Talk:Murder of Lee Rigby/Archive 4

1961:

they use this phrase first in the title, followed by a colon, eg "Woolwich attack: Latest news..." ). Search on 'Lee Rigby' and you get all sorts of results - it appears at the start, middle and end of titles, in various contexts. Some of them not very nice, such as "Lee Rigby will burn in hellfire ...". Only one even uses it in the sense of a topic, eg "Lee Rigby:". Ironically, at least two of the results also use the phrase Woolwich attack in the topic context, "Woolwich attack:". And at least two don't even use it in the title. This is the first page of results! So, quite clearly, the argument that Death/Murder of Lee Rigby was ever a more common name for this incident than Woolwich attack is absolutely ridiculous. So what does it matter if millions of people know the name Lee Rigby, when it's pretty obvious every single one of them will also know that's the name of the guy killed in the 2013 Woolwich attack? What you need to explain here is why you think the people who don't know his name, should no longer be able to find this article on a Google search of 'Woolwich attack'. Because those are the people this ridiculous rename has screwed over, not the people who already knew both his name and where/when/how he was killed. Even now, many hours after the rename, Google has not moved this article into the first page of results for a search on 'Lee Rigby'. The firm of Lee Rigby Solicitors are on that page for crying out loud! What has that got to do with the Woolwich attack? Absolutely nothing. And yet a search on 'Woolwich attack' gives an entire first page of results soley about this incident, with the Knowledge article now languishing closer to the bottom than the top, because this rename has undoubtedly caused Google to give it less prominence on a search of Woolwich attack, in favour of the sort of sources that do.

3297:"The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British solidiers, and this British soldier is one, is a eye for a eye and a tooth for a tooth. By Allah, we swear by the Almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone. So what if we want to live by the sharia in Muslim lands. Why does that mean you must follow us and chase us and call us extremists and kill us? Rather you are extreme. You the ones. When you drop a bomb, do you think it hits one person, or rather your bomb wipes out a whole family. This is the reality. By Allah if I saw your mother today with a buggy I would help her up the stairs. This is my nature. But we are forced by the Qur'an in Sura at-Tauba , through many, many ayah throughout the Koran that we must fight them as they fight us, a eye for a eye and a tooth for a tooth. I apologize that women had to witness this today, but in our land our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your governments. They don’t care about you. Do you think David Cameron is gonna get caught in the street when we start busting our guns? Do you think the politicians are going to die? No it's going to be the average guy, like you, and your children. So get rid of them. Tell them to bring our troops back so we ca.., so you can all live in peace. Leave our lands and you will live in peace. That's all I have to say. Allah's peace and blessings be upon Muhammad " 2010:

only thing that's changed is that typing those into Google now gets you nowhere near this article considering they were both the first non-news result before (Woolwich attack seems to be rallying, but Lee Rigby is still nowhere). So that helps who exactly? If TITLE (ie COMMONNAME) was not written with those people in mind, with the aim of helping people quickly find and recognise an article based on key search terms, then who were they written for? Who are these mythical readers who don't care about being able to find a Knowledge article in Google, but do care if the article they get to using a redirect is called one thing or another, even though the redirect they used always went to that same article, whatever it was called? I think you're not talking about any kind of reader at all, you're talking about editors. There's a big difference. I've known what this article was called ever since I Googled 'Woolwich attack' and found it. If I erased my memory and tried this again, I am screwed.

2340:

even comes close to arguing for such a patently ludicrous position. The lengthy RM discussion contained numerous arguments that defeated the policy of WP:COMMONNAME for this case? Which ones? Whose arguments? What points? To me, the only argument that seems to have been made that wasn't just pure personal opinion or total irrelevance was the presence of "hundreds" of other 'Murder of' articles. It was a rubbish argument though, because it not only doesn't reference any policy, it completely ignores the fact that there are hundreds of 'year, place, attack' articles also. It also fell down when it was realised that there appears to be only one 'Murder of' article that comes close to being the same kind of incident, the Murder of Yvonne Fletcher. A title which ironically shows up all the sub judice and BLP points made here to justify 'Death of' over 'Murder of' to be complete baseless waffle, also.

2305:

this case. So quite obviously, a great big massive truck has been driven through the TITLE policy in renaming it to this ridiculous 'Death of' title, which isn't even the second most common name! (Lee Rigby murder is, for obvious reasons). And while I did not say Google results are what decides Knowledge titles (but they by necessity guide us in what the WP:COMMONAME is), whichever way you cut it, the fact that the move has resulted in the article dropping right down the Google results for both 'Woolwich attack' and the even lower 'Lee Rigby', (which is still the case, on my PC anyway, to both 6 and 8 respectively), sure as hell doesn't help Knowledge, does it? Unless people can tell me why less readers and less editors is a good thing for an encyclopedia. And I've never seen a single article titled 'Death of (person)' in any 'real' encyclopedia.

1995:

that we do not title articles based on convenience for Google searches. And if readers come to Knowledge and search simply for "Woolwich attack" or "Lee Rigby", they will automatically be redirected to the article. Very often, the process for determining the article title for an event is not cut and dry, so WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAME guide us well in getting over those hurdles. Interestingly, many editors who supported the move indicated that "Murder of Lee Rigby" was actually their top choice, which is why the closing admin indicated that if/when a conviction is achieved, the article may be moved to that title without the need for another RM discussion. Of course, Knowledge has hundreds of "Murder of..." articles. Anyway, thanks for your participation in the discussion and the good points you presented. Jim, your comment certainly has merit. --

1657:

3 June, and includes Cabinet Ministers, and representatives from the police and intelligence services. Later that day Cameron made his first House of Commons statement on the Woolwich attack, saying that lessons must be learned from it. "When young men born and bred in this country are radicalised and turned into killers, we have to ask some tough questions about what is happening in our country. It is as if that for some young people there is a conveyor belt to radicalisation that has poisoned their minds with sick and perverted ideas. We need to dismantle this process at every stage - in schools, colleges, universities, on the internet, in our prisons, wherever it is taking place."

2610:

her local police station after receiving hundreds of vitriolic responses to her comment on 22 May, hours after the soldier's death, including threats to rape her and kill her by burning down her home. However, she was later arrested after telling officers that she had tweeted to her 600 followers: "To be honest, if you wear a Help for Heroes t-shirt you deserve to be beheaded." She said it was a joke about the design of the item of clothing bearing the name of the military charity. The 21-year-old, who is studying English and politics at Kingston University, was ordered to do 250 hours of unpaid work, having earlier admitted a charge of sending a malicious electronic message.

1976:

inappropriate. You need to stop this ongoing argument about Google searches because it's based on a completely flawed premise. We don't care about or consider search engine results when we decide on article titles. We follow WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAME. Period. Knowledge has tens of millions of articles. All that matters is that there was lengthy discussion among dozens of editors, and consensus was reached as determined by a very experienced and highly respected admin. It's over. Time to move on. And for the record, Jim Michael did not say that not many people refer to this as an attack; what he said was that not many people refer to it "merely" (only) as an attack. --

2321:

common name" for this article exists is highly fallacious. Obviously, if that were the case there would not have been such a lenghty RM discussion with numerous opposing arguments. WP:TITLE and WP:TALK are not black and white; they contain quite a bit of gray, which is why RM discussions exist and are decided by consensus. Those polices guide us down the road to resolution when no obvious title exists. I would suggest that you stop posting all your comments with such a hostile tone. It's serves no useful purpose and will only hurt your reputation. --

1931:

article goes, so are the vast majority of real people who were all already smart enough to be able to associate '2013 Woolwich attack' with it if they did, or use some form of that as a search term if they didn't. So well done for that, I guess. The irony being, if Woolwich Attack isn't the WP:COMMONAME (it so clearly is), then some combination of Lee Rigby with 'Murder' is easily the most common name when incorporating 'Lee Rigby'. 'Death of Lee Rigby' is nowhere as far as COMMONAME is concerned.

2131:. Although it may appear to be murder, there are many instances where what appears to be murder is eventually not found to be the case, for example where it is determined to be an act of war, or where the assailant's mental capacity was impaired. Until the trial takes place and concludes, I think it could be prejudicial to describe this as murder. But "Death of..." does not reflect the circumstances in this case - there can be no dispute that he was killed. 31: 2172:

disappeared from or dropped significantly in the Google results is simply untrue. But it doesn't matter because it's irrelevant. The fact is that there was a lengthy MR discussion, dozens of editors participated, consensus was reached, no policies (including WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAME) were violated, and a very experienced admin reviewed and closed it. There were some good points made by editors who opposed, but it's time to move on. --

971:. The others began to come around to no longer citing the entire rant. But you have been totally intransigent in refusing to have it any other way – no to sensible judicious use of quotation. Read your own words above – you're sounding like you're on your own anti-jihad jihad. And you have the nerve of implying that I'm trolling. Anyway, I don't need your threat of being blocked. I'm not afraid of you. You don't 3718:). However, Poyani, I don't think your premise is correct. "Terrorist attack" typically refers to an act of violence intended to cause fear in a population to political or military ends. This definition is met because of the public nature of the murder, the statement made by one of the killers immediately following the crime and the fact that the killers appear to have courted attention and publicity. 964:

full speeches of some of these "mad mullahs", but the government obviously feels strongly enough to have made publication a crime. And here we are doing the same, but apparently re-publishing it in the name of making the guy look like a violent and dangerous lunatic. I feel strongly that that approach is all wrong, but I was about to give up my fight as I was clearly outnumbered.

3372:

about you. Do you think David Cameron is gonna get caught in the street when we start busting our guns? Do you think the politicians are going to die? No it's going to be the average guy, like you, and your children. So get rid of them. Tell them to bring our troops back so we ca.., so you can all live in peace. Leave our lands and you will live in peace.

3817:'s solution is very good. We should say that it "has been described as a terrorist attack by the British government" with a reference. That is far more factual and encyclopedic. Does anyone have a link where David Cameron or one of the ministers or someone in the British police/government describe the murder as a "terrorist attack"? 3737:

deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians)." A "soldier" is by definition, not a "civilian". Aside from the actual definition (which I suppose is a case of Original Research anyways), should we not at least point out that the use of the word "terrorism" to describe this act is disputed? See

1258:. Even if he did say "peace be upon Muhammad", how can a user show that statement is notable enough to be included unless it is mentioned in reliable sources? The best thing is to simply leave that part out unless it can be cited to a reliable source. Notability is decided by reliable sources, not by our own analyses. 4904:

from reliable sources, let the court decide their culpability, then later add its verdict (amending various article sections if and where necessary). From my own research, many of these news articles are inconsistent; naming the accused as both suspected and guilty. I believe that publishing multiple

4256:

Hang on, so you are suggesting that, now he's been arrested/detained/charged he can no longer be described as an "assailant" but only as "a suspected assailant"? Is he also now suspected of making a public confession videoed on someone's phone? suspected of holding a meat cleaver dripping with blood?

2961:

There was a stable agreement, which acknowledged differences between the video and the transcript, and that nothing would be included in Knowledge which was not consistent with the video. Now there seems to be some slippage back to the DT being some kind of source for truth. Everyone knows it is not.

2609:

Police arrested a student who complained to them about receiving threatening messages after she used Twitter to say that people wearing Help for Heroes T-shirts "deserve to be beheaded" as news broke about the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich, a court heard on Friday. Deyka Ayan Hassan went to

1843:

I would describe him as "one of the attackers" (personally there are a few other descriptive words I might use, but I'm not allowed). One might say "a man in a black knitted hat". Or "a man dressed in a black jacket with a hood". If you feel what I've put really is "political correctness going out of

1656:

The UK government established a task force to look at ways of stemming the growth of Islamic extremism in Britain, focusing on the radicalisation of worshippers in mosques, university students and prisoners. The task force – chaired by David Cameron – had its inaugural meeting at 10 Downing Street on

99:

This article is a disgrace. There is just a wee paragraph containing brief, choppy sentences about the victim Lee Rigby,however, there is a lengthy section on the perpetrators. Who gives a fuck about them. There needs to be more info on Drummer Rigby. It doesn't even mention that he had a son or that

5202:

There is no shrine. Cut flowers die and get cleared away. I was not even suggesting a picture. The huge banks of flowers, laid by the public, were featured throughout the press. I was simply suggesting an acknowlegedment of this fact, together with a link to a sourse that has good quality images and

3629:

for our purposes. I would also suggest that the essence of the attacker's message has been accurately and adequately conveyed, and I really don't see – and none of the reliable sources we cite – consider the final two phrases (starting "that's all I have to say") important enough to cite accurately,

3371:

through many, many ayah throughout the Koran that we must fight them as they fight us, a eye for a eye and a tooth for a tooth. I apologize that women had to witness this today, but in our land our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your governments. They don’t care

3208:

says "Drummer Rigby married in 2007 but had apparently separated from his wife and had started seeing a woman who is serving with the Royal Military Police in Afghanistan. She was today flying back to Britain. He married Rebecca in her home village of Southowram, near Halifax. They are understood to

3141:

I'm open to emphasising the supposedly retaliatory motive for the killing in the body of the text in introducing the rant, perhaps with some reference to "eye for an eye" – maybe "a tooth for a tooth" is better because sources don't diverge there – or using indirect speech, but I still think we need

3126:

Isn't this becoming forensic! Adebolajo uses the expression twice. The first time time he says "a eye for a eye", the second time "an eye for a eye". Most reported transcripts get both wrong and repeat "an eye for an eye". There are other, worse errors in the transcript, which have already been well

3096:

Sorry if I opened a can of worms, but it seems wrong to change "an eye for an eye" (which IS what he said in the video) to something of the same meaning but presented differently (Through Koran). I do not want to follow the transcript, rather the video. How can you miss such an important phrase (an

2288:

Believe it or not, there are still people in the world who have not heard of Knowledge, or if they have, are under the impression it doesn't do newsy stuff like this. If you or others don't want those sort of people to know about this article for whatever reason, fine, but nobody should be under any

2009:

Yes, we've already established that entering Woolwich attack in Knowledge brings you here. And yes, Lee Rigby comes here too. So what? That was true before the move. This article is not called Woolwich attack or Lee Rigby, so those will always be redirects, whatever the chosen title actually is. The

1994:

Gruesome, you made some really good points in the discussion, which I had mentioned there. However, consensus was reached for the new title, which does have precedence. In the RM discussion you said, "To me, the title chosen should be the one most recognisable in a Google search", but the problem is

1526:

I don't have a dog in this argument. But Amanda, the utmost conservatism is required when WP is covering such an emotive topic, laden with multiple jagged rocks in terms of the fuzzy interface between race, culture, religion, geopolitical resentment, and straight-out criminality. The media should be

407:

Rather than continuing to edit each other and bashing our heads, can I suggest we try to achieve a compromise? I am not opposed to having a "shortened" version of the statement, but I cannot agree to errors such as the "eye for a eye" and "peace and blessings" parts. I also do not think we must find

370:

It's pretty hard to argue Knowledge isn't writing a memorial in these cases, when it makes the idiotic choice to name the article after the victim, even though it doesn't help readers one bit. If you don't want the article to be about Lee, then don't rename it to include his full name. Simples. This

236:

We are not here to give the minimum information necessary. We here to give a rounded, balanced, encyclopedic article based on reliable sources. Some information on Rigby's background - the fact he had a son, and where he had worked on that day - is well within what is appropriate to include here.

3624:

test. The Telegraph transcription is the one we all back because, though imperfect, it still captures most of what was said; we merely excised some minor parts, for one reason or another – and that it also helped us with WP:UNDUE was a definite bonus. As to what David Wood had to say, I've not seen

2339:

Get real. Less noise, more facts, please. There's no common name? What are the various competing names in use for this event? Which sources use them? How evenly spread are they? Knowledge doesn't give a damn about Google results or how readers find articles? Name a single policy or a guideline that

1452:

accusing you of "attempting to incite terrorism". You are perfectly well aware of that fact. What I am stating is that by selective editting (in order to match the faulty transcript and use the so-called reliable" source, you have ended up with a version of the speech that sounds more reasonable

963:

to this extremist is the wrong move, if only from an encyclopaedic point of view, but it's not Knowledge's job to right the wrongs of society or of the British government in Syria – or wherever MA was objecting to Western killing of Moslems. I don't know if you have had the opportunity to listen to

138:

I've added a mention of his son and his workplace, both of which are relevant background. I agree that the article is flawed in certain respects, but calling it is a "disgrace" does little to improve it. Equally, comments suggesting that experienced and respected editors should leave are unworthy

4869:

sources worldwide, to support the notion that the two men first deliberately drove into Rigby and then proceded to hack him to death. They are killers. The only doubt is whether or not a conviction of murder will be secured in court for each of them, because that is a future event. "Not yet proven

4301:

I'm not sure what you mean by "formally named". Knowledge just reports reliable sources. If they say that someone has been assaulted, then the person or persons responsible are assailants. No legal charge, detention or conviction is required. There is so little doubt about this fact, in this case,

3736:

Thanks for the response. But our own definition of terrorism (on the terrorism page in wikipedia) states the following "Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and

3250:

Rebecca having hoped that Rigby would return to her does not contradict the fact that the couple had separated and that he was engaged to someone else at the end of his life. Many people want their spouse to return to them despite there being a new relationship. We do not have any reliable sources

3065:

to the transcript just now. We couldn't reconcile the transcripts and the missing "an", so these were omitted. I believe someone said, and I agreed, that "Through Koran we must fight them as they fight us" effectively means "eye for an eye", so this was excised to allow reconciliation with the DT

2320:

Gruesome, I'm afraid that your rage in every comment you post is hurting your cause and earning you no sympathy. The bottom line is that no policies were violated and, as you've been told repeatedly, we do not care about where we place in Google results. And your contention that an "overwhelmingly

2304:

If the rename didn't violate WP:COMMONNAME (which is part of the policy, WP:TITLE), then why the hell is it no longer at the overwhelmingly common name? For all this noise about 'consensus', it's a basic obvious fact that no good reason was given in the RM for why WP:COMMONAME should be ignored in

2145:

The name "2013 Woolwich attack" was used before the name of the solider was known, and it there were at least 3 other titles used before that. Article titles often change in the early days of current events, and for good reason, it is better to be initially circumspect then choose a good title. It

1975:

Gruesome, you really need to calm down. You've only been editing a few months and already have been blocked five times, including an indef where you were then given another chance. I don't want to see you get permanently banned. Raging at nice editors over something as minor as an article title is

1930:

Isn't it amazing how quickly an article can plummet down a Google search when you rename it? This article was the top result for both 'Woolwich attack' and 'Lee Rigby' before the rename. Now it's nowhere. So now, not only is the mythical person who only knew his name screwed as far as finding this

4734:

by an anon ip editor, may be improvements, in terms of a simplifcation of language. But I see nothing wrong with the use of the word "assailants" instead of the word "men". I am also concerned that other wording, explicitly agreed, with regard to clarifying which police were armed, has been lost.

2451:

And you're not showing yourself as anything other than a bigot, Fergus. "ninja-suits"? It's not only islamophobic, it's also racist (Japanese and Semitic people being rather different from each other). Not only that, but my tailor just had a heart attack at the idea that anyone would confuse a

2362:

Gruesome, your ongoing pattern of posting comments with such a hostile or otherwise uncivil tone is disturbing and disruptive. It makes it impossible to have a productive discussion. Therefore, there's no point in continuing. While it's certainly understandable that some editors disagree with the

1960:

Not many refer to this as the woolwich attack? Are you serious? A ludicrous claim like that is disproven in seconds using the computer infront of you right now. Search on 'Woolwich attack' and you get an entire page of results almost exclusively identifying the main topic as "Woolwich attack" (ie

441:

Thanks for your contribution. The "Mohammed" part is conveniently at the end, and it's omitted from most articles that refer to the videoed rant, so I would support leaving it out as inconsequential. However, unfortunately, quite a few sources have mentioned the "eye for an eye" – a saying which

4940:

You seem to be in denial that MA and MA killed Rigby. They were seen in the act by dozens of people. There is absolutely no doubt that they killed him; they have admitted as much. Outcomes of the trial may include insanity, but no outcome can overturn the fact that they killed. We do not need to

1320:

The careful edit removes much of the rant. What you are left with is a much more balanced and reasoned statement than the attacker actually made. You careful edits, in the name of Knowledge, have left something that now resembles Shakespeare's version of Brutus justification for the slaying of

267:

Just like in the movies, it's the villains who set the agenda, plotted the plot and done the deed. The victim – a sitting duck target when he was ambushed – could have been any soldier. Having said that, if the victim had been a four-star general, the probably would be a whole lot more about the

3698:

I know this is going to open a can of worms, as certain editors have a strong inclination to respond rather forcefully to suggestions like this. However, I am hoping we can debate this dispassionately and come up with a solution. There are many reasons why this should not be called "terrorist

2238:

Just a brief note on the close, since it seems to have gotten people's backs up. Whilst I personally also think "Killing of..." would be the most appropriate title, there wasn't sufficient consensus for it at the RM. On a pure headcount, "Murder of..." and "Death of..." come out about equal; I

1725:

Source says this: "A spokesperson for ITV revealed that they had received around 400 complaints since their broadcast of the attack which saw one man, now named as Lee Rigby, killed apparently by two men, one of whom was broadcast speaking directly to a camera phone with bloody hands and still

1345:

I cannot speak for you, but I feel my responsibility to my reading public very strongly. If the subject is a purely academic one and I get it wrong, then perhaps some kid will get their homework on Leonardo da Vinci wrong. If the article concerns an act of terrorism that is current news, then

2171:

Martin451, well stated. Especially the last sentence, which is totally on-point. And just for kicks, I did a Google search for "Woolwich attack" a few minutes ago and this article was the #1 result. Haha. And a "Lee Rigby" search put it in the top 10. So Gruesome's claim that this article has

354:

We don't include anything ambiguous; we state info from reliable sources. It is not in dispute that he was separated from his wife (the mother of his son) and engaged to someone else. What each of the three people involved planned or expected is in doubt, hence we don't speculate on that. The

4147:

As with many other warnings and indications on Talk Pages, editors often ignore templates, such as the "sub-judice" one already added at the top of this Talk Page. I wonder do you have any suggestion for practical improvements to the mechanism, the timing or the 'policing' in the use of this

2272:

Who cares about Google searches? The goal of WP is not SEO, but encyclopedic fact. Anyone who wants to search Knowledge is welcome to come here and do so. Meanwhile, Google will sort itself out based on the same web of links that make most WP articles rise to the top of related searches,

862:

transcription that only gives those parts of the speech which the "so-called reliable" source has actually got right, then the result will be that people will look at the reference and read all the bits that the "so-called reliable" source has wrong, as well as those bits bits they have got

1219:

WP:IAR should only be invoked in obvious cases, where simple common sense can be used to resolve something. This is actually a dispute between users and the normal policies (WP:V, WP:NOR etc.) apply. I am disputing that "this is beyond doubt" a common sense case. I absolutely insist upon

1858:

I'm happy enough to go with what the source explicitly said. But it was just a general remark about political correctness. People look at the picture, and apart for the woolly hat, there are three things that would strike you about the image. One's the blood, another is the weapon...

1444:

I have said this already: 1. To a lip-reader, the words and the lips match. 2. There are no apparent cuts. 3. If the video was doctored, then it was done in an extremely short time period, by someone with extraordinary expertise. 4. There is no reason to imagine that the video was

780:

SO it really doesn't matter. None of the reliable sources judged those details important enough to 1/mention or 2/get it right; and here we are bashing each others heads over their inclusion. The sources got the essentials right, so let's just quote those bits and be done with it.

1301:

is inaccurate is a compromise to the integrity of Knowledge, regardless of how much it complies with the rule. You are presenting this source as an accurate source, having editted out the inaccuracies. Anyone who wants to read the entire transcript will look to the source, and be

442:

sources seem to say are fairly common in islamic retribution situations and which some may want put back. But it's also one that sources have universally erred on. I'm currently thinking that it can be reinserted, if required, as narrative and maybe outside of quotes. --

2289:

illusion that there isn't a penalty to choosing a name that ranks low on Google, whatever nonsense has been advanced to support it (and despite all the noise about consensus, I still don't see what that actual reason is supposed to be, not in WP:TITLE terms anyway).

2430:

That's remarkably dismissive, considering the fire-bombing of the Grimsby mosque (with children inside at the time), and the burning of the Islamic centre in north London yesterday, to name but two. You would also be advised to tone down your offensive comments.

1520:

If you accept that the video is correct, and the Telegraph transcript is wrong, then you are aware that there are several differences, all small, but adding up to inaccuracy. You continue to reference the faulty source, so that others will continue to use the

194:

Lee Rigby was killed because he was a soldier, and because it was apparent from where he was stationed that he was recently returned from Afghanistan. Nothing about Rigby's history, other than that, appears to be relevant in any way to the event which took

2202:

We don't usually use a vague term when a more precise one can accurately be used. It is not disputed that Rigby was killed. No-one is claiming his death could have been due to natural causes, an accident, misadventure or suicide. There are articles such as

5066:

speaks for itself and I think might be a useful addition to the article. I'm surprised that the spontaneous floral tributes from members of the public, do not feature in the Reactions section at all. Surely, at least a single short sentence is needed?

1562:

You are right Tony. It requires conservatism. Editting out bits in order to match a source known to be erroneous isn't conservatism. The primary source, readily available, is the only appropriate source and the most reliable source to use, in this

3362:. By Allah, we swear by the Almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone. So what if we want to live by the sharia in Muslim lands. Why does that mean you must follow us and chase us and call us extremists and kill us? 1142:

insisted on ignoring the MOS with regard to the placement of photos. Despite the fact that I am a artist and Knowledge art editor who has had a previous life in layout design, I have let you have your own way, even though (to my eye) it looks

307:

We are not here to write a memorial on the victim. There is very little in the public domain about Lee Rigby, and some of that relates to his family life. He did a charity skydive in 2010 which could be added, but it will be difficult to find

2032:

The change was enacted not 12 hours ago, you have to give some time for Google to crawl the page with its current name and you'll see how it goes back at being in the top results for 'Woolwich attack' and 'Lee Rigby' in a few days. Regards.

123:

etc. The perps are notable because of the scope of their crime and the extensive coverage. Rigby's kid is not relevant as we are not writing a biography. I sense your distaste for Knowledge, so why do you bother reading and commenting?

2713:

Agreed. Interestingly, only the student got arrested, not those who threatened to kill or rape her. So does this mean I'm allowed to say people who say people who wear Help for Heroes T-shirts should be beheaded should be beheaded? --

1453:

than the speech actually was. My belief is that your intentions are very much other than intention to incite terrorism. I think you are trying to do the right thing, but selective editting is not a good way to go about it, when it is

213:, there are certain ambiguities about his situation which make it desirable to leave the stuff out altogether, rather than often the wife to whom he is still legally married. I keep saying this and I really wish that I didn't have to! 773:

3, so the whole speech is available for those who wish to consult it; and to only use the relevant parts of that speech which have been quoted by reliable sources. Placing the entire speech in the article would be inappropriate per

3435:

There has been a problem with finding a reliably sourced transcription of the whole speech. The Daily Telegraph transcription is broadly OK apart from an error at the end. The Telegraph transcription also excludes the reference to

5293: 3475: 1405:

Honestly Amandajm, you are simply repeating what you said without listening to the rest of us. I do not "know" that the Telegraph is inaccurate. I only know that the Telegraph is disputed by a video. A video that could have been

1316:

Rather, you have abrogated responsibility by stating in the text that the source is the Daily Telegraph. This doesn't remove your personal ethical obligation to your reading public. In fact, from an ethical point of view, it

4241:' *sigh* MONGO, under UK law, one's presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law; not until one confesses (note: the article even has a heading naming them as: 'Suspects'). Please revert your revisions. 5141:

are not much help, as the floral tributes are copyrighted. Generic images of floral tributes may not be all that useful, what the article could do with is a photo of the area where the attack took place. I put in a request at

1531:

cautiously as sources, since they have an inherent conflict of interest in trying to sell lots of copy. And let's not forget that the media were used with stunning success as a tool by these nasty men, and fell right into the

3366:

When you drop a bomb, do you think it hits one person, or rather your bomb wipes out a whole family. This is the reality. By Allah if I saw your mother today with a buggy I would help her up the stairs. This is my nature.

1726:

holding a meat cleaver." and "Sky has told The Drum that it has received ‘a handful of complaints’ despite not airing the video but showing a still from the video instead." No mention of any "black man with bloodied hands".

4203:“Administrators,” Starling said, “are simply people who are trusted by the other community members to have access to some extra tools that allow them to delete pages and perform other tasks that help the encyclopedia.” ... 620:

Let me put it to you that any so-called "reliable source" who has transcribed "an eye" for "a eye" and "Peace be on you" for "Peace be on Muhammad" has indicated themselves, in this instance, as unreliable and, as such,

337:

Donations to his favourite charity after his death may be notable, but skydiving prior to his death has no significance to the article. We are not building a biography, but rather reporting a news event and its aftermath.

2243:

concerns with using the term "Murder" (though not, I think, enough to have denied moving to that title if there had been a clear and overwhelming consensus for it). I'm fully amenable to having the decision challenged at

2273:

regardless of search terms used. In fact, even now at Google.fr, I'm getting the redirect page "2013 Woolwich Attack" as the first hit for "Woolwich Attack" (excluding the Google News results at the very top, that is).

3615:

I must presume you've now read the archived discussion on this. Just like Adebolajo felt "forced" by the Koran to murder Rigby, we are "forced" by our policies to use third party reliable sources, and to report without

355:

personal life of the dead person is usually described on an article about the death of a person. There is no reason for this to be an exception to that. He is not still legally married, although he was until his death.

940:

correct, we should be just able to cite and attribute it. And if we leave out the inaccurate bit, like most reliable sources haven't cited the speech in full, then surely the issue is moot? Please also note that I am

3839:

as describing it as a "terrorist action": "I think it reminds us how vulnerable we all are, but it also reminds us, by the response of the public, that we are not going to be cowed by this kind of terrorist action."

4562:

Except that definition is for the noun. For the verb, the same source says: "tr.v. 2. To kill brutally or indiscriminately." I would describe the killing as brutal and I think that's quite an objective description.

3909:

serviceman is murdered, without his identity being known to the murderer, that can't be terrorism? But we are not here to decide amongst ourselves, whether it was a "terrorist act" or not, but simply to report what

4152:, and the two sole suspects as "killers", but that we can't describe them here as murderers (even at this Talk Page). I suspect that duress may be less of an issue than mental culpability. But I'm not sure that 4941:

promote terms like "alleged" and "suspected" when the nature of the event is beyond question. This is not some unseen homicide in stealth or darkness, when the involvement of the perpetrator(s) must be proven.

3273:

I've started a new section "Legal proceedings" for mention of the trial date, though it may need to be moved elsewhere. I think eventually this article will need a rewrite to better organise the information.

1353:

for the media, not bad. The people who copy-pasted and published the inaccurate transcription have long gone onto something else. They don't care whether it had a few minor problems- it sold the news on the

386:

So is Knowledge the idiot? Or is it the closing admin who is the idiot? Or is each of the editors who supported the consensus a contributory idiot? Else can an "idiotic decision" be made by sensible editors?

1153:

Your reasons for making the edit are principally to justify the use of a secondary source, rather than the primary one, and you are doing this in the admitted knowledge that the source itself is inaccurate.

4200:

Angela Beesley Starling, a spokeswoman for Knowledge, explained to WND that all the website’s encyclopedia content is monitored by users. She said the administrators who deleted the entries are volunteers.

3685:

1. The definition of "terrorist attack" typically refers to attacking civilians. The attack was clearly against a soldier (for being a soldier) and therefore it is not a "terrorist attack" by definition.

3201: 1807:

you describe the man, then? Maybe "British Nigerian" without mentioning the knife or the blood? But that would be plain wrong in descriptive terms. The American penchant for "African American" is just a

1409:"Watering down a crazy rant until it sounds like a rational argument might just encourage some interested reader to take up the cause" is just ridiculous. Are you accusing us of inciting terrorism here? 879:

are you so determined about this matter, in the face of 1. Truth, 2. Accuracy, 3. Arguments pointing towards it being against the general public interest to water down the extremist nature of the rant?

167:

The article already gives most of the known info about Lee Rigby, but this is not very much, e.g. his date of birth is not in reliable sources. The structure of the article at the moment is choppy, but

4120:

Hypothetically, the video may show someone speaking and acting under duress. Whatever one's opinion of the evidence, legally, the two men are *suspects* and that's how the article should treat them.

1203:

let this pass because I consider the citing of an erroneous source, and the doctoring of a direct quote in order to fit an erroneous source in order to fit an imaginary rule to be entirely unethical.

2534: 1346:

getting it wrong may inflame a potentially dangerous situation. Watering down a crazy rant until it sounds like a rational argument might just encourage some interested reader to take up the cause.

3476:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4938855/Pluck-of-cub-leader-who-challenged-Woolwich-terrorist-who-wanted-to-start-war-on-the-streets-of-London.html#ooid=NsYnl0YjpAihnTQKlOXYP0AuMGHftw00

967:

Then someone tried to insert various citations that were obviously inconsistent with the quoted text. I had an issue with that. It wasn't just me. You will also note that I sought opinions from

4750:

Yes, I recall discussion why the first arrivers did not confront the killers. It was agreed to report that they were unarmed (as are most British police) and waited for an armed response team.

2046:

As I've said in another section of this talk page, I believe that killing is a better decription than attack or death. What is the reasoning for more the more vague terms being used instead of

4721:

p.s. some of the edits did help. I read each of the changes in that last edit and assessed their value. Or did you mean that I'm someone who is just incapable of reviewing anything "properly"?

3398:

part can be omitted, but this two parts are realy important. This two statements show the islamic nature of the attack and to omitt them would be apologetic about the aims of the terrorists!--

1184:

You are making Knowledge look absolutely ludicrous by insisting on doing this! Any thinking person who reads this discussion is going to really wonder how a group of Knowledge editors could

4402:

We are not the media and we do not cave in to wikilawyering. If a reliable independent source says " X and Y killed Z" then we report that without adding pussyfoot terms like "suspected".

4366:"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." 209:

It has been my suggestion all along that the more personal details are left out, because, although it seems to have bi-passed a lot of readers/editors who want all the personal details

3963: 5063: 1376:

I frequently find myself in discussion with academics who lampoon Knowledge for its inaccuracy, for the unreliability of its processes and the fact that this sort of thing can happen.

2113:

Having viewed the video, watched the news and read the newspaper reports, I don't see many "subtleties" about this killing. Both suspects are now charged with murder. That's a fact.

1696:"Sky News, which showed only a still image of a black man with bloodied hands, received "a handful of complaints". Should this be worded like this? Should his name be here or what? 1357:

I put it to you that our responsibility goes further than that. You cannot override ethical responsibility simply by saying, "Oh well, some news editor got it wrong, but we'll keep

4467:

Yes, good source. Here's a descriptive phrase that I would gladly add, in quotes if necessary, to the article: "The two suspects in the butchering to death of a British soldier.. "

3057:

now does not reflect the transcript, although I'd say the difference between "going to" and "gonna" is purely in the accent, and that doesn't make the transcript "wrong". As to the

617:) then you have removed one of the most singularly ironic elements of the whole rant. Here we have a young man, killing in the name of faith, and then calling peace on his leader. 568:. The problem we had with that solution is that there was insistence at one point that the speech be included on an "all or nothing" basis. That editor hasn't yet commented. ;-) -- 216:

I think it is fairly obvious that knowing the background of the assailants is essential to getting a clear picture of the events. Therefore the histories of the assailants is of

547:

In principle I agree with this solution. I think that any part of the speech that is quoted by a reliable source and is not erranoeus should be included, and the rest should not.

2417:

It does seem like the wave of "islamophobic" attacks is more of a small ripple. Six thrown bacon butties and a dozen ninja suits being pulled off? Hardly Kristallnacht, is it?--

2398: 3510:

throughout the Quran that we must fight them as they fight us, an eye for a eye and a tooth for a tooth." He does not refer explicitly to any chapter or verse in the Koran.--

3687:

2. Despite the fact that there are links cited for the use of "terrorist attack", there are also references which questioned the applicability of the term. for example see

3061:, I don't care to re-listen to the rant, and that should be ellipsed if we can agree to those being transcription errors. But please note that I shifted the ellipses when I 2470:

Hi Kitty, if you think the wikipedia article is deficient just go ahead and edit it. Someone already has done something along those lines. See if you think it needs more. --

5273:

Agreed....actually there was apparently many that were upset when the flowers were eventually removed as well. There are numerous reliable sources that cover this matter.--

2935:

can of worms. It's been stable for a while, and I'd rather there not be an exhumation of the dearly departed equine. I've now made it clear that the quote is an excerpt. --

1349:

The media, unlike the editors of this article, pass from one story to another. (They write, essentially, attention-grabbing stories) Something shocking like this event is

603:. Any editting of the speech is not in the interest of the public. Once we start cutting out bits, and deciding what is in and what is out, we are on dangerous ground. 237:

Incidentally, it would be interesting to know what you think the "certain ambiguities about his situation" might be, and to what extent that thought is based on your own

3330:

on this exact topic, and offer a substantive argument of how to posting would not be in violation of our policies. In the meantime, I'm reverting the change. Thanks, --

1811: 3987: 975:

the article, so please stop behaving as you do. You have been more imposing and forthright, than I am, so it's likely any block would probably involve you as well. --

474:

The statement "we must fight them as they fight us" remains in the article, which says essentially the same thing as "eye for eye" without the contentious misquotes.

198:

His wife, ex-or otherwise, has nothing to do with his murder. Neither does his girlfriend/fiancee. Neither does his son. All those elements are critically useful to

4032:

Exactly...if the sources call it a terrorist incident and they are charged with terrorism, then it's pretty clear we are just basing the infomation on the sources.--

3209:

have separated shortly after the birth of their son and he had recently begun a relationship — although his estranged wife had been hoping for a reconciliation."--

1481:

is the final sentence, which says "Allah’s peace and blessings be upon you." This can be left out without substantially altering the overall thrust of the rant.--

882:

At the risk of being both personally rude, and blasphemous, I must say that you seem to be treating the Knowledge MOS and some of the daily papers as if the were

650:

This is an instance where you simply cannot let an MOS recommendation on the use of primary and secondary, and reliable and unreliable sources, get in the way of

2976:

If not done already, why not just post the whole transcript to Wikiquote. Then if we linked to that from here, anyone who wanted to read it in full could do so.

1800: 4979:

It's irrelevant what our opinion on the pending case is. We debase: due process, this encyclopedia and our own integrity, by passing off speculation as truth.

4709:

I have left an explanation for my revert, which was not a "knee-jerk", below, in a new section. Had you considered making an account with which to edit here?

3985: 2658:

That said, I don't think the idiocy of one student (and all too predictable idiotic responses), deserves inclusion as the tweet doesn't mention Lee Rigby. --

1780: 1795:

This is political correctness going out of hand. I accept the source doesn't actually say "black man" but we shouldn't talk about it as if even applying a

100:

he was returning from duty at the Tower when he was set upon and brutally murdered. Then again this is what I have come to expect from the PC Knowledge.--

5108:

I'm not sure I suggested uploading anything covered by Daily Mail copyright. But really enjoyed your *snort" there, Beingsshepherd. Thanks ever so much.

3714:

There might be a fair point to be made about how even-handedly the term "terrorist" is applied on WP (there is no reference to "terror" in, for example,

3326:

The article has been stable for many days, and the version of the quote agreed upon has been arrived at through much discussion. Please can you read the

3991: 955:

You insisted on including the speech on an "all or nothing" basis. I think you know it's rather unfair because we are obviously dutybound to give it

3976: 4797:, as it's incongruous with the 'Suspects' heading and prejudices their pending court case, which we're asked to be cautious of at this page's top. 1361:

noses clean by giving the source." I personally, couldn't live with myself easily if I were to allow the rules of a manual to override the truth.

5260:

The reaction of the public at the time and subsequently is notworthy. There's no reason not to mention floral tributes. A sentence cited to the

4694:

I have just undone what looks like a knee-jerk edit by someone who couldn't possibly have reviewed my edits properly. Only trying to help here.

1635:

Well, I did hope to do something with this yesterday, but the real world got in the way, so I thought I'd do it this morning. Here goes anyway.

3968: 2855: 1474: 4369: 1538:

page, too: we can't afford that. Could you cool it, please, and try to work with the concerns of fellow editors? And no more bolded shouting?

4271:

He can't be formally named an assailant without a conviction. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a kangaroo court of public opinion.

2399:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10093568/The-truth-about-the-wave-of-attacks-on-Muslims-after-Woolwich-murder.html

1620:

from the BBC. It's a bit late in the evening now for me to do anything, but if nobody gets round to it I'll put something together tomorrow.

1946:

Not many people are referring to this as merely an attack, which is verging on a euphemism. Millions of people know the name Lee Rigby now.

4644: 2364: 2322: 2222: 2173: 1996: 1977: 5062:

gets quite a harsh time at Knowledge, but its images are often very good. Pictures, unlike tabloid text, can't really be unreliable. This

1192:

publish the erroneous material, in preference to an accurate statement, just because the group bowed to the pressure of an individual who

3659:"transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research". The video is available. At the time I made 3358:"The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British solidiers, and this British soldier is one, 5229: 5188: 4695: 3601: 3541: 3479: 3421: 3399: 3312: 932:. I know it's inaccurate, and in what way, but wasn't going to let that get in the way of writing a good encyclopaedic article based on 2146:

does not matter that the page is going down the google search, we are here to create an encyclopaedic entry, not to become fashionable.

834:. The source is either reliable or it's not. If part of the rant is quoted inaccurately by the source, then the source is not reliable 3989: 86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 4090:

still applies, though. This is an unusual case, because the video footage and the identity of the two men in it is no great secret.--

5204: 5168:

I was, in fact, suggesting a sentence, with that Daily Mail article as a source. (At least until any photographs become available).

3952: 3690: 717:

Again, watch the actual video, the final part is "That's all I have to say. I mean, Allah's peace and blessings be upon Muhammad,

412:. If someone wants to have a go at a shorter statement, without the common newspaper errors, I would be interested to support it. 3413: 1584:

That's a great idea! If any of the reliable sources (including the Telegraph) updates their webpage, then we should follow suit.

1338:

Let me just explain to you the difference between us and the press. We are a small group concentrating on bringing together the

1174:. I am calling upon this rule in reverting your POV selective-editing of the statement, and the citing of an erroneous source. 3978: 2239:

plumped for "Death of..." since a) it was the default move option that the RM was discussing and b) there are some potential

760: 371:

was a terrorist attack in Woolwich in 2013. 'Lee Rigby' is no more defining or helpful to the reader than those other terms.

2221:

It's pointless to rehash the same arguments all over again. Everyone can read the lengthy RM discussion. Time to move on. --

1711:

I have changed "a black man" which seemed quite racist, to "one of the attackers". Of course, he was not named at the time.

1321:

Julius Caesar. If you are going to quote it at all, then it needs to be there in its entirety, including those parts that

2262: 1309:

that you can go on using the Daily Telegraph as if it was a "reliable source", knowing full well that in this case, it is

3854:

That works. Please make the change. Write that "the attack has been described by UK officials as a "terrorist action".

3738: 3688: 3965: 268:

victim. But not much known about the soldier is of direct relevance to the murder, and there's little point milking the

4206: 4333:

for•mal (ˈfɔr məl) adj. 8. made or done in accordance with procedures that ensure validity: a formal authorization.

3754:

Always be slow to trust Knowledge. Can you find me a dictionary definition that specifies the targeting of civilians?

3692: 3116: 2895: 2840: 2825:

The transcript writes that, and the video says that. The quote in the article isn't exactly justifying them both... ☯

2814: 2345: 2310: 2294: 2015: 1966: 1936: 1108: 376: 4612:(of a person or their judgment) Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts 3974: 3663:

I checked that the transcription at the time was accurate (though missing a final part spoken in Arabic, I believe).

2363:

decision - as with many RMs - the fact remains that consensus was reached after lengthy debate among many editors. --

606:

If you removed the more threatening rant, for example, then the speech becomes a more rational statement than it was.

5137:

Had I lived in London, I would have gone to the scene and taken some photos that could be uploaded to Commons. The

5089: 4764:

I also recall the discussion, and think the police clarification needs to go back in, for reasons mentioned above.

3715: 38: 5244:

Then perhaps you need to suggest some changes at that article. I think you mean "the treatment of Diana's death".

3682:

I t think the lead should refer to the attack as "political violence" and not a "terrorist attack" for 3 reasons.

609:

If you remove "Peace be on Muhammad", simply because almost every single newspaper has copied each other and they

4769: 4454: 4148:

particular template? Personally, I still find it rather bizarre that the press can plainly describe the event as

3279: 2981: 2493: 1815: 1701: 1681: 1666: 1640: 1625: 1616:'s speech to the House of Commons today, and the task force he's established to look at radicalisation. Here's a 806: 277: 723:." The fact that not one "reliable" source has managed to get this right is depressing, but should not override 5249: 5212: 5173: 5127: 5113: 5097: 5072: 4984: 4910: 4875: 4843: 4821: 4802: 4740: 4714: 4627: 4601: 4586: 4568: 4543: 4513: 4495: 4472: 4461: 4376: 4307: 4279: 4262: 4246: 4213: 4161: 4125: 4058: 3919: 3895: 3873: 3845: 3004:

Exactly. And that is one of several reasons why it is generally agreed that the DT "transcript" is inaccurate.

2995: 2777: 2541: 2368: 2326: 2226: 2177: 2118: 2000: 1981: 1867: 1849: 1799:

label was taboo. The article clearly enough implied that it was referring to an image not a million miles from

1731: 1716: 392: 120: 47: 17: 4648: 4274:

I suppose, if well sourced, one can claim there's evidence of a main suspect doing the aforementioned things.

3799:

Although Rigby was a soldier, he was targeted whilst off-duty and not at a military facility or in a warzone.

1876:

Oh what was that the BBC quoted someone in government said the person looked like? ;-) All fun and games... --

1188:

that a media statement about a current event (involving something as serious as terrorism) is wrong, and then

5233: 5192: 4699: 3972: 3970: 3785:

Per the policy, I don't see what would be wrong with something like "has been described as...", if you like.

3605: 3545: 3483: 3425: 3403: 3316: 4490:

I approve of 'two suspects', but think that 'butchering' is too sensational a description for this context.

3656: 3567: 2906: 2715: 2659: 2650: 2619: 2575: 2552: 2406: 2204: 1916: 1478: 724: 654:. Knowledge rules are recommendations. They not set in cement and gold-plated. They can be changed, and are. 409: 105: 4370:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/403629/Michael-Adebowale-charged-with-Woolwich-murder-of-Drummer-Lee-Rigby

1102:

Yes, that is exactly what is needed here. I knew the option was somewhere but didn't know where to find it.

871:, OhConfucius, you keep trotting out Knowledge MOS to support a case for the inclusion of sources that you 778:, as that would be Knowledge editors giving the entire speech an importance not given by reliable sources." 3102: 2881: 2826: 2800: 2640: 2595: 2341: 2306: 2290: 2011: 1962: 1932: 1697: 372: 5123: 5093: 4980: 4906: 4839: 4798: 4623: 4582: 4539: 4491: 4457: 4372: 4275: 4242: 4209: 4121: 4054: 3891: 3768:

Please also note that on wikipedia we do have a policy regarding the use of the word "terrorist". It is

3695:

3. specifically advises to we avoid using contentious labels, specifically citing the word "terrorist".

1164:

I have said several times already that, in Knowledge, Common Sense overrides the written recommendation.

4022: 3804: 3642: 3342: 3256: 3154: 3078: 2947: 2751: 2436: 2212: 2055: 1951: 1888: 1830: 1591: 1416: 1305:

You have given no indication that the source is inaccurate, although you know that it is. To me, it is

1265: 1235: 1062: 987: 793: 580: 554: 535: 500: 454: 360: 292: 4047:

As this talk page's top points out: this case is the subject of an ongoing legal trial (paraphrased).

1379:

You have successfully justified all the very worst things that I have ever heard said about Knowledge.

5225: 4765: 3275: 2977: 2649:

Er, that BLP1E thing applies to the subject of an article, I'm pretty sure it doesn't apply here. --

2489: 2457: 2278: 2249: 2128: 2047: 1677: 1662: 1636: 1621: 641:

that they have transcribed this wrongly, we are going to quote them and cite them, regardless of the

116: 805:

The current version in the article is OK. The final sentence of the rant is a typical example of an

5245: 5208: 5169: 5109: 5068: 4871: 4817: 4736: 4710: 4597: 4564: 4522:

Yes...."too sensational"....hum...they tried to decapitate Rigby....sounds like butchering to me.--

4509: 4468: 4303: 4258: 4157: 4050:

Could we please make an effort to mention that the two named men are hitherto merely *suspects*?

3915: 3869: 3841: 3769: 2991: 2773: 2688: 2612: 2537: 2515: 2475: 2162: 2114: 1863: 1845: 1727: 1712: 388: 324: 4481:

That source uses that terminology? OMG they must be stealing our words and not giving us credit!--

2854:

For some reason, the "eye for an eye" part is not currently in the article, although it is in the

855:

transcription, (as per primary source) then it does not reflect the "so-called reliable" reference

841:

It follows, therefore, (and this should be obvious to anyone who cares about accuracy) that even

272:

about his choppy family life, so background about right, IMHO. It's not WP's job to right wrongs;

4087: 3790: 3759: 3723: 3048: 2736: 2571: 2403: 2136: 1575: 1396: 1210: 1146:

You have insisted on editing the assailant's speech, and inserting your own edited version. You

1046: 915: 754: 704: 685: 523:

following my request at RSN for the record and for the sake of completeness of the discussion. --

304: 246: 227: 144: 101: 5203:

video clips of what was a spontanous out-pouring of public grief and sympathy. The treatment at

4186:

I'm unclear how the hierarchy/authority aspect of Knowledge functions; this is about all I know:

3951:

If it wasn't a terrorist attack, why would they be charged with terrorist offences?? Also from

2248:

if anyone thinks I misread the outcome, and I'd be happy to see another RM to move the page to

1781:"ITV receives 400 complaints over Woolwich terrorism video report featuring bloodied assailant" 5265: 5187:

What an awful idea, a picture of a mawkish shrine, isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia?

4783: 3981: 3668: 3563: 2636: 2591: 2256: 936:, as is customary. Please read up what is and isn't a reliable source. The facts in RSs don't 719: 269: 4615: 2795:

Sorry, I can't keep track above... Why is "an eye for an eye" omitted? The video provided by

4018: 3959: 3859: 3822: 3800: 3776: 3745: 3704: 3633: 3626: 3443:. The speaker in the video does not refer explicitly to Chapter 9, which contains the verse 3333: 3252: 3145: 3069: 2938: 2742: 2432: 2418: 2208: 2106: 2051: 2039: 1947: 1879: 1821: 1586: 1411: 1260: 1230: 1166: 1090: 1057: 978: 784: 571: 549: 526: 491: 445: 356: 283: 169: 5277: 5268: 5253: 5237: 5216: 5196: 5177: 5163: 5131: 5117: 5101: 5076: 5031: 4988: 4950: 4914: 4879: 4847: 4825: 4806: 4786: 4773: 4759: 4744: 4718: 4703: 4652: 4631: 4605: 4590: 4572: 4557: 4547: 4526: 4517: 4499: 4485: 4476: 4420: 4411: 4380: 4311: 4283: 4266: 4250: 4228: 4217: 4165: 4129: 4107: 4078: 4062: 4036: 4026: 3923: 3899: 3877: 3863: 3849: 3826: 3808: 3794: 3780: 3763: 3749: 3727: 3708: 3672: 3649: 3609: 3587: 3549: 3527: 3487: 3464: 3429: 3407: 3349: 3320: 3283: 3260: 3241: 3226: 3161: 3136: 3121: 3085: 3039: 3013: 2999: 2985: 2971: 2954: 2930: 2900: 2875: 2845: 2819: 2781: 2758: 2718: 2708: 2662: 2653: 2644: 2622: 2599: 2578: 2555: 2545: 2519: 2497: 2479: 2461: 2440: 2421: 2411: 2372: 2349: 2330: 2314: 2298: 2282: 2267: 2230: 2216: 2181: 2166: 2140: 2122: 2108: 2059: 2041: 2019: 2004: 1985: 1970: 1955: 1940: 1919: 1895: 1871: 1853: 1837: 1735: 1720: 1705: 1685: 1670: 1644: 1629: 1599: 1579: 1551: 1498: 1424: 1400: 1273: 1243: 1214: 1070: 1050: 994: 919: 904:

resolution, as long as you insist on either quoting or citing any source that portrays the

826: 800: 744: 708: 689: 587: 562: 542: 507: 483: 461: 436: 421: 396: 380: 364: 347: 328: 299: 250: 231: 189: 162: 148: 133: 109: 3617: 2587: 2453: 2274: 1568:

I have appealed to the Times to review their transcript, and am waiting on their response.

1546: 775: 770: 4010: 3600:

but he mentions this chapter of the Koran and that should be made clear in the article.--

206:

in order to gain readership. Knowledge is an encyclopedia, not a commercial news agency.

5027: 4946: 4755: 4407: 4074: 3832: 3237: 3132: 3019: 3009: 2967: 2910: 2511: 2471: 2147: 2097: 1225: 960: 950: 479: 432: 417: 343: 309: 158: 129: 3884:

Noun 1. terrorist attack - a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence

3293:

One of the assailants justified the attack to a bystander, who was filming the scene:

1119:

If there's a better way to do something than what the rules say, do it the better way.

408:

a written transcription, the audio statement is the reference and is acceptable under

5143: 4338:

It's not officially determined who is responsible. The law courts have yet to decide.

3814: 3786: 3755: 3719: 2684: 2567: 2132: 1613: 1571: 1392: 1206: 1171: 1095: 1042: 972: 968: 956: 911: 750: 700: 681: 273: 242: 238: 223: 140: 4361:

Sue Hemming, Head of the CPS Special Crime and Counter-Terrorism Division, said: ...

4207:

http://neveryetmelted.com/2009/03/09/blatant-obama-bias-by-wikipedia-administrators/

1150:

enforce the use of your own edited version in the article, because your edit is POV.

5149: 4866: 4093: 3911: 3664: 3621: 3573: 3513: 3450: 3212: 3025: 2916: 2861: 2694: 2253: 2245: 1484: 946: 933: 812: 730: 427:

I have had a crack at reducing the statement, others may want to cut back further.

175: 4156:

became any less of a murderer when, in 1985, he was declared "criminally insane"?

925: 768: 667:

to go with the primary source. To insist on applying the MOS to a point that we

4905:

allegations as facts, is dishonest and jeopardizes their right to a fair trial.

3855: 3818: 3772: 3741: 3700: 2101: 2034: 1796: 1221: 1037:

The time lapse between the murder and the video reaching public media was short.

567:

I'm glad it now seems to be sticking at judicious use<famous last words?: -->

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4069:

The statement "we have killed this man today" puts them way beyond "suspects".

2488:

I suspect there's enough information out there for an article about Tell Mama.

5274: 5138: 5058: 4782:

I've restored "armed police," but haven't reviewed the other edits in detail.

4554: 4523: 4482: 4455:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-soldier-lee-rigby-mi5

4417: 4225: 4033: 3655:

What policy is it that forces us to not make our own transcript? According to

3444: 3417: 2880:

Yes, the quote is VERY different from the transcript... And the video! Why? ☯

1539: 2990:

He actually seems to say ".. is a eye for a eye and a tooth for a tooth.. "?

2084:

is because it is a more neutral term. We can objectively state that a person

5085: 5023: 4942: 4751: 4403: 4153: 4070: 3233: 3128: 3005: 2963: 475: 428: 413: 339: 154: 125: 3200:: Most media coverage said that Lee Rigby was separated from his wife, but 1294:

The reliable source, in this case, is the primary source, as you are aware.

3836: 3597: 3537: 3501: 3440: 1754: 1617: 2390: 769:"I suggest using the Sun page hosting the video as an external link per 5298: 5122:

Nor am I (after a cursory glance at their corners) & not at all ¦]

4505: 3390:

That's all I have to say. Allah's peace and blessings be upon Muhammad

3374:

That's all I have to say. Allah's peace and blessings be upon Muhammad

2452:

loose-fitting cotton garment for a moderately-close-fitting silk one!!

4870:

guilty of murder" does not suddenly mean these men did nothing wrong.

139:

and unnecessary. Let's move on and try to make it a better article.

4002: 115:

Random homicide victims are seldom notable, whether in this article,

3493:

The speaker in the video says (IMHO) "But, er, we are forced by the

1177:

You cannot mislead the Knowledge public by citing a source that you

4838:

The one in which people are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

3018:

The question of the spelling is a side issue. What matters is that

4006: 3998: 3994: 3555: 3494: 4865:

There are quite enough eye-witness reports, repeated by multiple

2559: 4416:

That's correct...we just report what the reliable sources say.--

3594: 3534: 3506: 3498: 3437: 3418:

Jihad Returns to London: A Reply to Prime Minister David Cameron

2391:

http://en.wikipedia.org/2013_Woolwich_attack#Anti-Muslim_attacks

2858:

transcript. It should be in the article as part of the quote.--

1034:

To a lip-reading person, the words and the lip movements match.

2510:

Paul, have a go at creating an article. Do you want a hand? --

897:

is beginning to be so annoying that it is positively trollish!

25: 5084:*snort* What, the camera never lies? Are you unfamiliar with 5022:

Speculation? As I said, you are in denial of the facts .....

4302:

that I am very surprised you are making such an issue of it.

4009:". It's also known they converted to Islam. And also shouted 3570:. There are no fully accurate transcriptions of the speech.-- 749:

Yes but... there have been a number of opinions, among which

4017:

The sources above clearly trump the three you've provided.--

3251:

that contradict the personal info currently in the article.

2799:, which ran an article on this, says "an eye for an eye". ☯ 4053:

When I first found this article, it was extremely damning.

3699:

attack" in the lead and very few reasons why it should be.

1651:

Draft paragraph on Cameron task force and Commons statement

5082:

Pictures, unlike tabloid text, can't really be unreliable.

4616:

http://google-dictionary.so8848.com/meaning?word=objective

1055:

All that is your own analysis and hence original research.

3967:

and the media also classifies this as a terrorist attack.

3993:

The attacker proudly speaks to a bystander, mentioning "

3478:

than to exclude the mention of Chapter 9 of the Koran!--

2683:

Not really enough long term notability, has issues with

2088:

with no concerns whatsoever, while the fact that he was

845:

a source that we know to be inaccurate is inappropriate.

645:, and what we know (from the primary source) to be true. 4731: 3660: 3620:. Although the video is much quoted, The Sun fails the 3327: 3197: 3062: 3058: 3054: 959:. Although I felt and still feel that giving excessive 875:(by now) acknowledge as unreliable (in this instance). 764: 520: 220:

to an encyclopedic report of how the events came about.

3953:

Talk:Death_of_Lee_Rigby/Archive_3#Article_deficiencies

3625:

much coverage of his views, which must be regarded as

3562:) is not in Chapter 9 of the Koran. It is part of the 3416:

uses the reference to Chapter 9 of the Koran. Look at

3379:

The most important parts which have been omitted are:

3101:

and it seems to me that he made a slight "n" sound. ☯

3022:

is a key part of the "justification" for the attack.--

953:, both of which are policies and not mere guidelines. 4579:

bru·tal (brtl) adj. 1. Extremely ruthless or cruel.

1818:?Avoiding the 'race issue' isn't always an option. -- 3888:

in the hope of attaining political or religious aims

1844:

hand", then please change it back to "a black man".

1755:"Woolwich killing a betrayal of Islam, says Cameron" 1676:

Thought I'd go for it as no one's objected to this.

5222:The treatment of Diana was mawkish in the extreme 4536:(bchr) n. 2. To kill brutally or indiscriminately. 3962:, as they are being charged with terrorist offences 3142:

to go with the transcript where it is not wrong. --

809:. It would make no sense as "Peace be upon you". -- 403:

Seeking a resolution to the audio statement dispute

3384:But we are forced by the Qur'an in Sura at-Tauba , 3369:But we are forced by the Qur'an in Sura at-Tauba , 3355:I show the parts which have been omitted in bold: 5088:? Have you checked that it satisfies Knowledge's 3470:I think it is better to use text of the video of 1288:Response to what appears to me to be sheer idiocy 153:Who said anything about leaving? Move on indeed. 4538:' ~ www.thefreedictionary.com ~ too subjective. 3302:Michael Adebolajo, complete text of speech from 1909:"Sky News, which showed only a still image of a 3295: 3097:eye for an eye)? I watched the video posted on 2735:This item is what's commonly referred to as a " 2551:I think we'd need a better sauce than that. -- 2909:, FWIW my transcript of the full speech is at 1254:While discussing accuracy, we keep forgetting 637:reliable, and so, even though we at Knowledge 4239:whats to suspect? they admitted ot the crime) 1534:It's clear that emotions are running high on 204:exploit every possible sentimental connection 8: 4643:What a bunch of wikilawyering nonsense....-- 2635:Regardless of the source, WP:BLP1E applies. 1196:on applying the rule, rather than the facts! 1130:This is beyond doubt one of those instances. 5294:"Woolwich killing: Suspect speaks at scene" 4816:Which legal dream-world are you living in? 3447:, which has been a source of controversy.-- 945:calling on or using the MOS. I am invoking 3360:is a eye for a eye and a tooth for a tooth 2574:) 07:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC) LOL / groan -- 1661:As ever any thoughts are welcome. Thanks, 2387:You may want to do some editing to this: 1862:.... and another is that he's not Asian. 1228:is on you to provide the reliable source. 4581:' (same source) that's objective is it? 5285: 1746: 3396:"eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth" 633:You simply cannot say "Well, they are 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4900:I propose we include the eye-witness 3364:Rather you are extreme. You the ones. 2252:take place if it's deemed necessary. 1181:misrepresents what was actually said. 848:It is inappropriate for two reasons: 628:on the material in the transcription. 95:More on the victim, less on the perps 7: 2907:Talk:Death_of_Lee_Rigby#Transcripts 2100:. I could be wrong though. Cheers. 2096:involves many subtleties regarding 699:too, per Amandajm and WWGB passim. 4553:Exactly...see....you learn fast.-- 1125:Just be bold, use common sense.... 1123:Another of the instructions says: 1107:OhConfucius, let me direct you to 669:knowingly publishing error as fact 24: 5205:Death of Diana, Princess of Wales 4445:Woolwich attack: MI5 knew of men 1457:that the transcription is faulty. 1139:OhConfucius, you have repeatedly 626:ought not be quoted or referenced 3414:David Wood (Christian apologist) 2905:There is an extensive debate at 1779:Stephen Lepitak, (23 May 2013). 1342:about one significant incident. 889:Your insistence on imposing the 29: 3868:Um, are you topic-banned here? 2080:I believe the reason for using 3905:So, just theoretically, if an 3890:' ~ www.thefreedictionary.com 2566:Obviously I need to ketchup. 1297:Your use of a source that you 1031:The footage appears continuous 1: 4735:What do other editors think? 3831:I see that Defence Secretary 3558:(قصاص‎), an eye for an eye ( 3289:Please use the complete text 2911:User_talk:WWGB#Woolwich_rant 1117:There is a line that reads: 613:have it wrong, (Peace be on 521:Advice and comments received 4335:~ www.thefreedictionary.com 3984:, and it should state this. 3540:(Chapter 9 of the Koran).-- 1170:has kindly referred us to 1109:Knowledge:Understanding IAR 1025:Response re Doctored videos 5328: 5264:is perfectly appropriate. 3716:NATO bombing of Yugoslavia 1913:man with bloodied hands.." 1477:that is clearly wrong per 5278:14:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC) 5269:11:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC) 5254:11:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC) 5238:10:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC) 5217:15:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC) 5197:15:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC) 5132:00:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC) 5032:05:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC) 4989:04:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC) 4951:03:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC) 4915:02:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC) 4880:12:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC) 4848:00:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC) 4622:, as ruthless nor cruel. 3809:17:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC) 3795:19:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC) 3781:18:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC) 3764:19:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC) 3750:18:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC) 3728:19:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC) 3709:19:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC) 3650:03:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC) 3610:16:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC) 3588:16:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC) 3550:15:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC) 3528:15:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC) 3488:15:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC) 3465:15:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC) 3430:13:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC) 3408:13:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC) 3350:04:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC) 3321:04:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC) 3284:12:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC) 3261:10:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC) 3242:13:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC) 3227:10:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC) 3162:04:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC) 3137:03:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC) 3122:03:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC) 2560:This T-shirt fits better. 2520:21:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC) 2498:12:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC) 2480:11:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC) 1612:I think we need to cover 278:Murder of Yvonne Fletcher 5178:20:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC) 5164:20:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC) 5118:20:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC) 5102:20:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC) 5077:17:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC) 4826:20:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC) 4807:20:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC) 4787:10:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC) 4774:10:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC) 4760:10:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC) 4745:09:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC) 4719:09:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC) 4704:09:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC) 4653:20:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC) 4632:19:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC) 4606:08:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC) 4591:00:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC) 4573:19:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC) 4558:18:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC) 4548:16:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC) 4527:13:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC) 4518:07:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC) 4500:23:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC) 4486:19:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC) 4477:18:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC) 4421:15:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC) 4412:11:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC) 4381:23:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC) 4312:18:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC) 4284:18:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC) 4267:10:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC) 4251:03:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC) 4229:03:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC) 4218:02:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC) 4166:19:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC) 4130:16:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC) 4108:06:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC) 4079:06:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC) 4063:04:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC) 4037:17:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC) 4027:17:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC) 3958:It needs to say it is a 3924:10:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC) 3900:04:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC) 3878:16:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC) 3864:15:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC) 3850:15:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC) 3827:15:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC) 3673:22:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC) 3533:He refers explicitly to 3086:16:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC) 3040:16:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC) 3014:15:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC) 3000:15:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC) 2986:15:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC) 2972:15:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC) 2955:14:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC) 2931:14:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC) 2901:13:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC) 2876:13:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC) 2846:13:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC) 2820:13:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC) 2782:08:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC) 2759:07:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC) 2719:07:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC) 2709:04:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC) 2663:00:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC) 2654:23:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC) 2645:23:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC) 2623:23:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC) 2600:23:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC) 2579:07:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC) 2556:23:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC) 2546:23:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC) 2462:11:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC) 2441:10:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC) 2422:05:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC) 2412:15:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 2373:14:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC) 2350:00:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC) 2331:16:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC) 2315:13:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC) 2299:13:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC) 2283:12:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC) 2268:10:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC) 2231:00:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC) 2217:23:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC) 2182:00:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC) 2167:23:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 2141:22:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 2123:21:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 2109:21:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 2060:19:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 2042:19:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 2020:18:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 2005:17:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 1986:23:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 1971:18:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 1956:17:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 1941:16:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 1920:01:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC) 1896:12:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC) 1872:08:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC) 1854:08:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC) 1838:01:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC) 1736:23:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC) 1721:22:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC) 1706:22:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC) 1686:11:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC) 1671:11:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC) 1645:11:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC) 1630:22:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 1600:04:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC) 1580:03:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC) 1552:13:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 1499:05:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 1425:03:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 1401:01:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 1274:20:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 1244:20:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 1215:12:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 1071:20:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 1051:12:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 995:15:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC) 920:06:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC) 827:05:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC) 801:05:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC) 745:04:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC) 709:02:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC) 690:02:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC) 665:obligation to the public 588:00:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC) 563:00:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC) 543:23:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC) 508:14:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC) 484:14:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC) 462:14:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC) 437:12:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC) 422:11:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC) 397:15:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 381:14:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 365:01:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 348:00:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 329:23:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 300:08:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 251:08:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 232:08:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 190:07:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 163:07:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 149:07:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 134:07:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 121:Boston Marathon bombings 110:06:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 18:Talk:Murder of Lee Rigby 4730:Some of the changes in 4618:It cannot be described 2205:Killing of David Wilkie 1325:consider "non-notable". 4015: 3566:. The problem here is 3309: 2395:in the light of this: 1659: 851:If we leave the whole 676:Think outside the box! 4793:I object to the word 3956: 3504:, through many, many 1654: 1473:The only part of the 1448:I am most definitely 117:2012 Aurora shooting‎ 42:of past discussions. 5146:, but no luck yet.-- 4449:of killing Lee Rigby 3206:The Evening Standard 2586:Absolutely not: see 2250:Killing of Lee Rigby 2129:Killing of Lee Rigby 2048:Killing of Lee Rigby 1926:"Death of Lee Rigby" 1608:David Cameron speech 1475:Telegraph transcript 884:the Holy Word of God 274:WP is not a memorial 5207:is a similar case. 4224:Whats your point?-- 3980:It is also clearly 2127:I favour the title 926:"a reference that 924:I am not inserting 218:critical importance 4043:Legal Implications 4013:during the attack. 3678:"Terrorist attack" 3593:He does not quote 3232:IP edit reverted. 3117:Nonsensical Babble 2896:Nonsensical Babble 2841:Nonsensical Babble 2815:Nonsensical Babble 2768:refers to it as a 1761:. BBC. 3 June 2013 893:at the expense of 807:honorific in Islam 202:who are trying to 5228:comment added by 3982:Islamic terrorism 3914:might have said. 3886:against civilians 3641: 3564:Code of Hammurabi 3394:I think that the 3341: 3153: 3077: 3052: 2946: 2791:An eye for an eye 2784: 2750: 2581: 2562: 2530:Deyka Ayan Hassan 2342:Gruesome Foursome 2307:Gruesome Foursome 2291:Gruesome Foursome 2012:Gruesome Foursome 1963:Gruesome Foursome 1933:Gruesome Foursome 1887: 1829: 986: 858:If we publish an 792: 720:as-salamu alaykum 671:is reprehensible. 579: 534: 499: 453: 373:Gruesome Foursome 291: 92: 91: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5319: 5312: 5311: 5309: 5307: 5290: 5240: 5159: 5157: 5156: 5139:photos on Flickr 4732:this recent edit 4464:)Beingsshepherd 4103: 4101: 4100: 3960:terrorist attack 3657:WP:TRANSCRIPTION 3640: 3637: 3631: 3583: 3581: 3580: 3568:WP:TRANSCRIPTION 3523: 3521: 3520: 3460: 3458: 3457: 3340: 3337: 3331: 3307: 3222: 3220: 3219: 3152: 3149: 3143: 3110: 3076: 3073: 3067: 3046: 3035: 3033: 3032: 2945: 2942: 2936: 2926: 2924: 2923: 2889: 2871: 2869: 2868: 2834: 2808: 2763: 2749: 2746: 2740: 2716:Hillbillyholiday 2704: 2702: 2701: 2660:Hillbillyholiday 2651:Hillbillyholiday 2620:Hillbillyholiday 2576:Hillbillyholiday 2565: 2558: 2553:Hillbillyholiday 2409: 2265: 2259: 2158: 2155: 2152: 2104: 2037: 1917:Hillbillyholiday 1886: 1883: 1877: 1828: 1825: 1819: 1787: 1777: 1771: 1770: 1768: 1766: 1751: 1595: 1549: 1544: 1494: 1492: 1491: 1479:WP:TRANSCRIPTION 1420: 1269: 1239: 1066: 985: 982: 976: 934:reliable sources 931: 836:in this instance 822: 820: 819: 791: 788: 782: 779: 740: 738: 737: 725:WP:TRANSCRIPTION 661:in this instance 623:in this instance 578: 575: 569: 558: 533: 530: 524: 498: 495: 489: 452: 449: 443: 410:WP:TRANSCRIPTION 320: 317: 314: 290: 287: 281: 185: 183: 182: 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5327: 5326: 5322: 5321: 5320: 5318: 5317: 5316: 5315: 5305: 5303: 5292: 5291: 5287: 5223: 5154: 5152: 5150: 5104:Beingsshepherd 5054: 4766:Paul MacDermott 4728: 4634:Beingsshepherd 4593:Beingsshepherd 4550:Beingsshepherd 4502:Beingsshepherd 4253:Beingsshepherd 4220:Beingsshepherd 4098: 4096: 4094: 4065:Beingsshepherd 4045: 3902:Beingsshepherd 3680: 3646: 3635: 3632: 3578: 3576: 3574: 3518: 3516: 3514: 3455: 3453: 3451: 3346: 3335: 3332: 3308: 3301: 3291: 3276:Paul MacDermott 3271: 3217: 3215: 3213: 3194: 3158: 3147: 3144: 3103: 3082: 3071: 3068: 3055:current version 3030: 3028: 3026: 2978:Paul MacDermott 2951: 2940: 2937: 2921: 2919: 2917: 2882: 2866: 2864: 2862: 2856:Daily Telegraph 2827: 2801: 2793: 2755: 2744: 2741: 2699: 2697: 2695: 2532: 2490:Paul MacDermott 2407: 2385: 2263: 2257: 2156: 2153: 2150: 2102: 2035: 1928: 1892: 1881: 1878: 1834: 1823: 1820: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1778: 1774: 1764: 1762: 1753: 1752: 1748: 1698:RocketLauncher2 1694: 1678:Paul MacDermott 1663:Paul MacDermott 1637:Paul MacDermott 1622:Paul MacDermott 1610: 1598: 1593: 1547: 1540: 1489: 1487: 1485: 1423: 1418: 1272: 1267: 1242: 1237: 1069: 1064: 991: 980: 977: 817: 815: 813: 797: 786: 783: 735: 733: 731: 659:I believe that 584: 573: 570: 561: 556: 539: 528: 525: 504: 493: 490: 458: 447: 444: 405: 318: 315: 312: 296: 285: 282: 180: 178: 176: 172:applies here.-- 97: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5325: 5323: 5314: 5313: 5284: 5283: 5282: 5281: 5280: 5257: 5256: 5246:Martinevans123 5220: 5219: 5209:Martinevans123 5185: 5184: 5183: 5182: 5181: 5180: 5170:Martinevans123 5135: 5134:Beingsshepherd 5124:Beingsshepherd 5110:Martinevans123 5094:Beingsshepherd 5092:requirements? 5069:Martinevans123 5053: 5052:Floral tribute 5050: 5049: 5048: 5047: 5046: 5045: 5044: 5043: 5042: 5041: 5040: 5039: 5038: 5037: 5036: 5035: 5034: 5005: 5004: 5003: 5002: 5001: 5000: 4999: 4998: 4997: 4996: 4995: 4994: 4993: 4992: 4991:Beingsshepherd 4981:Beingsshepherd 4964: 4963: 4962: 4961: 4960: 4959: 4958: 4957: 4956: 4955: 4954: 4953: 4927: 4926: 4925: 4924: 4923: 4922: 4921: 4920: 4919: 4918: 4917:Beingsshepherd 4907:Beingsshepherd 4889: 4888: 4887: 4886: 4885: 4884: 4883: 4882: 4872:Martinevans123 4856: 4855: 4854: 4853: 4852: 4851: 4850:Beingsshepherd 4840:Beingsshepherd 4831: 4830: 4829: 4828: 4818:Martinevans123 4811: 4810: 4809:Beingsshepherd 4799:Beingsshepherd 4790: 4789: 4779: 4778: 4777: 4776: 4737:Martinevans123 4727: 4724: 4723: 4722: 4711:Martinevans123 4692: 4691: 4690: 4689: 4688: 4687: 4686: 4685: 4684: 4683: 4682: 4681: 4680: 4679: 4678: 4677: 4676: 4675: 4674: 4673: 4672: 4671: 4670: 4669: 4668: 4667: 4666: 4665: 4664: 4663: 4662: 4661: 4660: 4659: 4658: 4657: 4656: 4655: 4645:64.134.173.235 4624:Beingsshepherd 4598:IdreamofJeanie 4583:Beingsshepherd 4565:Martinevans123 4540:Beingsshepherd 4520: 4510:Martinevans123 4492:Beingsshepherd 4469:Martinevans123 4458:Beingsshepherd 4452: 4432: 4431: 4430: 4429: 4428: 4427: 4426: 4425: 4424: 4423: 4393: 4392: 4391: 4390: 4389: 4388: 4387: 4386: 4385: 4384: 4383:Beingsshepherd 4373:Beingsshepherd 4363: 4348: 4347: 4346: 4345: 4344: 4343: 4342: 4341: 4340: 4339: 4336: 4321: 4320: 4319: 4318: 4317: 4316: 4315: 4314: 4304:Martinevans123 4292: 4291: 4290: 4289: 4288: 4287: 4286:Beingsshepherd 4276:Beingsshepherd 4272: 4269: 4259:Martinevans123 4243:Beingsshepherd 4232: 4231: 4210:Beingsshepherd 4196: 4195: 4194: 4193: 4192: 4191: 4190: 4189: 4188: 4187: 4175: 4174: 4173: 4172: 4171: 4170: 4169: 4168: 4158:Martinevans123 4138: 4137: 4136: 4135: 4134: 4133: 4132:Beingsshepherd 4122:Beingsshepherd 4113: 4112: 4111: 4110: 4082: 4081: 4055:Beingsshepherd 4044: 4041: 4040: 4039: 3995:eye for an eye 3949: 3948: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3944: 3943: 3942: 3941: 3940: 3939: 3938: 3937: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3929: 3928: 3927: 3926: 3916:Martinevans123 3892:Beingsshepherd 3882:@ FormerIP: ' 3870:Martinevans123 3842:Martinevans123 3833:Philip Hammond 3731: 3730: 3694: 3686: 3679: 3676: 3653: 3652: 3644: 3591: 3590: 3531: 3530: 3468: 3467: 3353: 3352: 3344: 3299: 3290: 3287: 3270: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3245: 3244: 3193: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3156: 3089: 3088: 3080: 3066:transcript. -- 3043: 3042: 3020:Eye for an eye 2992:Martinevans123 2958: 2957: 2949: 2849: 2848: 2792: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2774:Martinevans123 2753: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2656: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2603: 2602: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2538:Martinevans123 2531: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2483: 2482: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2425: 2424: 2404:Kittybrewster 2384: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2365:76.189.109.155 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2334: 2333: 2323:76.189.109.155 2302: 2301: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2223:76.189.109.155 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2174:76.189.109.155 2115:Martinevans123 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 1997:76.189.109.155 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1978:76.189.109.155 1927: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1890: 1864:Martinevans123 1846:Martinevans123 1832: 1789: 1788: 1772: 1745: 1744: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1728:Martinevans123 1723: 1713:Martinevans123 1693: 1692:Sky News quote 1690: 1689: 1688: 1648: 1647: 1609: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1590: 1569: 1565: 1564: 1556: 1555: 1523: 1522: 1517: 1516: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1461: 1459: 1458: 1446: 1441: 1440: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1415: 1407: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1377: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1355: 1347: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1318: 1314: 1303: 1295: 1291: 1290: 1279: 1277: 1276: 1264: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1234: 1204: 1197: 1182: 1175: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1151: 1144: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1128: 1121: 1112: 1111: 1104: 1103: 1099: 1098: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1061: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1035: 1032: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 989: 930:is inaccurate" 909: 906:primary source 898: 887: 880: 866: 865: 864: 856: 846: 795: 747: 712: 711: 679: 678: 677: 673: 672: 656: 655: 647: 646: 630: 629: 618: 607: 593: 592: 591: 590: 582: 553: 545: 537: 517: 516: 515: 514: 513: 512: 511: 510: 502: 488:I guess so. -- 467: 466: 465: 464: 456: 404: 401: 400: 399: 389:Martinevans123 368: 367: 352: 351: 350: 332: 331: 302: 294: 264: 263: 262: 261: 260: 259: 258: 257: 256: 255: 254: 253: 221: 214: 207: 196: 96: 93: 90: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5324: 5302:. 23 May 2013 5301: 5300: 5295: 5289: 5286: 5279: 5276: 5272: 5271: 5270: 5267: 5263: 5259: 5258: 5255: 5251: 5247: 5243: 5242: 5241: 5239: 5235: 5231: 5230:86.180.118.80 5227: 5218: 5214: 5210: 5206: 5201: 5200: 5199: 5198: 5194: 5190: 5189:188.29.143.12 5179: 5175: 5171: 5167: 5166: 5165: 5162: 5161: 5160: 5145: 5144:Talk:Woolwich 5140: 5136: 5133: 5129: 5125: 5121: 5120: 5119: 5115: 5111: 5107: 5106: 5105: 5103: 5099: 5095: 5091: 5087: 5083: 5079: 5078: 5074: 5070: 5065: 5061: 5060: 5051: 5033: 5029: 5025: 5021: 5020: 5019: 5018: 5017: 5016: 5015: 5014: 5013: 5012: 5011: 5010: 5009: 5008: 5007: 5006: 4990: 4986: 4982: 4978: 4977: 4976: 4975: 4974: 4973: 4972: 4971: 4970: 4969: 4968: 4967: 4966: 4965: 4952: 4948: 4944: 4939: 4938: 4937: 4936: 4935: 4934: 4933: 4932: 4931: 4930: 4929: 4928: 4916: 4912: 4908: 4903: 4899: 4898: 4897: 4896: 4895: 4894: 4893: 4892: 4891: 4890: 4881: 4877: 4873: 4868: 4864: 4863: 4862: 4861: 4860: 4859: 4858: 4857: 4849: 4845: 4841: 4837: 4836: 4835: 4834: 4833: 4832: 4827: 4823: 4819: 4815: 4814: 4813: 4812: 4808: 4804: 4800: 4796: 4792: 4791: 4788: 4785: 4781: 4780: 4775: 4771: 4767: 4763: 4762: 4761: 4757: 4753: 4749: 4748: 4747: 4746: 4742: 4738: 4733: 4725: 4720: 4716: 4712: 4708: 4707: 4706: 4705: 4701: 4697: 4696:188.28.21.120 4654: 4650: 4646: 4642: 4641: 4640: 4639: 4638: 4637: 4636: 4635: 4633: 4629: 4625: 4621: 4617: 4613: 4609: 4608: 4607: 4603: 4599: 4596:Frankly, yes 4595: 4594: 4592: 4588: 4584: 4580: 4576: 4575: 4574: 4570: 4566: 4561: 4560: 4559: 4556: 4552: 4551: 4549: 4545: 4541: 4537: 4535: 4530: 4529: 4528: 4525: 4521: 4519: 4515: 4511: 4507: 4504: 4503: 4501: 4497: 4493: 4489: 4488: 4487: 4484: 4480: 4479: 4478: 4474: 4470: 4466: 4465: 4463: 4459: 4456: 4453: 4450: 4448: 4442: 4441: 4440: 4439: 4438: 4437: 4436: 4435: 4434: 4433: 4422: 4419: 4415: 4414: 4413: 4409: 4405: 4401: 4400: 4399: 4398: 4397: 4396: 4395: 4394: 4382: 4378: 4374: 4371: 4367: 4364: 4362: 4358: 4357: 4356: 4355: 4354: 4353: 4352: 4351: 4350: 4349: 4337: 4334: 4331: 4330: 4329: 4328: 4327: 4326: 4325: 4324: 4323: 4322: 4313: 4309: 4305: 4300: 4299: 4298: 4297: 4296: 4295: 4294: 4293: 4285: 4281: 4277: 4273: 4270: 4268: 4264: 4260: 4255: 4254: 4252: 4248: 4244: 4240: 4236: 4235: 4234: 4233: 4230: 4227: 4223: 4222: 4221: 4219: 4215: 4211: 4208: 4204: 4201: 4185: 4184: 4183: 4182: 4181: 4180: 4179: 4178: 4177: 4176: 4167: 4163: 4159: 4155: 4151: 4146: 4145: 4144: 4143: 4142: 4141: 4140: 4139: 4131: 4127: 4123: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4116: 4115: 4114: 4109: 4106: 4105: 4104: 4089: 4086: 4085: 4084: 4083: 4080: 4076: 4072: 4068: 4067: 4066: 4064: 4060: 4056: 4051: 4048: 4042: 4038: 4035: 4031: 4030: 4029: 4028: 4024: 4020: 4014: 4012: 4008: 4004: 4000: 3996: 3992: 3990: 3988: 3986: 3983: 3979: 3977: 3975: 3973: 3971: 3969: 3966: 3964: 3961: 3955: 3954: 3925: 3921: 3917: 3913: 3908: 3904: 3903: 3901: 3897: 3893: 3889: 3887: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3875: 3871: 3867: 3866: 3865: 3861: 3857: 3853: 3852: 3851: 3847: 3843: 3838: 3834: 3830: 3829: 3828: 3824: 3820: 3816: 3812: 3811: 3810: 3806: 3802: 3798: 3797: 3796: 3792: 3788: 3784: 3783: 3782: 3778: 3774: 3771: 3767: 3766: 3765: 3761: 3757: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3747: 3743: 3739: 3735: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3729: 3725: 3721: 3717: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3706: 3702: 3696: 3693: 3691: 3689: 3683: 3677: 3675: 3674: 3670: 3666: 3662: 3658: 3651: 3648: 3647: 3639: 3638: 3630:if at all. -- 3628: 3623: 3619: 3614: 3613: 3612: 3611: 3607: 3603: 3602:79.192.24.138 3599: 3596: 3589: 3586: 3585: 3584: 3569: 3565: 3561: 3557: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3547: 3543: 3542:79.192.24.138 3539: 3536: 3529: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3509: 3508: 3503: 3500: 3496: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3489: 3485: 3481: 3480:79.192.24.138 3477: 3473: 3466: 3463: 3462: 3461: 3446: 3442: 3439: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3431: 3427: 3423: 3422:79.192.24.138 3419: 3415: 3410: 3409: 3405: 3401: 3400:79.192.24.138 3397: 3392: 3391: 3386: 3385: 3380: 3377: 3375: 3370: 3365: 3361: 3356: 3351: 3348: 3347: 3339: 3338: 3329: 3328:talk archives 3325: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3318: 3314: 3313:79.192.20.118 3305: 3298: 3294: 3288: 3286: 3285: 3281: 3277: 3268: 3262: 3258: 3254: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3243: 3239: 3235: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3207: 3203: 3199: 3191: 3163: 3160: 3159: 3151: 3150: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3134: 3130: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3119: 3118: 3114: 3111: 3109: 3106: 3100: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3087: 3084: 3083: 3075: 3074: 3064: 3060: 3059:other changes 3056: 3050: 3049:edit conflict 3045: 3044: 3041: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3021: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3011: 3007: 3003: 3002: 3001: 2997: 2993: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2969: 2965: 2960: 2959: 2956: 2953: 2952: 2944: 2943: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2912: 2908: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2898: 2897: 2893: 2890: 2888: 2885: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2857: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2847: 2843: 2842: 2838: 2835: 2833: 2830: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2817: 2816: 2812: 2809: 2807: 2804: 2798: 2790: 2783: 2779: 2775: 2771: 2770:"t-shirtrack" 2767: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2757: 2756: 2748: 2747: 2738: 2734: 2733: 2720: 2717: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2690: 2686: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2664: 2661: 2657: 2655: 2652: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2624: 2621: 2617: 2616: 2611: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2601: 2597: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2580: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2564: 2563: 2561: 2557: 2554: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2543: 2539: 2535: 2529: 2521: 2517: 2513: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2499: 2495: 2491: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2481: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2468: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2423: 2420: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2410: 2405: 2401: 2400: 2396: 2393: 2392: 2388: 2382: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2351: 2347: 2343: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2332: 2328: 2324: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2312: 2308: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2280: 2276: 2270: 2269: 2266: 2260: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2242: 2232: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2201: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2159: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2107: 2105: 2099: 2095: 2091: 2087: 2083: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2049: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2040: 2038: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1993: 1987: 1983: 1979: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1953: 1949: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1938: 1934: 1925: 1921: 1918: 1914: 1912: 1907: 1897: 1894: 1893: 1885: 1884: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1869: 1865: 1861: 1860: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1836: 1835: 1827: 1826: 1817: 1813: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1793: 1785: 1782: 1776: 1773: 1760: 1756: 1750: 1747: 1743: 1737: 1733: 1729: 1724: 1722: 1718: 1714: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1691: 1687: 1683: 1679: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1658: 1653: 1652: 1646: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1614:David Cameron 1607: 1601: 1597: 1596: 1589: 1588: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1570: 1567: 1566: 1561: 1558: 1557: 1554: 1553: 1550: 1545: 1543: 1537: 1530: 1525: 1524: 1519: 1518: 1515: 1512: 1511: 1500: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1456: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1442: 1439: 1436: 1435: 1426: 1422: 1421: 1414: 1413: 1408: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1398: 1394: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1378: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1344: 1343: 1341: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1324: 1319: 1315: 1312: 1308: 1307:beyond belief 1304: 1300: 1296: 1293: 1292: 1289: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1275: 1271: 1270: 1263: 1262: 1257: 1253: 1252: 1245: 1241: 1240: 1233: 1232: 1227: 1223: 1222:verifiability 1218: 1217: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1205: 1202: 1198: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1180: 1176: 1173: 1169: 1168: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1152: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1140: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1129: 1126: 1122: 1120: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1110: 1106: 1105: 1101: 1100: 1097: 1093: 1092: 1087: 1084: 1083: 1072: 1068: 1067: 1060: 1059: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1041: 1036: 1033: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 997: 996: 993: 992: 984: 983: 974: 970: 965: 962: 958: 952: 948: 944: 939: 935: 929: 923: 922: 921: 917: 913: 910: 907: 903: 899: 896: 892: 888: 885: 881: 878: 874: 870: 867: 861: 857: 854: 850: 849: 847: 844: 840: 839: 837: 833: 830: 829: 828: 825: 824: 823: 808: 804: 803: 802: 799: 798: 790: 789: 777: 772: 766: 762: 759: 756: 752: 748: 746: 743: 742: 741: 726: 722: 721: 716: 715: 714: 713: 710: 706: 702: 698: 695: 694: 693: 692: 691: 687: 683: 680: 675: 674: 670: 666: 662: 658: 657: 653: 649: 648: 644: 640: 636: 632: 631: 627: 624: 619: 616: 612: 608: 605: 604: 602: 599: 598: 597: 596: 595: 594: 589: 586: 585: 577: 576: 566: 565: 564: 560: 559: 552: 551: 546: 544: 541: 540: 532: 531: 522: 519: 518: 509: 506: 505: 497: 496: 487: 486: 485: 481: 477: 473: 472: 471: 470: 469: 468: 463: 460: 459: 451: 450: 440: 439: 438: 434: 430: 426: 425: 424: 423: 419: 415: 411: 402: 398: 394: 390: 385: 384: 383: 382: 378: 374: 366: 362: 358: 353: 349: 345: 341: 336: 335: 334: 333: 330: 326: 322: 321: 306: 303: 301: 298: 297: 289: 288: 279: 275: 271: 266: 265: 252: 248: 244: 240: 235: 234: 233: 229: 225: 222: 219: 215: 212: 208: 205: 201: 197: 193: 192: 191: 188: 187: 186: 171: 166: 165: 164: 160: 156: 152: 151: 150: 146: 142: 137: 136: 135: 131: 127: 122: 118: 114: 113: 112: 111: 107: 103: 102:Jeanne Boleyn 94: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5304:. Retrieved 5297: 5288: 5266:Tom Harrison 5261: 5224:— Preceding 5221: 5186: 5148: 5147: 5081: 5080: 5057: 5055: 4901: 4794: 4784:Tom Harrison 4729: 4693: 4619: 4611: 4578: 4533: 4532: 4446: 4444: 4365: 4360: 4332: 4238: 4202: 4199: 4197: 4149: 4092: 4091: 4052: 4049: 4046: 4016: 4011:Allāhu Akbar 3957: 3950: 3906: 3885: 3883: 3770:WP:Terrorist 3697: 3684: 3681: 3654: 3643: 3634: 3618:undue weight 3592: 3572: 3571: 3560:lex talionis 3559: 3532: 3512: 3511: 3505: 3471: 3469: 3449: 3448: 3411: 3395: 3393: 3389: 3387: 3383: 3381: 3378: 3373: 3368: 3363: 3359: 3357: 3354: 3343: 3334: 3310: 3303: 3296: 3292: 3272: 3211: 3210: 3205: 3195: 3155: 3146: 3115: 3112: 3107: 3104: 3098: 3079: 3070: 3024: 3023: 2948: 2939: 2915: 2914: 2894: 2891: 2886: 2883: 2860: 2859: 2839: 2836: 2831: 2828: 2813: 2810: 2805: 2802: 2796: 2794: 2769: 2765: 2764:I think the 2752: 2743: 2693: 2692: 2689:WP:RECENTISM 2637:AndyTheGrump 2615:The Guardian 2614: 2608: 2592:AndyTheGrump 2536:Noteworthy? 2533: 2402: 2397: 2394: 2389: 2386: 2303: 2271: 2240: 2237: 2149: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2081: 1929: 1915:Simples. -- 1910: 1908: 1889: 1880: 1831: 1822: 1809: 1804: 1783: 1775: 1763:. Retrieved 1758: 1749: 1741: 1695: 1660: 1655: 1650: 1649: 1611: 1592: 1585: 1559: 1541: 1535: 1533: 1528: 1513: 1483: 1482: 1460: 1454: 1449: 1437: 1417: 1410: 1358: 1350: 1339: 1322: 1310: 1306: 1302:misinformed. 1298: 1287: 1278: 1266: 1259: 1255: 1236: 1229: 1200: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1178: 1165: 1147: 1124: 1118: 1089: 1085: 1063: 1056: 1024: 988: 979: 966: 954: 942: 937: 927: 908:incorrectly. 905: 901: 894: 890: 883: 876: 872: 868: 859: 852: 842: 835: 831: 811: 810: 794: 785: 757: 729: 728: 718: 696: 668: 664: 660: 651: 642: 638: 634: 625: 622: 614: 610: 600: 581: 572: 555: 548: 536: 527: 501: 492: 455: 446: 406: 369: 311: 293: 284: 276:either. See 217: 210: 203: 199: 174: 173: 98: 75: 43: 37: 4726:Recent edit 4088:WP:BLPCRIME 4019:Loomspicker 3835:was quoted 3801:Jim Michael 3253:Jim Michael 3127:canvassed. 2433:Nick Cooper 2419:FergusM1970 2246:Move Review 2209:Jim Michael 2052:Jim Michael 1948:Jim Michael 1797:descriptive 832:Reliability 663:we have an 357:Jim Michael 305:WP:Memorial 36:This is an 5262:Daily Mail 5059:Daily Mail 4795:assailants 3645:¿que pasa? 3445:At-Tawba 5 3345:¿que pasa? 3269:Trial date 3202:this story 3192:Separated? 3157:¿que pasa? 3081:¿que pasa? 2950:¿que pasa? 2766:Daily Fail 2754:¿que pasa? 2454:Prof Wrong 2275:Prof Wrong 2241:sub judice 1891:¿que pasa? 1833:¿que pasa? 1742:References 1521:reference. 1256:notability 990:¿que pasa? 957:due weight 938:have to be 796:¿que pasa? 635:in general 583:¿que pasa? 538:¿que pasa? 503:¿que pasa? 457:¿que pasa? 295:¿que pasa? 200:news-media 5090:copyright 5086:Photoshop 4620:factually 4447:suspected 4154:Ian Brady 3813:Actually 3661:this edit 3198:this edit 3108:The Clown 2887:The Clown 2832:The Clown 2806:The Clown 2512:Flexdream 2472:Flexdream 2383:Not true? 1563:instance. 1445:doctored. 1351:good news 1190:knowingly 902:cannot be 170:WP:NORUSH 87:Archive 6 82:Archive 5 76:Archive 4 70:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 5226:unsigned 4534:butch·er 3907:off duty 3815:Formerip 3787:Formerip 3756:Formerip 3720:Formerip 3598:at-Tawba 3538:at-Tawba 3502:at-Tawba 3441:at-Tawba 3099:Newsweek 2797:Newsweek 2737:coatrack 2588:WP:BLP1E 2568:Ghmyrtle 2133:Ghmyrtle 2094:murdered 1816:this man 1812:this man 1801:this one 1784:The Drum 1759:BBC News 1572:Amandajm 1393:Amandajm 1224:and the 1207:Amandajm 1194:insisted 1143:ghastly. 1086:Response 1043:Amandajm 961:platform 912:Amandajm 869:Question 853:accurate 776:WP:Undue 771:WP:ELYES 761:contribs 751:SilkTork 701:Rothorpe 697:Disagree 682:Amandajm 601:Disagree 270:tabloids 243:Ghmyrtle 224:Amandajm 141:Ghmyrtle 5306:19 June 5299:The Sun 4902:reports 4506:Cleaver 3665:Evercat 3472:The Sun 3304:The Sun 3113:\(^_^)/ 3105:Bonkers 3063:aligned 2892:\(^_^)/ 2884:Bonkers 2837:\(^_^)/ 2829:Bonkers 2811:\(^_^)/ 2803:Bonkers 2254:Yunshui 2098:WP:NPOV 1548:(talk) 1406:edited. 1317:stinks. 951:WP:NPOV 860:editted 39:archive 5064:source 4150:murder 4003:Sharia 3856:Poyani 3819:Poyani 3773:Poyani 3742:Poyani 3701:Poyani 3627:fringe 2685:WP:DUE 2148:Martin 2090:killed 1803:. How 1765:5 June 1201:cannot 1172:WP:IAR 1148:cannot 1096:WP:IAR 969:WP:RSN 900:There 863:right. 843:citing 310:Martin 195:place. 5275:MONGO 4867:WP:RS 4555:MONGO 4524:MONGO 4483:MONGO 4418:MONGO 4226:MONGO 4034:MONGO 4007:Koran 3999:Allah 3912:WP:RS 3622:WP:RS 3556:Qisas 3495:Quran 3412:Even 3306:video 2739:". -- 2613:from 2082:death 1911:black 1814:? Or 1808:joke. 1805:would 1560:Reply 1532:trap. 1527:used 1514:Reply 1455:clear 1438:Reply 1340:facts 947:WP:RS 652:truth 643:facts 308:more. 16:< 5308:2013 5250:talk 5234:talk 5213:talk 5193:talk 5174:talk 5151:♦Ian 5128:talk 5114:talk 5098:talk 5073:talk 5056:The 5028:talk 5024:WWGB 4985:talk 4947:talk 4943:WWGB 4911:talk 4876:talk 4844:talk 4822:talk 4803:talk 4770:talk 4756:talk 4752:WWGB 4741:talk 4715:talk 4700:talk 4649:talk 4628:talk 4614:~ ' 4602:talk 4587:talk 4569:talk 4544:talk 4514:talk 4496:talk 4473:talk 4462:talk 4408:talk 4404:WWGB 4377:talk 4368:' ~ 4308:talk 4280:talk 4263:talk 4247:talk 4214:talk 4162:talk 4126:talk 4095:♦Ian 4075:talk 4071:WWGB 4059:talk 4023:talk 4005:", " 4001:", " 3997:", " 3920:talk 3896:talk 3874:talk 3860:talk 3846:talk 3837:here 3823:talk 3805:talk 3791:talk 3777:talk 3760:talk 3746:talk 3724:talk 3705:talk 3669:talk 3636:Ohc 3606:talk 3595:Sura 3575:♦Ian 3546:talk 3535:Sura 3515:♦Ian 3507:ayah 3499:Sura 3484:talk 3452:♦Ian 3438:Sura 3426:talk 3404:talk 3336:Ohc 3317:talk 3280:talk 3257:talk 3238:talk 3234:WWGB 3214:♦Ian 3148:Ohc 3133:talk 3129:WWGB 3072:Ohc 3053:the 3027:♦Ian 3010:talk 3006:WWGB 2996:talk 2982:talk 2968:talk 2964:WWGB 2941:Ohc 2918:♦Ian 2863:♦Ian 2778:talk 2745:Ohc 2696:♦Ian 2687:and 2641:talk 2596:talk 2572:talk 2542:talk 2516:talk 2494:talk 2476:talk 2458:talk 2437:talk 2369:talk 2346:talk 2327:talk 2311:talk 2295:talk 2279:talk 2227:talk 2213:talk 2178:talk 2163:talk 2137:talk 2119:talk 2103:Gaba 2086:died 2056:talk 2036:Gaba 2016:talk 2001:talk 1982:talk 1967:talk 1952:talk 1937:talk 1882:Ohc 1868:talk 1850:talk 1824:Ohc 1767:2013 1732:talk 1717:talk 1702:talk 1682:talk 1667:talk 1641:talk 1626:talk 1618:link 1594:talk 1576:talk 1542:Tony 1536:this 1529:very 1486:♦Ian 1419:talk 1397:talk 1354:day. 1299:know 1268:talk 1238:talk 1226:onus 1211:talk 1186:know 1179:know 1088:to 1065:talk 1047:talk 981:Ohc 949:and 928:know 916:talk 895:fact 891:rule 873:must 814:♦Ian 787:Ohc 765:said 755:talk 732:♦Ian 705:talk 686:talk 639:know 574:Ohc 557:talk 529:Ohc 494:Ohc 480:talk 476:WWGB 448:Ohc 433:talk 429:WWGB 418:talk 414:WWGB 393:talk 377:talk 361:talk 344:talk 340:WWGB 325:talk 286:Ohc 280:. -- 247:talk 228:talk 177:♦Ian 159:talk 155:WWGB 145:talk 130:talk 126:WWGB 106:talk 3497:in 3474:at 3388:2. 3382:1. 3204:in 3196:Re 2913:.-- 2691:.-- 2618:-- 2092:or 1810:Or 1450:not 1359:our 1323:you 1311:not 1094:re 973:own 943:not 877:Why 727:.-- 615:you 611:all 5296:. 5252:) 5236:) 5215:) 5195:) 5176:) 5158:M♦ 5153:Ma 5130:) 5116:) 5100:) 5075:) 5030:) 4987:) 4949:) 4913:) 4878:) 4846:) 4824:) 4805:) 4772:) 4758:) 4743:) 4717:) 4702:) 4651:) 4630:) 4610:' 4604:) 4589:) 4577:' 4571:) 4546:) 4531:' 4516:) 4508:. 4498:) 4475:) 4443:' 4410:) 4379:) 4359:' 4310:) 4282:) 4265:) 4249:) 4237:' 4216:) 4205:' 4198:' 4164:) 4128:) 4102:M♦ 4097:Ma 4077:) 4061:) 4025:) 3922:) 3898:) 3876:) 3862:) 3848:) 3825:) 3807:) 3793:) 3779:) 3762:) 3748:) 3740:. 3726:) 3707:) 3671:) 3608:) 3582:M♦ 3577:Ma 3548:) 3522:M♦ 3517:Ma 3486:) 3459:M♦ 3454:Ma 3428:) 3420:-- 3406:) 3376:" 3319:) 3311:-- 3300:— 3282:) 3259:) 3240:) 3221:M♦ 3216:Ma 3135:) 3120:☯ 3034:M♦ 3029:Ma 3012:) 2998:) 2984:) 2970:) 2925:M♦ 2920:Ma 2899:☯ 2870:M♦ 2865:Ma 2844:☯ 2818:☯ 2780:) 2772:. 2703:M♦ 2698:Ma 2643:) 2598:) 2590:. 2544:) 2518:) 2496:) 2478:) 2460:) 2439:) 2371:) 2348:) 2329:) 2313:) 2297:) 2281:) 2229:) 2215:) 2207:. 2180:) 2165:) 2139:) 2121:) 2058:) 2050:? 2018:) 2003:) 1984:) 1969:) 1954:) 1939:) 1870:) 1852:) 1757:. 1734:) 1719:) 1704:) 1684:) 1669:) 1643:) 1628:) 1587:VR 1578:) 1493:M♦ 1488:Ma 1412:VR 1399:) 1261:VR 1231:VR 1213:) 1199:I 1167:VR 1091:VR 1058:VR 1049:) 918:) 838:. 821:M♦ 816:Ma 781:-- 767:: 763:) 739:M♦ 734:Ma 707:) 688:) 550:VR 482:) 435:) 420:) 395:) 379:) 363:) 346:) 327:) 249:) 241:. 239:OR 230:) 211:in 184:M♦ 179:Ma 161:) 147:) 132:) 119:, 108:) 5310:. 5248:( 5232:( 5211:( 5191:( 5172:( 5155:c 5126:( 5112:( 5096:( 5071:( 5026:( 4983:( 4945:( 4909:( 4874:( 4842:( 4820:( 4801:( 4768:( 4754:( 4739:( 4713:( 4698:( 4647:( 4626:( 4600:( 4585:( 4567:( 4542:( 4512:( 4494:( 4471:( 4460:( 4451:' 4406:( 4375:( 4306:( 4278:( 4261:( 4245:( 4212:( 4160:( 4124:( 4099:c 4073:( 4057:( 4021:( 3918:( 3894:( 3872:( 3858:( 3844:( 3821:( 3803:( 3789:( 3775:( 3758:( 3744:( 3722:( 3703:( 3667:( 3604:( 3579:c 3544:( 3519:c 3482:( 3456:c 3424:( 3402:( 3315:( 3278:( 3255:( 3236:( 3218:c 3131:( 3051:) 3047:( 3031:c 3008:( 2994:( 2980:( 2966:( 2922:c 2867:c 2776:( 2700:c 2639:( 2594:( 2570:( 2540:( 2514:( 2492:( 2474:( 2456:( 2435:( 2408:☎ 2367:( 2344:( 2325:( 2309:( 2293:( 2277:( 2264:水 2261:‍ 2258:雲 2225:( 2211:( 2176:( 2161:( 2157:1 2154:5 2151:4 2135:( 2117:( 2054:( 2014:( 1999:( 1980:( 1965:( 1950:( 1935:( 1866:( 1848:( 1786:. 1769:. 1730:( 1715:( 1700:( 1680:( 1665:( 1639:( 1624:( 1574:( 1490:c 1395:( 1313:. 1209:( 1127:. 1045:( 914:( 886:. 818:c 758:· 753:( 736:c 703:( 684:( 478:( 431:( 416:( 391:( 375:( 359:( 342:( 323:( 319:1 316:5 313:4 245:( 226:( 181:c 157:( 143:( 128:( 104:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index