While the Biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see the biographies of living persons noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Re this edit:  is a primary source and gives no detail about the Lee Rigby incident, and this source (which I can't get to work at the moment) is not from the mainstream media. Overall, this doesn't seem to have the due weight required for its own paragraph. It also appears to have been added by a single purpose account which may have a conflict of interest here.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 19:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Quite agree. A secondary source, which shows a direct link between Shomrim and the Muslim community in these circumstances, would be required. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree. Including this seems undue to me, and looks like boosterism for the Shomrim more than anything else. (an archived copy of the hackneyhive source can be found here ). AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Have removed cite to Shomrim website as seemed to be redundant, as well as being still "under construction." I guess the question of WP:UNDUE now rests on the relative quality of the remaining two sources - Al Jazeera and the local hackneyhive.com. Other sources here are UK mainstream newspapers. Not sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I also agree that the material breaches UNDUE--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
A third source, fro Huff Po, has now been added. But no input here from the editor concerned. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, I hope you are now satisfied with all the sources. VarifiedEditor (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Just added another link to a vice.com article that explains Shomrim in more depth, and also makes reference to the good relationship between Shomrim and the Muslim community. -- VarifiedEditor (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Your last source was largely irrelevant to this article, so I have removed it. I don't think that consensus has yet been positively established on the value of this paragraph. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The lack of mentions of Shomrim in the context of the Lee Rigby case by a range of mainstream reliable sources (BBC, CNN, Telegraph, Guardian etc) is the real worry. It is possible to find mentions of anything on the web if you look hard enough, but a Wikipedia article needs to give due weight to the mainstream sources. Also, if VarifiedEditor has any affiliation with Shomrim, it would be best not to make article edits involving it, per WP:COI.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 06:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair point, however Al Jazeera and The Huffington Post and Vice are major news channels both in the UK and worldwide. This was also covered in the local Hackney Gazett, which is part of the Archant (media group), this was also featured in many other worldwide channels who quoted those original articles. -- VarifiedEditor (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
In the section 'anti-muslim backlash', anti-muslim attacks are described as "islamophbia", which is clearly not NPOV at all. It should be called what it is in the heading, anti-muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Which says "While the term is widely recognized and used, both the term and the underlying concept have been criticized." Some people do not like the word because of its pseudo-medical connotations (Doctor, I'm suffering from Islamophobia, is there a pill for it?) What is being described here is old-fashioned racial and religious prejudice.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 05:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Is the part about the Legal aid really necessary? The bottom line is that when a person lacks sufficient funds, they will be granted legal aid. Is The Sun attempting to say "If you have committed a sickening crime, you should not have legal aid?" This is a tabloid attempt to whip up controversy.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 05:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
It is worth a brief mention because it received a good deal of coverage. Some of the criticism misses the point, because the costs of a high profile trial at the Old Bailey would be into six figures, and a person is entitled to a fair trial regardless of what they have done.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 06:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I do think that what I had written about Rigby's father's opinion on this should be included. It's neither right nor wrong, but adds to why we include this figure - a relative of the deceased was highly critical of it. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Rigby's father is entitled to his opinion, but when a person qualifies for legal aid it makes no difference what they have done or what the verdict at the trial turns out to be. Rigby's father said "There wasn't even a defence – they were on camera boasting about killing Lee. The system needs to change." What he appears to be saying is that entitlement to legal aid should take into account the likely verdict before deciding on whether to award it, a change that is unlikely to happen. Other media sources noted the legal aid costs in the case, but did not comment on whether they were justified or not.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 05:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a sentence in "Subsequent events" which reads: "On 14 March 2014, a married couple from London were jailed for posting videos on YouTube which condoned the death of Lee Rigby, with one video describing it as a "brilliant day"." This seems hopelessly bland, rather implying that it was a random couple who were simply being foolish like the student mentioned in the previous sentence (who is named). I tried to make clear that this was of a rather different order by giving what I believe to be pertinent detail, as follows: "On 14 March 2014, 23-year old Royal Barnes, who had previously been convicted for threatening members of the public while taking part in Sharia patrols in London, and his wife Rebekah Dawson were jailed for posting videos on YouTube which condoned the death of Lee Rigby, with one video describing it as a "brilliant day"." This was reverted on the basis of WP:BLPNAME. While I understand from this that it may not be desirable to name Royal Barnes' wife (though she is named in both the citations now given), I cannot see what is gained by obscuring (to all those readers who don't take the time to look at the actual citations) who Royal Barnes is and what he has done: i.e. he was also a member of the Sharia patrols in London, and had immediately before the YouTube conviction been convicted of threatening members of the public as a member of that patrol. Surely it is relevant to spell out the nature of Royal's activities, given his conviction. Or is there some higher consideration I've overlooked? Alfietucker (talk) 08:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The two people involved in the YouTube incident are not major players in the death of Lee Rigby and fail WP:BLPNAME for this article in my view. They are named in the sourcing given at , so it is not an attempt to hide the names. Royal Barnes was jailed for five years and four months, and Rebekah Dawson was jailed for 20 months. This implies that the court considered Barnes to be the more guilty of the two. It is a conundrum whether to name both or neither. Incidentally, I also wonder whether Deyka Ayan Hassan  meets WP:BLPNAME for this article.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 08:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The student Deyka Ayan Hassan, mentioned in the previous sentence, was sentenced for a lesser crime to 250 hours of unpaid work, and is named. So yes, I rather think that if we don't name Barnes and his wife, then we shouldn't name her. But I do feel that missing out all detail about Barnes, only identifying him as part of a couple which posted certain YouTube clips, presents "a significant loss of context". I think it is only right to give at least some of this context, and if you feel we shouldn't name them then I propose including some information about their activity given by both the citations: "On 14 March 2014, a married couple from London - who pleaded guilty of disseminating a terrorist publication - were jailed for posting videos on YouTube which condoned the death of Lee Rigby, with one video describing it as a "brilliant day"." Alfietucker (talk) 09:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Barnes knew Michael Adebowale, so he was not a complete outsider. Barnes pleaded guilty to inciting murder in a post on Facebook, which his wife did not, which is probably the reason for the longer sentence. Deyka Ayan Hassan's name should definitely be removed because it was a foot in mouth tweet. The wording suggested for Barnes and his wife looks OK.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 09:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I personally agree with Alfietucker, that his previous history is of great significance, otherwise it sounds like just a couple who did a stupid video rather than deliberately doing it. --VarifiedEditor (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Why doesn't the article mention that the race of the murders was black?Jonny Quick (talk) 09:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
So you think "black" is a race? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC) (... do you think the article should say Rigby was "white"?)
Why does our article on Harold Shipman not say that he was white? Possibly because it isn't relevant. The killers appear to have been motivated by political/religious extremism rather than by race - though the article does state that they are British of Nigerian descent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the "race" (or ethnic origin) of the two murderers might be relevant in an analysis of why they decided to espouse that distorted version of Islam in the first place. But the article is about the murder of Rigby, not about the lives of those two individuals themselves. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)