Talk:Murder of Lee Rigby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


murder - non NPOV[edit]

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.[1]--♦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"[edit]

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.[2] 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[edit]

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.237.77.33 (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I've removed Udham Singh because the link is not clear cut in this case.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Someone apparently very much wants this to be included. Could this person explain why? Kleon3 (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
It was restored in this edit but I agree with 123.237.77.33 that it is somewhat tangential here. The article could live without it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Stabbing attack? No[edit]

Re this edit: Rigby was knocked down by the car, and the attackers then attempted to decapitate him, nearly succeeding.[3] This wasn't a stabbing attack like the 2017 Westminster attack or the June 2017 London attack. It's misleading to give this impression.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

  • It is pretty regularly described as a "stabbing" [4], [5], and Rigby does appear to have died of kinfe and cleaver inflicted wounds.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Search engine results can be misleading. This cite from The Guardian says "The savagery of the murder, in which Rigby, 25, was repeatedly stabbed and hacked at the neck by a cleaver, shattered community relations when mosques were attacked." Evidence presented at the trial from eyewitnesses said that the primary purpose of the knife and cleaver attack was an attempt to decapitate Rigby. They had no need to stab him as he was already unconscious (originally I said disabled here) and lying on the ground after being hit by the car at 30 - 40mph.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

:::::*(Changing your comment - especially a significant change - after a fellow editor has responded is regarded as a kind of dirty pool. you probably weren't aware, but do not do it again. If you want to make a change, yo must clearly mark the fact that you are doing so.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm not disputing that. But an attack can have multiple modalities. This one was a Vehicle-ramming attack and a stabbing/knife attack; and it was a murder, a beheading and a terrorist attack - and can probably be described from a number of additional angles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Readers coming to this discussion should understand that this is not' about changing the text of the article. I merely added adding Stabbing as a terrorist tactic (which includes a list of Islamism-related attacks with blade weapons) to the "See also" section. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:OWN is a problem here. I suggest that we let other editors weigh in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you didn't like me changing "disabled" to "unconscious" in this edit. It is based on the sourcing here which says "Like a "butcher attacking a joint of meat", Michael Adebolajo, 28, and Michael Adebowale, 22, then set about the unconscious man with a cleaver and knives in a "serious and almost successful" attempt to saw off his head, Richard Whittam QC, prosecuting, told the jury." I was simply trying to reflect what the sourcing says. All along, I have been trying to say that Rigby was not stabbed to kill or disable him, like the recent attacks in London. He might well have died from being hit by the car and the attackers primarily wanted to decapitate him; the eyewitnesses at the trial were clear about this. Anyway, I've had my two cents' worth and would welcome comments from other editors to prevent us from going round in circles on this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not that I didn't "like" your comment. It's that I had assumed that as an editor with long experience you would be aware of WP:REDACTED. I had assumed that as the editor who had had the largest number of edits on this page, you knew the details of the incident, and responded accordingly. My comment makes less sense in light of your changed edit. This is why we have a rule against doing what you did. Now you know, you can folow the instructions and properly mark the change you made.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it makes a great deal of difference to the thrust of the argument and clarifies the wording, but I've pointed out that it was changed. From the accounts given by the eyewitnesses, Rigby was not killed in a stabbing attack. He was run down with a car and knocked unconscious, and then the knife and cleaver were used in an attempt to decapitate him. This is significantly different from what happened in the 2017 Westminster attack or the June 2017 London attack. The infobox here doesn't say Stabbing as a terrorist tactic. On the day before the attack, Michael Adebolajo went to Argos in Lewisham and bought a knife sharpener and five-piece knife block set, costing £44.98.[6] This isn't in the article because it doesn't add much context and is somewhat overdetailed. Pretty much anyone can go out and buy a kitchen knife set without questions being asked, which is why knives make an ideal low-tech weapon for Islamic extremists. The Home Office pathologist described Rigby's wounds as "fractures to his back that could have been caused when he was driven into by a car at the start of the attack and "numerous and very deep" wounds to his neck, some of which it would have taken "severe force" to inflict. He gave the cause of death as "multiple incised wounds".[7] This is in line with eyewitness accounts of the event. The attackers seem to have been obsessed with decapitating Rigby, and nearly succeeded. I suspect that they wanted to parade around the street holding his severed head, in the style of an Islamic extremist propaganda video. None of this is really consistent with the phrase "Stabbing as a terrorist tactic" which was added in this edit. It could be argued that the murder of Lee Rigby fits in with the general pattern of the use of knives as easy to obtain low tech weapons, but the death of Rigby was not a stabbing attack, as virtually the entire use of the knife and cleaver was an attempt to decapitate him, and he was already unconscious at the time.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Subsequent events section: relevant? biased?[edit]

Recently there has been some section blanking of the 'Subsequent events' part of this page. In the edit summaries of those blanks, the complaint has come up that this section is biased and/or irrelevant.

I would argue that having an aftermath or subsequent events section on a page concerning a murder is nothing new, and is justified in this case due to the existence of several (~30) sources in this section detailing further events such as a Parliamentary inquiry, the response of the Ministry of Defense, and a few other controversies that stemmed directly from this incident.

If anyone else would like to discuss, feel free. Gilded Snail (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)