Talk:Murder of Lee Rigby

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."[1] 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.[2] Both men were removed from the court during the sentencing after shouting "Allahu akbar" and fighting with the security guards.[3]--♦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)

June 2014 memorials

Plans to add Rigby's name to the Armed Forces Memorial and for a memorial in Woolwich both have an element of WP:CRYSTAL as they have not happened yet. The article should be updated when there is more information.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Well I suppose you're technically correct on the first issue, though this source suggests his name is now included [4] and this one shows his name drawn out ready to be added [5]. If nothing else shows up i think those should be sufficient proof but i guess we can wait a week or two. As for the Woolwich memorial, well that has so much coverage that now CRYSTAL becomes irrelevant because the controversy and campaign is of significance itself, and i don't' think I implied it had actaully been built, therefore I intend to restore that material.--Shakehandsman (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The part about the controversy was trimmed because it seemed to be excessive and have WP:RECENTISM issues.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Well the outcome is quite recent and no doubt things would need to be tweaked once the memorial is built, but the controversy/campaign are clearly of note, and in addition to the various sources there's a lot of radio coverage and even the backing of Boris Johnson. I'm very much in favour of making the text as concise as possible, but the campaign and the opposition to the memorial need inclusion, they're actually much more significant than any material on the Armed Services memorial--Shakehandsman (talk) 08:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Shakehandsman I think inclusion of the campaign and opposition are of interest and of value. AnarchoGhost (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)