This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
- It's now there in the article and is linked. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 26 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)
Other article at 2013 Woolwich beheading
Other editors are working on an article at 2013 Woolwich beheading. I boldly redirected it here but was reverted and a small edit war may have started. I am not working on the articles and will let others sort it out. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- That is more of an apporpiate article title as it is more than accurate. Attack is more vague. A mugging could be an attack. I was also working on a merge.(Lihaas (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)).
- Given that the source cited for 'beheading' (the Telegraph [1]) puts it in quotes, I think that at this point a categorical assertion in the title might be premature. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- The beheading article preceded this article by an hour, and was just as established so should have taken precedent. However that is the problem when articles are written on breaking news stories.Martin451 (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Accuracy is what matters, not 'precedent'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- The beheading article preceded this article by an hour, and was just as established so should have taken precedent. However that is the problem when articles are written on breaking news stories.Martin451 (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Given that the source cited for 'beheading' (the Telegraph [1]) puts it in quotes, I think that at this point a categorical assertion in the title might be premature. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:RM will solve this, simple as, rather than a petty move/redirect-war. GiantSnowman 20:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- "Murder" or "Terrorist Attack" would be more accurate at the moment looking at the news reports. It's pure speculation that the guy was beheaded. douts (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Beheading is the better title. The victim's head was chopped off with a machete. Beheading in the name of IslamRembrandt Peale (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Citation needed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- https://twitter.com/BOYADEE/status/337208696981569536 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.77.117 (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- It appears that "one unconfirmed report suggested that he had been beheaded" [2] It is prudent to wait and see if others report this. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- https://twitter.com/BOYADEE/status/337208696981569536 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.77.117 (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Citation needed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, the BBC puts it as a terror "attack". It wasn't necessarily a beheading, and nobody knows whether it was yet. the1akshay (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- The merge tag looked silly to readers so I have removed it [3] with edit summary "remove {{merge|2013 Woolwich beheading}}, the articles should obviously be merged and that has already happened, no need to discuss that part, use WP:RM to suggest another title for the article". PrimeHunter (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I suggest to insert the word beheading in the article as reported by the independent [4]. At the beginning, I thought only the right-wing media were calling it as such but as it turned out, the leftists agree as well Vekoler (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC).
- The Economist says "According to some witnesses, they may have succeeded in cutting off his head while chanting “Allahu Akbar”" [5]. Can we get this confirmed or refuted? Jason from nyc (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi jason from nyc, i'm pretty sure the soldier was not beheaded, from both reading press reports over the last few days and seeing images. There may have been an attempt to behead using weapons to hand, but his head was still attached to his bodyOxr033 (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Even if they attempted to "remove his head", the term "beheading" strongly implies that he was alive at the time. OED says cut off the head of (someone), especially as a form of execution: . As such, the term beheading is potentially misleading, and really is just another example of press abuse of language for shock value.... Prof Wrong (talk) 18:58, 28 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)
@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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
|
Article title
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Killing of Lee Rigby or is that too emotive and WP:POV? --wintonian talk 05:48, 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)
- 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 × 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
Requested move
2013 Woolwich attack → Death of Lee Rigby – This is in line with similar articles at this stage of events. ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I would like to submit that, alternatively, Islamist terrorism in Woolwich (2013) or some variation thereof, is the clearest and most accurate way of describing the incident. Quis separabit? 16:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support per nominator. Many articles about similar incidents have used this title format. While I prefer Murder of Lee Rigby, a format that is used in literally hundreds of articles about murders where there have been no convictions (see the discussion above for proof and context), I will be satisfied with this alternative unless/until a conviction is secured. Wikipedia always encourages specificity over vagueness, and "murder" is specific and "attack" is extremely vague. Per all mainstream reliable sources and the involved authorities, this is indeed a murder. And of course the article will not violate WP:BLP by claiming or even implying that anyone is guilty of the crime unless there's a conviction. However, I am perfectly willing to compromise with this proposed title, which is also more accurate and specific than the current title. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 08:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- No objection request is perfectly in line with current practice, AFAICT. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 08:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support, though I think Murder of Lee Rigby would be better. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 09:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Filelakeshoe, I totally agree with you, as I stated above. Would you be willing to start a move request for it? I think it would much more productive to have both of these move requests taking place concurrently, to save time. I do like Death of Lee Rigby as a second choice option, but feel that Murder of Lee Rigby is best, more appropriate, has precedence, and in no way violates BLP policy. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 10:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- So "Murder of Lee Rigby is best", we have two named men who explain on video why they killed him, and we have no other suspects. But we can't actually say that they murdered Rigby, because that breaches BLP? Hmm, interesting. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, the two guys were clearly off their heads. It's perfectly possible that the charge willget reduced to manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility. We cannot prejudge the outcome of legal and medical investigation. Prof Wrong (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- So "Murder of Lee Rigby is best", we have two named men who explain on video why they killed him, and we have no other suspects. But we can't actually say that they murdered Rigby, because that breaches BLP? Hmm, interesting. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Filelakeshoe, I totally agree with you, as I stated above. Would you be willing to start a move request for it? I think it would much more productive to have both of these move requests taking place concurrently, to save time. I do like Death of Lee Rigby as a second choice option, but feel that Murder of Lee Rigby is best, more appropriate, has precedence, and in no way violates BLP policy. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 10:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, that's a perfectly reasonable suggestion. And I quite agree. Except that what is "clear" to wikipedia editors is not always acceptable. We have no WP:RS of their being "off their heads." I think there is a large disconnect between the use of the word "murder" as in "has been legally convicted of murder" and what any sane person, looking at the available evidence from the media, would immediately describe as "murder". Of course, the outcome of legal procedings is sometimes wrong. And many people, even after they have been fully identifed, commit murders and escape justice. This does not make them innocent of murder. It just means they have not been legally convicted. Wikipedia still has to be guided by due legal process, of course, even if it is flawed, and however long it takes to complete. But by the same token, where there is little or no doubt as to the identities of the killers, how can an article title which uses the simple phrase "Murder of" be justified? The two killers here may never reach trial. But if they do survive their intervening custody, until they are convicted, we'd have to use the politically correct "Suspected muder of" or "Alledged murder of" - both painfully clumsy in my view. In the real world, I'd argue there are few reliable sources saying "These men murdered Lee Rigby" only because reporters don't want to state the obvious, not because they have ethical misgivings or fear legal censure. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- We have no WP:RS, so we don't write in the article that they were off their heads. And whether it's clear or not is actually not relevant, because we similarly have no WP:RS saying the contrary -- no published report has confirmed their sanity.
- Now, you may argue that everybody would call this a murder, and you may be right, but that is a prejudicial view, because it implies so much in terms of intent and responsibility, even if it doesn't directly reflect the definition in legal codes. Murder means intentional, volitional and responsible. Intent and volition have been openly admitted by the "suspects", but responsibility remains in question.
- And as for the journalists, I think you're wrong. Can you imagine the almighty sh*t-storm that would be unleashed on any newspaper published such a statement if these guys were to walk on a technicality? You think Operation Weeting and the Home Affairs committee gave the press a bad time? This would be a trillion times worse. Prof Wrong (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, good job we're not a newspaper, eh, pandering to the latest whims of Fleet Street? And yes, I'm sure Operation Weeting got a lot of journalists really worried. That roadside justification was good enough to convince me all off three pre-requesites, I'm afraid. But then I'm not a lawyer. Perhaps they'll refuse legal aid. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose The act was an attack on the British people purposefully undertaken to invoke dread & fear. Jason from nyc (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Whether that's true or not, your comment violates NPOV. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree. NPOV refers to reliance on sources instead of original research. There are no sources that say the perpetrators knew the victim personally. All the sources make it clear that the attack was against a stranger because of his position in the UK military. In addition, many of the sources say it was a terror attack. It is clearly NPOV to point out that the nature of the attack was against the UK, was to instill fear and terror, and (when sources support a motivation) that it involved religious and political motivations. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I figured you would. :p --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree. NPOV refers to reliance on sources instead of original research. There are no sources that say the perpetrators knew the victim personally. All the sources make it clear that the attack was against a stranger because of his position in the UK military. In addition, many of the sources say it was a terror attack. It is clearly NPOV to point out that the nature of the attack was against the UK, was to instill fear and terror, and (when sources support a motivation) that it involved religious and political motivations. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, the act was an attack on a British person purposefully undertaken to invoke dread & fear in other British people.
- To describe is as an attack "on the British people" only serves to invoke the dread and fear the attackers hope for. NPOV means not doing the terrorists' job for them, surely...? Prof Wrong (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Whether that's true or not, your comment violates NPOV. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
CommentNo objection I only raise this as a point to think on - I took a quick look at a random few "Death of X" articles and in those articles the person targeted was pre-meditated and often notable in their own right. In this case the facts seem to be that although the attack was premeditated, the specific person targeted wasn't. Would the page rename help people locate the article if they wished to read about it? News media commonly still refers to it as the Woolwich attacks (or some flavour of). No objection from me regardless, just some thoughts. CaptRik (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- CaptRik, I appreciate your well-intended comments, but if you are referring to all the "Death of (name)" articles to which I alluded earlier, there were no convictions in any of those cases (as with this one) and the alleged motives or circumstances of all these murders really have no relevance. While your points may or may not be true, they violate WP:NPOV. And of course it's impossible to make blanket determinations about hundreds of murder articles, much less after taking "a quick look at a random few "Death of X" articles", as you indicated you did. I used the following as UK examples: Murder of Penny Bell, Murder of Kelso Cochrane, Murder of Linda Cook, Murder of Melanie Hall, Murder of Billie-Jo Jenkins, Murder of Martine Vik Magnussen, Murder of Robert McCartney, Murder of Lindsay Jo Rimer, Murder of George Harry Storrs, and Murder of Jean Townsend. And I used these US examples: Murder of JonBenét Ramsey, Murder of Andre Marshall, Murder of Jaclyn Dowaliby, Murder of Jill-Lyn Euto, and Murder of Suzanne Jovin. There are hundreds more for many different countries. Finally, it really doesn't matter at all if the rename will make it easier for people to locate the article because an article's title is not intended for that purpose. That's what redirects are for. By the way, if you have no objection, as you stated, would you mind changing your opening from "Comment" to "No objection", as an editor above you did? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 11:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for a well reasoned reply. I appreciate I didn't look thoroughly enough at similar articles and also after taking a look through the WP naming policies I have no objection to this article being renamed. Thanks CaptRik (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- You're cherry picking, 76.189.109.155. Many terrorist attacks are merely mentioned in the person's biography (Paul Marshall Johnson, Jr., Nick Berg, Ali Akbar Tabatabaei, Alan Berg). If more than one person was killed it most certainly needs a named-article (1993 shootings at CIA Headquarters, 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing, Centennial Olympic Park bombing). The interesting exception is Achille Lauro hijacking where only Leon Klinghoffer was killed. Sometimes the murder has broken away from the bio as in Death of John Lennon which supplements John Lennon. Interestingly enough the death of Malcolm X isn't broken out thus making the article way too long. The naming practice seems to be led by the material but not always. Since the bulk of the material in this article is about the attackers and the public response, it shouldn't be a "bio". But while there is only one victim, we have the option of using a name-event or a "Death of X" format. Unlike Lennon and Malcolm X, this wasn't a personal attack against a known victim. I suggest we stay with the current format as it is a political/religious event and most of the commentary in our article supports that. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Citing 15 articles most certainly is not cherry picking. And there are hundreds more. And if a topic is notable, then it qualifies for having its own article. So if a person killed in a terrorist attack is notable and has an article, then of course it will be mentioned in that article. So I'm not sure what the point of this comment is: "Many terrorist attacks are merely mentioned in the person's biography". Are you saying that this incident should not have its own article? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- CaptRik, you're very welcome. Thanks for the update. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Citing 15 articles most certainly is not cherry picking. And there are hundreds more. And if a topic is notable, then it qualifies for having its own article. So if a person killed in a terrorist attack is notable and has an article, then of course it will be mentioned in that article. So I'm not sure what the point of this comment is: "Many terrorist attacks are merely mentioned in the person's biography". Are you saying that this incident should not have its own article? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- You're cherry picking, 76.189.109.155. Many terrorist attacks are merely mentioned in the person's biography (Paul Marshall Johnson, Jr., Nick Berg, Ali Akbar Tabatabaei, Alan Berg). If more than one person was killed it most certainly needs a named-article (1993 shootings at CIA Headquarters, 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing, Centennial Olympic Park bombing). The interesting exception is Achille Lauro hijacking where only Leon Klinghoffer was killed. Sometimes the murder has broken away from the bio as in Death of John Lennon which supplements John Lennon. Interestingly enough the death of Malcolm X isn't broken out thus making the article way too long. The naming practice seems to be led by the material but not always. Since the bulk of the material in this article is about the attackers and the public response, it shouldn't be a "bio". But while there is only one victim, we have the option of using a name-event or a "Death of X" format. Unlike Lennon and Malcolm X, this wasn't a personal attack against a known victim. I suggest we stay with the current format as it is a political/religious event and most of the commentary in our article supports that. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for a well reasoned reply. I appreciate I didn't look thoroughly enough at similar articles and also after taking a look through the WP naming policies I have no objection to this article being renamed. Thanks CaptRik (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- CaptRik, I appreciate your well-intended comments, but if you are referring to all the "Death of (name)" articles to which I alluded earlier, there were no convictions in any of those cases (as with this one) and the alleged motives or circumstances of all these murders really have no relevance. While your points may or may not be true, they violate WP:NPOV. And of course it's impossible to make blanket determinations about hundreds of murder articles, much less after taking "a quick look at a random few "Death of X" articles", as you indicated you did. I used the following as UK examples: Murder of Penny Bell, Murder of Kelso Cochrane, Murder of Linda Cook, Murder of Melanie Hall, Murder of Billie-Jo Jenkins, Murder of Martine Vik Magnussen, Murder of Robert McCartney, Murder of Lindsay Jo Rimer, Murder of George Harry Storrs, and Murder of Jean Townsend. And I used these US examples: Murder of JonBenét Ramsey, Murder of Andre Marshall, Murder of Jaclyn Dowaliby, Murder of Jill-Lyn Euto, and Murder of Suzanne Jovin. There are hundreds more for many different countries. Finally, it really doesn't matter at all if the rename will make it easier for people to locate the article because an article's title is not intended for that purpose. That's what redirects are for. By the way, if you have no objection, as you stated, would you mind changing your opening from "Comment" to "No objection", as an editor above you did? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 11:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support since it was my idea in the first place. Angr (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Haha. Very valid point, Angr. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support since we now know know the victim's identity. For reasons of sub judice we should move to 'Death' rather than 'Murder' as there will be an ongoing investigation and legal proceedings. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support but would prefer Murder of Lee Rigby since to suggest it was anything but murder is facetious pedantry. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose This isn't about Lee Rigby. He wasn't targeted for who he was; he was just an anonymous soldier. We should name the article after the common search terms so that people can find it easily. What people are looking for: London + machette + attack. I'd favor London machette attack. Woolwich is part of greater London. We don't need 2013 because this is the only notable machette attack in London. Jehochman Talk 13:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Of course it's about Lee Rigby - you know, the guy who got murdered. "Machete" is debatable, as it's currently not clear if one was actually used, as opposed to the initial report simply using it as a synonym for a large knife/cleaver. Also, if you think this is "the only notable machette attack in London" then you obviously haven't heard of PC Keith Blakelock, which isn't the only machete murder there's been in London, anyway. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. A random soldier was killed. His identity is not a defining feature of the article. WWGB (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- He is the victim in one of the most globally-covered events in the world. Therefore, he's no longer random. Most crime victims who become internationally known were random before the incident. But your comment, "His identity is not a defining feature of the article", is very interesting and one that should be seriously considered. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Upon re-reading the article, it does in fact present Rigby as the "defining feature of the article". Read the lead, which is intended to summarize the most important points of the article. Whether the way the article is being presented is appropriate or not would need to be discussed. But I supposed we'll see how the editing evolves. In any case, thanks for bringing up such a valuable point to consider. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- He is the victim in one of the most globally-covered events in the world. Therefore, he's no longer random. Most crime victims who become internationally known were random before the incident. But your comment, "His identity is not a defining feature of the article", is very interesting and one that should be seriously considered. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Woolwich attack is clearly the WP:COMMONAME for this incident. In addition, any reader who wouldn't recognise '2013 Woolwich attack' as referring to this incident, is clearly not going to know that 'Death/Murder of Lee Rigby' refers to it either, so it offers no advantage on that score. Quite the opposite infact - to the uninitiated, 'Death/Murder of Lee Rigby' could refer to any number of incidents/motives/places, whereas most reasonable people would assume '2013 Woolwich attack' refers to some kind of attack in a place called Woolwich that occurred in 2013, which is good enough as a starting point. I don't recognise any of the other articles listed above as being about this sort of incident, so it's hard to put any weight on that argument at all. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Some great points, Gruesome. In fact, you've convinced me to seriously reconsider my !vote. But let me ask you this: Why not 2013 Woolwich murder instead of the more vague 2013 Woolwich attack? Why "attack" over "murder". We know that Wikipedia always prefers specificity over vagueness. (All of the mainstream reliable sources and the involved authorities say it's a murder.) I wish, though, that you would look at some of the other articles I mentioned above. I'd like to hear your views after browsing a bunch of them. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- To me, the title chosen should be the one most recognisable in a Google search. While Woolwich murder and Woolwich attack are both currently common in sources, I don't see how 'murder' helps anyone not familiar with the incident to recognise it. There were 99 murders in London last year, some of which either deserve or already have Wikipedia articles I would have thought. I doubt there's any that are about attacks in Woolwich in 2013. Bearing in mind that on Wikipedia, calling something an attack in a non-warzone in these times, basically means terrorism, and more often than not, will involve murder. To illustrate that - London attack is already a redirect to List of terrorist incidents in London which obviously has a link to this article, whereas London murder goes nowhere, and gives all sorts of random articles in the search results, none of which appear to be of any use to someone looking for this article. Similarly, Woolwich attack already redirects here, whereas Woolwich murder goes nowhere (although I'd have no objection to it coming here). Gruesome Foursome (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Some great points, Gruesome. In fact, you've convinced me to seriously reconsider my !vote. But let me ask you this: Why not 2013 Woolwich murder instead of the more vague 2013 Woolwich attack? Why "attack" over "murder". We know that Wikipedia always prefers specificity over vagueness. (All of the mainstream reliable sources and the involved authorities say it's a murder.) I wish, though, that you would look at some of the other articles I mentioned above. I'd like to hear your views after browsing a bunch of them. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support move (keeping the current name as a redirect). 'Death of Lee Rigby' is more precise, and seems to me more encyclopaedic; I know we're not supposed to speculate, but I expect that the media will tend to refer to this event by Rigby's name rather than by the lication it occurred (compare, for instance, Murder of Yvonne Fletcher). 'Murder of Lee Rigby' might be better still, but we should avoid that title until there's been a conviction. Robofish (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support Whilst I do much prefer Murder of Lee Rigby moveing to Death of Lee Rigby is a good second choice. as for this not being about a named individual I offer Murder of Yvonne Fletcher as an example of another murder/ death where the victim was an anonymous WPC to the attacker. I do agree (as I have made clear above) that there is an argument for retaining 2013 Woolwich attack per WP:COMMONNAME but it is ambiguous and could mean anything from the cause of a nuclear winter to some passer by stealing WiFi passwords. --wintonian talk 18:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support The who and what details are more significant than the when and where. But we seem to disagree on the what. Guardian and Reuters used murder. BBC, Telegraph, and Los Angeles Times used attack. New York Times and Huffington Post used killing. New York Post used slay. How are we supposed to come to a consensus? I prefer killing of rather than death of, but anything is better than the current title. --beefyt (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- "Slaying of Georges dragon" - now there's a trend I hope doesn't catch on over here. --84.92.56.128 (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support, though I'd prefer Murder of. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I am probably going to get shot down in flames by some pepole for saying this but... There are 4? pepole (inc. me) who it would seem have a preference for "Murder of Lee Rigby, so is it going to be worth it to hold a second round of discussion after the conclusion of this round? i.e. "should the article be moved to the winner of round 1 or Murder of Lee Rigby?". Either way I think there is a very strong case for moving it post trial judgement (assuming there is a trail that is concluded) if there is a conviction. --wintonian talk 03:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'd suggest leaving it for a few weeks, until things have settled down. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Wintonian, I've noticed and said the same thing. There are actually five editors in this discussion, so far, that prefer Murder of Lee Rigby: ilelakeshoe, Nick Cooper, Wintonian, Exploding Boy and 76.189.109.155 (me). That's 1/3 of those who have !voted. They all say that this proposed name is fine but that they'd prefer Murder of Lee Rigby. There's absolutely no reason that there cannot be multiple move requests happening at the same time. In fact, that's the best way to do it, for convenience and to save time. After all, if only one were done at a time, someone could request a lousy idea and we'd all have to wait potentially weeks before starting another request. Further, if this one gets approved and implemented, then the chances of another move request being approved right after that will be slim. And, as has been shown, there are literally hundreds of articles with the "Murder of (name)" format for cases where there have been no convictions, so there's clearly precedent for it and no violations of BLP. Even admins have said that. So, yes, it most certainly would be allowed and appropriate to begin a move request for that and therefore have two proposals being discussed at the same time. I've seen articles where there have been five or six move request proposals happening at one time. Actually, the best way to have done this would have been to have one discussion where there are multiple choices, and then each editor !votes for their preferred choice: A, B, C, etc. But multiple, concurrent move request proposals is totally fine. So if someone wants propose Murder of Lee Rigby, so that no time is wasted, do it. For the record, this is proposal is my second choice. It's good as an alternative. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I have created Death of Lee Rigby as a redirect for the moment, since Murder of Lee Rigby was already a redirect. This is not to prejudice this discussion, but is simply an interim measure while the discussion is yet to conclude so that readers find it easier to navigate to the article. It Is Me Here t / c 13:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, IIMH. Great idea. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. The individual who died in this incident was not targeted, or notable, in his own right; he appears to have been attacked because he was identified as a member of the British armed forces. The attack happened in Woolwich, in 2013, and the current title is sufficient. Brocach (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support Article was created before we knew his name, avoid "murder" as matter is sub jucide. PatGallacher (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. At bare minimum it should be "killing of". A person can be killed without anyone committing a crime. "Death of" is stupid. Sounds like "death by natural causes. And "death of a salesman". Nobody dispute that he was killed. 193.120.22.171 (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment no. It is a killing. Call it that. Not all killings are murder. So lets not be stupid and group it with death by natural causes. And death of a salesman. 193.120.22.171 (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support move to Killing of Lee Rigby. Per BLP we can't call it a murder unless someone has been convicted, and "Death of Lee Rigby" is too vague. AniMate 02:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Your support of another option would mean you're really an oppose. :p We need some alternate move requests. Or we should have had one discussion with mulitple options to choose from. And there are hundredss of "Murder of..." articles where there has been no conviction. Read up, which includes a list of the UK ones. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- So why are you asking me to redact my use of the word murder? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- No one asked that you redact the word murder. You were asked, per BLP policy, not to state as fact that someone specific is guilty of murder, prior to a conviction. There's a huge difference between the two. In any case, this matter has been settled at BLP/N and AN/I and your statements have been removed by the closing admin. So time to move on. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- So why are you asking me to redact my use of the word murder? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Your support of another option would mean you're really an oppose. :p We need some alternate move requests. Or we should have had one discussion with mulitple options to choose from. And there are hundredss of "Murder of..." articles where there has been no conviction. Read up, which includes a list of the UK ones. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- We could include Suspected murder of Lee Rigby as a compromise for those arguing 'Sub judice' :p - well if other pepole are happy for me to throw in ac ouple more move templates then I will later, but I don't want to do just be because I wan't to and 1 other editor is encouraging me to? Besides I'm a little hesitant as it start looking messy and disorganised. --wintonian talk 04:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- The dust doesn't seem to have settled yet. Why the rush to get it "exactly" right? There is no deadline. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- We could include Suspected murder of Lee Rigby as a compromise for those arguing 'Sub judice' :p - well if other pepole are happy for me to throw in ac ouple more move templates then I will later, but I don't want to do just be because I wan't to and 1 other editor is encouraging me to? Besides I'm a little hesitant as it start looking messy and disorganised. --wintonian talk 04:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support moving to either Death of Lee Rigby or Killing of Lee Rigby, with a slight preference for the latter. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support Death of Lee Rigby, closer to what the press are currently using. Opposed to murder of Lee Rigby. Also death of Lee Rigby it is easier to include some of the other related events, other arrests, anti-muslim reaction, and the supposed copy-cat attack in Paris.Martin451 (talk) 07:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Question. Hi Martin, for what reason(s) do you not favour use of "murder of Lee Rigby"? Do you see it as a violation of WP:BLP policy? "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured" - so we have to remove rather a lot from this article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- I feel that "Death" is more neutral. I would prefer "murder" not used unless there is a conviction. It is indisputable that Lee is dead, but not indisputable that he was murdered until a criminal trial or inquest has ruled it was murder. In reply to you comment to the IP above, we cannot say a specific person committed a crime until that has been decided in a law court, even if they admit it live on TV, they are still innocent in the eyes of the law, and neutral reporting. We owe it both to the suspects, and Lee to give the suspects a fair trial. There is nothing worse than court cases getting thrown out because of press reporting, which has happened in the past, and here wikipedia could count as press.Martin451 (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. Do you really think it will ever be possible to find 12 jurors who are wholly unaware of this case? I'm not sure that Mr Obama has many doubts that Lee Rigby was murdered. Nor who murdered him. But then, he doesn't edit wikipedia, does he? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC) p.s. I think it's possible that other "media outlets" are slightly more culpable than wikipedia in the blaming of the two individuals we have all seen on our TV screens and on YouTube?
- Yes it will be difficult to find a neutral jury, but wikipedia should not be attempting to influence the outcome of any future trials by making assumptions of guilt , wikipedia is WP:NPOV. Wikipedia even though it is based in the US could still be held in contempt, and so could its editors. You may have no doubts as to the innocence or guilt of the suspects, but I am reminded of the recent Boston Bombings article where some editors were trying to push for people to be name who have since been exonerated.Martin451 (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- While I think this is a more clear cut case than the Boston Bombings, it seem the police are still investigating the possibility of conspiracy or other joint action. But of course I can't say that, even though it may have been blazened across countess TV channels and newpapers - this is Wikipedia where reliability counts for more than "truth". Especially if there's a court case pending. My wiki-blinkers must have fallen off. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Regardless of what the papers say, the argument against "murder" is valid. If it were later to be revealed that the attackers were both suffering acute paranoid mental disorders, the charge could well be reduced to manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility -- or even dropped entirely. To describe the crime as "murder" presupposes that the perpetrators as "murderers", and therefore is legally shaky. Prof Wrong (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- As I have suggested above, I think there is a disconect between the popular and legal uses of the word murder. It appears that the gap between the two meanings, at least in the UK, is progressively growing wider. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes it will be difficult to find a neutral jury, but wikipedia should not be attempting to influence the outcome of any future trials by making assumptions of guilt , wikipedia is WP:NPOV. Wikipedia even though it is based in the US could still be held in contempt, and so could its editors. You may have no doubts as to the innocence or guilt of the suspects, but I am reminded of the recent Boston Bombings article where some editors were trying to push for people to be name who have since been exonerated.Martin451 (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. Do you really think it will ever be possible to find 12 jurors who are wholly unaware of this case? I'm not sure that Mr Obama has many doubts that Lee Rigby was murdered. Nor who murdered him. But then, he doesn't edit wikipedia, does he? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC) p.s. I think it's possible that other "media outlets" are slightly more culpable than wikipedia in the blaming of the two individuals we have all seen on our TV screens and on YouTube?
- I feel that "Death" is more neutral. I would prefer "murder" not used unless there is a conviction. It is indisputable that Lee is dead, but not indisputable that he was murdered until a criminal trial or inquest has ruled it was murder. In reply to you comment to the IP above, we cannot say a specific person committed a crime until that has been decided in a law court, even if they admit it live on TV, they are still innocent in the eyes of the law, and neutral reporting. We owe it both to the suspects, and Lee to give the suspects a fair trial. There is nothing worse than court cases getting thrown out because of press reporting, which has happened in the past, and here wikipedia could count as press.Martin451 (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Question. Hi Martin, for what reason(s) do you not favour use of "murder of Lee Rigby"? Do you see it as a violation of WP:BLP policy? "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured" - so we have to remove rather a lot from this article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. This strikes me as going against policy, namely WP:COMMONNAME. Google news search for "woolwich attack" returns ~75,000 results [10], while "Death of lee rigby" returns less than 1,000 [11]. Even when adjusting for only recent articles (past 24 hours), the results for "woolwich attack" are more than 250 times more common (1600[12] vs 6[13]). Mohamed CJ (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Then it's a good job Google Search results have no bearing on policy then. Those results (even just in 24 hours) are still inflated by other attacks (rapes, fights, attacks, muggings) in Woolwich (and the history of Woolwich) and the 75,000 are not in any way reflective of how common this combination of words is. You also narrowed the Lee Rigby scope by searching for "Death of lee rigby", instead of just "Lee Rigby" (what about murder of Lee, Lee was killed, etc). That's deceptive to then present it as evidence. Exactly why Google Search results shouldn't shape policy or impact on decisions except in exceptional circumstances. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 11:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support move to Murder of Lee Rigby, although "Death of" would be an improvement on the current title. It's too vague given that there is a single, identified, victim. Captain Seafort (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Brocach, He was killed randomly, not targeted. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose As everyone else has stated. The motives and the perpetrators have more relevance. The only thing notable of the victim is that he was a soldier. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support move to "murder". I don't understand the objections based on the notion that the victim "wasn't targeted". In what sense wasn't he targeted? If he could comment, I'm pretty sure he would say he felt targeted. It was an attack on an individual, not a district of London. Formerip (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- As distastful as this line of thought is, he'd also probably be intelligent enough to know that someone staking out Woolwich barracks probably weren't waiting for him specifically to emerge. Your last line is irrelevant anyway, as clearly the context here is meant to be an attack in Woolwich, not on Woolwich. Although arguably waiting outside Woolwich barracks to kill a random soldier is indeed an attack on the district of Woolwich (with the choice of barracks being as random as the choice of individual). Gruesome Foursome (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I do hope you don't get taken to ANI for suggesting that the two individuals named in the article were responsible for the murder. Who would ever deduce such a thing, even if not directly told? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- As has been clearly explained to you several times Martinevans, there is a major difference between (1) saying there was a murder and (2) claiming as fact that specific individuals are guilty of that murder before they have been convicted. FormerIP did not do the latter, which you falsely implied, as you did and for which you were reverted by an administrator, who explained to you that it was a BLP violation. All of us are well aware of the massive global coverage of this story, but our jobs are to edit an encylopedia, not a newspaper, and to protect its integrity by adhering to BLP policy. Everyone fully understands where you stand on this matter, so I suggest you drop the proverbial stick to which so many editors like to allude. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- The article name should be changed to: 2013 Islamist murder in Woolwich. Quis separabit? 00:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Would you support the move of the article 2011 Norway attacks to 2011 White supremacist masculinist mass murder in Norway, too...? Prof Wrong (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- No to Islamist, it is just too wrong.Martin451 (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- That is neither more nor less than political correctness, the power of which in Britain is one of the main reasons for the UK's sorry state. Quis separabit? 00:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if Quis is being facetious or not, but of course an Islamist was not murdered (as the suggested title actually implies), nor of course can we refer to someone's religion in an article title like this. But I really like Martin451's simplicty in saying "it is just too wrong" for so many reasons. ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I am sure you do like Martin451's simplicty. Perhaps I should have worded it thusly: Islamist terrorism in Woolwich (2013). Quis separabit? 02:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose move...unless its to "2013 Woolwich terrorist attack".--MONGO 01:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. The soldier's identity is not a defining feature of the article. - Joxemai (talk) 08:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think it was quite a defining feature for him and his family. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Stop this right now. You have crossed a line here. It is one thing to discuss what best fits as an article title, it's quite another to be claiming that if you prefer one version over another you're disrespecting the victim or his family. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I am suggesting that a very salient feature of this incident is the identity of the victim, and that includes his name. That's quite regardless of my personal reaction to the grief of his family. I am making no suggestion that User:Joxemai IS disrespecting anyone. I'm pretty sure he or she is not. Apologies, Joxemai, if that is how you interpreted my comment. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Stop this right now. You have crossed a line here. It is one thing to discuss what best fits as an article title, it's quite another to be claiming that if you prefer one version over another you're disrespecting the victim or his family. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think it was quite a defining feature for him and his family. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support. "Attack" is not only vague, but it's also not very neutral. "Attack" carries possible connotations of scale, and is heavily coloured by its frequent collocation with the word "terrorist". Until and unless the suspects are found to be part of an organised group, I am very uncomfortable by the pre-judgement presented by the word "attack". Prof Wrong (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support, through I'd prefer the "Murder of" variant. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Although I support a move to "death of..." we do have articles titled along the current format. One I've found today is Eastbourne manslaughter, which is a Featured Article, so if we do decide to stay with the Woolwich attack as a title then there seems to be no problem with that. The media are calling it the Woolwich murder, so maybe that's the title we should use once any legal proceedings are concluded. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Two years on, if someone in Taiwan or Australia wants to talk or search about this incident, I guess they will use "Woolwich attack" and most of them will fail to recall the soldier's name. I think the current title is more recognizable at present, and will remain so in future. Cheers.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Woolwich Attack is vague, even with 2013 added. Lee Rigby was not notable until this event so call it Murder of Lee Rigby or Death of Lee Rigby. Someone else pointed out that we can't call this "Murder of Lee Rigby" because the killers haven't been convicted yet. That seems a bit odd to me since Lee was clearly not killed by accident, nor did he commit suicide. He was clearly murdered, whether these guys knew what they were doing or not. Taking a life is a murder by definition isn't it? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 12:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Support but would prefer "Murder of Lee Rigby". It's not Wikipedia but sites like ODMP.org memorialize the victim/heroes and never mention the murderer. You will never find a perpetrators name there. While Wikipedia should cover the topic more fully and neutrally, it's quite clear Mr. Rigby was murdered and this simple title keeps the focus on the loss of the victim and the search/arrest/conviction of his killers. Glorifying the act into something sensational is more than what can be supported and arguably it should never be sensationalized. It was a senseless murder and unless something comes out and changes that, it should be written that way. --98.165.103.145 (talk) 08:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 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'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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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.
- Clarification:
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)
- 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: [14][15][[16] 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)
- 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
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 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)
- That may well be true, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for removal.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:39, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 ([17]). 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Thanks, that's indeed helpful. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:51, 29 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)
- 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)
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 ([18]), 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)
- 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)
- It is clear that some disagree ([18]), 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)
Links to consider
The Kenya arrsts + ]\[19](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: [20]. 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)
- Perhaps because "film a video" is common parlance and is used almost as frequently as "take a video". Martinevans123 (talk)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Transcripts
It is beyond my comprehension that every transcript I have read (except the one first quoted) is inaccurate. Every transcript tidies up the language to make it grammatically correct.
- The speaker says "a eye" not "an eye"
- He says "Blessing upon Muhammad" exactly as you would expect him to do, as a Muslim. It must have been some stupid ignorant Christian who transcribed it as "Blessing upon you" (which is what a Christian might well say).
Is Wikipedia really locked into using an inaccurate transcript, simply because the source is generally considered "reliable"? Amandajm (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have no real issue if the transcript ties to the source. The Durie blog is probably not ideal per strict interpretation of WP:BLOGS, but he's someone of note and the transcript seems more accurate (I agree with you there). -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 09:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think we ought to go with accuracy. Having just written to the BBC, we may get a transcription there, just to get the record accurate. I hope so. Amandajm (talk) 10:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- I actually prefer verifiability per RS as in here. Apart from exhaustivity, there's no reason to publish his entire rant. None of the main news bulletins and very few printed journals did that. The grammatical failure (to use the indefinite article) is but a small detail that we could probably lose with some of the quote farm anyway. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 13:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Amandajm, perhaps you would like to withdraw the offensive phrase "some stupid ignorant Christian"? Nick Cooper (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Is this just one "stupid ignorant Christian" doing all the translations, or is it a whole series of them? Or are those descriptors intended to be seen as self-evident and thus redundant? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Either way, it's still offensive, unnecessary, and pure supposition on Amandajm's part, not least because "blessing upon you" is not necessarily something "a Christian might well say" at all. Nick Cooper (talk) 06:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Is this just one "stupid ignorant Christian" doing all the translations, or is it a whole series of them? Or are those descriptors intended to be seen as self-evident and thus redundant? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
It is very rare for a killer's justification to be recorded and circulated so widely in the public domain. It is therefore imperative that the transcript be complete, correct and unedited. He mostly said "a eye" rather than "an eye", so that is the way we must report it. WWGB (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- WE have internet journalism and social media to thank for that. But that doesn't make it any more "historic" and worth keeping intact. Most news organisations saw fit to edit it or take quotes from it. Let's face it, it was a rant. My edit didn't remove anything of substance, except for a direct reference to the Quran, which we can reinsert or refer to in some way. What's so important about his repeating 'a eye for a eye'? It's already established that he is Muslim, cites from the Quran, can't use the indefinite article properly with vowels, and has a confused identity (note the inconsistent use of 'we' and 'you' throughout his rant). I maintain the deletion should stick. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, it may have been widely circulated, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's in the public domain. Even my edited version probably already quotes more than it should if copyright applies. IF we all agree that we MUST use the quote in full, the exact copyright status needs to be established. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
The current source for the transcript is Mark Durie's blog. I don't see any reason why Durie or a blog is a reliable source. Bits and pieces of the transcript are found in reliable sources, and we should use those. If the entire transcript can't be found in any reliable source, then you gotta ask yourself "is the whole transcript of any notability?" Also we care about verifiability more than the truth here.VR talk 16:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Um, now that the citations have been replaced, we're back to the 'old' problem that the rant we cite is inconsistent with the sources (it has been 'cleaned-up' for his grammatical mistakes etc.). I think it ought to be 100% tied to the sources, however wrong the sources are. I just can't understand the insistence on letter-for-letter accuracy in the quoted transcript. Not one of the sources draws attention to same or makes any analysis thereof. Ho hum...
Also, I'd like for someone to tell me why African Spotlight is a reliable source. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- We now have two sources giving two different versions for the transcript: Guardian and African Spotlight. (CNN gives a much smaller version). Personally I prefer Guardian cause it has a more established reputation for accuracy. But the current wording is not found in either of those articles. We need to change that. If we put it in quote, then we gotta say it without modification.VR talk 02:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've changed it to the African Spotlight version, but I still prefer the Guardian one.VR talk 02:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Does the "reliability" of African Spotlight need establishing for you? I have no idea where it stands. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have reverted the truncated (and incorrect) transcript while this matter is discussed. There is currently no consensus to depart from the complete (and correct) transcript. WWGB (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- IMHO there is nothing substantially wrong in the African Spotlight transcript. All of the sources cited have a few glitches, but there is no real doubt about the basic words used.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)at the risk of banging on the drum again, Vice regent at least seems to understand the basis of my concerns. VR understands the importance that WP:V takes over pure accuracy. We already had this discussion when arguing the "T-shirt vs Hoodie" issue but my counterpart (was it you?) didn't see it. WP is, after all, a tertiary source which relies mostly on secondary sources. Now, as has been pointed out by others (not just me), most secondary sources of repute have not published the entire speech for any number of reasons, that sends a clear signal that not the entire speech is notable. In addition, your collective obsession with preserving the entire rant, as well as the error ("a eye for a eye") seems to me to be in the way of executing our proper responsibility of faithfully and verifiably reporting secondary sources. It's not what WP:IAR is about. The grammatical mistake is an utterly trivial matter, and I certainly don't agree that it merits invoking the nuclear bomb. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 06:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Here is the text of the full rant in The Daily Telegraph, which disproves the theory that no UK news source has published it in full. Like the other sources, it has a few glitches but is basically accurate.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, it is not accurate. It contains factually incorrect attributions such as "an eye for an eye" and "peace be upon you" which are just wrong. A transcript is not rocket science, you just have to l i s t e n. WWGB (talk) 11:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's called original research. I'm restoring the sourced version, and you are free to provide a different, but sourced version.VR talk 12:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- So IanMacM, let's use the Telegraph version (put into a single paragraph)?VR talk 12:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, it is not accurate. It contains factually incorrect attributions such as "an eye for an eye" and "peace be upon you" which are just wrong. A transcript is not rocket science, you just have to l i s t e n. WWGB (talk) 11:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- This is an instance when we need to go with the primary source: the video of the rant.
- Apart from the blog, none of the transcripts are accurate as they all appear to be copied form the same original and no-one has checked their accuracy.
- This Muslim man does not say "Peace be on you". He say "Peace be on Muhammad!", exactly as you would expect him to.
- Whoever transcribed his statement as "Peace be on you" was not really listening, and simply over-layed his real speech their own expectations of what a "religious" person might say.
- Amandajm (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- The Daily Telegraph transcript is passable, except for a key error at the end. He does not say "Allah’s peace and blessings be upon you.", he says "Allah's peace and blessings be upon Muhammad, as-salamu alaykum" as the actual video shows. It is necessary to invoke WP:IAR to avoid this error.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
EDL and HFH
Is this relevant: [21] "EDL leader Tommy Robinson started fundraising after the murder of soldier Lee Rigby in Woolwich on Wednesday. .. But a Help for Heroes spokesman said a fundraising web page set up by Mr Robinson would be closed, and no EDL donations would be accepted." Martinevans123 (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Tommy Robinson is not his birth name, but one of the names that he uses. It may be worth mentioning that Help for Heroes turned down his donation.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sick of all this stuff! I'm going to make more coffee and tweak my family tree for a bit instead! If that blooming image is still on the wrong side of the page, when I come back at 24.00 (Sydney Time) i'm going to throw my toys out of the pram. Amandajm (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- best edit summary I've seen in a while Martinevans123 (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sick of all this stuff! I'm going to make more coffee and tweak my family tree for a bit instead! If that blooming image is still on the wrong side of the page, when I come back at 24.00 (Sydney Time) i'm going to throw my toys out of the pram. Amandajm (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- In my opinion this has too minor relevance here to be worth mentioning. It might be worth mentioning in the article on the person and perhaps with the more general point on them not accepting political donations in the HFH article but those can be discussed in the relevant talk pages. Nil Einne (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
"Armed" police
The word "armed" continues to be returned after I've removed it as unnecessarily redundant. Is this a British thing? Are all police not armed in the UK? Joefromrandb (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not as a rule. The majority of British police do not carry weapons, and armed officers tend to belong to specialist units. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Only a few police routinely carry firearms. [22] Please do not edit articles on the basis of supposition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Being a grump is no excuse for being lazy; at least take a few seconds to look into my edits before accusing me of something. I initially removed the word "armed" from "armed police shot...", as it's fairly difficult for an unarmed person to shoot someone. When the sentence was rephrased and the word "armed" was returned, rather than "editing articles on the basis of supposition", I asked here, on the fucking talk page. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- "You asked "Are all police not armed in the UK?" That looks like a supposition to me. AndyTheGrump (talk)
- Indeed. But there's quite a difference between "editing articles on the basis of supposition" and asking for clarification of said supposition on the talk page. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- You appear to have edited first, and asked for clarification afterwards... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Then you need to reread. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- 'The word "armed" continues to be returned after I've removed it as unnecessarily redundant'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sigh. When I removed it as "unnecessarily redundant" it was in the phrase "armed police shot...". An unarmed person can not shoot someone. When it was rephrased and the word "armed" was returned, instead of "editing on the basis of supposition", I asked for clarification here. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- 'The word "armed" continues to be returned after I've removed it as unnecessarily redundant'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Then you need to reread. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- You appear to have edited first, and asked for clarification afterwards... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed. But there's quite a difference between "editing articles on the basis of supposition" and asking for clarification of said supposition on the talk page. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- "You asked "Are all police not armed in the UK?" That looks like a supposition to me. AndyTheGrump (talk)
- Being a grump is no excuse for being lazy; at least take a few seconds to look into my edits before accusing me of something. I initially removed the word "armed" from "armed police shot...", as it's fairly difficult for an unarmed person to shoot someone. When the sentence was rephrased and the word "armed" was returned, rather than "editing articles on the basis of supposition", I asked here, on the fucking talk page. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Only a few police routinely carry firearms. [22] Please do not edit articles on the basis of supposition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- We perhaps need to insert a note mentioning this somewhere, either in the text if appropriate and sourceable, or as a hidden comment. We must be one of the only nations whose police aren't routinely armed, so it must be confusing to anyone outside the UK reading the term. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be necessary to add hidden comments to articles on the basis that people will edit them according to supposition. As for a footnote in the article, I can possibly see merit in this, though it seems a little excessive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, both are probably not needed if people do a bit of research. I've just added a hidden comment before seeing your reply, but I've no objections if you want to remove it again. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Police in Ireland, New Zealand, Malta, and - in a sense - Norway are not routinely armed. We do have Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom, which explains the role of armed police, so maybe we could link to that. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Must admit I prefer that. Linking to it sounds like a better idea as anyone who wishes to know more can click on the article. I'll do it now. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Image placement problem
Before we see toys flying, I'd like to start a new discussion about the placement, and outline my thoughts and get others to outline theirs.
MOS:IMAGES says "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text... An image should generally be placed in the section of the article that is most relevant to the image. " (emphasis mine)
The real problem of the image is that the 'Victim' section is so short that the image overspills the section on all but the narrowest screens. The guideline seem to give us two options. I simply refuse to have the image on the left in the Victim section because of the disruption to heading in the following section. It just looks sloppy and unprofessional. Likewise, if we were to space the section to accommodate the image (by using {{clear}}), there would be too much "air" and would again look sloppy. Although I have no preference as to which section, I'd offer that the image is probably more "relevant" to the 'Victim' section than the 'Attack' section, and should probably reside there within the former, but I don't feel strongly about this, and the image can go in the 'Attack' section as far as I am concerned because it doesn't disrupt. The image must, for me, be aligned right if it is to stay in the Victim section. I don't see it as particularly problematic as the guideline suggests its 'eyes' criterion is optional. But if we further examine the image, we can see that Rigby's right shoulder is slightly pointing forwards. His face is straight (parallel to the camera film plane) and his eyes are looking straight at the camera. There is no looking left or right. That means placement on either side would comply with MOS:IMAGES. I'd say it was perfectly acceptable where it is now. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 13:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- So breaking the line is part of what is bothering you? I must admit that I usually avoid it. But in this instance, the image crammed below the box looks worse, to my eye anyway. Neither arrangement is ideal.
- Now you could let someone write a long biography and that would solve the problem.... well maybe not!
- I disagree with you, while at the same time acknowledging that breaking the line in that manner is not good. Check out this one! Mona Lisa replicas and reinterpretations!!
- Can't be bothered arguing! And I still can't find my great-grandfather...... I can find everybody else's but not mine.
- Amandajm (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with Oh. He is looking straight ahead. And given that, and the header-break if placed on the left, placement on the right is better. And it is more appropriate in the victim section. So where it is now seems appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Another possible solution would be to merge the 'Victim' section into the 'Attack' section. Shall I give it a try? -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 16:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Now that I've done the above, on a wider screen, the image interferes with the quote indentation. I will restore Victim section. Click on intermediate version in history to view. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 16:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- On that subject, I would suggest bringing the sections Suspects, Investigation, and Subsequent events up one level. --Epeefleche (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- The section about the victim should be longer. An article about the death of a person usually contains much more info about the person. It is missing important biographical info, including his date of birth. Jim Michael (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- None of the mainstream media news stories seems to have given his date of birth, saying only that he was 25.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- The section about the victim should be longer. An article about the death of a person usually contains much more info about the person. It is missing important biographical info, including his date of birth. Jim Michael (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- On that subject, I would suggest bringing the sections Suspects, Investigation, and Subsequent events up one level. --Epeefleche (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
York Mosque tea and biscuits
Was just debated by Vanessa Feltz on BBC Radio 2's Jeremy Vine Show:[23]. Professor Mohamed El-Gomati, who is an elder at the mosque, was featured. May be of marginal relevance, but is obviously part of the wider story. (Even The Sun shines down benevolently [24]) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Beheaded or not?
It seems unclear if he was actually beheaded (i.e head completely severed), or partially beheaded i.e they failed in their attempt to behead. The telegraph link says 'attempted to behead'. Personally I think it was a failed attempt, doing something like that with that cleaver tool he had is not easy.Oxr033 (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Even if they had succeeded in removing the head from his corpse, the term "beheading" strongly implies that the victim is still alive at the time, which I understand not to be the case here. Prof Wrong (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Just reflect the Reliable Sources. Avoid the temptation to engage in Original Research (wp:OR), enticing as it may be. If the RSs are in conflict, and it is not clear (without engaging in OR) which is correct, indicate "some sources say x, and some say y." If highly controversial, write: "some such as ... say x, whereas others such as ... say y."--Epeefleche (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- There have been cases where people have been beheaded after death. As it is unclear whether he was beheaded, and the cause of death after his post-mortem[25], we should be careful what we include, remember wp:there is no deadline.Martin451 (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes -- we should be careful; but we should carefully reflect what the RSs say. Not carefully delete it.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Following the sources is good, as always. I would actually have removed all mention of it outright if I wasn't aware of there being something ritualistic with beheading in Muslim culture. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't read Prof Wrong's comment about the implication that he was alive, and I changed it back to "behead" which is the usual term in English. "Take his head off" is clumsy. What they were seeking to achieve was a ritual beheading, whether the victim was alive or dead.
- Amandajm (talk) 06:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- "What the sources say" doesn't mean their exact words, though, does it? If so, WP would simply be a collection of quotes. Prof Wrong (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Now, you say it is "the usual term", but how often do you actually talk about people cutting the heads off of dead corpses? Personally, when I read the word, I immediately thought "execution". When I found out they'd hit him with a car and stabbed him already, I thought how horrible it must be to be lying helpless while someone does that to you. As pointed out above, it is not a matter of public record whether he was alive at that point or not. Clearly they were seeking to replicate a ritual beheading (as per the various hostage tapes several years ago), but we'd still need an RS to state that. I just think it's a really loaded word. Prof Wrong (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- If it is a word used commonly by RSs to describe the act in question here, I don't see a fair objection to its use. And use -- "take his head off is clumsy, IMHO, and unless it has greater traction in the RSs describing this act, I can't see cause to opt for that description. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
The entire rant
I am very strongly opposed to editing parts out of Michael Adebolajo's video rant.
It needs to be there in its entirety including:
- You people will never be safe. Remove your governments. They don't care about you. Do you think David Cameron is gonna get caught in the street when we start busting our guns? Do you think the politicians are going to die? No it's going to be the average guy, like you, and your children. So get rid of them.
This is a very strong threat of violence. Once these raves are removed, there might be some readers who would find our edited version of his speech to be reasonable. We need to include the whole lot or none of it.
- Agreed, since the speech is not lengthy, there is no obvious reason not to quote it in full, and it provides important context for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me)
- I think you guys are missing the point, or I'm having problems making myself clear. Anyway, I'm out-manned and out-gunned. The field is yours. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 07:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that people would ask why the David Cameron part had been removed. I was surprised to see this, as the edited version spoiled the flow of the speech and risked giving a misleading impression per WP:NOTCENSORED, as Amandajm said.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying about "recentism". However, the topic is an extremely touchy one with human lives at risk. (This is my main reason for buying into a news article, when I normally stick to the less contentious subject of art and architecture.) Although the vast majority of Muslims who have spoken out have made their opposition to his actions (as a way of achieving a political aim) very clear, there are others who, reading the editted version, might simply agree with his motives and imitate his methods. The more rational that his speech appears, the greater likelihood of this happening. Any MOS recommendations are essentially recommendations. Common sense needs to come to bear on this. Your edits are just fine, as long as your intention is to push the assassin's barrow for him! I don't believe that is the case. Amandajm (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Touchy subject indeed. It's attracting attention from editors who focus on Islamic terrorism. I have the following points:
- WP's role is not to soapbox or allow soapboxing. The assailant's rant in particular is an ultimate soapbox.
- WP:UNDUE: Nobody has broadcast the entire footage; most have broadcast excerpts. If others can do it, so can we. Sure that there will always be some who want to hear the entire speech – they can get that off the internet like all the other trash out there; WP is not a tabloid. Our reporting of the event needs to remain sober and encyclopaedic.
- WP:NPOV: only a Murdochian right-wing tabloid has the full transcript or the full video. we all know what types this rag appeals to.
- it may appear like an insane rant to the right-minded, but to those potential recruitees within the line of sight of radical clerics, it's a divine message from a prophet to be quoted and requoted and acted upon. To the racist element out there, this would create grounds for hating Muslims even stronger than the act created on its own. It's potentially an incitement for "both sides" to commit racial attacks. The EDL and BNP are already agitating; there's talk that the French attack may have been inspired by this one. That's why there are laws in many countries against incitement to hate crimes.
- I would reiterate that I am not proposing removing the rant in its entirety, just excerpting it to maybe two-thirds the word-count. Perhaps we can take coverage of the speech by, say, the Independent or AFP and quote that text. Yes, I would still remove the reference to David Cameron – it could easily have been Blair, or Bush or Merkel or Miliband. But it's important to keep the more general comment about "Remove your governments. They don't care about you." -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Althouth IANAL, simply quoting what someone said is unlikely to be incitement. Plenty of mainstream media sources quoted the David Cameron part of the speech. It would be getting into WP:NOTCENSORED territory to remove it because someone might be offended/radicalised after reading it. Also, the video of the full rant is now easily available on YouTube. I found it disturbing to watch, but it helps to understand the depths of fanaticism that motivated this attack.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- What trash there is on the internet is beyond our comprehension or control. What people say and whether it incites is defined in law, and only a court can decide. That does not mean we should apply WP:NOT#CENSORED to each and every piece of information as if it were worthy of inclusion. True that the speech may be "disturbing" to you and me, but it may be "inspiring" to budding jihadists; it may also be "infuriating" to ultra-nationalists. Many sources published various excerpts/extracts of it; no self-respecting part of the media has published it in full. I mean the only rag that published the whole thing is a right-wing "comic" read mainly by the nationalistic blue-collared, so we are already out of line with general news coverage and are being more tabloid than a tabloid in that respect. Applying the NOTCENSORED logic, you might argue/justify Michael Adebolajo's speech. But that is not what WP is for, and such an article will sink at AfD. Why don't we migrate it over to Wikisource or Wikiquote, refer to relevant parts and link to same. If they don't believe it fits within their scope, which is more specific than ours in matters of speeches and quotations, then neither should we tolerate verbatim citing of the whole fucking rant within these walls. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 06:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- The Sun is not everyone's favourite newspaper, and its decision to publish the video of the entire rant was controversial. Personally, I do not find the transcript of the video as controversial as the video itself. Even if the Wikipedia article removed the David Cameron part, it would still be very easy to find on the web. Incidentally, many people have commented how bizarre it is that at 1:35 in the full rant, a woman with a shopping trolley walks right past Michael Adebolajo, and ignores him completely. This is the point at which the David Cameron part occurs. To draw in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there was a huge debate about whether to include the actual cartoons in Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and Lars Vilks Muhammad drawings controversy. The images remain, even though some pea-brained extremist might be offended to the point of violence by seeing them.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I was also watching amazed at the woman walk right past the armed thug; it distracted me quite a lot from the "David Cameron" part of the rant. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 06:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- The David Cameron part of the speech is here in a report on Australian television news, as part of Lateline.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I was also watching amazed at the woman walk right past the armed thug; it distracted me quite a lot from the "David Cameron" part of the rant. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 06:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- The Sun is not everyone's favourite newspaper, and its decision to publish the video of the entire rant was controversial. Personally, I do not find the transcript of the video as controversial as the video itself. Even if the Wikipedia article removed the David Cameron part, it would still be very easy to find on the web. Incidentally, many people have commented how bizarre it is that at 1:35 in the full rant, a woman with a shopping trolley walks right past Michael Adebolajo, and ignores him completely. This is the point at which the David Cameron part occurs. To draw in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there was a huge debate about whether to include the actual cartoons in Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and Lars Vilks Muhammad drawings controversy. The images remain, even though some pea-brained extremist might be offended to the point of violence by seeing them.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- What trash there is on the internet is beyond our comprehension or control. What people say and whether it incites is defined in law, and only a court can decide. That does not mean we should apply WP:NOT#CENSORED to each and every piece of information as if it were worthy of inclusion. True that the speech may be "disturbing" to you and me, but it may be "inspiring" to budding jihadists; it may also be "infuriating" to ultra-nationalists. Many sources published various excerpts/extracts of it; no self-respecting part of the media has published it in full. I mean the only rag that published the whole thing is a right-wing "comic" read mainly by the nationalistic blue-collared, so we are already out of line with general news coverage and are being more tabloid than a tabloid in that respect. Applying the NOTCENSORED logic, you might argue/justify Michael Adebolajo's speech. But that is not what WP is for, and such an article will sink at AfD. Why don't we migrate it over to Wikisource or Wikiquote, refer to relevant parts and link to same. If they don't believe it fits within their scope, which is more specific than ours in matters of speeches and quotations, then neither should we tolerate verbatim citing of the whole fucking rant within these walls. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 06:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Several points:
I'm not objecting to the "David Cameron" part of the speech per se. I am objecting to the use of the speech in its entirety, and would be open to discussion as to which parts can be cut out without rendering the message misleading. Like most tabloids, The Sun courts controversy. The Daily Mail is similar in that regard. I don't want to prevent people finding stuff (including porn) on the internet if that's what they truly want – that's not why I want the quote trimmed down (a string of six words would suffice in finding the rant on the net). Just like we need to use pornography to discuss pornography, the articles are encyclopaedic and not themselves pornographic in nature. I want a sober encyclopaedic article with a bit more restrained in using non-free or otherwise controversial content. That no non-tabloid has published in full is an important benchmark. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 06:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- By the standards of the Internet, the video is not violent/pornographic, they come far worse than this. The issue being raised is whether the rant is relevant to the article, or might cause the assorted headbangers on both sides of the spectrum to become enraged. I believe that a text-only transcript illuminates what was going on inside the head of the attacker, and the speech is short enough to include in full.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think I ever said that the video was particularly violent/pornographic, nor was that a reason to seek downsizing the quote. I've had the opportunity to thoroughly exchange views, and as I said already, I'm outnumbered and out-gunned, so it's the end of the matter as far as I am concerned. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 08:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- By the standards of the Internet, the video is not violent/pornographic, they come far worse than this. The issue being raised is whether the rant is relevant to the article, or might cause the assorted headbangers on both sides of the spectrum to become enraged. I believe that a text-only transcript illuminates what was going on inside the head of the attacker, and the speech is short enough to include in full.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Several points:
- What I meant to indicate by referring to the "David Cameron part of the speech" is that this part is obviously a rant. It doesn't read as logical, and it is certainly very threatening. My concern is that after you have removed all the less rational bits, then you are left with just the rationale and it is that part which is dangerous and inflammatory, not the rant. This really doesn't seem too hard to comprehend, but so far the point I'm making seems to have been missed. Amandajm (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Response time 2
I'm starting a new thread since I'm not sure if this will be noticed above given the length of this page and the age of that thread. Given the occasional comment and controversy over the response time, do others feel it would be expanding the response section to mention that the armed response team wasn't dispatched until 14:24 in response to the first calls suggesting one may be needed. Nil Einne (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've read mentioned that some criticised the delay, but I don't think it's a real issue worth dwelling on. It's had little coverage compared with other aspects of the case. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Would tend to agree with Oh on this.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- The first 999 call did not indicate the need for an armed unit, and it was only subsequent calls that made it clear that one was required. Saying "the armed response team wasn't dispatched until 14:24" is being overly judgmental, as it was only four minutes after the first 999 call, anyway. There are only a limited number of armed units available at any one time, so they wouldn't have been automatically deployed to an incident that - on the first report - did not appear to merit it. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Now charges have been brought
Now charges have been brought it seems like a good time to add the {{Sub judice UK}} template to this page. I'll do this now just so anyone editing knows we have to take the sub judice rule into account, and hopefully no one will object. Paul MacDermott (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- I certainly would not object. But before such a template has been placed, or indeed regardless of this before proceedings have begun, do editors have any more or less scope for expressing personal opinion? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- It will be the very first time I've seen the template being used, and I'm not sure to what end. Firstly, this article is tightly-policed by the current team working on it so any undesirable change is likely to be rapidly reversed. Secondly, the rules apply to comment within the UK. WP's servers are in the US and we are subject to US laws, which apparently allow for greater freedom to comment and do not take great heed of sub judice. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 23:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- To clarify: all contributors are subject to the laws of wherever they are, and the placement of the servers in the US doesn't nullify this. UK-based contributors certainly are subject to sub judice rules, and need to bear this in mind. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- I see. So it's not a useless waste of time. And policing-by-(US)-colleague is not all that really matters? Does US law allow us to name the suspects as murderers? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- I was looking for this template a few days ago as I have seen it used before. For UK editors, it does not matter where the server is, you are publishing it. If the server is in the US, they are still subject to court rules. For international users (non-UK), it still matters as articles on wikipedia are published in the UK when they are read (according to UK law). If you put something on wikipedia, and I read it in the UK, it is classes as having been published in the UK. People have been extradited from the UK to the US on similar rules, so why not the other way around?Martin451 (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thats a bit over the top...I highly doubt that anyone is going to be extradited or even prosecuted no matter where they're living if they typed the "M" word! However, I do believe that under US law, reporters would say what they are charged with, as in charged with "M", and in what degree, be it first degree (premeditated) or a lesser "M" charge. I believe it would be best to only say what the charges are and avoid saying these suspects are anything except charged with a crime until the court determines what the outcome is.--MONGO 23:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- As far as the WMF is concerned, you have to agree to obey US laws (specifically those of Florida) to post on Wikipedia. That (usually) lets them off the hook. As for what other laws you are subject to, that depends where you are, but it is your problem. 'The servers are in Florida' isn't going to be much of a defence if you get hauled up before the beak in the UK... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Wow. Glad that's all crystal clear then. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Innocent until proven guilty. I guess we can say what the charges are and then once the court determines what the outcome is, what they were found guilty of if anything. They might say the knife didn't fit?--MONGO 00:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's painful. I hate doing it. But I must admit. Andy is (except for his last sentence, quite possibly -- if UK law is in accord with some interpretations of French law on this point) correct.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Semi-protection
This article should be semiprotected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.190.135 (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- There's a process for doing that. You need to go to WP:RFPP and give them a reason why you feel it should be projected. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- This would happen only if there was a large amount of vandalism. Thankfully, the edit history shows few (if any) nonsense edits.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed yes, we don't protect pages unless they're subject to significant vandalism, or edit warring. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thankfully, there has been none of either of those here. So any RFPP request is likely to be refused. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 15:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with the above consensus that it is neither needed or likely to be applied. At this point.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thankfully, there has been none of either of those here. So any RFPP request is likely to be refused. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 15:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed yes, we don't protect pages unless they're subject to significant vandalism, or edit warring. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- This would happen only if there was a large amount of vandalism. Thankfully, the edit history shows few (if any) nonsense edits.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Omar Bakri Mohammad
Omar Bakri Mohammad has made various claims[26] and has been commented upon by others [27]. He seems to be a significant part of the narrative around the incident[28] and request that his role be touched upon in the article. Regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Certainly we could include a mention of it as the article discusses the opinions of other controversial clerica. Reaction is probably the best place to add it. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- It is not impossible that Omar Bakri Muhammad gave lectures to the attackers at some point. There is, though, a non-verifiable element of possible boasting about his influence. He has not been resident in the UK since 2005, and is banned from entering the UK.[29]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- I should clarify, I meant his reaction to the attack may be worth mentioning. Any claims that he influenced the attackers are something entirely different. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- It is not impossible that Omar Bakri Muhammad gave lectures to the attackers at some point. There is, though, a non-verifiable element of possible boasting about his influence. He has not been resident in the UK since 2005, and is banned from entering the UK.[29]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Nick Robinson 2
I see mention of his comments has disappeared from the article, although I do feel that eventually we should include it. The Guardian says that Robinson was the first "to make sense of" what had happened, but caused offence after hquoting a third party source's description of the attackers. Robinson did break the news that the government had decided to treat the attack as a terrorist incident rather than a street stabbing. Even if the backlash was mainly on Twitter, which is suggested by The Spectator, it was still significant enough for Robinson to decide he needed to issue an apology. Here are a couple of further sources on the matter, anyway, one from each side of the political spectrum - The Spectator and The Guardian. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- This may have been removed per WP:NOTNEWS. It is hard to imagine where Nick Robinson's brains were when he said this (e.g. would he have said that the attackers were of Jewish, Catholic or Protestant appearance?).--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- I looked through the article history actually, but nothing in the edit summaries stood out. I do agree though, one wonders what was going through his head. I guess there's room for it in Robinson's article as we have other controversies there, and of course, I added it to 2013 in British television as it does seem notable enough for inclusion there. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Was that third party source suggesting that in the UK it's generally easier to distinguish people who are Muslims from those of many other faiths, and much easier than it is to tell apart those who may be "Jewish, Catholic or Protestant"? Minorites are usually also easier to distinguish from a much larger majority? Or is it prejudical even to make such outlandish suggestions here? Martinevans123 (talk)
- The black population of the UK is very heavily Christian, so the term "of Evangelical Christian appearance" would actually be more accurate, but again totally unacceptable and illogical. The judgement of them as Muslims was made on their words (they said they were), not their physical appearance, so it's not just political correctness to say that it was a totally ridiculous statement to make. Prof Wrong (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- IMHO, the alleged attackers are persons of African appearance. The rant video clearly suggests an Islamist motive, but this would not be obvious from the faces of the attackers.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- The black population of the UK is very heavily Christian, so the term "of Evangelical Christian appearance" would actually be more accurate, but again totally unacceptable and illogical. The judgement of them as Muslims was made on their words (they said they were), not their physical appearance, so it's not just political correctness to say that it was a totally ridiculous statement to make. Prof Wrong (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- What's most interesting is not what Robinson said, but that the description of "Muslim appearance" apparently came from "a government source". Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- I wonder if we will ever get to the bottom of it. Muslims may be defined by how they look, in particular what they wear. But it's just plain stupid to say of anyone wearing jeans and T-shirt that they have Muslim appearance. <facepalm>-- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Clarity
Here are four statements:
- The assailants charged at the police.
- One assailant was brandishing a cleaver and the other a revolver
- The police fired eight shots,
- The police wounded both men.
- These four facts are all significant to the course of events and need to be stated as clearly as possible
- There are a number of ways of combining the events
- Active voice (i.e. they did this) rather than passive voice (i.e. this happened to them) is better in accurate reporting.
- Turning events into clauses "This happened when that happened because this happened" is to be avoided.
- We have four actions here, two of which were done by the assailants and the other two of which were done by the police.
- NOTE: even though the wounding happened to the assailants, it was the police who did the wounding. So rather than using the passive "The men were wounded", it is better to give the action to the subjects who did the shooting.
THis brings it down to two sentences, one about the assailants and the other about the police.
- The assailants charged at the police, one brandishing a cleaver and the other a revolver. And in case there is doubt who did the brandishing: The assailants, one brandishing a cleaver and the other a revolver, charged at the police.
- The police fired eight shots, wounding the assailants.
Please stop fiddling with these very clear statements and turning them into The men were wounded when they charged at the police etec etc etc. This stuff needs clarity. Wikipedia is not selling a news story.