Talk:Murder of Lee Rigby/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Map replaced with picture

Should the picture of Rigby be the main image? I'm not so sure. Some time ago I got told off by someone quite high up here for doing something similar in a "Death of" article, which I was reminded was not a biography. Having said that, an article I worked on and took to FAC, Murder of Joanna Yeates does have an image of the subject in the infobox without issue. I did ask the person concerned for clarification at the time, but didn't get an answer. Consequently I now view such additions with caution. Any thoughts? Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realise this was a game of "trumps". The picture of Rigby is a very good one and I personally have no problem with it as the main image. But generally articles of this type are indeed treated as events, rather than biography. And the map was a very good way of marking the event. It was also a good image in its own right and I think was a useful addition to the article. I don't see why it should be removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

There was absolutely no reason for the map to be removed. I agree with both of you that the article is about an event, not an individual. Both the map and the photo should be in the article, but in my view it is the map that should be in the infobox. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for input

Hi, I'd like some feedback if possible on an a proposed paragraph for another article that relates to this topic. It concerns talk of a broadcast ban on proscribed organisations, and comparisons with the previous broadcast ban of the 1980s. Brief mention of the plans may also be needed in this article. My chief concern is getting the language right against the backdrop of the ongoing legal proceedings. I've opened a discussion at Talk:1988–94 British broadcasting voice restrictions and would appreciate some thoughts. Thanks in advance. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

There is an element of WP:CRYSTAL. At the moment, there are no firm plans on the table.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Twitter & Facebook response

I tried to add

Within hours of the attack, messages appeared on Twitter praising the attack, and encouraging others to carry out other attacks.[1][2]

But I got reverted by user:Ian.thomson. Here are some more sources..

• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]

Are you telling me we can include "verbal abuse to physical assaults in which women's headscarves were pulled off" and "At least seven people have been arrested for a range of social media-related issues" for non-islamic individuals, but not add anything about the above?--Loomspicker (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I must admit I am also a little surprised this is not thought notable, given the weight now very verbally attached by the government to the legal implications of social media postings. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Problem with the opening paragraph

I think the opening paragraph is phrased wrong. Should the part that say's "in what has been described as an Islamic terrorist attack." be "in an Islamic terrorist attack."? There's no need to sugar coat it...It was clearly an act of terrorism.Tomh903 (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it was, or has been, described unequivocally as "an Islamic terrorist attack" by all the sources quoted? So, even of you think "it was clearly an act of terrorism", and even if we can agree that the killers were followers of Islam, to describe so here would be POV? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and WP:TERRORIST becomes involved. The article should reflect what the sources say rather than editorialising.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Muslims reprisal attacks, or the 17 of them

The "anti-Muslim backlash occurred across the United Kingdom" relies on third-party sources which are using an unreliable and bias source for their claims. Tell Mama UK, and Fiyaz Mughal who runs the project.

1. "120 of its 212 “anti-Muslim incidents” – 57 per cent – took place only online." "Not all the offending tweets and postings, it turns out, even originated in Britain." [7]
2. "35 of the 212 post-Woolwich incidents, or 16 per cent, had yet to be verified."[8]
3. "Fewer than one in 12 of the 212 “incidents” reported to Tell Mama since Woolwich – 17 cases (8 per cent) – involved individuals being physically targeted."[9]

Tell Mama UK lost its original funding for "embellishing the truth"[10]. The article is echoing this, so I am fixing it.--Loomspicker (talk) 11:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Most of the section is OK and based on what reliable sources said. There was no huge wave of riots, as occurred after the Death of Mark Duggan in 2011, but there were isolated incidents of abuse, attacks on mosques etc. The article needs to reflect this. Figures given by pressure groups need to be treated with some caution as they have been questioned.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME issues

There has been an addition of the words "alleged" and "suspected" to the article which is rather clumsy. The basic facts of what happened are not in dispute, and the wording should not give this impression. WP:BLPCRIME obviously applies here, but it would be wrong to imply that the facts of what happened, or the identity of the two men in the video footage, is in dispute.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

One of the clumsier edits was hilarious: "killed by two suspected men". WWGB (talk) 07:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Fusilier Lee Rigby, not Drummer

Fusilier Rigby was widely referred to as Drummer Rigby after his death. I believe this is a title by which he was known while playing in an Army band during his time as a recruiter at the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich.

However, following the start of the trial, he should now be referred to by his proper rank, which was Fusilier (the RRF's equivalent of Private).

I am a chief sub-editor with a UK news organisation and spoke to the Ministry of Defence about this issue. A press officer confirmed this is how his family now want him to be titled.

However, I am unable to edit the page to reflect this.

Mikemorton (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously, and he was generally referred to as Drummer Lee Rigby in media reports after his death, including his MOD obituary.[11] It appears from media reports that his British Army rank was Private, although I am not an expert here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2013 - Michael Adebowale in this section

Greenwich University has NO record of Michael Adebowale as having ever been a student. The University has made this very clear several times; it was reported in error by several newspapers. Please remove the statement that Adebowale attended the University. Thank you. 193.60.54.93 (talk) 09:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a sourcing issue here. This BBC News story says "The University of Greenwich has confirmed records show Mr Adebolajo was registered as a student between 2003 and 2005. It said his academic progress was "unsatisfactory" and he did not complete his studies there." (ie, not Adebowale). Numerous sources reported that Michael Adebowale was a student at Greenwich University, but sources do sometimes get things wrong. The University set up an inquiry into whether both men had been associated with the university at some point. This source does not say specifically that Adebowale did not attend the university. Please could someone help with finding a source stating this clearly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Following this edit request, an e-mail was sent to the press office at Greenwich University asking about the latest position. The reply was that "The university's governing body, University Court, has commissioned an independent panel inquiry. Its work is ongoing" and "In May, the university issued a statement about the two accused: you can find it here: http://www2.gre.ac.uk/about/news/articles/2013/statementbarrackevents ". This does not confirm the position that Greenwich University denied that Adebowale attended the university.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Links

>> UK extremists face 'terror gateway' scrutiny + >> Woolwich murderers convicted by British court >> MI5 ‘harassed’ Woolwich killer, says brother >> British imam denies Woolwich murder links>> Muslims feel targeted over Woolwich killing[12](Lihaas (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)).

This would be more on topic in the links section of Anjem Choudary. He is not a major player in this article, although Michael Adebolajo said in court that he had attended demonstrations involving him.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Time to move article?

Now we have the verdict, is it time to move the article? Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought about this but held off, because they may appeal, but won't object if the article is moved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think of that, but it's probably best to leave it for now in case they do appeal. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

They have been convicted. Only sentencing remains - January. Any appeal would be against conviction or sentence. As of now they are guilty of murder. Moving the article is dependent on our policies in such cases, it does not need to wait for any other action related to the trial or the murderers. Leaky Caldron 16:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

In theory, they could appeal at any time in the future. A UK conviction is never definitive in that sense. Formerip (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

If there is an appeal, and if it succeeds, for one or both defendants, the article could be amended accordingly. These men are currently guilty of murder. If wikipedia policy allows, this fact should be reflected in both the title and the content of the article. Martinevans123 (talk)

Good point about a possible appeal, however if the media are currently allowed to refer to it as a murder and the defendants as murderers, then as that is factually correct at the current point in time I suggest we should too and then change it if the conviction(s) are quashed. --84.92.56.128 (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

When I tried to move the page to Murder of Lee Rigby a few minutes ago, it says that the page already exists, it is a redirect page here. What is the best thing to do here?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: 84.92.56.128, any possible appeal would have to be based upon a point of law[13] you cannot just appeal because you were found guilty. points to appeal would be e.g. new evidence, judge misdirecting the jury, defendants not getting all the information, outside influence or an otherwise unfair trial. In this case it seems unlikely they will find cause to appeal, so it should be safe to move.Martin451 22:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it would seem unlikely given what's been reported, however it is not for us to speculate about the correctness of the workings of the judicial system or any potential outcomes - we just write the facts without too much crystal ball gazing and at the moment and forever more there is theoretically a chance of new evidence pointing in the direction of time travelling aliens from another dimension genitally altered to look like the defendants acting on behalf of the NSA's successor to prevent the leaking of secret materiel about the US presidents death certificate, or even a boring old error of law :). --84.92.56.128 (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: page moved per policy and consensus below. Nick (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Death of Lee Rigby → Murder of Lee Rigby – More suitable name following court conviction. Article cannot be moved at the moment due to previous page existing. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support as per my above comments - i.e; "Good point about a possible appeal, however if the media are currently allowed to refer to it as a murder and the defendants as murderers, then as that is factually correct at the current point in time I suggest we should too and then change it if the conviction(s) are quashed."--84.92.56.128 (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I don't think it actually matters all that much. It's never really been in doubt that this was a murder, so I think it is, if anything, over-cautious to have kept it at "death" for so long. Formerip (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The only counter-arguments that spring to mind for me are (1) commonality with "unsolved killings that were obviously murders"; (2) the possibility of appeal or miscarriage of justice, and (3) the fact that some murders are more hideously and sickeningly barbaric than others. But they don't seem strong enough to prevent a move in this case. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support per policy. The courts have determined that Rigby was murdered. That is quite sufficient grounds for Wikipedia to say so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support per policy as we now have a conviction in this case. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support per above comments.Martin451 22:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support per above.--Britannicus (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Murder is now the legal description of the event. WWGB (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• SUpport for the very obvious reasons. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support - no reason not to make this move. Jim Michael (talk) 13:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Jeremiah Adebolajo

Michael Adebolajo's brother Jeremiah was featured on today's BBC Radio 4's PM programme, defending the murder. As his brother, is he worthy of separate mention in the article? e.g. [14], [15], [16] Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

In the transcript, Jeremiah Adebolajo stops short of condoning the murder (or condemning it), so he should not be stated or implied to have done this. He does give reasons why he believed the attack took place, which could be given in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The BBC programme is here [17] (Adebolojo clip starts at 40:00). Perhaps "justifies" would be a fairer description. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

He seems to be suggesting an equivalence between his brother's actions and the actions of British soldiers. Strictly speaking, that's not a justification. It could be that he finds both abhorrent. I'd agree that's not the most obvious inference to draw, but we shouldn't be drawing any inference at all. I'd also say we need to take BLP caution here, because he is not speaking in the cold light of day and how important is his view anyway? WP:BLPNAME may also apply. Formerip (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Transcripts (and Wikipedia entries) don't really convey tone of voice, do they. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The current sources do not support any mention of Jeremiah Adebolajo. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

"Death of..."? -or "Murder of..."?

There's something that smacks of prevarication in the title of the article. If Lee Rigby had merely died, there would be nothing noteworthy about it; 45,000 people die every day. What makes Rigby's case notable is that he was brutally murdered, and for specific reasons. In the interest of greater accuracy, I propose that the title be changed to "The murder of Lee Rigby". Bricology (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy, until a court of law finds that Rigby was murdered, the title will remain 'Death of...'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously here and here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Rigby's inquest has not yet completed. In the interests of justice, wikipedia should not speculate, especially in any way that could affect the outcome of any future trial, or be seen to influence trials.Martin451 23:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

That's nothing more than sophistry. No one doubts that Rigby was murdered. The article itself clearly states that Rigby was "attacked and killed by two men" and that he was "walking along Wellington Street when he was attacked. Two men ran him down with a car, then used knives and a cleaver to stab and hack him to death." That is de facto murder; there is no other legal term for it. That's why Adebolajo and Adebowale have been charged with murder, not "manslaughter" or "assault with GBH" or some other charge: because the courts have made a determination that the evidence clearly shows that Rigby was murdered; there is no ambiguity. Furthermore, the BBC, the Independent, the Guardian, the Telegraph and most other media outlets have consistently reported it as "murder" ; if they didn't have good reason to agree that Rigby was murdered, they would not be exposing themselves to potential charges of libel, if the two defendants are acquitted. The defendants simply deny that they are guilty of that murder, not that it didn't occur. Whether or not they are eventually proved guilty is an entirely different issue than the courts determining that Rigby was murdered, which they have already done.Bricology (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

"De facto murder" is not a legal term. And has been explained, Wikipedia policy is not to use 'murder' in article titles while the courts have not ruled that a murder took place. Which they haven't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Charged with murder does not determine a murder has happened. They could be found not guilty, they could be found guilty of manslaughter or even not guilty. The most the courts have so far decided is the coroners court deciding that Rigby is dead, and how he died, not the reasons behind his death.Martin451 02:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

This has been debated before. It is standard practice, particularly with UK court cases, not to use the word "murder" in the article title unless a conviction for murder has been obtained. See also WP:BLPCRIME.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump wrote "'De facto murder' is not a legal term." I never suggested it was a "legal term". It is a logical term. Murder happened in fact. No one -- not even the courts -- deny that. User:ianmacm wrote "It is standard practice, particularly with UK court cases, not to use the word 'murder' in the article title unless a conviction for murder has been obtained." Rubbish. Two WP articles immediately come to mind: Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. Both of these articles explicitly state that they were both murdered, even though the defendant, O J Simpson, was found not guilty. It has never been the standard to only refer to a victim as having been "murdered" if their accused killer was convicted. Bricology (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

No conviction, no murder. I wish you would accept the stated position as stated by experienced editors. Leaky Caldron 21:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Leaky_caldron wrote "No conviction, no murder." Sorry, but that's utter bullshit. Try looking at the two examples I've already cited here on WP. The WP entry on Ronald Goldman explicitly states four times that Goldman was murdered, and Nicole Brown Simpson states the same, five times. Refresh my memory: was anyone convicted of their murders? I'll answer that for you: Nope. Apparently, in your mind, that means that it's just as likely that Goldman's and Nicole Brown Simpson's deaths were caused by...what -- accident? Self-defense? Natural causes? Furthermore, there is an entire WP article just on List of unsolved deaths which begins "This list of unsolved deaths includes notable cases where victims have been murdered or have died under unsolved circumstances, including murders committed by unknown serial killers." Please explain how it's possible to have "unsolved murders" if one were to take seriously your claim of "no conviction, no murder"? -or how about the Gatton murders, the Black Dahlia Murder, the Lake Bodom murders, the Keddie Murders or the Whitechapel murders (the term "murder" is used no less than seventy-four times in that WP article!) ALL of these WP articles explicitly refer to the deaths as "murders", and in none of the cases was anyone convicted; in many of the cases, no one was even charged! Please explain. And as for "I wish you would accept the stated position as stated by experienced editors" -- I've been an editor on WP since 2006, just like you, so you can drop the patronizing tone. Bricology (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

wrt. e.g. the Whitechapel murders, they were 120 years ago, and there is no chance that the killer is still alive. In this case two suspects are in custody so it is important that wikipedia does not use words like murder in its article, look at the header at the top of the article. As to Natural causes, unlawful death, death by misadventure, the coroner has yet to return a verdict, and the inquest has been postponed indefinitely, so we cannot use anything other than "death". Other articles may be different, or not conforming to policy, that does not mean we should make this one not conform.Martin451 08:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Martin451 wrote "In this case two suspects are in custody so it is important that wikipedia does not use words like murder in its article..." I've never seen such prevarication! The article itself, in the lead, states that Rigby "...was attacked. Two men ran him down with a car, then used knives and a cleaver to stab and hack him to death. The men dragged Rigby's body into the road. The men remained at the scene until police arrived. They told passers-by that they had killed a soldier to avenge the killing of Muslims by the British armed forces." And yet you object to the characterization of that as "murder"?! If you object to the case being characterized thus, why aren't you also arguing that phrases already used in the article should be changed to more "neutral" ones like Rigby was allegedly attacked" or advocating for striking the suspects' quotations as being hearsay? After all, it has yet to be proved in court that they said "...that they had killed a soldier to avenge the killing of Muslims by the British armed forces" "As to Natural causes, unlawful death, death by misadventure, the coroner has yet to return a verdict, and the inquest has been postponed indefinitely, so we cannot use anything other than 'death'." The autopsy has already declared that Rigby's death was caused by "multiple cut and stab wounds". "Other articles may be different, or not conforming to policy, that does not mean we should make this one not conform." No. The "policy" you refer to ( WP:BLPCRIME ) states "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law." That policy is in no way being infringed upon by characterizing Rigby as having been murdered. It has been established that he was murdered; what hasn't yet been established is whether or not the two men accused of the crime are guilty of committing it. You really can't see the difference between those two points? The reality is that just about most of the Wikis on unsolved murders of the past dozen or so years, repeatedly and explicitly refer to the deaths as "murders". Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman, Murder of JonBenét Ramsey, the Murder of Tupac Shakur, the West Mesa murders, the 2004 Jenner, California double-murder, the Murder of Suzanne Jovin, the Murder of Jill-Lyn Euto, et al. In most of these cases -- all of which are from within the past 15 or so years, no one has been charged with the murder, much less convicted. There were no witnesses, no confessions, and usually no weapon. Each of the killers is very likely still alive. And in each case, the WP article repeatedly describes the victims as having been "murdered". And yet with this one case, with suspects in custody, the weapons in custody, with multiple eyewitnesses, photographic and video evidence, essentially confessions of having committed the crime, having been charged by the State with murder and repeatedly referred to in the media as "murder" -- you want to declare this case less deserving of being described on WP as a "murder"? That beggars belief.Bricology (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Bricology describes as "bullshit" my statement: "No conviction, no murder." I apologise for appearing patronising, that was not my intention. Because of the red-link to your username I assumed that you were a well-meaning but rather ill-informed novice. The examples you give in your screed are no way comparable to the article under discussion. Here we have a legally active case, awaiting trial. WP is not in the business of pre-empting the imminent legal proceedings and as pointed out above and elsewhere, sub judice and with it, contempt of court, fully applies here. I have now examined your chequered talk page. I think you should check out WP:LISTEN. If you also think that is patronising, tough. Leaky Caldron 10:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Leaky_caldron wrote "The examples you give in your screed are no way comparable to the article under discussion. Here we have a legally active case, awaiting trial." That legal status in no way changes the determination of the State that Lee Rigby was murdered. You're conflating two very different legal principles. One is the principle of a person's death being the result of homicide, which is determined independently of any court case to try to determine guilt. That determination has already been made: Lee Rigby was murdered. The other principle is whether or not those charged with that murder are guilty of murder or anything less. No one is disputing that this element of the case has yet to be determined. "WP is not in the business of pre-empting the imminent legal proceedings..." Nor is WP in the business of giving cover to politically-correct prevarication or weasel words. I draw your attention to Adam (murder victim) in which a boy was murdered in 2001 and his torso dumped in the Thames. His killer has never been caught. Does this mean that "Adam" was not murdered? Of course not! And his Wiki (edited, one presumes, by Britons) clearly states that he was murdered, despite the lack of anyone being caught. Please try to explain how that case is any different from this one, other than the fact that Rigby's alleged assailants are in custody. The crux of the matter is that "Adam" and Lee Rigby were determined to have been murdered, NOT that anyone accused of the crime was convicted. I'm amazed by how many people here seem to be oblivious to that distinction. Of course, you're the person who claimed "no conviction, no murder" as if that made the slightest sense; I've already cited many examples of Wikis on people who were determined to have been murdered, despite no suspect ever being convicted. Are you going to admit that you were mistaken? I doubt it. "I have now examined your chequered talk page...If you also think that is patronising, tough." There's nothing "chequered" about my Talk page. Every section in it simply demonstrates my smack-down of fools, whom I do not gladly suffer. If you think that makes it chequered, tough. Bricology (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you please cite a source for "the determination of the State that Lee Rigby was murdered". AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

As I have said above the Inquest is still open. The state has not decided that Lee Rigby was murdered or otherwise unlawfully killed.Martin451 00:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Here you go, Martin451 and AndyTheGrump: "The Crown Prosecution Service has authorised the Metropolitan Police Service to charge Michael Adebowale with the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby on 22 May in Woolwich, London. Sue Hemming, Head of the CPS Special Crime and Counter-Terrorism Division, said: 'Crown Prosecutors have been working with the investigators of Counter Terrorism Command since the killing of Drummer Lee Rigby on 22 May. Following the release of Michael Adebowale from hospital, we have authorised the police to charge him with the murder of Drummer Rigby...This man is now charged with serious criminal offences and he has the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that nothing should be reported which could prejudice this trial." The Crown Prosecution Service, for those unfamiliar with it, is described in its Wiki as "...a non-ministerial department of the Government of the United Kingdom responsible for public prosecutions of people charged with criminal offences in England and Wales...The Crown Prosecution Service is responsible for criminal cases beyond the investigation, which is the role of the police. This involves giving advice to the police on charges to bring, being responsible for authorising all but a very few simple charges (such as begging)..." So there you have it: the highest criminal authority in Britain (i.e., the State) has not only stated unequivocally that Lee Rigby was indeed murdered, but that the defendants deserve an unprejudiced trial, refuting the notion that the trial is required to run its course before Rigby could be described as having been murdered. Satisfied? -or still interested in prevaricating? Bricology (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

It may surprise you to learn that it is for the courts to decide whether Rigby was murdered. The verdict comes after the trial, not before... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump wrote "It may surprise you to learn that it is for the courts to decide whether Rigby was murdered. The verdict comes after the trial, not before."
headdesk/headdesk/headdesk/headdesk/headdesk/headdesk
No, Andy, it may surprise you to learn that the Crown Prosecution Service has already determined that Rigby was murdered. Really. You still don't seem to get it: Rigby was murdered. The CPS determined this. See the citation above. Do you really believe that the CPS is going to charge someone with the crime of murder just because someone turns up dead? -or on a whim? Of course not! The CPS are quite capable of telling whether or not a victim was murdered; the courts are not necessary to prove that. The medical examiner's finding, the eyewitness accounts, the manner of Rigby's death, etc., has demonstrated that he died as the result of murder. There is no doubt that he was murdered. End of story. That is a totally different issue than whether or not he was murdered by the defendants presently charged! Was Adam (murder victim) murdered? Obviously! Was "it for the courts to decide whether 'Adam' was murdered"? No, it was for the CPS to decide, since no suspect has even been identified, much less brought to trial, much less convicted. TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES. Really. If no one is ever brought to justice for killing "Adam", does that mean that he wasn't actually murdered? Please. There is zero doubt that the victims of the Whitechapel Murders were murdered. That has nothing to do with whether or not anyone was ever convicted of their murder. Tell you what: since you seem to be adamant about Rigby not having been determined to have been murdered, suppose you cite for me the statute in British law that says that a victim can't be determined to have been murdered, irrespective of suspect or trial. I'd love to see that actual statute. Bricology (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have to cite anything. You are completely and utterly mistaken in your understanding of elementary principles of law. The CPS doesn't determine that anyone has been murdered. Courts do. At the end of a Trial. If there are convictions for murder. These are the facts, plain and simple. And you have offered nothing whatsoever to suggest the contrary beyond your repeated and entirely unsourced assertions. And Wikipedia doesn't consider the assertions of random contributors as a reliable source. Ever. Go away and learn how the law actually works, and then maybe there will be something to discuss. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

So, let me see if I understand you, AndyTheGrump:

• The Crown Prosecution Service -- the Government's own branch that determines the nature of crimes -- is wrong in having declared Rigby to have been "murdered".
• The Metropolitan Police Service --charged with enforcing the laws of the land -- is wrong in having declared Rigby to have been "murdered".
• The BBC -- which "operates under Royal Charter to provide impartial public service broadcasting in the United Kingdom" -- is wrong in having declared Rigby to have been "murdered".
• The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, and just about every other privately-owned newspaper in Britain, is wrong in having declared Rigby to have been "murdered" (thus opening themselves up to libel lawsuits).
• This very Wikipedia article, which repeatedly describes Rigby as having been murdered (e.g., "...calls to its helpline concerning anti-Muslim incidents greatly increased after the murder..." and "...some of them explicitly against the murder of Rigby...") is wrong in having declared him to have been "murdered".
• But you are right, because you say you are.
• Furthermore, every unsolved murder is actually not a murder, because no one has been tried for the crime.
• Every one of the hundreds of British cases with their own WP articles wherein the cases are described as "murders" (e.g., Adam (murder victim)) are not really murders, because there has been no conviction. Got it. /RME

Clearly, I've wasted more than enough time on you and your self-declared expertise regarding the law. Bricology (talk) 07:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Yet again, no source. No matter how may times you repeat the same nonsense, it is still nonsense. The CPS does not determine that there has been a murder, they determine that there is enough evidence for someone to be sent to trial, in order for the courts to decide whether a murder in fact took place. [18] AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump wrote "Yet again, no source." Someone (that would be AndyTheGrump) is unfamiliar with what "sources" are. I've already cited the CPS (a source), the MPS (another source), the "official" media (a source), the independent media (a source) and a variety of WP articles including this one (sources, all). He seems to be oblivious to the fact that a person can (and often is) characterized as having been murdered, entirely unrelated to whether or not anyone has been convicted of their murder -- despite the countless sources I've quoted, including the Murder of Jill Dando, the Murder of Rachel Nickell, the Murder of Linda Cook, Adam (murder victim), and List of unsolved murders in the United Kingdom. He keeps hoping that these will go away, but they won't. People are murdered without anyone being convicted. Deal with it. In the meantime: I defy AndyTheGrump and anyone else to explain how there can be cases here in WP where Britons are described explicitly as having been "murdered", even though no one has been convicted of their murder. Of course, they won't actually answer this, because it would mean admitting that their selective definitions were subjective. Bricology (talk) 07:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Andy. According to The Crown Prosecution Service there are six criteria for murder, including "the crime of murder is committed where a person of sound mind and discretion (i.e. sane) ... ". Should the court determine that the defendants were insane, then murder was not committed. WWGB (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

WWGB wrote "According to The Crown Prosecution Service..." Actually, according to the Crown Prosecution Service, murder has already been committed. If you can read English, you will notice this from their own press release: "The Crown Prosecution Service has authorised the Metropolitan Police Service to charge Michael Adebowale with the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby". Does it say "The Crown Prosecution Service has authorized the Metropolitan Police Service to charge Michael Adebowale with murdering Drummer Lee Rigby"? Nope. It says "...to charge Michael Adebowale with the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby." According to the CPS, Rigby's murder is a fait accompli. There are countless cases of murder in which no one has ever been charged, much less convicted. That does not negate the fact that the victim was murdered by someone. Bricology (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

You seem unable to distinguish between charges (CPS) and accusations (media) of murder, and the court's legal finding of murder. WWGB (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

WWGB wrote "You seem unable to distinguish between charges (CPS) and accusations (media) of murder, and the court's legal finding of murder." It's not my inability to distinguish between them that's at fault here, it's others' belief that it's necessary to do so; it's a false dilemma fallacy. One exists independently of the other. No one is trying to deprive the defendants of their right to a fair trial or to prejudge their guilt; their guilt or lack thereof is a separate legal question. There's the CPS' determination that Rigby was murdered, and then there's the results of the trial. Answer two simple questions: if the defendants are all acquitted (let's say because they have a jury that's sympathetic to jihad or whatever), does that mean that Rigby was not murdered? If he was not murdered, then what was the cause of his death? -misadventure? -suicide? The CPS, the MPS and other agencies have characterized his death as "murder", and the media has reported it as such. This very article reports it as such and yet I don't see you or anyone else bothering to edit the word "murder" out of this article. Now, why is that? Perhaps it's because others understand that there's a fundamental difference between Rigby's death being the result of murder -- which has already been established -- and the question of guilt of the defendants presently charged, which can only be established by trial. Bricology (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Other stuff exists. This is a UK article, not about a US scenario, and involves UK sub judice rules and living people who have been charged but not convicted. The current article title is not going to be changed against consensus.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

ianmacm wrote "This is a UK article, not about a US scenario..." Nice try, but nope. Consider The Murder of Jill Dando, the Murder of Rachel Nickell, the Murder of Linda Cook -- just 3 examples of UK murder cases in which no one has been convicted of murder. They are nonetheless still listed in their respective Wikis as having been murder victims. No reasonable person disputes that they were murdered. And those three are just a few out of dozens of British murders I could cite from WP. So, what is it that makes this UK murder different? Clearly, it's not because those accused have yet to come to trial; that didn't prevent the other murder victims from being described as such. Well? Bricology (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Yet another example: List of unsolved murders in the United Kingdom. How can there be "unsolved murders in the UK", if no one has already been convicted of their murders? Simple: because the victims were determined to have been murdered. That's a separate issue from whether or not anyone was charged, much less convicted, of the crimes. Those of you who insist otherwise -- you've got your work cut out for you here. Get editing. Bricology (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

A coroner's verdict of unlawful killing is a legal determination that includes murder. Not applicable in this case. Leaky Caldron 19:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Bricology may not have lost the plot, but I think his grasp on the plot interferes with his ability to comprehend the reality of the situation here. The inability to appreciate the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", "trial by jury", "sub judice", the process of determining evidence, the charging process, the independence of the English & Welsh prosecuting authority etc., despite the evidence presented here, demonstrates a rather disturbing, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude. Leaky Caldron 11:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Leaky_caldron wrote "(Bricology's)...inability to appreciate the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty', 'trial by jury', 'sub judice'...demonstrates a rather disturbing, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude". Of course, beyond trying to put words in my mouth, Leaky_caldron has yet to grasp the fact that it's perfectly possible -- indeed, even common -- to determine that someone has been murdered, before or even in lieu of anyone ever being charged with the murder. That explains why there are countless murder victims listed here on WP for whom no one has ever been convicted or even charged, as well as why there are countless other murder victims for whom the defendant was acquitted -- either rightly or wrongly. I've already cited too many examples to bother posting more. At this point, I just have to assume that Leaky_caldron and their ilk aren't really interested in these issues, but rather in defending a politically-correct notion of it being "unfair" to state the obvious: that it is incontrovertible that Rigby was murdered. Whether or not anyone will ever be convicted of his murder is, for these purposes, irrelevant. Even if these defendants are acquitted, that will not change Rigby's status of being a murder victim. The proof of this being an ideological rather than logical or legal concern is supported by the fact that all over WP are articles on British murder victims whose killers have never been identified; even this very article described Rigby as a murder victim, but Leaky_caldron and their ilk are conspicuously absent from attempting to "correct those errors". Bricology (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Still no source. Still the same old nonsense. Still nobody agrees with Bricology's bizarre interpretations of the British legal system. And now we are told that not believing this clueless waffle is due to "ideological rather than logical or legal concern"? Yeah right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump wrote "Still no source." Wrong. I cited the CPS' own statement about charging the suspects with murder, as well as citing countless WP sources of similar cases in which victims were characterized as "murdered" despite there not being a conviction. News to you: those are sources. "Still nobody agrees with Bricology's bizarre interpretations..." I'm not impressed by appeal-to-popularity fallacies. "And now we are told that not believing this clueless waffle is due to 'ideological rather than logical or legal concern'? Yeah right." Yeah, right. If this wasn't about politically correct ideology, you (and others here) would be challenging, if not scrupulously excising, all mentions of "murder" from this very article, as well as other Wikis describing Britons having been murdered, despite no one having been convicted. Your silence on those cases is both deafening and telling. Bricology (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Given that Bricology has utterly failed to produce a single source for his bizarre assertion that the CPS is responsible for predetermining the results of a trial, I think we can safely treat this topic as closed, and consequently leave the title as it is - reflecting the legal situation (and incidentally for any British contributors, avoiding breaches of sub judice law, one of which is apparently "anticipating the course of a trial or predicting the outcome" [19]). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to reinforce the process in this trial with a resolved case. Tianhui Zhan killed Michael Davis in the UK with a knife (sound familiar)? The CPS charged Zhan with murder. The court found he was not guilty of murder by reason of insanity. Hence, no murder took place as the vital criterion ("sound mind and discretion") was absent. Davis was not murdered, he was the victim of homicide. WWGB (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

WWGB wrote "Just to reinforce the process in this trial with a resolved case." Of course, you're not really "reinforcing the process"; you're citing an outlier. Cases that result in a verdict of "not guilty by reason of insanity" are quite rare in the UK, making up a very small percentage of all capital crime verdicts. I don't suppose you could be bothered to explain how a victim could be characterized by the CPS, MPS, media, etc., as "murdered" in the many cases where there has been no suspect, much less conviction, could you? Because that would actually be a useful bit of "reinforcing the process". No, I suspect that I'll be listening to crickets for a long while before any of you address that. Bricology (talk) 07:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to shove in my 2p in here. The CPS as the body prosecuting on behalf of Her Maj. will given our adversarial justice system, naturally allege that a murder has been committed. If however their assertion that there has been a murder is accepted before any trail has concluded, then in my mind that would constitute at least partial summary justice and dispense with the need for any trail to establish anything beyond who committed it and certainly not what was committed. - Separately as food for thought these "course notes" from Routledge recite the definition of murder as thus: "the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen's peace, with malice aforethought" which I believe is the common law definition. --84.92.56.128 (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The page cannot be called murder of as long as the trial is on. Not only because of the already stated guideline rules but because the killers are claiming that it was a lawful killing as part of war. Now, it is unlikely they get to convince the court of this, but as long as they might Wikipedia will be libel if it is called murder. All instances of that word should be removed from the article. When the killers, and they have admitted to be the killers, are convicted the headline should be changed and the killers named and shamed! --109.155.74.194 (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

But use of Category: Murder in 2013 is still perfectly acceptable? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, it is now, it seems. Even if any appeal were to succeed, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, AndyTheGrump, Leaky_caldron, Martin451 and ianmacm: now that the conviction has been returned for "guilty of murder" (to no one's surprise), the title of the article must now be changed to "The murder of Lee Rigby". Bricology (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Whether we are 'surprised' by the verdict or not is entirely irrelevant. Per policy, until the courts had determined that Rigby had indeed been murdered, Wikipedia didn't state that he had. Since the courts have made such a determination, the new title is per policy - as was the old one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump wrote "Per policy, until the courts had determined that Rigby had indeed been murdered, Wikipedia didn't state that he had." Which is, of course, complete bullshit. You might have an argument if (a) that was an explicitly stated policy in WP:BLPCRIME (or anywhere else on WP), or (b) there was any semblance of consistency to your claim. But as I've repeatedly pointed out, there are countless Wikis on people who are described in title and content as having been "murdered" or being a "murder victim", for whom no murderer had ever been convicted. Indeed, this very article has explicitly described Rigby as a "murder victim" since it was created, and yet neither you nor anyone else in the PC echo chamber bothered to challenge those mentions. To wit: under the heading "Anti-Muslim response", it has already read, for many months now, "A representative of Hope not Hate said the number of phone calls to its helpline concerning anti-Muslim incidents greatly increased after the murder." and "In October 2013 British anti-terrorist police warned several Muslims who had spoken out against Islamist extremism, some of them explicitly against the murder of Rigby..." Regardless, it's a relief to know that neither Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman, JonBenét Ramsey or Tupac Shakur were actually murdered, despite the titles of their Wikis claiming that they were. And John F. Kennedy wasn't murdered because, after all, Lee Harvey Oswald was never convicted of assassinating him. Well, you've got your work cut out for you: I expect you to go and change all of those article titles to "The deaths of..." Bricology (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the slightest bit interested in debating this with you. The article didn't refer to Rigby as being murdered prior to the suspects' conviction - per policy. With the convictions the title may be changed to 'murder' - per policy. There is nothing more that needs to be said on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump wrote "The article didn't refer to Rigby as being murdered prior to the suspects' conviction..." Have you even actually read the article? - or are you lying? Those are the only two possibilities. This article has explicitly referred to Rigby as having been murdered since the very first iteration of it on May 30. REALLY. Here is a link to the very first version of this article . Hit control+f to activate "find" in your browser, and input the word "murder" into the text box. Skip down to the 4th and 5th found instances of the word. You will see that two phrases explicitly state that Rigby was murdered, exactly as I quoted them above. Those statements have been in this article for more than 6 months, without you or anyone else challenging them; they have never been edited out over those 6 months. I've pointed this out repeatedly but you just keep denying it and claiming they're not there. /SMH Bricology (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The case was sub judice in the UK until 19 December in the early afternoon, UTC. We don't have the First Amendment in British Law. Where "murder" was referred to in initial and prior versions it most certainly should not have been, unless it was an oblique reference. Arguing as you did that we could call this murder before the UK courts had so determined, in a case active in the judicial process, would most certainly have been contempt of court. This is nothing to do with political correctness. None of us are anarchists here and there is simply no need for you to continually and inappropriately beat the drum of free speech when we have clear policy restraints on what can be placed in our articles during the course of an active murder jury trial in the UK. Other jurisdications may have different considerations. Please let it drop now, we have the result that was fully anticipated and, generally speaking, hoped for. Leaky Caldron 09:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Leaky_caldron: no one (certainly not me) ever even mentioned the First Amendment in this thread. I don't for a moment buy your claim that "to call (Rigby's death) 'murder' before the UK courts had so determined...would most certainly have been contempt of court", given the fact that every major media outlet in the UK has routinely referred to it as "murder" for the past 7 months. Here's The Times on May 27 referring to it as "the Woolwich Murder". Here's BBC News on May 29 referring to it as "the Woolwich Murder". Here's the Daily Telegraph on June 1 referring to Rigby as having been murdered. Here's the Guardian on Dec. 5, saying "In the wake of Drummer Lee Rigby’s murder...". Here's the Daily Mail on June 1, whose headline reads "The ideology behind Lee Rigby's murder". There are dozens more examples I could cite, from every major news media source in the UK. Have any of these, who have routinely and consistently characterized Rigby's death as "murder" for the past 7 months, been charged with contempt of court over it? Nope, not one. But you expect me to believe that the characterization of his death as "murder" on Wikipedia -- an international website started by an American and located and hosted in the US -- somehow falls afoul of the British Attorney General?! That's just comical. News to you: news articles on WP aren't under the jurisdiction of the particular nation in which the newsworthy incident took place. The Wiki on say, al-Qaeda can't be censored by the attorney general of Saudi Arabia. I also had to laugh at this: "Where 'murder' was referred to in initial and prior versions it most certainly should not have been, unless it was an oblique reference." "Initial and prior versions"? No, in every single version of this article since it was first posted. Apparently, some here didn't bother to actually read the article before adamantly claiming that it didn't say Rigby was murdered.Bricology (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

References

Anjem Choudary and Michael Adebolajo's brother, Jeremiah "condoning" the attack

Both of these people gave rather weaselly worded refusals to condemn the attack, which is not the same thing as condoning, which means actively approving of something. They both gave British involvement in the Middle East as a reason for the attack, but it is inaccurate and a POV interpretation to say that they condoned the attack.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Anjem Choudary has been particularly controversial in his comments on BBC Radio, e.g. [20], [21], [22]. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

He said this: "Whether you agree or disagree with what took place, you cannot predict the actions of one individual among a population of 60 million when the government is clearly at war in Muslim countries. I condemn those who have caused what has taken place on the streets of London, and I believe that the cause of this is David Cameron and his foreign policy."

Placing this in the WP:LEAD also gives more prominence to Anjem Choudary and Michael Adebolajo's brother than they deserve per WP:DUE. It should be mentioned later on that both of them refused to condemn the attack. We all know that Anjem Choudary is a hate figure for the tabloid press, but he should not be made into a key player in this article when he is not.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Quite agree (.. although not just "for the tabloid press", I'd suggest). Martinevans123 (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I also agree - there is no good reason to include those views in the lead, let alone to summarise them inaccurately. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Totally disagree. ianmacm's definition of "condone" as "actively approving of something" is incorrect. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, to condone is nothing more than "to accept or allow behaviour that is wrong". The Oxford dictionary defines "condone" as to "accept behaviour that is considered morally wrong or offensive" To be "actively approving of" something is not the same as to "accept" or "allow" something. (For example, I accept the fact that I will die one day, and will allow it to happen; that is nothing like "actively approving of" my death.) Clearly, Choudary at the very least condoned the murder when he blamed it on "British foreign policy", which implies that political policies in a country inevitably or naturally lead to murder. Anjem Choudary is far from an insignificant figure. ianmacm claimed "We all know that Anjem Choudary is a hate figure for the tabloid press, but he should not be made into a key player in this article when he is not". So who are these alleged "key players" quoted in the sources for the claim? Many of them are unknown to the British and to the world at large, such as one Sergey Frolov of a minor Russian newspaper called "Trud". Others, like Asghar Bukhari are certainly less well-known than Anjem Choudary. To allow the lede to give the impression that there is anything like global unanimity in condemning Rigby's murder is disingenuous. Asghar Bukhari also told the BBC "...Until the (British) government admits there is a direct link between this radicalisation happening and their foreign policy, how are we ever going to end this? There’s two culprits here". Also, Choudary was hardly alone in condoning the murder. Omar Bakri Muhammad said "...we could see that (Michael Adebolajo) was being very courageous. Under Islam this can be justified. He was not targeting civilians. He was taking on a military man in an operation. To people around here [Middle East] he is a hero" and "God destined for him to carry out the attack and God destined for the British soldier to die for the cause he believed in. Muslims in Lebanon are proud of it" Influential Muslim leader Makaburi (AKA Abubaker Shariff Ahmed) told Sky News "Michael (Adebolajo) was a Muslim soldier and he was fighting a Christian soldier...Britain is at war. It has started a war against Islam and Michael was being a good Muslim soldier.". "Not the same as 'condoning'"? You're right -- it's more like praising, justifying and advocating. That's why it belongs in the lede. Finally, nearly every media source on earth prominently quoted Jeremy Adebolajo's condoning of his brother's act. That needs to be given appropriate coverage and weight.Bricology (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

"Condone" can be taken as meaning approval, eg in Merriam Webster. Both men went down the well-trodden path of refusing to condemn the attack, and allowing other people to draw their own conclusions about what this actually meant. There is nothing wrong with pointing out that the attack was motivated by the presence of British troops in the Middle East, as this was what one of the attackers said was the motive in the rant video.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I think those who have condoned refused to condemn this murder could have their own subsection, with quotes and sources as appropriate. (The Choudary interview was the subject of a question on BBC's Any Questions?) But I do not believe they should be mentioned in the lede. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC) p.s. I think his name is Jeremiah, not Jeremy?

References

Mentioning Muslim extremist views in the lead

Under the first heading, the final paragraph stated "The attack was condemned by political and Muslim leaders in the United Kingdom and in the worldwide press." This assertion gives the inaccurate impression that Rigby's murder was unanimously condemned. To give two examples of those who condoned the murder, I added "...but condoned by others such as radical Islamist Anjem Choudary, who stated "The cause (for Rigby's death) is clear - it's the British foreign policy", and Michael Adebolajo's brother, Jeremiah Adebolajo, who rhetorically asked "...Was Lee Rigby a violent individual? Are other British soldiers, who go to Afghanistan and Iraq and kill, violent individuals?"." Anjem Choudary is, by any estimation, a "political and Muslim leader", so his contrary opinion is significant. Nevertheless, Ianmacm immediately reverted my edit. Perhaps he's unaware that doing so is a violation of WP:AGF, but I bring to his (and anyone else who doesn't understand WP policy) to Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, to WP's policy that states "Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion" and to Wikipedia:edit warring which explicitly states "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours." Editors CANNOT unilaterally delete other editors' work, especially without good cause. The proper protocol is to start a "talk" page discussion about the merits of the edit and to try to reach consensus. My additions were relevant and properly sourced. They will be re-reverted and I expect them to remain. If anyone vandalizes them again, I will apply for page protection and ask that the vandal be blocked.Bricology (talk) 10:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NOTVANDALISM, and behave accordingly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I opened the thread above on Jeremiah Adebolajo at 19:41 on 19 December 2013, to which you have yet to contribute. Ianmacm isn't "unilaterally deleting other editors' work" - I'm deleting it as well if it isn't supported by any sources. Similarly, the thread opened by Ian, which includes Anjem Choudary, has been open since 09.09, but you have chosen to make no contribution.Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I have already said that this should be mentioned in the article, but not in the lead section, because it gives undue weight to Anjem Choudary and Jeremiah Adebolajo, who are not representative of the vast majority of reactions to the murder. Nor did I break WP:3RR. Routine editing and discussion is not vandalism.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot state that Anjem Choudary 'condoned' the murder, because the sources cited do not state that he did. They state that he refused to condemn the murder - which he did. It would violate WP:BLP policy to apply our own interpretation of Choudary's words here, which isn't an option. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

References

Anjem Choudary and Jeremiah Adebolajo did not condemn it, others have also shown sympathy or support of the killing. In Kenya, the killer of Rigby is considered a hero[23] and justified by an influential leader there.[24] Omar Bakri was "proud" of them[25] and "The people were so happy about what Michael did. They carry attack against the British soldiers in the British soil. And we were so proud. He used to be one of my students.’"[26] al-Shabab also "celebrates" the murder.[27][28]. They also got support on Twitter[29], and a facebook group started called "Lee Rigby Deserved It"[30]. These guys clearly had some support from influential and notable people, so saying "The attack was condemned by political and Muslim leaders in the United Kingdom and in the worldwide press." at the start of the article makes it unbalanced.--Helwingia (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Those seem to be perfectly good sources. The lead section of the article should not include anything that isn't included in the main body. So I'd suggest, as a first step, might be to add a new sub-section on "other reactions"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

All of this is true, but the fringe chorus of radical Islamic voices should not be given equal weight with the vast majority of reactions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Wikipedia isn't a platform for radical Islam. Any coverage of this needs to be based on the best of sources, and placed in a wider context. Frankly, of the sources cited by Helwingia, there are few that I'd consider suitable. It looks to me like trawling for sources when one has to cite websites in Nigeria or Australia for such material, and much of the other coverage seems shallow and more aimed at sensationalism than balance. This isn't an article about an obscure event, and with the plethora of coverage by mainstream media, resorting to such material is surely evidence that WP:WEIGHT is questionable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, some sources might be less than ideal. But sky.com is rather ubiquitous, and we might expect such material at Al Jazeera. The Guardian is pretty solid though. I quite agree we should not be using Facebook pages as a source. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I think there is a sense in which the opening paragraphs summarise the incident as a relatively simple murder, when, in fact, many reliable sources are taking a somewhat wider perspective. For example, this editorial says "It does not in any way lessen the seriousness of the crime to suggest that Mr Rigby was also an indirect casualty of the events set in train by the attack on New York in September 2001....". We do not have to quote specific individuals like Choudary, but we can still include, in the text, reliably sourced references to the placing of this attack in the context of wider political issues. And, as a global encyclopedia, we should absolutely give due weight to non-UK and non-US media like Al Jazeera and sources in Nigeria - we shouldn't automatically assume that sources in our own countries are necessarily "the best", or indeed the most neutral. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The question isn't about due weight between sources, though. It's about due weight with regards to information. To take a step back, clearly this was basically a brutal murder and, within the context of British society, you would have to be a lunatic not to condemn it unequivocally. It's always possible to dig up a lunatic if you want to interview one, but it doesn't change the basic consensus about whether the attack was a good or a bad thing. It's the consensus that the lead of the article ought to reflect. The views of people like Anjem Choudary, the Westboro Baptist Church or David Icke don't really have a place in the lead sections of articles about significant contemporary events. Formerip (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Quite. But that doesn't answer my point at all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to address the question asked by the OP. Explaining the motivation of the crime is a separate issue. This is something we should, of course do, but we do require solid sourcing and we should be wary of op-ed speculation. Explaining fanatical violence in general terms is not for this article to do in very much detail. Formerip (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The Koranic Basis for the Murder of Lee Rigby

Michael Adebolajo is reported to have given a passerby a handwritten note at the scene of the crime. You’ll notice the references at the end of the note to verses in the Koran. I want that this note and the relevant Koran verses are inserted in the article. This handwritten note was also published at this blog The Koranic Basis for the Murder of Lee Rigby--79.192.48.78 (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Blogs aren't considered to be WP:RS. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

This is in the image gallery here. Michael Adebolajo gave bystander Amanda Donnelly Martin this note,[31] so it could be mentioned in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Are there secondary reliable sources which suggest that the note is of any particular significance? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It fits in with the pattern of the two attackers trying to milk the attack for its publicity value. This is something that they seem to have considered beforehand. The references to the Koran in the note are similar to the justification that Adebolajo gives in the rant video.[32] In this ten minute news video (which is worth watching in full) a psychiatrist refers to the handwritten note at the eight minute mark as a potential suicide note attempting to justify his actions after he is dead, presumably after being shot by the police, which the attackers tried to engineer, while another psychiatrist compares Adebolajo to Anders Behring Breivik due to his desire to be seen as a soldier fighting for a cause.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Whilst the above IP editor may have a case and it may well be that this should be mentioned in the article, I would just like to point out (hopefully in a manner of some gentility) that this is something for the community to decide by consensus in line with Wikipedia guidelines and demanding something goes against the guideline of civility which can be found out about here WP:NICE. --wintonian ^talk 20:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The attacker wrote the note beforehand, and gave it to a passing bystander, so should be mentioned in the article. There is no shortage of sources either [33][34][35][36] etc.--Helwingia (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD and added this to the article, because it is worth a brief mention, but without going into too much detail.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

and this man is a British soldier

How did they know he was a serving solider? He was wearing a HFH top, could have been anyone? Can anyone show me the link to how they knew please? (Dave006 (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, so they could have killed a person who was not a soldier by mistake. This source says that he has wearing a Help for Heroes top, and and carrying an Army day sack, both of which can be seen in this CCTV image. Rigby arrived at Woolwich Arsenal station at 2.10pm and was walking down Wellington Street towards the Barracks. The combination of these things seems to have convinced the attackers that Rigby was a soldier. Detectives believed that Rigby was chosen at random. Michael Adebolajo said "Whilst waiting to find a soldier, because between us we decided that the soldier is the most fair target because he joins the Army with kind of an understanding that your life is at risk. So we sat in wait and it just so happened that he was the soldier that was spotted first. Almost as if Allah had chosen him for some reason he chose to cross in front of our vehicle."[37] What is clear from the timeline and CCTV video footage here is that the attackers made a split-second decision to ram into Rigby while he was crossing the road to get to a shop. There is no evidence that he was targeted for any reason other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, pretty much what I thought, just still think its strange they chose him? They could have waited and a Soldier in uniform would have turned up, many walk along there all day? Just a bit strange I think, I wear HFH tops all the time and carry a bag, but still dont look like a soldier? Dave006 (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Tagging of Anti-Muslim backlash section

This section has had an unresolved NPOV tag for a long time, which is not ideal. It was previously discussed here. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the section, but some of the figures for hate crimes produced by pressure groups were challenged.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Attack

None of the three sources say witness claimed to hear them shout"Allau Akbar", The guardian one doesn't,The BBC says Whitehall said it, and the Telegraph cites the BBC Article. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but if it did, there should be a reference that quotes a witness as having said so, otherwise it;s hearsay. Alfietucker undid my work, pointing to the legal precedings section,which states they shouted the Phrase in court, with all due respect, that doesn't prove they shouted it while attacking Rigby.I do take the point that I shouldn't have removed references for other sentences earlier. AnarchoGhost (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

This is based on early reports from the scene which may be confused. In the famous rant video, Adebolajo does not say "Allahu Akbar", but he does say "By Allah" several times.[38] Both men were removed from the court during the sentencing after shouting "Allahu akbar" and fighting with the security guards.[39]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Article rename

I think this article should be renamed the killing of Lee Rigby as murder is a loaded term and not NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.41.184 (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Two people were found guilty of ......"murder".--Egghead06 (talk) 07:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

By the british state? does wikipedia now follow the definition given by state governments? because the IRA articles will need to be heavily changed then. Also the title of the Derry article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.41.184 (talk) 07:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

No not by the British state, by a jury of British people. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME is the relevant policy here. Wikipedia reports what reliable secondary sources have said, and does not offer personal opinions about what constitutes a fair trial. What is being requested here goes against virtually all of the mainstream media coverage of the case.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems quite biased, that terrorist killings committed by white christians aren't referred to as murder in the articles yet those committed by black muslims are, surely there should be consistency in how such politically motivated killings are referred? Or why is are IRA murderers treated as soldiers but Islamic ones treated as criminals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.41.184 (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be making a huge assumption/generalisation. This particular killing has been identified as murder due to the jury and process of law. That is not to say every killing by a black muslim is going to be termed "murder" in Wikipedia - only in those cases where reliable sources agree that it is. Ditto IRA killings. Alfietucker (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)