Talk:Murder of Lee Rigby

"armed with a gun"

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

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

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

The OP is right. The gun has not received a great deal of attention because it was not used in the attack. It was "a rusty Dutch KNIL 9.4mm revolver that was 90-years-old."[1] and was not loaded.[2]. Nor could it fire, as it was considered to be "antique/obsolete calibre" and exempt from the Firearms Act 1968.[3] The article could make this clearer, as thanks to the UK's stringent gun laws, the attackers were unable to find a real gun, only an antique.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• When armed police arrived at the scene, Adebowale pointed the gun at officers, who opened fire and shot off his thumb.[4] There is a high-res CCTV image of the moment here. At the time, armed police officers would not have known that it was not a real (ie capable of being fired) gun.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Michael Adebolajo "suing over teeth lost in prison"

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

murder - non NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd like to know a bit more about the person saying this, as there is a huge amount of axe grinding going on here. If a person is found guilty of murder by a British court and this is reported by reliable sources, the title of the article will be "Murder of", in line with WP:BLPCRIME. Phrases like "hegemonic control" and "narrative" are straight from the vocabulary of Dave Spart in Private Eye.[5]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

BBC "Ambulance" Episode 1"

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Also Section

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

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

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

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

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

King's Arms - Woolwich pub, site of IRA-bombing in 1974 Why is this link the second when there are plenty of other relevant, new and religiosly related attacks to list. The edit was reverted saying that the order is "alphabetical". I don't know which alphabet that particular editor was talking about but it surely wasn't English alphabet.