Talk:Murder of Ross Parker/Archive 1

Recent breaches of WP:IRRELEVANT and original research
Recent contributions to the article are in breach of WP:IRRELEVANT. Rather than explain the issues on users talk pages I thought it would be better to move the discussions here so other editors can help explain Wikipedia policies. I have notified User:Exok of this issue.

Editor ChessMaster2011 states his addition is relevant because "The report section already begins with comparisons with the Stephen Lawrence and Anthony Walker murder criticizing the level of publicity these murders received relative to the Ross Parker Murder. The article then fails to address why these murders received such high publicity and is therefore not objective. It is also inadvertently or deliberately misleading the public."

The problem is that none of the sources used by Chessmaster make any mention of or comparison with Ross Parker whatsoever making them completely inappropriate for the article. Can editors please bear in mind that the only reason this article compares the murder of Ross Parker to other cases is because reliable sources do this very thing themselves. To add other details about these murders from sources making no mention or comparison with Parker is simply of no relevance on this particular page and constitutes original research if added to this particular article. To quote the Wikipedia policy on original research "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented". Chessmaster's contributions do indeed fulfill the second required criteria but not the first one.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think ChessMaster2011 wants to counter-balance the idea expressed in the article that Ross Parker's murder received disproportionately less media coverage than other racist killings by highlighting that, for instance, in Stephen Lawrence's case accusations of institutional racism were present which drew more attention. It seems like this is a perfectly OK point to include in the article, but it has to be sourced properly. At present ChessMaster2011 is not providing any evidence that this argument belongs to anyone but him. The sources used very clearly fall foul of WP:SYNTHESIS, a fundamental Wikipedia policy that states, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". All you need to do, ChessMaster, is find the comparison you're making in reliable sources and then make what you add directly relevant to Ross Parker's murder and not give them WP:UNDUE weight. Until you (or someone else) does that, I agree with Shakehandsman that these edits must be reverted. Exok (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining the situation so eloquently Exok. I too would of course have no problem with such a point being made should any reliable sources be found that actually make such a point.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We have an interesting problem here. By their own admission, the "reliable sources" that are so unrelentingly demanded by certain editors are, by their own admission, not so reliable after all when it comes to cases like the murder of Ross Parker. The Times and the BBC have both sheepishly admitted this to be the case (many years after the event itself, presumably when they think most people will have forgotten about it). And so Wikipedia's insistence on "reliable sources" (i.e. ones that can be relied on to reflect the worldview favoured by the majority of Wikipedia editors) begins to look rather cynical.Shiresman (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for your words of advice and it is my hope that we can work together to improve this article. At present the Reporting section you have written may breach NPOV ( Neutral point of view). In particular where you quote the BBC as suggesting there should have been more media coverage of the Murder of Ross Parker and then either deliberately or inadvertently omit their explanation as to why that was not the case. I attempted to help this article in this regard but you deleted this information entirely. This is not only unfair to the BBC but is also extremely misleading and damaging to the integrity of Wikipedia. Wikipedia states "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources".

I have thoroughly read this article and attempted to read all of your references. However, some sections of this article have outdated references that have been challenged and subsequently removed from the internet. This means that some information quoted in your article can no longer be validated. As this article was written some years ago it could benefit from periodic checks on those references that are internet-based, controversial, inflammatory, potentially inaccurate and liable to being removed from the net.

Furthermore your history of edits strongly suggest a biased and skewed interpretation of factual events. Please allow us to constructively work together to improve this page in good faith and in the interest of the broader readership. Also allow us to work together to write an article that is accurate and does not mislead the public through selective sourcing and fraudulent extrapolations that compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. I thank you both again for your contributions thus far and pray that the death of Ross Parker is not being used to support a political agenda (see ( Conflict of interest)).--ChessMaster2011 (talk) 07:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nothing at all misleading about the article, nothing "fraudulent", no selective sourcing and therefore absolutely no compromising the integrity of Wikipedia. Due to the initial lack of coverage of the case pretty much every national/international news report going related to the crime has been used in the references, and I doubt there are many examples of less selective articles in existence! I therefore strongly suggest you retract the serious allegations above and apologise for them. I don't know who you were aiming your false allegations at but I have an impeccable history here at Wikipedia as does Exok as far as I'm aware. There is a Wikihounding campaign against me by a editor User:Truesayer abusing multiple accounts to harass me and perhaps you've been influenced by his campaign of false allegations without realising the situation? I can assure you that almost every post he has made is demonstrably false or in breach of Wikipedia rules, has been proven as such and should therefore be ignored. He has quite rightly been banned from this site on nine occasions and remains banned--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

WP: Death assessment commentary
The article easily passes B-class criteria for WP: Death. It is both descriptive and informative, sympathetic but not dramatic. The article could use a little more background on the perpetrators, if available. If the primary contributor is inclined, this article appears about ready to be nominated for Good Article status. Aside from minor tweaks of syntax or word choice, largely dependent on the reviewer, it should pass. Well done! Boneyard90 (talk) 08:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for tweaking the text and for reviewing the article. I'll try to add more background on the perpetrators ASAP.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good job, Shakehandsman. This is not just a strong article, it's a very interesting one. Exok (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Background information on the perpetrators/defendants has now been added as requested, any tweaking of it before the review is appreciated.--Shakehandsman (talk) 09:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the new paragraph is great. A few points about each, in a sentence or two; it's concise. I did a couple tweaks on punctuation and word choice. I think any changes now would be at the discretion of the reviewer. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to submit a Good Article nomination, under the "Law" subsection, although I'm uncertain as to whether this is a valid categorisation now as it doesn't show on the GAN page. Edit - it is showing now.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

"Hunting party"?
The phrase "hunting party" (in quotes) is used in the lede. That phrase does not seem to appear in the source given. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Now fixed.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The source of that description appears to be the defense lawyer of one of the accused, and not the words of an uninvolved commentator. I don't believe that having such a cherry-picked quote in the lede is appropriate, as a neutrality issue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose if it was the prosecution using such terminology then there might be a problem, but if even the defence accepts that it was a hunting party then I don't see any issue. Afterall, the murder weapon was a large hunting knife so it's hardly inaccurate and useful and concise description.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with User:Shakehandsman. If the defendants stated that they were searching for a particular target, with intent to catch and harm, especially with a weapon, then it fits the definition of "hunting". If there were two or more people, that would be a "party". The description of the group as a "hunting party" sounds apt. If the defense used the term, then there doesn't seem to be an issue of neutrality. Boneyard90 (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you understand what "neutrality" means? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It means reporting what sources say in due proportion to their prominence. The WP:LEAD is not the holiest of holies of an article, it is merely "the introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." Summarising a sensational case like this is bound to involve featuring some of the most sensational aspects. Exok (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think that statements made as argument by either the prosecution or the defence are likely to be neutral? We should be summarizing opinion offered by analysts of the case, not looking for soundbites made in court. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to make editors aware that Delicious carbuncle's contributions over the last 24 hours or so have included making a personal attack against me, submitting multiple notable articles I've created for deletion, deleting fully sourced quotes  and generally following me around. He seems to take issue with the very fact I've created this very article  (it's a bit strange to cite the creation of a good article as evidence of anything negative) and has now submitted a rather strange request for comment about my editing also.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So noted. Boneyard90 (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've finally started an ANI regarding Delicious carbuncle's conduct over the last 36 hours or so. See Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

As is pointed out, the term in question is in quotes, in the phrase "described as a 'hunting party'", which indicates it is not the creation of a contributing editor. The quoted phrase is followed by a reference. This seems neutral enough. The lead states that the defendants were in a group "described as a 'hunting party'", and described by themselves or their representatives, no less. Don't see a problem here. The neutrality at issue is to report fairly what happened, which is different from the neutrality of a courtroom. This article is not supposed to present evidence so the reader can feel like a juror, and judge the defendants guilty or not guilty. The article is to report fairly on what happened, how and why. They were found guilty, because the evidence and testimony was judged sufficient to convict them. That is the only neutrality we need to be concerned with. Boneyard90 (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed the internal link to hunting party from the lede - IMO the emotive descriptor, "hunting party" doesn't belong in the lede. If its a notable descriptor add it to the section about the crime, its a pure titillation description. Youreallycan (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And I have removed the phrasing. Titillation, indeed--and an incomplete citation, as I have explained in my edit summary. Ah, the glory of the passive construction in English: it allows you choose whether you want to have a real subject, which in this case you don't, since that would weaken the rhetorical impact of this tabloid-talk. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course people want to have a real subject and thanks for your input. I'd suggest people here simply weren't the most receptive to suggestions made by people with a record of hostility towards certain editors here and/or this very article, and the input of an different party was required. If anything the full quote and its context is even more notable so I'd happily support having that in the body instead--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's often a problem with citing in the lead--lack of context. I'm glad you agree with my edit. I saw your subsequent edit about a redundant ref; you know that better than I do, I'm sure. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Images of the convicted
It is not clear to me why images of those convicted of the murderer of Ross Parker are included in the article. It is unlikely that we would describe them in the body of the article and it is not clear how the reader is aided by seeing their images. I am not terribly familiar with non-free image use guidelines, but point 8 of WP:NFCC states: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". I do not think that criteria is satisfied here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Race is explicitly stated as an admitted motive for the assault and murder. The reader gains a greater understanding of the visible differences between assailants and victim, which contributed to, and were at the heart of their motives. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to be standard practice to have the images of both victims and perpetrators on similar articles, regardless of motive, but I also agree that the motive gives additional reason for inclusion--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I checked the articles linked in the "see also" section. None of them have images of either the victim or the accused. (Boneyard90, I am going to assume that your comment is facetious.) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to make that assumption. Boneyard90 (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * None of the see also articles are anywhere near the standard of this one. I suggest you try checking featured or good articles instead. I also urge you to add images to these articles.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * For articles of crimes with photos victims and/or perpetrators see: Assassination of George Tiller, Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy (with link to Sirhan Sirhan), Death of Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb, My Lai Massacre (with link to William Calley), Murder of Chelsea King, Murder of Deriek Crouse, Tsuyama massacre, Virginia Tech massacre, Sada Abe, Ipswich serial murders, Soham murders. If you like, I'm sure I can find more examples. Boneyard90 (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can I also add that DC should not be "assuming" anything please other than good faith towards all other editors.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The question isn't what other articles do, but what the policy says, and how this is interpreted by knowledgeable editors about copyright policy. A very parallel situation was discussed in relation to a victim's picture in these venues:Media Copyright Questions and with the photo concerned being deleted as a copyvio. It seems likely that the fair-use photos here (victim and perpetrators) fall into the same category. Given these previous opinions given at multiple fora, I am going to comment all the pictures out for now for copyright reasons, and list all the articles at the Non-free content review page so that other editors can weigh in. Please don't restore them till that venue gives the go-ahead --Slp1 (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we all know the real reason why photographs of the murderers do not, and never will, appear in this article.Shiresman (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Alien mind control? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Shiresman (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Use of the descriptor "Muslim"
This is apparently a racist crime, not a crime based on the religion of the victim or perpetrators. Is there any rationale for including the descriptor "Muslim"? It appears to be both unnecessary and may be misleading, given the circumstances of the crime. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not stated that religion was or was not a motive for the crime. To assume that it was "not a crime based on the religion of the victim or perpetrators" would constitute Original Research. Therefore I would support expunging the descriptor from the lead, as religion was not explicitly stated as a motive. However, I support retaining the descriptor in the body of the text, as the perpetrators' religions are identifiable admissions, as is their Pakistani origin, the white race of the victim, the ages of all parties involved, etc. Present the known, cited facts, and then let readers make their own conclusions. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * When referring to the case and aspects of it multiple reliable sources use the term "Muslim" in various ways and it seems quite a key term here. The terms "Asian" "Pakistani" and "Muslim" appear to be used interchangeably and the term is not just in relation to the killers but also in a wider sense. Sources discuss the case in relation to the "Muslim community" for example.. Detective Chief Inspector Dick Harrison reported "There are certain suspicions that some of the individuals involved could have felt allegiance to Muslim extremists". . There's also the issue of the September 11th related timing and tensions which reliable sources note, not to mention the "Taliban" and "Osama Bin Laden" related chanting. A previous editor also initially disputed this issue and accepted the term was entirely appropriate here.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Asian", "Muslim", and "Pakistani" are not interchangeable terms, despite misuse elsewhere. Simply including the label "Muslim" in relation to the convicted carries the implication that their religion is somehow relevant to the crime. So far as I know, there is no evidence that it is (disregarding the provocative "certain suspicions" quoted above). Unless reliable sources state that the religion of the convicted was a factor, the descriptor should be removed, per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No one was saying they were interchangeable. Perhaps my wording could be better. What i mean is sometimes reliable sources mention Pakistanis in relation to the case and sometimes they talk about Muslims (and sometimes both). I certainly wasn't suggesting they were just swapping the terms randomly, just that various terms tended to be used and we should use the ones that are the most precise and of note. --Shakehandsman (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Although terms may be used as shorthand in the media, we need to follow different guidelines because we have a global audience who may be unfamiliar with the larger picture. If there is no evidence that religion is a factor in the crime, I am removing the term on BLP grounds. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I also thought at first that maybe describing them as "Asian" and "Pakistani" was redundant, and I asked myself, "After all, are there 'European Pakistanis' or 'Pakistani Americans'?" Then I thought, yes, in both cases, there are. Another more conventional way to describe them might be as "Pakistani immigrants" or "Pakistani expatriates", depending on whether they intended to live in the UK for long term or short term. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no evidence that they are immigrants/expatriates that I'm aware of. Sources do show they visit the country. The term "Pakistani origin" is fine.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please bear in mind that the issue under discussion is the descriptor "Muslim", but I note that there is no suggestion that any of these men were born outside of England or were anything other than British citizens. As such "Pakistani origin" is incorrect, by definition. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We could say they are of "Pakistani ancestry", or "part of the Pakistani community", or "ethnically Pakistani", or "Pakistani-British", or "Anglo-Pakistanis", or they "self-identify as persons of Pakistani ethnicity" . Boneyard90 (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you suggest it, what source supports your claim that the youths "self-identified" their ethnic background? This isn't a rhetorical question. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn. Boneyard90 (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Or "youths of Pakistani background" seems to work as well. Boneyard90 (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * - The BBC - ( a quality NPOV and BLP fully compliant reporter) in their article to announce their guilty verdict, did not identify the guilty parties as anything but three men, all of Peterborough. Perhaps the focus of the article has been unduly focused on labeling them in such a way, such as muslim and Pakistani - when they appear to be British born and bred. Youreallycan (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you had read the article you'd have seen that "the BBC later admitted that "it was a mistake not to report the case of Ross Parker more extensively" - the fact that material is missing from such underwhelming coverage of the story proves nothing and is probably to be expected. If we're going to omit all the facts the BBC failed to report then we wouldn't have much of an article at all.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The article states that racism was a motive. At appeals, Justice Davis made mention of the defendants and other witnesses as "Muslim Asians", and stated, "The events in America of 11 September 2001 had given rise to hostility on the part of some of the younger white residents of the city against the Asian community. The defendants would have been conscious of this." See this site. Without reference to race, and calling both victims and perpetrators as simply "British born and bred" (and can you define "bred" for me, as it applies to humans?) the motive of "racism" appears a little ridiculous. "A bunch of guys killed another guy. It was a racist attack." As there are now no photos, it puts alot on the reader, who has to look for clues as to why it was "racist". There is the date, which is pretty soon after 9-11, so maybe that's relative, and there are the defendants' names, which is a clue, but then the conscientious reader would hate to assume that those names equated a person of a certain appearance, and that a person with a name of "Ross" must be white. But then "Ross" could be of African descent, which means a gang of possibly South Asian or North African or Arabic or Persian descent killed a person that was probably either white, or black, or perhaps the victim was of mixed-race ancestry...? Identifying both perpetrators and victim by the predominant ancestry is relevant in this case. Boneyard90 (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Another very useful source, many thanks Boneyard, I will add it to the article and hopefully it should help settle the matter once and for all.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you got diffs to Justice Davis's "Muslim Asians" comments? It was that the race of the person that was killed the reason for the murder that is the "racial" aspect of the murder. Youreallycan (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, "diffs"? I'm not familiar with this term. Boneyard90 (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, I meant links to articles that use the Justice's comment - but I saw you posted the primary, thanks for that - the Justice says, " At about 1 o’clock in the morning the three relevant defendants together with a fourth person, who was acquitted and two other Muslim Asians who were prosecution witnesses" - it's a bit vague - he does refer to the two prosecution witness as Muslim Asians - it he had been a bit more clear we could of attributed the comment to him and used it as a bit of a descriptor, just it's a bit unclear. I think attribution is the key - such as the judge described the defendants as (whatever he described them as here)Youreallycan (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My point was more that he used the word "other", an indication that the earlier group ("the three relevant defendants with a fourth") were also Muslim Asians. Anyway, if there's a mention of racism, it begs the question of who was motivated by what type of racism, who was against whom. There is a polarity that must be defined, otherwise the description is incomplete. Boneyard90 (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the word "other" has assertions but imo (and only mine, others are welcome to disagree) those assertions are a bit vague - he does not clearly say of the convicted - that these were three Muslim Asians that were looking for someone of a different race to kill. I have not been through all the cites but if anyone has and there are some strong statements - from the accused, preferably as to their affiliations and genetic history (ancestry) then that would be useful - Youreallycan (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Note, I've looked further into this and it seems people have gone though the article and edited out all instances of the term "Muslim" and replaced them with "Pakistani" (or with nothing) without providing any sources for the change. The source used only supports the former term, making no mention of the later. These edits therefore introduced unsourced material, are quite clearly a misrepresentation of the source and will therefore be reverted. People can't just make up the facts as they go along. As per Boneyard's position I've left Muslim out of the lede for now which i think represents a good balance.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Update, I notice that one of the above editors asked for input regarding this issue at the NPOV noticeboard. The advice there was that this murder does "seem to have been motivated by religion as well as race, and the article should say so". Funnily enough, no one here was informed of the discussion or outcome, a position that entirely supports that of myself and others here and flies in the face of the position of the editor who raised the issue at the noticeboard. All very disappointing behaviour (again), and in summary the two editors against are either blocked indefinitely due to their harassment of others or clearly withholding information. --Shakehandsman (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Further update, I note that user:Flexdream also favours inclusion of the content in the lede as seen here, again the change was reverted by the sole remaining editor against inclusion (who again mislead the editor about the discussion on this issue). The consensus is therefore now overwhelming and therefore the material can now be restored to the lede too. The only remaining issue is whether or not the individuals themselves can be categorised using this term, I think we should remain cautious and not do so for now. --Shakehandsman (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing
As the article itself notes:"The Government office for the East of England produced a controversial secret report by Dr Roger Green examining race relations in Peterborough. The document suggested that the Peterborough Evening Telegraph had a history of insensitivity and coverage of the case was 'possibly adding to any climate of racial and communal unrest'." Despite this, the Peterborough Evening Telegraph is used extensively as a source. Over 40 separate articles from this source have been used, where it is likely that the same information is contained in a much smaller number. Simple facts are redundantly sourced to this one, allegedly biased, source. Can the Evening Standard sources by rationalized into a smaller number and/or replaced by alternate sources? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The article quite clearly sets out that the media admitted to neglecting to cover the case properly with multiple representatives of organisations admitting being wrong to do so. The report was dismissed by senior police and community leaders. If you seek to remove perfectly reliable sources from the one media outlet willing to do its job then there won't be much of an article left. Not one source can be found to defend the report in question and I fail to see a single remotely objectionable or at all unbalanced sentence in any single report on the matter by the paper. Should all BBC sources now also be removed from Wikipedia given its failings here?--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There are two issues here. One is the unnecessarily large number of sources, and the other is the extensive use of a source that a government report suggested was biased in this specific area. Let me try to phrase the questions differently:
 * Can the number of sources and the redundant sourcing be reduced?
 * Can alternate sources be found to reduce the amount of material taken from what may be a biased source?
 * I have no doubt that the Evening Telegraph, being a local paper, will continue to be used as a source. Given the report, however, I think it makes sense to try and use alternative sources where possible. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well it would be great replace some of them with more coverage by the Telegraph, or Guardian or BBC or whatever, but unfortunately all such organisations failed to give the case an appropriate amount of coverage as illustrated in the article text. Your suggestion may be possible on a very small scale, but for the most part it just isn't feasible. Also, I'm not aware of any sources being "redundant". I suppose you might be able to find one somewhere, but just because you believe "it is likely that the same information is contained in a much smaller number", doesn't make it so.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Categories deletion discussion
Hi, just for your information - I nominated a couple of categories related to this article for deletion discussion - Categories for discussion/Log/2012_January 7 - Youreallycan (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Outcome was that all cats were retained simply by changing to slightly different or updated names. Note that the editor who submitted them for deletion and participated the above conversations has since been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia for harassment, something which I have also been subject to from him.--Shakehandsman (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Muslims
I notice the word Muslim doesn't appear in the article, and on the three redirects pages the WP:BLPCAT - British Muslims has been added, is there a self declared statement of religious affiliation cited somewhere from the subjects convicted on the murder? Youreallycan (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * - Sarfraz Ali


 * - Shaied Nazir


 * - Ahmed Ali Awan
 * Muslim no longer appears as a descriptor in the article, as I have removed it following the discussion above. In looking at the sources thus far, I have seen no self-identification by the convicted. The categories are clearly in violation of WP:BLPCAT and should be removed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed as per comments here and a lack of forthcoming citations to support the BLPCATS - Youreallycan (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason it no longer appeared "as a descriptor in the article" was because people had removed it against consensus (and hidden this consensus). Multiple sources support the term and it has been restored.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Muslim is an ethnicity!
Whats with us saying the word racist all the time? In Britain, they use the term ETHNICITY! Please, why do we use terms that are recognized in the United States without using proper terms based on that specific region?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.198.45.63 (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't completely understand what your point is I'm afraid. This clearly was a racist crime as demonstrated by the comments of the judge, though I agree the religion of the perpetrators is also of note and needs restoring. Here's one good supporting source for a start --Shakehandsman (talk) 12:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)