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 template is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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.
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)
I disagree that there would be appropriate sources on the above. The language used in the screeds of the murderers suggested that they saw Islam as one united community, rather than for example supporting black Somalians (who incidentally, seem to have their disputes with the equally black Kenyans and Ethiopians rather than the West). Unless I'm reading you wrong, I can't see a link. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not claiming there would be sources to support that contention. My point was it's not the subject of this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I was 50:50 on whether to include this because it is not directly related to the Lee Rigby case. Nonetheless, the sourcing is clear that he was inspired by the murder of Lee Rigby and wanted to do something similar.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 19:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it fairly belongs in the Reactions section. This was part of the sworn evidence at his trial. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I can't see why it's not relevant, but it should probably not take up more than a sentence. Formerip (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I've put a sentence on another case of an attempted copycat. This has ended up with a conviction at the Old Bailey, so it is hardly minor, but again as a tangential item should not have too much information on it. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Kazi Isla's friend, Harry Thomas, was interviewed, but without showing has face, on the BBC Six O'clock news this evening. So I'm not sure he shouldn't be named in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The point is about how due it would be to name him, as a) it is a tangential detail to the murder of Lee Rigby and b) he did not commit any of the crimes that he was being set up to do. If there was an article on this individual case (there should be if the perpetrator is given a heavy jail sentence) we would definitely name this attempted patsy. But here, there is no gain in naming him, but somewhat more to be gained by naming the criminal who was grooming him. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The Photograph of Fusilier Lee Rigby has the incorrect copyright attribution and is not a UK Crown Copyright photograph and therefore is not available under the Open Government Licence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UKMinistryofDefence (talk • contribs) 08:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, the photo is on Wikimedia Commons here and is credited to Henry Szymanski. What should its licence be? The image was originally on this MOD page, as the Wayback Machine shows, which is why the uploader concluded that it had an Open Government Licence. It is no longer on the page of the MOD press release.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 10:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, This is not a UK Crown Copyright photograph and is not available under the Open Government Licence meaning that the Photo has the incorrect copyright attribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UKMinistryofDefence (talk • contribs) 13:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
If it is copyrighted in any way, eg if Henry Szymanski claims a copyright on it, then the image cannot be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. Please could you be a bit more specific about the licencing requirements for using this image. See also Commons:Choosing a license.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 13:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, The photograph is not available for use under the OGL, the copyright is owned by Mr Henry Szymanski and only he may licence it. It seems that the image cannot be hosted on Wikimedia Commons so what is the next step?UKMinistryofDefence (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
It cannot be hosted on Wikimedia Commons unless Henry Szymanski releases the copyright. It could be used in a Wikipedia article with a fair use licence. I have pointed this out on Commons.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 18:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)