offensive speech. (I also didn't know that Tweets were (or can be) public.) Jason from nyc (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

(Tweets certainly are consisdered public, at least under UK Law - see Sally Bercow, Tom Daley, etc., etc.) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Foreign press reports

This is in the article in the "Reactions" section

'"The Russian newspaper Trud blamed the problem on the UK's immigration policies and its acceptance of an "alien population".[10]

The press in China and Pakistan emphasised that British military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has been a source of discontent in the Islamic world and resulted in violent actions by Muslim youths"'

Is it really worth giving space to what some unknown Russian newspaper is saying about the attack? We in the UK have no knowledge of what type of publication Trud is, for all we know it could be heavily biased. I wouldn't be surprised after watching 5 minutes of Russia Today. Using the words 'Alien population' is not only dangerous rhetoric. it's also false. One of the killers sounded exactly like a lot of young British kids, to what degree was he a member of an 'alien population'? The phrase 'muslim youths' is also problematic. Firstly it doesn't even say that in the citation, secondly 'Youths' in the UK is pejorative.

The wikipedia article also quite selectively quotes what paper said what. It gives equal weight to those saying it's to do with immigration and muslims, and those that condemn the attack as something savage and barbaric. I'm not sure this is very fair and i'm concerned people's biases and prejudices are trying to in effect rewrite historyOxr033 (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree entirely. This should be removed unless someone can give good reasons to the contrary. Inglok (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Trud is one of the best selling Russian language newspapers, the BBC would not have quoted it otherwise. The Reactions section is becoming too long, but this does not mean that Trud is non-notable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, ianmacm. I didn't know it was a newspaper with such a large circulation. Here is the full quote from the BBC:

Writing in the daily Trud, Sergey Frolov says that ethnic tensions in the West were "essentially a postcard to us with a warning from the not-too-distant future". "You don't have to be Cassandra to see a basic cause-and-effect link between the hypocritical policy of filling a country with an alien population and a rising tension that moves into a hot phase of clashes," he argues.

That sounds like the kind of stuff the BNP and Anders Breivik would say. I'm not sure it's suitable for inclusion here. Inglok (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

That may well be true, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for removal.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, I still find it problematic to include a quote from some irrelevant Russian newspaper in this attack. I can find a hundred other quotes from foreign newspapers saying all manner of things, are they all worthy of inclusion? By all accounts the men weren't 'alien', this gives a misleading impression. A Russian daily isn't likely to know what constitutes 'alien' in the UK.

Good point, ianmacm. I'll leave it there. Inglok (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It's funny to read the report about the Chinese reaction. If the shoe was on the other foot, and the Brits made such a comment, they would be telling the Brits to butt out of their "internal affairs". -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 15:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

But is there any particular reason, per WP:WEIGHT, to include that particular comment rather than any of the others cited in the BBC article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Seconded, if that report by Trud and the Chinese/Pakistani newspaper reports are to stay, why not include the majority of the other sources in the BBC article too? If you leave those two quotes in there it places too much weight on their opinion, and neglects everyone elses opinion. From the BBC article there are about 15 different foreign press reports. Also, why are these two quotes placed last, leaving a reader with the words 'alien population' and 'muslim youths' in conclusion, maybe they should be placed first or in the middle?Oxr033 (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

All we know up to know is that it's a domestic (UK) incident. On that basis, I would be happy to see foreign press rubbernecking removed from the article as a distraction. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 04:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Image size and position

We should come to an agreement on the size and position of the photograph of Lee Rigby. It has been altered several times. Before any more changes are made to the image please discuss them here. Inglok (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a pity that this has led to debate, but upright images without |upright| tend to be too large.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Its left-alignment is highly disruptive of the heading of the following section, so unless it is relocated to a larger section lower down, it really ought to be aligned right. As to its size, there are some who don't understand the thumbnail size default size is for landscape images, which is why they created '|upright|' as a parameter. The correct default is the size of a vertical image (using '|upright|') is proper as his face is already easily discerned at the size. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 15:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

YouGov poll on aftermath & attitudes to Muslims/integration

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/26/public-attitude-muslims-complex-positive

Is this worth including in the 'response' or maybe an 'aftermath' section? Gives a balanced view to both sides, includes facebook likes of the EDL have risen substantially but the majority feel it's overblown, and inter-community relations are seen as positive and not in any immediate danger. It's an interesting article from the Guardian I thought might be worth including in the Woolwich attack.Oxr033 (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS

The matter has been resolved. Editors have fully addressed the concerns of Piotrus to their satisfaction. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this incident really notable in light of WP:NOTNEWS? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Poitrus, not a good place for trolling. Please go away. Jehochman ^Talk 10:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Uh, who's trolling here? I asked a civil, good faith question. The incident did receive relatively widespraed coverage in English press, but per the policy cited, "News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. [...]". I have concerns over the enduring notability of this event. As tragic as it may be, a murder of an otherwise non-notable person is not always encyclopedic. That is not to say I am calling for this incident to be deleted, but I would ask for civil and constructive arguments that would justify its notability. May I therefore suggest that in your subsequent reply, if you wish to reply again, you try to move above ad hominem's as listed on this scale, and keep in mind WP:NPA and WP:CIV? Thank you. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you really are a master of discussion, Jehochman ([13]). Please stop being disruptive. If you have nothing constructive to contribute to this discussion, may I suggest you take your own advice? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hard to know what to make of this beyond the "obvious troll is obvious" interpretation. This easily meets WP:GNG and is probably the most covered UK news story of 2013 so far. Perhaps we should delete Boston Marathon bombings as well.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, the claim that this is such a mainstream story has some merit, particularly with the terrorism angle. Still, I wonder if this is going to have enduring notability. Time will tell, I guess. For now it seems reasonable to assume this has some temporary notability, at least, as seems to be indicated by the consensus I see on this talk page. PS. Regarding the Boston straw man argument, consider the difference between planting a bomb which then kills and hurts dozens, and shooting a single individual. Similar "terrorist attacks" happen in Iraq every other day, but I they don't get Wikipedia articles. Now, granted, here is were your point about depth of coverage makes a valid point. My only concern - which I acknowledge seems to be in minority - is that the depth of coverage is not mentioned by the cited NOTNEWS policy (which perhaps suggests that policy needs to be amended). Oh, and btw, my axe to grind here is not questioning the notability of this event, but in fact suggesting that NOTNEWS may not be worded well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

British soldiers don't get butchered by terrorists weilding knives, in broad daylight, in London...ever, until now. That's what makes this event so notable. It's been covered in thousands of articles. The daily bombings in Iraq are horrible and we have at least some coverage of them: Iraq War insurgent attacks. If they are not covered completely, the answer is to work on completing that list and expanding those articles, not to delete this one. Jehochman ^Talk 18:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, I wrote an essay some time ago, which attempts to set out when articles about unlawful deaths are notable. I based it on existing policy, and stuff I picked up from AFD debates. The part of interest here is:

It is difficult to identify an exact point in time when something passes the threshold, but usually for a "Murder" or "Death of X" article to be notable enough, there would normally be a public interest issue (public interest in the sense of public well-being), or such intense and protracted news coverage that it would be hard to ignore. The question is whether there is enduring notability – whether the death and its consequences will still be an issue for the public in several years' time.

Certainly there is a public interest element to this case, and intense news coverage from the world's media. As mentioned above it's probably the most widely covered story from the UK this year, so I think WP:NOTNEWS is not a valid argument here. Enduring notability is harder to guess at, but if the incident leads to government legislation (which seems possible) then this will also be covered. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Poitrus... I initially wasn't sure if you were even being serious. You said, "the claim that this is such a mainstream story has some merit". Has some merit? Seriously? I think you'd have to be living in a hole not to know that this was the top story, or among the top stories, by the most prominent mainstream media sources around the world for mulitiple days. You also wondered "if this is going to have enduring notability". I would have to assume that you are unaware that notability is not temporary. As that part of the notability guidelines states, "Once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage". But I was most perplexed by your comment in which you said your "axe to grind here is not questioning the notability of this event". Well, if you're not questioning the notability of the event, then obviously there's no problem that this article exists. Overall, you are misinterpreting WP:NOTNEWS. Where the "News reports" section says, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events", it is simply asking (for our purposes here), If you look back at this subject years from now, will it still be thought of as having been notable at the time it happened? Or is it just some passing fascination? Once a subject meets the notability standards, it will always be notable. This incident clearly passes the NOTNEWS test. It's not even a close call. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, your argument clearly points out to the flaw in NOTNEWS, as its concept of enduring notability is conflicting with notability not being temporary. The entire NOTNEWS section 2 looks more and more in meed of a rewrite. Paul, since you wrote a related essay, what are your thoughts on this? How can we change NOTNEWS to make it clear that articles like this one are notable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Journalism: not offer first-hand news reports, not a primary source. The article complies
News reports: enduring notability of persons and events.... most newsworthy events do not qualify. Wikipedia has reports on many significant murder cases. This one is so obviously significant that only a fool or a troll would claim that it wasn't.
Who's who: Our coverage of a [non notable] individual should be limited to the article about that event. In this case, prior history of the assailants is relevant, prior history of the victim is not relevant and has been kept to a minimum. If (for example) investigation were to reveal prior contact between attacker and victim, then further details of the victim would justifiably be included.
A diary: Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. Or all statements. The article has been vetted to remove all the "oh gosh this is terrible" statements, most of the hearsay, and anything that smacks of conspiracy theory. Definite statements are included as issued by relevant agencies.

So, everything is in order and No the MOS statement doesn't need rewriting. Having to explain this is a waste of time.

Amandajm (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't have put that better myself, and have to agree entirely with what Amanda is saying – it doesn't need rewriting. I'm merely highlighting the fact that this is a case in which the NOTNEWS criteria have been met, something that happened fairly quickly after the event occurred. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

A nice follow-up by Amanda to my comments. And, Piotrus, with regard to you saying "your argument clearly points out to the flaw in NOTNEWS, as its concept of enduring notability is conflicting with notability not being temporary", there's actually no conflict. This article has established it's enduring notability, per WP:EVENT. You're simply misunderstanding what the term "enduring notability" means. Enduring notability means that when we look back at a particular subject at any time in the future, we will always say that it indeed passed the notability test at the time it occurred. The reason WP:NOTNEWS exists is because sometimes editors will look at a story that's hot at the moment, but doesn't actually meet the notability criteria. So there's no conflict. Once consensus determines that a subject is notable (which includes determining that it passes the NOTNEWS test), then it will always be notable. Hope this helps. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's indeed helpful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Great, I'm glad. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Applicability of Category:Military history of London

I don't think this category is needed. This article is already in Category:Terrorism in London, which takes care of terrorism by locale categorization, Category:Woolwich, which take care of direct locale, Category:Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, which takes care of the direct military connection, and Category:21st-century history of the British Army which takes care of the British military connection. The event itself was not directly related to military (the victim was off duty and so the active military itself was not the primary target). Further, I think that the best course of action would be to replace the military history of London category with its parent Category:Social history of London, which more directly relates to terrorism, in lack of the (perhaps needed) Category:History of terrorism in London. Simply adding the social history category would create overcategorization problems. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The military was the target - Rigby was killed because they identified him as affiliated with the British Army because of the Help for Heroes slogan he was wearing. A suspect said he did it because the British Army are in Muslim countries. An off-duty, lone, unarmed serviceman is a much easier target than the Barracks. Jim Michael (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It is clear that some disagree ([14]), and for the record I agree with that edit, due to the cited rationale. The target was off duty, and the perpetrators were civilians, which makes it not a military action. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, Rigby was not active duty, was dressed in civilian clothes and was killed by two civilians not in any situation of armed conflict. But I still tend to agree with Jim Michael. Surely that is a question, however, for Royal Regiment of Fusiliers? If they officially honour Rigby and decide that his death is a significant event in their regimental history, then it should be categorised here as such. I rather suspect that they will. But maybe thay have not yet decided. Or maybe they will be advised not to do so. I don't think we yet know. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

That's why I didn't remove Category:Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, but I don't see how it belongs in Category:Military history of London. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 08:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that seems fair. Unless Jim could offer any more robust defence, I would agree with it being omitted. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Although Rigby was killed off-duty and not in a war zone, he was targeted by terrorists for his affiliation with the British forces and his name is going to be added to a war memorial. The army clearly consider that he is one of their fallen comrades. Jim Michael (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Links to consider

The Kenya arrsts + ]\[15](Lihaas (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)).

That Al Jazeera report appears to be very well-balanced and has a lively and healthy discussion with it. This report also seems very fair: [16]. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

"Filming" the attack

Mobile phone cameras do not contain film, they contain memory cards. Nobody would have been carrying a home movie camera, these are dinosaurs.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need to be overly fussy about this term. Just because the technology has moved on, doesn't mean it's no longer appropriate to use the term. "To film something" is still used often enough, and people still talk about "To film a video". There is no ambiguity as to what it means – the creation of a physical recording of something. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 05:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It is best for the article to be accurate here. All smartphones and digital cameras use a video format, and this is clearly what happened here. The attackers struck lucky as the video of the self- justifying rant was shown on television all over the world almost immediately. The days when coverage on film had to be sent to labs for processing first are long gone.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You mean they were "lucky" the police didn't get there first? I don't think luck had anything to do with it. It was all planned. They stayed around to get caught "on film" and get caught "literally". -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 08:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It was pretty much inevitable that passers-by would make videos of the incident. The "eye for an eye" speech seems to have been captured on video from more than one angle. The ITV News and The Sun video do not seem to be one and the same. The full transcript of what is said is only in the Sun video, as ITV broadcast only a short extract, presumably to avoid giving offence or a propaganda platform to the attacker. The Sun video is a smartphone video, because it is vertical, while the ITV News video is horizontal. They do not seem to have been taken on the same camera. In the Toronto Sun, an academic comments: "The attacker got the man to make his sort of ‘suicide video’. If this had come from al-Qaida there is no way the broadcasters would have run it,“ he told Reuters. There’s a strong news argument that it’s the right thing to do. We need to see it in order to understand why these people are doing what they are doing. On the other hand this is exactly what they want. These guys clearly wanted maximum publicity.“--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You were indeed right they were "lucky". Lucky the police didn't get there first. Then they would have been locked up and there would have been no video recording, no propaganda, except later by their accomplices. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 08:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps "lucky" was the wrong word to use. It may be that they deliberately stood around in the hope of producing video material that would be shown on TV news stations. Islamic extremists are not stupid, and the 2005 London suicide bombers prerecorded video statements explaining how "happy" they were about the attack which are still being shown on YouTube. The Internet and video in particular are seen as key tools by Islamic extremists.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Tabloid fodder, regrettably. Evey two-bit extremist can have their "15 minutes of world wide fame". -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 08:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

But still images from the video were used on the front pages of broadsheet newpapers across the world? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The media is not stupid either, and ITV News refused to show the whole rant. In the UK, it is only available in the Sun video. There is also a Daily Mirror video showing the moment that armed police opened fire, which seems to have been taken from inside Elliston House. This shows eight shots being fired. Some people have suggested that one of the attackers was shot as he lay on the ground, but this may be a result of the camera angle.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the use of the word "Film" over "video" I think that I might have been the person responsible for that error. As it was plainly an error of expression I am very happy to have it corrected. Why on earth is it the subject of discussion instead of just a fix? Amandajm (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps because "film a video" is common parlance and is used almost as frequently as "take a video". Martinevans123 (talk)

I changed it to "recording" to avoid any controversy. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

But there's nothing wrong with "filming". It concisely conveys that it was a video recording of the attack. When I saw the "correction" to "recording", I assumed it was in reference to some other medium. As a compromise, I'll change it to "videoing" to be explicit and unambiguous. (However, I'll state plainly that the objection to filming is incorrect. Nobody objects to "autodialers" for phones on the grounds that modern phones don't have dials. No-one objects to talking about being "on" a bus on the grounds that most modern buses are enclosed, unlike the old open-top horse-drawn omnibuses. And no-one objects to "driving" a car -- you don't ride a horse alongside your car and yell "gee up, get along little doagie!") Prof Wrong (talk) 10:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so either, and I thought the complaint rather quaint, but thought I'd offer it up in the spirit of consensus. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 12:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess adding "on their phone" would be considered redundant. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

yes. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 12:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

We seem to have wandered off topic. The thread was started because film cameras went out of use some time ago. The more important issue is that the full rant speech was considered to be unacceptable by ITV News. The Sun video is where the attacker apparently cites Quran and violence as a justification, using quotes from the Koran such as this.♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. You're right. We have wandered off topic. If you wish to discuss the fact that ITN didn't show the whole thing, feel free to add a new section. Prof Wrong (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)