Talk:Murder of Lee Rigby/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

English Defence League in political reaction

The English Defence League are not a political party, and have no elected representatives at any level in the United Kingdom. I do not believe that they should be included in the political rection section of this article. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine but done remove it altogether. I hope the current incarnation is acceptable?

Although you don't need MPs to be a political party.(Lihaas (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)).

I think we need to mention them in some context as some of their members held a demonstration in Woolwich later in the evening. [1] But I agree it shouldn't be under political reaction. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Beheading in the name of Islam

Article on Beheading in the name of Islam now up for AFD.Rembrandt Peale (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Merger and redirect from article titled 2013 London attack

I've added Template:Mergeto and Template:Mergefrom notices to 2013 London attack and to this article, respectively.
The 2013 London attack page should be deleted or made a redirect to this article; the latter seems preferable for the time being so I have performed a redirect.
I copied the single news article from telegraph.co.uk which was cited at 2013 London attack to the References section of this article.
I haven't actually added the text of the London-titled article as it seems to me that doing so would be largely redundant but of course the original editor of that page can edit this article if they feel some valuable content was lost due to this redirection.
Riyuky (talk) 06:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. To be honest, I looked for such an article before I started that one, but could not find it. A search for "Ingrid Loyau-Kennett brought nothing; there was nothing in current events or wikinews. I was surprised that I couldn't find anything, and that's why I started my version. Thank you for discovering my version and making the appropriate adjustment. Kingturtle = (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Reactions section

These were put back into the article in this edit. As usual, there are too many reactions and the list format should be converted per WP:PROSE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. There are hundreds of reactions, and it would be impossible to include them all. I think we should limit it to the Queen, major party leaders, the Mayor, bishop of Woolwich, Help for Heroes obviously, and some of the faith organisations. Not sure we need Mr Farage's opinion. After all, why mention him but not Nick Clegg when the latter is also a party leader, and deputy prime minister?Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

English Defence League

Some reactions are more than mere expressions of opinion. They've become events worthy of news coverage [2] [3] and potentially worrying. This deserves coverage in the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, as mentioned above. Just not sure which section it should be included in. Political reaction isn't appropriate. Perhaps aftermath. Any other thoughts? Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps Others since that's a catch-all for what's not political. Also, several of the groups that oppose the EDL are listed there. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give it a go. Someone's converted the sections into prose now and they look a lot better. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed prose is better , but we can't nit=pick notability as that would be subjective. I'm adding some others back (but in current format)(Lihaas (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)).

ok, have added stuff on EDL and Nick Griffin, which have been incorporated into various parts of the article. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Fix this article, please

Someone's messed up the code, resulting in the disappearance of the bottom of the page. I can't pinpoint the problem myself, so thought I'd mention that it needs fixing here. Thanks Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems sored to me(Lihaas (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)).

Fixed it a while ago. It was a <nowiki> left open accidentally by Lihaas [4]. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for getting back to me. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

(Lihaas (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)).

Nick Robinson

This piece from the BBC's Nick Robinson may be worth including somewhere, as he explains some of the background to the government's decision to treat the attack as a terrorist incident. His use of the term "of Muslim appearance" also caused offence, and may be worth a mention if others have reported on the reaction. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

ok, here's one from The Guardian. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep add it in for sure. Perhaps to reactions?(Lihaas (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)).

ok, it's done. Thanks, Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Although you've only mentioned the controversy not why the ogovt used the term. Add that too.

Resolved

(Lihaas (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)).

Picture

"The pub and the tower block on Artillery Place near to where the attack took place" - sorry but what value exactly does putting up a picture of somewhere nearby add to the article, apart from offering the pub some free publicity? --wintonian ^talk 19:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Why not use the least offensive screenshot from MSM available? †TE†Talk 19:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is limited to free images, and according to media coverage the attack was very close to here. Uploading a non-free image and putting it in the infobox would lead to a deletion debate very quickly. Ideally, someone with a photo or screenshot taken during the incident should give it a CC license and upload it to Commons.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Okey even assuming no-one had at some point in time taken a picture of the location with an appropriate commons licence, the road is now open again so if a south London based Wikipedian feels like a walk can they please take a camera with them? --wintonian ^talk 19:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

What I meant was an image taken during the incident itself. There are known to be numerous photos and videos taken by members of the public, but a CC license would be needed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes but would a picture (with appropriate licence) of the location taken before the incident (if one can be found) be more appropriate than some place nearby?--wintonian ^talk 19:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Or a picture of the barracks in the mean time? after all it does have slightly more relevance to the story than the local boozer. --wintonian ^talk 19:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

According to Google Maps, the attack took place around here. This is the location in this photo. It is not in front of the pub, but in Wellington Street a few yards from the junction with John Wilson Street.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah I see, "near to" to me sounded like a round the corner and down the road etc. type thing. Still a picture showing the flats and barracks from the cross roads might be good if we can get one as both have been prominent on the news items. --wintonian ^talk 20:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It is on the roadside outside Elliston House, which is the tower block in File:Queen Victoria Pub - geograph.org.uk - 488291.jpg. I am beginning to think that the Queen Victoria pub image is not ideal, but it should stay until someone in London can come up with a better image.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that's pretty much what I'm saying now I have been educated about the geography of Woolwich. --wintonian ^talk 20:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

POV murder

This was unilaterally moved and then the names were changes. Perhaps hes a new user and needs to be informed. But bear that this need to change to NPOV.(Lihaas (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)).

Redirect/bio

This page also serves as a redirect.t And hence Bio data is acceptable. [5]can't wait for the sake of this page to get it off the news/.(Lihaas (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)).

Road rage

Linking the deliberate running down of the soldier to the Road rage article makes as much sense as linking the September 11 attacks to the Air rage article. One is a not uncommon behavioural disorder, the other is a terrorist attack. Keri (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Aftermath and scope of Islamophobic sentiment

The article currently underplays this - it's more than just an EDL protests and attacks on 2 mosques. Perhaps information from this news source might be included...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/23/attacks-muslims-spike-woolwich-attack 86.25.184.196 (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)