Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:57, 26 May 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Murder of Lee Rigby article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 7 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

British crime (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. London Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Template:Findnotice

It is requested that an image or photograph of Murder of Lee Rigby be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

A news item involving Murder of Lee Rigby was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 24 May 2013.

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.Oxr033 (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)

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)).

The attack involved more than a beheading. That would be the wrong title to use in this case. Leaky Caldron 20:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that the source cited for 'beheading' (the Telegraph ) 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)

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)

re Andy, the article should have been moved to Woolwich attack, not the orignal changed to a redirect to a newer article.Martin451 (talk) 21:01, 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" It is prudent to wait and see if others report this. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:24, 23 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)

"started to chop the man into pieces." + "Several witnesses have described seeing a "beheading" + "Ohhhhh myyyy God!!!! I just see a man with his head chopped off right in front of my eyes!"(Lihaas (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)).

The merge tag looked silly to readers so I have removed it 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 . 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”" . 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)

English Defence League in political reaction

The English Defence League are not a political party, and have no elected representatives at any level in the United Kingdom. I do not believe that they should be included in the political rection section of this article. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine but done remove it altogether. I hope the current incarnation is acceptable?

Although you don't need MPs to be a political party.(Lihaas (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)).

I think we need to mention them in some context as some of their members held a demonstration in Woolwich later in the evening. But I agree it shouldn't be under political reaction. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Beheading in the name of Islam

Article on Beheading in the name of Islam now up for AFD.Rembrandt Peale (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Merger and redirect from article titled 2013 London attack

I've added Template:Mergeto and Template:Mergefrom notices to 2013 London attack and to this article, respectively.
The 2013 London attack page should be deleted or made a redirect to this article; the latter seems preferable for the time being so I have performed a redirect.
I copied the single news article from telegraph.co.uk which was cited at 2013 London attack to the References section of this article.
I haven't actually added the text of the London-titled article as it seems to me that doing so would be largely redundant but of course the original editor of that page can edit this article if they feel some valuable content was lost due to this redirection.
Riyuky (talk) 06:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. To be honest, I looked for such an article before I started that one, but could not find it. A search for "Ingrid Loyau-Kennett brought nothing; there was nothing in current events or wikinews. I was surprised that I couldn't find anything, and that's why I started my version. Thank you for discovering my version and making the appropriate adjustment. Kingturtle = (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Reactions section

These were put back into the article in this edit. As usual, there are too many reactions and the list format should be converted per WP:PROSE.--♦IanMacM♦ 10:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. There are hundreds of reactions, and it would be impossible to include them all. I think we should limit it to the Queen, major party leaders, the Mayor, bishop of Woolwich, Help for Heroes obviously, and some of the faith organisations. Not sure we need Mr Farage's opinion. After all, why mention him but not Nick Clegg when the latter is also a party leader, and deputy prime minister?Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

English Defence League

Some reactions are more than mere expressions of opinion. They've become events worthy of news coverage and potentially worrying. This deserves coverage in the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, as mentioned above. Just not sure which section it should be included in. Political reaction isn't appropriate. Perhaps aftermath. Any other thoughts? Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps Others since that's a catch-all for what's not political. Also, several of the groups that oppose the EDL are listed there. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give it a go. Someone's converted the sections into prose now and they look a lot better. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed prose is better , but we can't nit=pick notability as that would be subjective. I'm adding some others back (but in current format)(Lihaas (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)).

ok, have added stuff on EDL and Nick Griffin, which have been incorporated into various parts of the article. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Fix this article, please

Someone's messed up the code, resulting in the disappearance of the bottom of the page. I can't pinpoint the problem myself, so thought I'd mention that it needs fixing here. Thanks Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems sored to me(Lihaas (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)).

Fixed it a while ago. It was a <nowiki> left open accidentally by Lihaas . Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for getting back to me. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved(Lihaas (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)).

Dual wolf?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nick Robinson

This piece from the BBC's Nick Robinson may be worth including somewhere, as he explains some of the background to the government's decision to treat the attack as a terrorist incident. His use of the term "of Muslim appearance" also caused offence, and may be worth a mention if others have reported on the reaction. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

ok, here's one from The Guardian. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep add it in for sure. Perhaps to reactions?(Lihaas (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)).

ok, it's done. Thanks, Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Although you've only mentioned the controversy not why the ogovt used the term. Add that too.

Resolved(Lihaas (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)).

Picture

"The pub and the tower block on Artillery Place near to where the attack took place" - sorry but what value exactly does putting up a picture of somewhere nearby add to the article, apart from offering the pub some free publicity? --wintonian 19:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Why not use the least offensive screenshot from MSM available? †TE†Talk 19:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is limited to free images, and according to media coverage the attack was very close to here. Uploading a non-free image and putting it in the infobox would lead to a deletion debate very quickly. Ideally, someone with a photo or screenshot taken during the incident should give it a CC license and upload it to Commons.--♦IanMacM♦ 19:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Okey even assuming no-one had at some point in time taken a picture of the location with an appropriate commons licence, the road is now open again so if a south London based Wikipedian feels like a walk can they please take a camera with them? --wintonian 19:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

What I meant was an image taken during the incident itself. There are known to be numerous photos and videos taken by members of the public, but a CC license would be needed.--♦IanMacM♦ 19:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes but would a picture (with appropriate licence) of the location taken before the incident (if one can be found) be more appropriate than some place nearby?--wintonian 19:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Or a picture of the barracks in the mean time? after all it does have slightly more relevance to the story than the local boozer. --wintonian 19:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

According to Google Maps, the attack took place around here. This is the location in this photo. It is not in front of the pub, but in Wellington Street a few yards from the junction with John Wilson Street.--♦IanMacM♦ 20:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah I see, "near to" to me sounded like a round the corner and down the road etc. type thing. Still a picture showing the flats and barracks from the cross roads might be good if we can get one as both have been prominent on the news items. --wintonian 20:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It is on the roadside outside Elliston House, which is the tower block in File:Queen Victoria Pub - geograph.org.uk - 488291.jpg. I am beginning to think that the Queen Victoria pub image is not ideal, but it should stay until someone in London can come up with a better image.--♦IanMacM♦ 20:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that's pretty much what I'm saying now I have been educated about the geography of Woolwich. --wintonian 20:47, 23 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 20:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

POV Murder

This was unilaterally moved and then the names were changes. Perhaps hes a new user and needs to be informed. But bear that this need to change to NPOV.(Lihaas (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)).

Significance of "female" officer doing first shooting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. (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 Misplaced Pages. "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)

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♦ 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♦ 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)

Redirect/Bio

This page also serves as a redirect.t And hence Bio data is acceptable. can't wait for the sake of this page to get it off the news/.(Lihaas (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)).

Road rage

Linking the deliberate running down of the soldier to the Road rage article makes as much sense as linking the September 11 attacks to the Air rage article. One is a not uncommon behavioural disorder, the other is a terrorist attack. Keri (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Aftermath and scope of islamophobic sentiment

The article currently underplays this - it's more than just an EDL protests and attacks on 2 mosques. Perhaps information from this news source might be included...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/23/attacks-muslims-spike-woolwich-attack 86.25.184.196 (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Motive

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

• -- Ohc _{¿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)

After attack, but before police

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 04:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

The technical term is Diffusion of responsibility. --beefyt (talk) 21:16, 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 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. Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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♦ 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 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♦ 06:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

IanMacM... First, you are incorrect about Murder of Tia Sharp. That article was titled the day it was created, August 7, 2012, just four days after her disappearance was reported. There was no conviction until May 13, 2013. So please be accurate about your claims. Second, the UK's (or any other country's) rules or laws carry absolutely no weight with regard to editing Misplaced Pages. We only follow Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages precedent where active court proceedings are likely.--♦IanMacM♦

Please re-read my prior comment. You are simply incorrect about an indiviual country's laws having any bearing on how we edit Misplaced Pages, 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♦ 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 Misplaced Pages 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♦ 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♦ 07:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

• By the same token we should avoid saying in Misplaced Pages'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 _{¿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

It has been proposed in this section that Murder of Lee Rigby be renamed and moved to Death of Lee Rigby. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

2013 Woolwich attack → Death of Lee Rigby – This is in line with similar articles at this stage of events. ♦IanMacM♦ 07:54, 24 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. Misplaced Pages 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 _{¿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)

• 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some great points, Gruesome. In fact, you've convinced me to seriously reconsider my !vote. But let me ask you this: Why not 2013 Woolwich murder instead of the more vague 2013 Woolwich attack? Why "attack" over "murder". We know that Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages articles I would have thought. I doubt there's any that are about attacks in Woolwich in 2013. Bearing in mind that on Misplaced Pages, calling something an attack in a non-warzone in these times, basically means terrorism, and more often than not, will involve murder. To illustrate that - London attack is already a redirect to List of terrorist incidents in London which obviously has a link to this article, whereas London murder goes nowhere, and gives all sorts of random articles in the search results, none of which appear to be of any use to someone looking for this article. Similarly, Woolwich attack already redirects here, whereas Woolwich murder goes nowhere (although I'd have no objection to it coming here). Gruesome Foursome (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support move (keeping the current name as a redirect). 'Death of Lee Rigby' is more precise, and seems to me more encyclopaedic; I know we're not supposed to speculate, but I expect that the media will tend to refer to this event by Rigby's name rather than by the lication it occurred (compare, for instance, Murder of Yvonne Fletcher). 'Murder of Lee Rigby' might be better still, but we should avoid that title until there's been a conviction. Robofish (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Whilst I do much prefer Murder of Lee Rigby moveing to Death of Lee Rigby is a good second choice. as for this not being about a named individual I offer Murder of Yvonne Fletcher as an example of another murder/ death where the victim was an anonymous WPC to the attacker. I do agree (as I have made clear above) that there is an argument for retaining 2013 Woolwich attack per WP:COMMONNAME but it is ambiguous and could mean anything from the cause of a nuclear winter to some passer by stealing WiFi passwords. --wintonian 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 03:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest leaving it for a few weeks, until things have settled down. -- Ohc _{¿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 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)
  • Comment - sub judice, yes. Except that the entire world now knows that he was murdred and knows the names of the two men who murdrered him. Tend to support "Murder of Lee Rigby" over "Death of Lee Rigby". Yes, he was targetted simply because he was a soldier, his name unknown to his assailants. But if the full and real sense of this event is to be conveyed, I think it will require openly conferring his identity and all that this means. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Martinevans. While I agree with you on your preferred title, saying that part about the two men is a clear BLP violation, even on a talk page. There must be convictions first, regardless of what we know from reliable sources. I'm not sure if that part of your comment needs to be removed or redacted, but I'll let others decide that. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi anon ip. Are you suggesting that Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale are denying killing Lee Rigby? Or is it that we just can't use the nasty M word? Are we voliating the human rights of these two killers? Or is the risk them not having a fair trial? But I'm only guessing, as your self-redaction has rendered your comment a little difficult to understand. I thought that BLP policy applied to what was presented in an article, not what was discussed on its Talk Page. Surely just as with other potentiual breaches - e.g. copyright, where copying a copy-vio excerpt to show how similar it is to the ortiginal source is not in itself a further breach of copyright? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC) btw - we've already got 66 instances of "" to deal with in this thread alone.

Hi Martinevans. What you, I, or any other editor believes is completely irrelevant. These rules are basic tenets of BLP policy. See "Where BLP does and does not apply", which makes clear that "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Misplaced Pages, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, and categories." In terms of an editor calling any living person guilty of a crime before there has been a conviction, WP:BLPCRIME says, "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law." Therefore, it does not matter one bit whether someone confesses to a crime or not. As editors of this encylopedia, there must be a conviction before making such claims on any page. Violating this very important rule has earned many editors blocks. And using the "M" word, as you call it, is not the issue; it's specifically about saying that anyone is guilty of the "M" word. The part I redacted was repeating the BLP-violating part of your quote; I found out afterwards that it should not be shown again when someone comments about it. Hope this helps. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

These two individuals murdered Lee Rigby and then gave an impromptu press-conference to explain why. If this statement is worthy of a block, I will be happy to be blocked. Go right ahead. That statement has nothing to do with what wikipedia editors believe. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 26 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)

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 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 _{¿que pasa?} 04:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support moving to either Death of Lee Rigby or Killing of Lee Rigby, with a slight preference for the latter. Evanh2008  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)
• Strong oppose. This strikes me as going against policy, namely WP:COMMONNAME. Google news search for "woolwich attack" returns ~75,000 results , while "Death of lee rigby" returns less than 1,000 . Even when adjusting for only recent articles (past 24 hours), the results for "woolwich attack" are more than 250 times more common (1600 vs 6). Mohamed CJ (talk) 21:42, 26 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 13:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

This was the response time for Specialist Firearms Command (SCO19). Ordinary police officers in London are unarmed.--♦IanMacM♦ 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 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♦ 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 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 _{¿que pasa?} 03:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Drummer is very much a rank in the British Army, the Army would not be putting his 'job description' into its press releases they would put his rank, Drummer. The British Army has a lot of different names for various ranks, indeed if he wasn't a Drummer and was just a normal soldier in the 2nd Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, his rank would just be 'Fusilier' rather than 'Private'. I have restored the rank, stop unilaterally altering it back. Please note that Misplaced Pages itself has this: https://en.wikipedia.org/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 _{¿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\ 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 _{¿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 _{¿que pasa?} 15:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

"British citizens" is an embarrassing code-word

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

confusing 'suspects' section

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

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

Personal details

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

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

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

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

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

Clarification:

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

Let me stress that discretion is needed.

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

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. 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. A gun, knives, and a machete were later seized at the scene. Rigby was later pronounced dead."

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." 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 Misplaced Pages: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: 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♦ 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 _{¿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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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♦ 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)

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".

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♦ 15:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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 _{¿que pasa?} 15:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Image size an 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♦ 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 _{¿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)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class London-related articles
• Mid-importance London-related articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• Mid-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages requested images
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Requested moves