Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Murder of Ross Parker/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2014 (diff).

Murder of Ross Parker

 * Nominator(s): Shakehandsman (talk) 06:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to submit the article on the murder of Ross Parker for FA review. It concerns a murder carried out shortly after the September 11th attacks, in Peterborough, England and the article gets a reasonable amount of interest, even today. Although its my first submission here, I am an experienced editor, I've helped review other submissions and I'm fully aware of the standards required. The article is stable, achieved "Good Article" status over two years ago and there have been considerable improvements and expansion since then so hopefully it isn't too far off. I've put a lot of work into it and have a fairly comprehensive understanding of the case as a result, therefore i should be able to address most queries reasonably swiftly.. Shakehandsman (talk) 06:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Drive-by comment from Curly Turkey

 * It is also suggested the case demonstrates how society has been forced to redefine racism so as to no longer exclude white victims.—Whoa! It's one thing to say that anti-white violence may be downplayed in the media, but I don't think there's ever been a time when racism has been defined to exclude white victims, however a particular editorialist may choose to spin it.  An issue so serious is not helped with this kind of hyperbole, and hyperbole has no place in an encyclopaedia. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "I don't think there's ever been a time when racism has been defined to exclude white victims". Well, Wikipedia's article on racism includes the "prejudice plus power" view of racism in its lede as one definition. Combining that definition with the view of some (seemingly including Easton) that even a murdered 5 foot 5, working-class child who works in a bar and has a weak leg was automatically "powerful" simply because of his skin colour, then its clear that white victims could be excluded. Easton's piece is controversial and seems somewhat flawed and I don't really wish to support him, but it is one of the more prominent examinations of the wider aspects of the case, and the idea that event was so significant that it caused a concept to be redefined in some people's minds is extremely important (even if we don't agree with all the arguments used to come to such a conclusion or their assertion that the whole of society subscribed to such a view in the first place). I think the text makes it clear that this argument is only a suggestion and not necessarily a fact, so there's no problem there, though I'm open to suggestions for further tweaks. It would be fantastic to include some analysis of Easton's argument in the body of the article, certainly others have tried to do this in the past, but we don't really have any reliable sources for doing so in the context of the Parker case and therefore I was wary about including material that was too unrelated to the subject at hand. Again, if people have ideas for critiquing of Easton's comments I'd be more than happy to hear them. Anyway, many thanks for being the first to comment on this FAC discussion.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "One view holds that racism is best understood as 'prejudice plus power'" is hardly a definition excluding whites from being victims of racism. Think of the treatment of Poles, for example, under the Nazis.  Nor is it the only definition: Black supremacy is hardly new, or unknown.  Easton's is a particular interpretation of the events; the wording suggests that "racism excluding whites" is an accepted fact, and it's not. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's actually Easton who cites the "prejudice plus power" definition as mostly excluding white victims in itself. For the record I completely disagree with most of his arguments but at the end of the day, it really isn't up to us to agree or disagree with particular views or dissect them. His analysis is very prominent and significant and we consider the BBC to be a reliable source. We're hardly spoilt for reliable sources for such material concerning Parker, and this makes these important arguments perhaps even more worthy of inclusion still. If his arguments are "wrong" in some way (which may well be the case), then as far as Wikipedia policies are concerned, that's largely irrelevant.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're not understanding: of course you quote what Easton said, but you don't present "racism excludes white victims" as an established fact, which is what your wording does. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well the material in the legacy section had the problem you identify and I actually fixed that just prior to your comment, so thanks for prompting me to look into this. I think the other material concerning Easton is ok and fairly clear, though if there is consensus that it needs tweaking then I'll be happy for a small change to be made.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Kaldari

 * Definitely needs a proofreading from the Guild of Copyeditors. There are grammatical problems all over the place. Some examples:
 * "...such as the Anthony Walker and that of Stephen Lawrence."
 * "In 2006, a Times investigation by Brendan Montague in examined British newspaper archives for coverage of racist crimes, finding..."
 * "...at a local public house The Solstice..."
 * "As noted by Justice Davis, had the crime occurred post-2005, then it is likely…"
 * I'm not exactly the greatest wordsmith, so I've submitted a request at the Guild of Copyeditors for someone to review it. I've improved those first three examples though.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Improper use of cquote template.
 * Done. Replaced with quote box.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Original research: "...although neither mentioned the racial dimension of the crime…"
 * Done.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Overlinking. There are lots of unneeded links like gangster, pray, fingerprints, etc. Also sometimes the same word is linked twice in a section.
 * Done - all three links removed as well as "taxi". I'm quite good at avoiding duplicate wikilinks and so could only find one instance of a term linked twice, that is also fixed now.--Shakehandsman (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Improper time formatting: "4.30 am"
 * Done.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Britishisms: "keen footballer", "later in a takeaway". Try to use more generic/universal English, such as "avid football player", "later in a restaurant", etc.
 * Done for first example. As for the second, "restaurant" tends to refer to an establishment where one dines in, so the term "takeaway" is required. The article is written in British English so I don't think there's a problem here (people can click on the wikilink), I've changed it to the compromise of "takeaway restaurant".--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "some wearing balaclavas." This doesn't seem to be mentioned in the cited sources. Perhaps another source needs to be added here or the statement removed.
 * Done. Sourced added.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Twice in the article it mentions there were "up to 10 attackers". Is it possible to be any more specific, like "four to ten attackers"?
 * Four people were prosecuted (and three of those convicted), but I don't think there'a any doubt that there were more than four present at the scene and therefore it would mislead the reader to suggest otherwise. Other sources such as the BBC give a figure of "about 10" for the number of attackers so it seems to be fairly widely accepted in reliable sources. I chose "up to" over "about" as it seemed preferable at the time, though If people prefer the later then I'd be happy to change it.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Quotation doesn't match source: "to find a white male to attack simply because he was white"
 * Fixed - the wrong ref had been used and that one had a slightly different quote in it. Correct ref now in its place.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The part about the impact on the parents doesn't seem very encyclopedic. It seems like something that a newspaper or magazine would include for emotional impact, but feels out of place in an encyclopaedia.
 * I'm a little unsure about this, I'm certain all the facts within the section need retaining and while I can see your point of view, the scope of WikiProject Death includes how people cope with death and we shouldn't ignore such aspects of a case. The fact that the room was left untouched is a little different to some other aspects of the article, but at the same time it's relevant and part of a legitimate area of study. I've tweaked the text slightly with info from a further source (the term "even" was pretty inappropriate and wasn't helping matters). Any suggestions for further improving integration would be welcome.--Shakehandsman (talk) 08:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "Ahmed Ali Awan, brandishing the bloodied knife, exclaimed 'cherish the blood'". As this wasn't a public exclamation, I think we need a source here, like "According to witness X...", otherwise it sounds like we're repeating heresay as fact.
 * I'm unsure about this one too. Numerous reliable sources report on Awan's use of this phrase, so it seems to be widely accepted. I think it may being going too far to identify the source of every such claim 100% of the time. It's certainly warranted in the "trial" section, and perhaps the "appeal" section too, but it seems less useful elsewhere, particularly where we need a more concise presentation of the key facts. I supposed we can say "is alleged to have said" or something like that, but I'd really like to keep it as short and simply as possible seeing as it's in the "murder" section and so not ideal to introduce further persons at that point.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "It is also suggested the case demonstrates how society has been forced to redefine racism so as to no longer exclude white victims." This sentence is awkwardly worded. Can you rephrase it better (preferably not in the passive voice)?
 * Sourcing: The article seems to rely almost entirely on contemporary newspaper articles (mostly from the Peterborough Evening Telegraph). Are there no books or scholarly articles that discuss this case?
 * As stated in the article, the media failed to covered the case sufficiently and I expect that some of the more interesting coverage are only in existence thanks to those who complained about the BBC and media's previous failures. There's no reason to assume academia and publishers would be any better than the media, and while I'd welcome the use of such sources they don't appear to exist at present. I have spent a considerable amount of time searching for material about the case, and pretty much every available reliable resource that i can find has been used to produce the article, and if anything, academics and publishers have been even worse than the media in failing to cover this case. Anyway, there's certainly a major opportunity here for any author, researcher or documentary maker seeking an interesting topic to work on.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

That's all for now. Kaldari (talk) 05:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Nigel Pap

 * Kaldari points out that the number of attackers appears to be unknown. The lede currently says "a gang of up to ten Muslim youths of Pakistani background". If the number of attackers is unknown, what is the evidence that all of the attackers were Muslim, youths, and of Pakistani background?
 * The number of attackers is not "unknown", 4 members of the gang were placed on trial, with most admitting to being as the scene,. We don't know the exact number of attackers but the text of the article makes it clear that the sourced figure of "10" isn't exact. As for your other points, all those known to be at the scene fit the descriptions in question. Various sources note the various demographics of the gang and others arrested. At the end of the day, we just go with what the reliable sources say, so unless you have material suggesting something contrary to the reliable sources then there isn't much to discuss here.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Clearly, if you "don't know the exact number of attackers" then the number of attackers is unknown. What source states that this group of "up to ten" attackers were Muslim, youths, and of Pakistani background? Not the four men who were charged and tried, but the group of "up to ten". If this isn't in the source, it has no place in the article. Nigel Pap (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have anything to add to the previous reply. The text is clear and fully sourced. I regard this discussion as closed as the conversation isn't going anywhere. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * If the attackers were Muslim, why is it necessary to mention this in the lede? Why is Parker's religion not mentioned in the article?
 * There isn't a single source anywhere that I know of that mention's Parker's religion and I've certainly tried to find it. Again, should you have such information then please provide it and we will place his religion in the empty info box field where it belongs, (a field I added myself long-ago). However, note that there isn't any religious symbolism on his memorial headstone, so at the very least this may indicate that the religion of the victim and his family probably isn't too significant. The connection between September 11th and religion is fairly obvious and the article also notes that suspects chanted words such as "Taliban" and "Osama" and "Bin Laden". Sources discussing the case also mention the local "Muslim community", and evidence used against one killer mentions recordings of him stating he would pray to Allah. The purpose of the lede is to summerise the key aspects of the article reasonably concisely and text in question does so very well and is sourced to multiple reliable sources.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We do not know that all of the attackers were Muslim (see above). Even if all of those convicted were Muslim (which seems likely although we would need better sourcing than comments about Allah), there is no reason to have this information in the lede. It may be appropriate in the body, in the context of 9/11. We would not want readers to assume that Wikipedia is espousing or endorsing an anti-Muslim agenda, which is how this may be interpreted by some. Nigel Pap (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I'll ignore the less helpful portion of that reply and focus on the issues instead. Firstly, we already have consensus for keeping the term Muslim in the lede and its relevance is more than clear to any neutral observer for the reasons I've outlined already. They may be something interest that comes of this discussion though as I decided to examine some of the other descriptors used for the gang with scepticism, and while its clear that the term "muslim" is encyclopaedic and relevant and without contradiction the same cannot be said for the term "youths". If we try to look at this impartially and see the tests we apply to the term "Muslim", we find that "youths" is by far more controversial term as it actually fails such tests on multiples levels and therefore may need adjustment. Usual definitions of the term "youths", have an age range of 14-21, yet every single person tried, not to mention convicted falls outside of this range, with one perpetrator aged 24 and even older members known to be at the scene. Other factors may also apply allowing us to ignore the strict 14-21 age range, but any alternative definitions class "youths" as "individuals between childhood and adulthood" and see factors such as independence as important. Again, many at the scene/convicted fail to meet this definition, with more than one of those convicted being married, all of them having finished education and entered employment, and some having offspring and living independently in their own houses. So, while your'e off the mark about the term muslim in the lede, there is a possible issue with the term immediately following it. Anyway, many thanks for prompting me to take a more sceptical look at that part of the lede, it looks like we've finally identified a possible improvement, and a significant one at that.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It appears that the statement questioned by Kaldari ("to find a white male to attack simply because he was white") is currently sourced to a court document. Is this a proper use of primary sources?
 * There's absolutely nothing wrong with limited use of primary sources. We've directly quoted the text in the source, use them for clear and unambiguous facts rather than make any interpretation and such use of primary sources is entirely permissible. In total I count about 6 out of 71 sources used in theh article as being primary, most of which are used for only small amounts of information. This is all well within Wikipedia guidelines.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The connection with 9/11 has not been adequately explained. Although the article says "Racial tensions in the area were high", it does not explain what this means. Immediately following 9/11, there were numerous attacks on people believed to be Muslim. This racially-motivated attack occurred in that context. Why is this not mentioned in the article?
 * I'm not aware of any documented racially motivated attacks on Muslims in the area in question, never mind "numerous" ones and the article does document some of the disturbances and that came about as a result of the case. If you have a source mentioning attacks prior to the murder which does so in the context of the Parker case, than that would be a useful addition, but, just as with all your other comments, I'm not aware of any such material--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This source used in the article says "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 although there was no evidence that any of them or their families had personally suffered any harassment." Will you add it in, or shall I? [[User:Nigel Pap|Nigel Pap] (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? One minute you are expressing concern at the use of primary sources (possibly a quite legitimate concern had the material been less than straightforward facts). Now you're instructing me to use these exact same sources much more ambiguous material and if I don't do so then you're gong to add it yourself!. He's not necessarily pressing an impartial assessment of all the events. I can't help noticing how your claim of a context of "numerous attacks" has completely transformed in mere alleged "harassment" by some youngsters. There doesn't seem to be any actual reliable secondary sources that I can find which report the information and give any detail or evidence of what may have occurred. There's no indication of any convictions or trials either and "harassment" is a hugely ambiguous anyhow. Take all together, it would appear that this harassment possibly wasn't that significant (or at least we can't really demonstrate that it was), and all the documented racial attacks related to Parker's murder all feature white victims. As it stands, this is fairly trivial material and certainly far too vague, the source is far from ideal and the context perhaps not all that neutral either. It's an appeal document and there the judge is looking for mitigating factors in the case instead of giving a completely neutral and complete picture of event. Seeing as we have third party reliable sources stating "racial tensions" then any vague suggestions of alleged harassment would be included within this phrase. If there is actual more concrete detail of known attacks and more reporting then we can expand upon this. In the mean time I regard this discussion as closed. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The lede currently says "It is also suggested the case demonstrates how society has been forced to redefine racism so as to no longer exclude white victims". The reference for this statement notes that since the mid-nineties, all victims are asked if they were the victim of a racially-motivated crime (not just visible minorities). The same source says "The far right has tried to exploit what it claims is the untold story of racial attacks on white people. ... Often, however, the crimes have nothing to do with race and in a number of cases, for instance Ross Parker, relatives of the victims have objected to their names being used." The statement about redefining racism is contradicted by the source and should be removed from the article.
 * I don't really follow much of that question I'm afraid, and some of the points seem unrelated to each other, though I think I sort of understand the first half so I'll try to address that. When it comes to defining racism it can be defined on various levels and by various different persons. The way the "law" or a government body defines something isn't necessarily the same as how "society" or perhaps politicians do so, so it could be that Easton is arguing that the case forced a change in attitudes, and for society to catch up with the Crime Survey who were perhaps ahead of the game? Anyway, while this is an interesting discussion, this isn't really the place to critique and dissect the intricacies of Easton's views and writings too much, and we're not endorsing his views by documenting what he wrote.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Easton is not an expert in race relations, nor does he speak for "society". This seems like cherry-picking one comment by one commentator, not reflecting a view generally held. I believe the point that you are trying to make is that racist attacks where the victim is white are far less frequent than racist attacks where the victim is non-white. Using this case as an example of that is not, in my opinion, a "legacy". Nigel Pap (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The suggestion that there's cherry picking going on in this article, particularly in terms of analysis of the case is beyond belief and completely laughable. One of the clearest and more interesting aspects of the case is the way it was largely ignored by much of the media, and as I explained to Kaldari, the number of available sources is limited as a result. I've searched extensively for material about the case, and there simply isn't any scope for "cherry-picking" due to media blackout, were we not making full use of all available reliable sources then there really wouldn't be much of an article to speak of. Your claim is the complete and total opposite of reality, and the article includes views of all the most notable individuals who have commented on the case in any significant fashion, and there'a diverse set of voices featured from across the political spectrum. Easton is an very high profile journalist, and the BBC is considered to be a reliable source and already have consensus that Easton's analysis is important (albeit with some minor tweaking of the wording/grammar possibly required). As for you last sentence, it almost leaves me lost for words as it 's the completely opposite of the actual facts for UK. I can't image where you'd get the idea that I was trying to push this false version of events as it's never something I'd do and breaches everything Wikipedia is about. And for the last time, it's not for us to dissect or agree/disagree with Easton's comments, and as with many of these points you just don't seem to be understanding the issues or policy and ultimately it's seeming more and more like a huge waste of everyone's time. I regard this discussion as closed as the conversation isn't going anywhere. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The article should not link to a Facebook memorial page in the info box.
 * Wikipedia actually has a template specifically for linking to Facebook pages, so there doesn't' seem to be an issue here.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A Facebook link would be completely appropriate if this was an article about a pop group, but it is about an event. The Facebook group is not in any sense the official page of the murder of Ross Parker. It should be removed. Nigel Pap (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at the page again, it's hard to tell exactly how official it is. It does appear to have the blessing of Parker's family and is used for official purposes such a coordinating memorial events and documenting them. On the other hand, it doesn't actually seem to be run by a member of the Parker family, so may not technically be formal enough. Perhaps further research is needed here in order to make a decision either way? Perhaps editors who are more experienced with these matters could take a look and help with the uncertainly here?--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Why are there infoboxes for each of the convicted murderers? Outside of being the perpetrators of this murder, they are not notable. Their birth dates, place of residence, etc are not useful information for understanding the incident. Anything that is relvant should be included in the body of the article. In addition to this, the address of Shaied Nazir
 * This is standard practice for a quality article about such a crime, particularly when we consider that the perpetrators received life sentences. Note that the suspect who was not convicted does not have an info box. Their ages are relevant otherwise this wouldn't be included in the lede, their victim was still technically a child whereas the oldest perpetrator was some 7 years his senior. Furthermore, certain crimes England and Wales has different sentencing for under 18's, 18-21 years olds and over 21's, had the youngest perpetrator been a few years younger than he may have received a more lenient sentence. It's clear that the addresses are significant as discussed elsewhere, particularly in the cases of Nazir and Awan. Looking at the case form a wider perspective, sources talk about tensions between those from the Millfield area and those from elsewhere, so there are multiple reasons why the information is of note.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Any information that is relevant (and discussed in the article, not the sources) can be included in the body of the article. I see absolutely no justification for dates of birth or street addresses to be used, either in the body or the infoboxes, if they remain. Nigel Pap (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I just don't' how to reply to this really, t's obvious the dates of birth are important, in fact just reading about them has helped us to question some of the text in the lede above! About the only time one doesn't see an info box without a date of birth is when such information is unknown. Wikipedia is not censored. I regard this discussion as closed as the conversation isn't going anywhere. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Dates of birth for the convicted murderers are sourced to court records. Is this a correct use of primary documents?
 * Yes.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPPRIVACY says "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object.". I'm going to remove these dates from the article. Given that these men are notable only in the context of this event, there should probably be a discussion before adding them back if reliable secondary sources are found. Nigel Pap (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The address Shaied Nazir is stated twice in the article. It is not clear why it is necessary to give a street address at all instead of just saying "Nazir's house".
 * "House" implies the actual structure that people reside in, whereas the key location is the garage at the rear of the property, so your suggested change would reduce accuracy and therefore make it worse, not better. The close proximity of the location to the murder scene is of note especially given that the gang fled there immediately following the attack.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could say "house" when you mean house and "garage" when you mean garage. You can easily discuss proximity to the crime scene without specifying a street address. Street addresses will only be helpful to those intimately familiar with the area or looking at a detailed map. Please remove the street addresses. Nigel Pap (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, this is an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia is non censored and it's quite clearly the most important location of any other than the murder scene. If we look at the article about Fred West, his residence is mentioned no less than 12 times in the article (and coincidently, it also contains the name "Cromwell"). Now we're not suggesting the gang HQ is as notable as the main residence of the West's, but if such an article can defence the street address 12 times then it's pretty obvious other articles can mention notable locations too. A further street mentioned in the article is actually very well known and, contrary to your suggestion, would actually be familiar to people well beyond the local area, I can only guess you you haven't much studied or visited the East of England region? I regard this discussion as closed as the conversation isn't going anywhere. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am removing the street addresses from the article. WP:BPLPRIVACY applies here as well. Nigel Pap (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Nigel Pap (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a map included in the article. It shows the location of the attack and Nazir's house, but it also includes a local mosque and the home of another of the attackers. There seems to be no reason to show the latter two locations.
 * The Mosque is large, both in terms of capacity and in its height and the only significant landmark within the entirety of the map area. Landmarks are well worth including in such maps in aid the understanding of the reader. Landmarks are displayed by default for maps and, unlike the other more important locations, it has not been modified or highlighted in any way to make it stand out any more than other landmark or any part of the map. In the case of Awan, he was the ringleader of the gang and his residence is the second most significant after the Gang HQ. The rear of his property is very close to the murder scene and actually overlooks it, it has been alleged that he even looked out from his garden to view the police activity at the murder scene just hours after he killed Parker. Therefore, as with the gang HQ its useful for the reader to understand just how close together these various locations actually are. Looking at Awan's defence, he claimed to be at home at the time he was committing the murder, and it's useful for the readers to understand visually just how quickly he could have arrived home after committing the crime. I must also correct the impression you're giving that the map simply shows the houses of two of the perpetrators, it actually shows the entire property boundaries too, and in the case of Nazir it highlights the actual gang HQ.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Is the mosque involved in the murder? If not, leave it out. Nigel Pap (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well Mayor's Walk, Link Road and Dyson Close are in no way "involved" either, nor is the railway line nor, nor many of the public footpaths and other streets shown. However, I will not be airbrushing any or these map features out of existence any more so than I will a Mosque. A church would be shown too were there one in the area, as would any building of significance. The murder of Lee Rigby article includes a school, and library and we shouldn't pretend that those structures don't exist either. Please stop trying to remove the biggest landmark by far from the map. Wikipedia is not censored and next we'll probably have a fuel company demanding the removal of their petrol station too. I regard this discussion as closed as the conversation isn't going anywhere. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Shakehandsman, I assumed that you took an image from OpenStreetMap and added the homes of the convicted killers in the same way that you added the "murder scene", but I see that they are actually on the OpenStreetMap map. It appears that someone using the name "shakehandsman" added not only those sites, but also the mosque. So when you say "it has not been modified or highlighted in any way to make it stand out", you neglect to mention that it would not appear at all if "shakehandsman" had not deliberately added it to the map shortly before you made the image used in the article. Nigel Pap (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I did indeed edit open street map, that is quite clearly where the map came from. I explicitly gave OSM as a source for my work, I haven't hidden anything and I have been completely open about my changes on there. I registered at OSM in order to create this content and obviously I would have chosen a fake username had I wanted people not to view all my edits. Anyone reading my talk page policies can see just how much I value openness and it's something I've gotten a lot of respect for on Wikipedia. The point is that the Mosque has exactly the same formatting, font and standard symbol of any comparable building or landmark, such as say St Mark's church which is in the same area (and actually smaller than the Mosque). I've used bold text for key features on the article map, not to mention various colours and much larger text too, even capitals for the murder scene itself. The Mosque on the other hand is unaltered and untouched from standard OSM settings in every single way possible, I dare say that I haven't "disclosed" changes I made to the petrol station either. At the end of the day, and as seems to be generally the case with your edits, you're looking at the issue from completely the wrong perspective. You should be focusing on content not contributors and on policy and assuming good faith. OSM is far from a finished project and appropriate additions should be applauded not criticised. What matters is that the map is accurate, of a high standard, with no missing information and aids understanding. We're not going to airbrush major structures out of existence - Wikipedia is not censored.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My point was that the mosque does not incidentally appear as landmark on the map. It appears only because you put it there. You added it with the same intention that you added the other sites, so that it would appear on the map (and the image you created from it). I am not asking anyone to censor anything. There is simply no reason to include the mosque on the map. The National Front have apparently used this killing as a propaganda vehicle. I don't think you would want anyone to misinterpret your efforts as an anti-Muslim agenda would you Shakehandsman? Nigel Pap (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

FAC Coordinator's comment - This discussion is drifting away from whether or not the article meets the FA criteria. Google Earth and Maps clearly show the mosque as a major landmark, and that the map in the article is accurate enough for our purposes. That it is a mosque and not a church or a Tesco Superstore is not relevant. We cannot be held responsible for how the information in Wikipedia is used. What we must do is to ensure that it is accurate, verifiable and written from a neutral point of view. Please keep this discussion to the Featured Article Criteria; anything else does not belong here. Graham Colm (talk) 11:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Graham, I have no experience with these discussions. In an article where a group of men who are questionably identified in the lede as Muslims have sought out and murdered a "white male", unnecessarily showing the largest local mosque becomes a question of neutrality. The map can easily show the relevant information without including the mosque simply with a different cropping. However I will continue this discussion somewhere else. Nigel Pap (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Dank
 * My reaction to the lead was pretty much the same as Curly's. Both the reality and the appearance should be that this is an encyclopedia article that looks at the problem from a critical distance and doesn't take sides in questions concerning racism. - Dank (push to talk) 17:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well as I said I'm happy to tweak the phrasing if there's a consensus to do so and that appears to be the case now, I don't think it takes sides, but as the author I might not be the best judge of that, and if it's possible to interpret it as doing so then I need to make the content clearer. Kaldari has identified possible grammatical issues with the sentence too, so it does appear to need attention for other reasons anyway. Thanks for the feedback.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- Having been open well over a month, this review seems to have stalled without anything approaching consensus to promote developing, so I'm going to archive it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.