Talk:Murder of Lee Rigby

IRA bombings

Re this edit: I don't think that they meet WP:SEEALSO because they were IRA attacks and occurred during the Troubles. The fact that they were in Woolwich isn't really an issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The Woolwich pub bombing is too tangential - the only similarity is that they were both terrorist murders in Woolwich. The 1983 Royal Artillery Barracks bombing is more related, because it was also aimed at British soldiers. Jim Michael (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Removed long quotation

In the 'Attack' section, there was a 198 word quote from Michael Adebolajo giving his rationale for committing murder. I suggest that gave undue weight to his views and it should not be there. I've boldly removed it entirely, but I realise others might disagree so I'm opening this section up for discussion. › Mortee _talk 23:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a rant and gives some idea of what was going through Michael Adebolajo's head at the time. It's not intended to be a platform for his views. I'm not keen on removing this entirely per WP:NOTCENSORED, although it could be shortened a bit.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The killing

The murder was a terrorist attack. --Justice 4 all people (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC) check-user blocked account

The warrant presented in the press for the focus on Choudary is the role he played through preaching – Adebolajo was known to listen to Choudary’s speeches and was pictured together with him at a protest. In addition, it is reported that Choudary has been linked to another person, Richard Dart, who planned to undertake a terrorist attack on British soldiers.

Source: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1750481314568545

Justice 4 all people (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper, and there seems to be an element of soapboxing here. The article makes it adequately clear that Rigby was killed by Islamist extremists.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Yup. The lede of a Wikipedia article is not a tabloid headline.

'Justice 4 all people', the content of Wikipedia articles is arrived at by consensus, in accord with policies and guidelines that contributors have collectively compiled over many years. Nobody gets to say 'end of' here. Explain why you think the change was necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I removed "end of", but had expanded my statement. See source. --Justice 4 all people (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Please do not edit your posts after they have been responded to - it makes following the discussion difficult. And nobody is disputing that Rigby was murdered - it says so in the article title. Likewise, the article makes it entirely clear what the motivation for the attack was. The question is whether your preferred wording is appropriate in the lede. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@IanMacM: Please read Abdulcadir Gabeire Farah. Justice 4 all people (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a WP:OTHERCONTENT argument, which ultimately proves very little. As Andy said, Wikipedia articles are not tabloid headlines and the previous wording is simpler and better. I'm also concerned about the WP:USERNAME here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

No. You're digressing now. We all know it was an act of terrorism. AndyTheGrump claims that changes need consensus. Nobody denies it was terrorism. He originally removed it because it was "badly written" which I fixed. Now he is threatening the edit warring route because there are two of you, and he just agreed with you at lede's are not tabloid headlines. It's one reason detached from the next where you two are concerned. First of all, broadsheet papers also call killings terrorist attacks. Secondly, how I phrased it is not editorialising. Thirdly, I've shown you that other articles deploy that method. It's not OTHERCONTENT because it is the very same example redux. Unless you can prove it is right in one place but not the other, then you've got no argument, not just on othercontent but on all arguments given so far. At the moment, I am reading opposition, but what is your proposal for how we word it? And what is AndytheGrump's proposal? --Justice 4 all people (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

My proposal is that we leave the lede as it was. It does what a lede is supposed to do - summarise the remainder of the article. It tells the readers what happened. It explains what motivated the killers. Our readers are quite capable of deciding for themselves whether they wish to use a particular word to describe the act. 'Terrorism' isn't an explanation for anything much, without further explanation - and if things are properly explained, the word itself generally becomes unnecessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Introduction

They were Islamists. The body of the article discusses this plenty of times! I have included the word "Islamists" in the introduction now because there are ENOUGH sources in this article. Thank you.~ . 49.178.176.58 (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Like I said over on your user talk. If you would like something to be included in an article, you will need to include a citation to a reliable source to support that additional per WP:RS and WP:BLP. Thank you. TLJ7863 (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

49.178 has supplied a source to The Guardian, which describes the perpetrators as "Islamic terrorists". I don't understand your concerns. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)p

Thanks Ritchie. If I remember correctly, Islamist is an Islamic Terrorist.49.178.176.58 (talk) 07:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian has since been cited since I posted that previous message. I have no issues now. TLJ7863 (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Clearer distinction between barbarians and humans.

I've changed the wording from

"Injured: 2 (the perpetrators)"

to

"Injured: the two perpetrators",

with the edit summary

"For 1 full second I was afraid there had been 2 additional victims. That second is far too much."

Ianmcm has reverted because

"previous wording was ok".

I insist that it was not. Putting beasts like this (cleaver, decapitation attempt?!) on the same level as the victim is madness, in the best of scenarios. Arminden (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't see anything wrong with the previous wording.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I've explained in the edit summary: "For 1 full second I was afraid there had been 2 additional victims. That second is far too much." A formulation along the lines of "Casualties: 1 dead, 2 injured" creates an equivalent between the victim of the terror attack and the psychopatic barbarians who perpetrated it. There's a limit to the pretense of detached mathematical neutrality that's palatable among human beings. Anything else is hypocrisy and hidden rehabilitation of monsters. That is A) so obvious and B) so easy to understand from my edit summary, that it makes this "discussion" here painful. I don't intend to continue it, so thanks for your understanding. Arminden (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)