::::In theory, they could appeal at any time in the future. A UK conviction is never definitive in that sense. [[User:FormerIP|Formerip]] ([[User talk:FormerIP|talk]]) 16:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
::::In theory, they could appeal at any time in the future. A UK conviction is never definitive in that sense. [[User:FormerIP|Formerip]] ([[User talk:FormerIP|talk]]) 16:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
::::If there is an appeal, and if it succeeds, for one or both defendants, the article could be amended accordingly. These man are currently guilty of murder. If wikipedia policy allows, this fact should be reflected in both the title and the content of the article. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]])
::::If there is an appeal, and if it succeeds, for one or both defendants, the article could be amended accordingly. These man are currently guilty of murder. If wikipedia policy allows, this fact should be reflected in both the title and the content of the article. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]])
::Good point about a possible appeal, however if the media are currently allowed to refer to it as a murder and the defendants as murderers, then as that is factually correct at the current point in time I suggest we should too and then change it if the conviction(s) are quashed. --[[Special:Contributions/84.92.56.128|84.92.56.128]] ([[User talk:84.92.56.128|talk]]) 17:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.
If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
The "anti-Muslim backlash occurred across the United Kingdom" relies on third-party sources which are using an unreliable and bias source for their claims. Tell Mama UK, and Fiyaz Mughal who runs the project.
"120 of its 212 “anti-Muslim incidents” – 57 per cent – took place only online." "Not all the offending tweets and postings, it turns out, even originated in Britain." [1]
"35 of the 212 post-Woolwich incidents, or 16 per cent, had yet to be verified."[2]
"Fewer than one in 12 of the 212 “incidents” reported to Tell Mama since Woolwich – 17 cases (8 per cent) – involved individuals being physically targeted."[3]
Most of the section is OK and based on what reliable sources said. There was no huge wave of riots, as occurred after the Death of Mark Duggan in 2011, but there were isolated incidents of abuse, attacks on mosques etc. The article needs to reflect this. Figures given by pressure groups need to be treated with some caution as they have been questioned.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)15:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Death of..."? -or "Murder of..."?
There's something that smacks of prevarication in the title of the article. If Lee Rigby had merely died, there would be nothing noteworthy about it; 45,000 people die every day. What makes Rigby's case notable is that he was brutally murdered, and for specific reasons. In the interest of greater accuracy, I propose that the title be changed to "The murder of Lee Rigby". Bricology (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rigby's inquest has not yet completed. In the interests of justice, wikipedia should not speculate, especially in any way that could affect the outcome of any future trial, or be seen to influence trials.Martin45123:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's nothing more than sophistry. No one doubts that Rigby was murdered. The article itself clearly states that Rigby was "attacked and killed by two men" and that he was "walking along Wellington Street when he was attacked. Two men ran him down with a car, then used knives and a cleaver to stab and hack him to death." That is de facto murder; there is no other legal term for it. That's why Adebolajo and Adebowale have been charged with murder, not "manslaughter" or "assault with GBH" or some other charge: because the courts have made a determination that the evidence clearly shows that Rigby was murdered; there is no ambiguity. Furthermore, the BBC, the Independent, the Guardian, the Telegraph and most other media outlets have consistently reported it as "murder" [1][2][3][4]; if they didn't have good reason to agree that Rigby was murdered, they would not be exposing themselves to potential charges of libel, if the two defendants are acquitted. The defendants simply deny that they are guilty of that murder, not that it didn't occur. Whether or not they are eventually proved guilty is an entirely different issue than the courts determining that Rigby was murdered, which they have already done.Bricology (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"De facto murder" is not a legal term. And has been explained, Wikipedia policy is not to use 'murder' in article titles while the courts have not ruled that a murder took place. Which they haven't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Charged with murder does not determine a murder has happened. They could be found not guilty, they could be found guilty of manslaughter or even not guilty. The most the courts have so far decided is the coroners court deciding that Rigby is dead, and how he died, not the reasons behind his death.Martin45102:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has been debated before. It is standard practice, particularly with UK court cases, not to use the word "murder" in the article title unless a conviction for murder has been obtained. See also WP:BLPCRIME.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)06:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AndyTheGrump wrote "'De facto murder' is not a legal term." I never suggested it was a "legal term". It is a logical term. Murder happened in fact. No one -- not even the courts -- deny that. User:ianmacm wrote "It is standard practice, particularly with UK court cases, not to use the word 'murder' in the article title unless a conviction for murder has been obtained." Rubbish. Two WP articles immediately come to mind: Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. Both of these articles explicitly state that they were both murdered, even though the defendant, O J Simpson, was found not guilty. It has never been the standard to only refer to a victim as having been "murdered" if their accused killer was convicted. Bricology (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaky_caldron wrote "No conviction, no murder." Sorry, but that's utter bullshit. Try looking at the two examples I've already cited here on WP. The WP entry on Ronald Goldman explicitly states four times that Goldman was murdered, and Nicole Brown Simpson states the same, five times. Refresh my memory: was anyone convicted of their murders? I'll answer that for you: Nope. Apparently, in your mind, that means that it's just as likely that Goldman's and Nicole Brown Simpson's deaths were caused by...what -- accident? Self-defense? Natural causes? Furthermore, there is an entire WP article just on List of unsolved deaths which begins "This list of unsolved deaths includes notable cases where victims have been murdered or have died under unsolved circumstances, including murders committed by unknown serial killers." Please explain how it's possible to have "unsolved murders" if one were to take seriously your claim of "no conviction, no murder"? -or how about the Gatton murders, the Black Dahlia Murder, the Lake Bodom murders, the Keddie Murders or the Whitechapel murders (the term "murder" is used no less than seventy-four times in that WP article!) ALL of these WP articles explicitly refer to the deaths as "murders", and in none of the cases was anyone convicted; in many of the cases, no one was even charged! Please explain. And as for "I wish you would accept the stated position as stated by experienced editors" -- I've been an editor on WP since 2006, just like you, so you can drop the patronizing tone. Bricology (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
wrt. e.g. the Whitechapel murders, they were 120 years ago, and there is no chance that the killer is still alive. In this case two suspects are in custody so it is important that wikipedia does not use words like murder in its article, look at the header at the top of the article. As to Natural causes, unlawful death, death by misadventure, the coroner has yet to return a verdict, and the inquest has been postponed indefinitely, so we cannot use anything other than "death". Other articles may be different, or not conforming to policy, that does not mean we should make this one not conform.Martin45108:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Martin451 wrote "In this case two suspects are in custody so it is important that wikipedia does not use words like murder in its article..." I've never seen such prevarication! The article itself, in the lead, states that Rigby "...was attacked. Two men ran him down with a car, then used knives and a cleaver to stab and hack him to death. The men dragged Rigby's body into the road. The men remained at the scene until police arrived. They told passers-by that they had killed a soldier to avenge the killing of Muslims by the British armed forces." And yet you object to the characterization of that as "murder"?! If you object to the case being characterized thus, why aren't you also arguing that phrases already used in the article should be changed to more "neutral" ones like Rigby was allegedly attacked" or advocating for striking the suspects' quotations as being hearsay? After all, it has yet to be proved in court that they said "...that they had killed a soldier to avenge the killing of Muslims by the British armed forces" "As to Natural causes, unlawful death, death by misadventure, the coroner has yet to return a verdict, and the inquest has been postponed indefinitely, so we cannot use anything other than 'death'." The autopsy has already declared that Rigby's death was caused by "multiple cut and stab wounds". "Other articles may be different, or not conforming to policy, that does not mean we should make this one not conform." No. The "policy" you refer to ( WP:BLPCRIME ) states "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law." That policy is in no way being infringed upon by characterizing Rigby as having been murdered. It has been established that he was murdered; what hasn't yet been established is whether or not the two men accused of the crime are guilty of committing it. You really can't see the difference between those two points? The reality is that just about most of the Wikis on unsolved murders of the past dozen or so years, repeatedly and explicitly refer to the deaths as "murders". Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman, Murder of JonBenét Ramsey, the Murder of Tupac Shakur, the West Mesa murders, the 2004 Jenner, California double-murder, the Murder of Suzanne Jovin, the Murder of Jill-Lyn Euto, et al. In most of these cases -- all of which are from within the past 15 or so years, no one has been charged with the murder, much less convicted. There were no witnesses, no confessions, and usually no weapon. Each of the killers is very likely still alive. And in each case, the WP article repeatedly describes the victims as having been "murdered". And yet with this one case, with suspects in custody, the weapons in custody, with multiple eyewitnesses, photographic and video evidence, essentially confessions of having committed the crime, having been charged by the State with murder and repeatedly referred to in the media as "murder" -- you want to declare this case less deserving of being described on WP as a "murder"? That beggars belief.Bricology (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bricology describes as "bullshit" my statement: "No conviction, no murder." I apologise for appearing patronising, that was not my intention. Because of the red-link to your username I assumed that you were a well-meaning but rather ill-informed novice. The examples you give in your screed are no way comparable to the article under discussion. Here we have a legally active case, awaiting trial. WP is not in the business of pre-empting the imminent legal proceedings and as pointed out above and elsewhere, sub judice and with it, contempt of court, fully applies here. I have now examined your chequered talk page. I think you should check out WP:LISTEN. If you also think that is patronising, tough. Leaky Caldron10:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaky_caldron wrote "The examples you give in your screed are no way comparable to the article under discussion. Here we have a legally active case, awaiting trial." That legal status in no way changes the determination of the State that Lee Rigby was murdered. You're conflating two very different legal principles. One is the principle of a person's death being the result of homicide, which is determined independently of any court case to try to determine guilt. That determination has already been made: Lee Rigby was murdered. The other principle is whether or not those charged with that murder are guilty of murder or anything less. No one is disputing that this element of the case has yet to be determined."WP is not in the business of pre-empting the imminent legal proceedings..." Nor is WP in the business of giving cover to politically-correct prevarication or weasel words. I draw your attention to Adam (murder victim) in which a boy was murdered in 2001 and his torso dumped in the Thames. His killer has never been caught. Does this mean that "Adam" was not murdered? Of course not! And his Wiki (edited, one presumes, by Britons) clearly states that he was murdered, despite the lack of anyone being caught. Please try to explain how that case is any different from this one, other than the fact that Rigby's alleged assailants are in custody. The crux of the matter is that "Adam" and Lee Rigby were determined to have been murdered, NOT that anyone accused of the crime was convicted. I'm amazed by how many people here seem to be oblivious to that distinction. Of course, you're the person who claimed "no conviction, no murder" as if that made the slightest sense; I've already cited many examples of Wikis on people who were determined to have been murdered, despite no suspect ever being convicted. Are you going to admit that you were mistaken? I doubt it. "I have now examined your chequered talk page...If you also think that is patronising, tough." There's nothing "chequered" about my Talk page. Every section in it simply demonstrates my smack-down of fools, whom I do not gladly suffer. If you think that makes it chequered, tough. Bricology (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go, Martin451 and AndyTheGrump: "The Crown Prosecution Service has authorised the Metropolitan Police Service to charge Michael Adebowale with the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby on 22 May in Woolwich, London. Sue Hemming, Head of the CPS Special Crime and Counter-Terrorism Division, said: 'Crown Prosecutors have been working with the investigators of Counter Terrorism Command since the killing of Drummer Lee Rigby on 22 May. Following the release of Michael Adebowale from hospital, we have authorised the police to charge him with the murder of Drummer Rigby...This man is now charged with serious criminal offences and he has the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that nothing should be reported which could prejudice this trial."[5] The Crown Prosecution Service, for those unfamiliar with it, is described in its Wiki as "...a non-ministerial department of the Government of the United Kingdom responsible for public prosecutions of people charged with criminal offences in England and Wales...The Crown Prosecution Service is responsible for criminal cases beyond the investigation, which is the role of the police. This involves giving advice to the police on charges to bring, being responsible for authorising all but a very few simple charges (such as begging)..." So there you have it: the highest criminal authority in Britain (i.e., the State) has not only stated unequivocally that Lee Rigby was indeed murdered, but that the defendants deserve an unprejudiced trial, refuting the notion that the trial is required to run its course before Rigby could be described as having been murdered. Satisfied? -or still interested in prevaricating? Bricology (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AndyTheGrump wrote "It may surprise you to learn that it is for the courts to decide whether Rigby was murdered. The verdict comes after the trial, not before." headdesk/headdesk/headdesk/headdesk/headdesk/headdesk No, Andy, it may surprise you to learn that the Crown Prosecution Service has already determined that Rigby was murdered. Really. You still don't seem to get it: Rigby was murdered. The CPS determined this. See the citation above. Do you really believe that the CPS is going to charge someone with the crime of murder just because someone turns up dead? -or on a whim? Of course not! The CPS are quite capable of telling whether or not a victim was murdered; the courts are not necessary to prove that. The medical examiner's finding, the eyewitness accounts, the manner of Rigby's death, etc., has demonstrated that he died as the result of murder. There is no doubt that he was murdered. End of story. That is a totally different issue than whether or not he was murdered by the defendants presently charged! Was Adam (murder victim) murdered? Obviously! Was "it for the courts to decide whether 'Adam' was murdered"? No, it was for the CPS to decide, since no suspect has even been identified, much less brought to trial, much less convicted. TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES. Really. If no one is ever brought to justice for killing "Adam", does that mean that he wasn't actually murdered? Please. There is zero doubt that the victims of the Whitechapel Murders were murdered. That has nothing to do with whether or not anyone was ever convicted of their murder. Tell you what: since you seem to be adamant about Rigby not having been determined to have been murdered, suppose you cite for me the statute in British law that says that a victim can't be determined to have been murdered, irrespective of suspect or trial. I'd love to see that actual statute. Bricology (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to cite anything. You are completely and utterly mistaken in your understanding of elementary principles of law. The CPS doesn't determine that anyone has been murdered. Courts do. At the end of a Trial. If there are convictions for murder. These are the facts, plain and simple. And you have offered nothing whatsoever to suggest the contrary beyond your repeated and entirely unsourced assertions. And Wikipedia doesn't consider the assertions of random contributors as a reliable source. Ever. Go away and learn how the law actually works, and then maybe there will be something to discuss. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Crown Prosecution Service -- the Government's own branch that determines the nature of crimes -- is wrong in having declared Rigby to have been "murdered".
The Metropolitan Police Service --charged with enforcing the laws of the land -- is wrong in having declared Rigby to have been "murdered".
The BBC -- which "operates under Royal Charter to provide impartial public service broadcasting in the United Kingdom" -- is wrong in having declared Rigby to have been "murdered".
The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, and just about every other privately-owned newspaper in Britain, is wrong in having declared Rigby to have been "murdered" (thus opening themselves up to libel lawsuits).
This very Wikipedia article, which repeatedly describes Rigby as having been murdered (e.g., "...calls to its helpline concerning anti-Muslim incidents greatly increased after the murder..." and "...some of them explicitly against the murder of Rigby...") is wrong in having declared him to have been "murdered".
But you are right, because you say you are.
Furthermore, every unsolved murder is actually not a murder, because no one has been tried for the crime.
Every one of the hundreds of British cases with their own WP articles wherein the cases are described as "murders" (e.g., Adam (murder victim)) are not really murders, because there has been no conviction. Got it. /RME
Yet again, no source. No matter how may times you repeat the same nonsense, it is still nonsense. The CPS does not determine that there has been a murder, they determine that there is enough evidence for someone to be sent to trial, in order for the courts to decide whether a murder in fact took place.[5]AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AndyTheGrump wrote "Yet again, no source." Someone (that would be AndyTheGrump) is unfamiliar with what "sources" are. I've already cited the CPS (a source), the MPS (another source), the "official" media (a source), the independent media (a source) and a variety of WP articles including this one (sources, all). He seems to be oblivious to the fact that a person can (and often is) characterized as having been murdered, entirely unrelated to whether or not anyone has been convicted of their murder -- despite the countless sources I've quoted, including the Murder of Jill Dando, the Murder of Rachel Nickell, the Murder of Linda Cook, Adam (murder victim), and List of unsolved murders in the United Kingdom. He keeps hoping that these will go away, but they won't. People are murdered without anyone being convicted. Deal with it. In the meantime: I defy AndyTheGrump and anyone else to explain how there can be cases here in WP where Britons are described explicitly as having been "murdered", even though no one has been convicted of their murder. Of course, they won't actually answer this, because it would mean admitting that their selective definitions were subjective. Bricology (talk) 07:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Andy. According to The Crown Prosecution Service there are six criteria for murder, including "the crime of murder is committed where a person of sound mind and discretion (i.e. sane) ... ". Should the court determine that the defendants were insane, then murder was not committed. WWGB (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WWGB wrote "According to The Crown Prosecution Service..." Actually, according to the Crown Prosecution Service, murder has already been committed. If you can read English, you will notice this from their own press release: "The Crown Prosecution Service has authorised the Metropolitan Police Service to charge Michael Adebowale with the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby". Does it say "The Crown Prosecution Service has authorized the Metropolitan Police Service to charge Michael Adebowale with murdering Drummer Lee Rigby"? Nope. It says "...to charge Michael Adebowale with the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby." According to the CPS, Rigby's murder is a fait accompli. There are countless cases of murder in which no one has ever been charged, much less convicted. That does not negate the fact that the victim was murdered by someone. Bricology (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem unable to distinguish between charges (CPS) and accusations (media) of murder, and the court's legal finding of murder. WWGB (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WWGB wrote "You seem unable to distinguish between charges (CPS) and accusations (media) of murder, and the court's legal finding of murder." It's not my inability to distinguish between them that's at fault here, it's others' belief that it's necessary to do so; it's a false dilemma fallacy. One exists independently of the other. No one is trying to deprive the defendants of their right to a fair trial or to prejudge their guilt; their guilt or lack thereof is a separate legal question. There's the CPS' determination that Rigby was murdered, and then there's the results of the trial. Answer two simple questions: if the defendants are all acquitted (let's say because they have a jury that's sympathetic to jihad or whatever), does that mean that Rigby was not murdered? If he was not murdered, then what was the cause of his death? -misadventure? -suicide? The CPS, the MPS and other agencies have characterized his death as "murder", and the media has reported it as such. This very article reports it as such and yet I don't see you or anyone else bothering to edit the word "murder" out of this article. Now, why is that? Perhaps it's because others understand that there's a fundamental difference between Rigby's death being the result of murder -- which has already been established -- and the question of guilt of the defendants presently charged, which can only be established by trial. Bricology (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ianmacm wrote "This is a UK article, not about a US scenario..." Nice try, but nope. Consider The Murder of Jill Dando, the Murder of Rachel Nickell, the Murder of Linda Cook -- just 3 examples of UK murder cases in which no one has been convicted of murder. They are nonetheless still listed in their respective Wikis as having been murder victims. No reasonable person disputes that they were murdered. And those three are just a few out of dozens of British murders I could cite from WP. So, what is it that makes this UK murder different? Clearly, it's not because those accused have yet to come to trial; that didn't prevent the other murder victims from being described as such. Well? Bricology (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another example: List of unsolved murders in the United Kingdom. How can there be "unsolved murders in the UK", if no one has already been convicted of their murders? Simple: because the victims were determined to have been murdered. That's a separate issue from whether or not anyone was charged, much less convicted, of the crimes. Those of you who insist otherwise -- you've got your work cut out for you here. Get editing. Bricology (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bricology may not have lost the plot, but I think his grasp on the plot interferes with his ability to comprehend the reality of the situation here. The inability to appreciate the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", "trial by jury", "sub judice", the process of determining evidence, the charging process, the independence of the English & Welsh prosecuting authority etc., despite the evidence presented here, demonstrates a rather disturbing, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude. Leaky Caldron11:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaky_caldron wrote "(Bricology's)...inability to appreciate the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty', 'trial by jury', 'sub judice'...demonstrates a rather disturbing, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude". Of course, beyond trying to put words in my mouth, Leaky_caldron has yet to grasp the fact that it's perfectly possible -- indeed, even common -- to determine that someone has been murdered, before or even in lieu of anyone ever being charged with the murder. That explains why there are countless murder victims listed here on WP for whom no one has ever been convicted or even charged, as well as why there are countless other murder victims for whom the defendant was acquitted -- either rightly or wrongly. I've already cited too many examples to bother posting more. At this point, I just have to assume that Leaky_caldron and their ilk aren't really interested in these issues, but rather in defending a politically-correct notion of it being "unfair" to state the obvious: that it is incontrovertible that Rigby was murdered. Whether or not anyone will ever be convicted of his murder is, for these purposes, irrelevant. Even if these defendants are acquitted, that will not change Rigby's status of being a murder victim. The proof of this being an ideological rather than logical or legal concern is supported by the fact that all over WP are articles on British murder victims whose killers have never been identified; even this very article described Rigby as a murder victim, but Leaky_caldron and their ilk are conspicuously absent from attempting to "correct those errors". Bricology (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still no source. Still the same old nonsense. Still nobody agrees with Bricology's bizarre interpretations of the British legal system. And now we are told that not believing this clueless waffle is due to "ideological rather than logical or legal concern"? Yeah right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AndyTheGrump wrote "Still no source." Wrong. I cited the CPS' own statement about charging the suspects with murder, as well as citing countless WP sources of similar cases in which victims were characterized as "murdered" despite there not being a conviction. News to you: those are sources. "Still nobody agrees with Bricology's bizarre interpretations..." I'm not impressed by appeal-to-popularity fallacies. "And now we are told that not believing this clueless waffle is due to 'ideological rather than logical or legal concern'? Yeah right." Yeah, right. If this wasn't about politically correct ideology, you (and others here) would be challenging, if not scrupulously excising, all mentions of "murder" from this very article, as well as other Wikis describing Britons having been murdered, despite no one having been convicted. Your silence on those cases is both deafening and telling. Bricology (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Bricology has utterly failed to produce a single source for his bizarre assertion that the CPS is responsible for predetermining the results of a trial, I think we can safely treat this topic as closed, and consequently leave the title as it is - reflecting the legal situation (and incidentally for any British contributors, avoiding breaches of sub judice law, one of which is apparently "anticipating the course of a trial or predicting the outcome" [6]). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to reinforce the process in this trial with a resolved case. Tianhui Zhan killed Michael Davis in the UK with a knife (sound familiar)? The CPS charged Zhan with murder. The court found he was not guilty of murder by reason of insanity. Hence, no murder took place as the vital criterion ("sound mind and discretion") was absent. Davis was not murdered, he was the victim of homicide. WWGB (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WWGB wrote "Just to reinforce the process in this trial with a resolved case." Of course, you're not really "reinforcing the process"; you're citing an outlier. Cases that result in a verdict of "not guilty by reason of insanity" are quite rare in the UK, making up a very small percentage of all capital crime verdicts. I don't suppose you could be bothered to explain how a victim could be characterized by the CPS, MPS, media, etc., as "murdered" in the many cases where there has been no suspect, much less conviction, could you? Because that would actually be a useful bit of "reinforcing the process". No, I suspect that I'll be listening to crickets for a long while before any of you address that. Bricology (talk) 07:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to shove in my 2p in here. The CPS as the body prosecuting on behalf of Her Maj. will given our adversarial justice system, naturally allege that a murder has been committed. If however their assertion that there has been a murder is accepted before any trail has concluded, then in my mind that would constitute at least partial summary justice and dispense with the need for any trail to establish anything beyond who committed it and certainly not what was committed. - Separately as food for thought these "course notes" from Routledge recite the definition of murder as thus: "the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen's peace, with malice aforethought" which I believe is the common law definition. --84.92.56.128 (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The page cannot be called murder of as long as the trial is on. Not only because of the already stated guideline rules but because the killers are claiming that it was a lawful killing as part of war. Now, it is unlikely they get to convince the court of this, but as long as they might Wikipedia will be libel if it is called murder. All instances of that word should be removed from the article. When the killers, and they have admitted to be the killers, are convicted the headline should be changed and the killers named and shamed! --109.155.74.194 (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There has been an addition of the words "alleged" and "suspected" to the article which is rather clumsy. The basic facts of what happened are not in dispute, and the wording should not give this impression. WP:BLPCRIME obviously applies here, but it would be wrong to imply that the facts of what happened, or the identity of the two men in the video footage, is in dispute.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)06:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fusilier Rigby was widely referred to as Drummer Rigby after his death. I believe this is a title by which he was known while playing in an Army band during his time as a recruiter at the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich.
However, following the start of the trial, he should now be referred to by his proper rank, which was Fusilier (the RRF's equivalent of Private).
I am a chief sub-editor with a UK news organisation and spoke to the Ministry of Defence about this issue. A press officer confirmed this is how his family now want him to be titled.
However, I am unable to edit the page to reflect this.
This has been discussed previously, and he was generally referred to as Drummer Lee Rigby in media reports after his death, including his MOD obituary.[7] It appears from media reports that his British Army rank was Private, although I am not an expert here.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)13:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2013 - Michael Adebowale in this section
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Greenwich University has NO record of Michael Adebowale as having ever been a student. The University has made this very clear several times; it was reported in error by several newspapers. Please remove the statement that Adebowale attended the University. Thank you.
193.60.54.93 (talk) 09:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a sourcing issue here. This BBC News story says "The University of Greenwich has confirmed records show Mr Adebolajo was registered as a student between 2003 and 2005. It said his academic progress was "unsatisfactory" and he did not complete his studies there." (ie, not Adebowale). Numerous sources reported that Michael Adebowale was a student at Greenwich University, but sources do sometimes get things wrong. The University set up an inquiry into whether both men had been associated with the university at some point. This source does not say specifically that Adebowale did not attend the university. Please could someone help with finding a source stating this clearly.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)09:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Following this edit request, an e-mail was sent to the press office at Greenwich University asking about the latest position. The reply was that "The university's governing body, University Court, has commissioned an independent panel inquiry. Its work is ongoing" and "In May, the university issued a statement about the two accused: you can find it here: http://www2.gre.ac.uk/about/news/articles/2013/statementbarrackevents ". This does not confirm the position that Greenwich University denied that Adebowale attended the university.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)12:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They have been convicted. Only sentencing remains - January. Any appeal would be against conviction or sentence. As of now they are guilty of murder. Moving the article is dependent on our policies in such cases, it does not need to wait for any other action related to the trial or the murderers. Leaky Caldron16:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there is an appeal, and if it succeeds, for one or both defendants, the article could be amended accordingly. These man are currently guilty of murder. If wikipedia policy allows, this fact should be reflected in both the title and the content of the article. Martinevans123 (talk)
Good point about a possible appeal, however if the media are currently allowed to refer to it as a murder and the defendants as murderers, then as that is factually correct at the current point in time I suggest we should too and then change it if the conviction(s) are quashed. --84.92.56.128 (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
