# Talk:Murder of Ross Parker

I took a look at the traffic stats for this article and they're quite impressive at times. The biggest peak was in January 2012 where there were over 25,000 views: http://stats.grok.se/en/201201/Murder%20of%20Ross%20Parker  --Shakehandsman (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

There's a related discussion at Talk:Ross Parker (composer) regarding a possible move over the Ross Parker redirect which is now a dab. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for adding this message. Ross Parker now lists both individuals so therefore I've created a new redirect for the murder victim at Ross Parker (murder victim).--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Result of the discussion was that neither was the primary topic and therefore the dab remains in place.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a reminder that this article is currently a Featured Article candidate, see the top of this page for the relevant link. There hasn't been much feedback so far, so any additions to the review would be much appreciated. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The lede currently states that Parker was attacked by "a gang of up to ten Muslim youths of Pakistani background". I am unable to locate the exact source of this statement. It does not appear in either of the two references following the sentence. Can someone please supply a reference for this statement? Thanks. Nigel Pap (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

This account in The Guardian says "Ms Toms ran to get help as a group of men, some wearing balaclavas, launched their savage attack on the teenager.". Since no one has come up with the source of the description currently in the lede, I am going to replace it with "a group of men" as described by the Guardian. It appears that the exact number of attackers is unknown. Clearly, we do not know the details of all of the attackers and should not make assumptions. Nigel Pap (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The Times of London reported: "Muslims have offered a reward of £1,000 after a white youth was killed by a gang of Asians. Asian community leaders and representatives from mosques in Peterborough offered the money after the fatal stabbing of Ross Parker, 17... After the fatal attack in Peterborough, Muslim leaders placed flowers and offered sympathy to the teenager's friends at a spot close to the cycle path where about ten Asian youths ambushed and killed him." (Kennedy, Dominic (24 September 2001). "Muslims offer reward to find Asian gang behind white youth's death". The Times. London. p. 3.) Keri (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for locating that. Nigel Pap (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Nigel I have reverted your changes. Please do  not start an edit war. You seem to be confusing this encyclopedia article with some sort of challengeable evidence for the prosecution. It is not. The murder of John Lennon article does not say he was killed by a chubby man wearing spectacles; it says he was shot by by Mark Chapman. The statements are sourced despite you continuing insistence that they are not.  You seem to have an agenda here, which lies deeper than the content of this article. All the sources say that Parker was confronted by a group  of Muslim Asian youths, three of whom were found guilty.  Graham Colm (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

My "agenda" here is for an accurate and neutral article. I have been unable to find any sources that say what you (and the article) claim. The best source found so far is the one offered by Keri (above). If you have a source for the claims in the lede please provide it. I do not understand how "about ten Asian youths" can be turned into "a gang of up to ten Muslim youths of Pakistani background" without sourcing. Nigel Pap (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
We should use The Times source kindly provided by Keri. Graham Colm (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes. We should also use the wording of the Times source since we have yet to find a source identifying all members of the group as Muslim or of Pakistani origin. Why are you leaving unsourced claims in the article lede? Nigel Pap (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Why are you trying to expurgate the ethnicity and religious affiliation of the perpetrators from the article? Why did you ask for the mosque to be removed from the map at the FAC discussion? I offer that your agenda is to play down the fact that this was racist crime, which it clearly was. Graham Colm (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
What is this "your agenda" stuff? This is the second time you have made that kind of accusation in this discussion. If I was trying to "play down the fact that this was racist crime" wouldn't I be trying to remove the parts that call it "a racist crime" or the categories that call it "racially motivated violence", "racism" and "hate crime"? It is very simple. There is unsourced material in the lede. There should not be. Why are you not removing it? Nigel Pap (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
You're getting shirty because I have exposed your motive. Graham Colm (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "shirty" means but I am getting perplexed by your refusal to remove or source unsourced claims in the lede of this article. You are an admin, right? Nigel Pap (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The lede now reads "a gang of Asian youths". We are still waiting for reliable sources for the claims that the group of youths were Pakistani and Muslim. I think it would be better to include the detail from the Times that it was "about ten" youths to make it clear that the three men convicted of murder were part of a larger group. Also, the word "gang" might imply that this was an existing organized criminal group as opposed to an ad hoc group, so I would suggest we change "gang" to "group". I will make these changes if there is no objection.  Nigel Pap (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The source clearly calls them a "gang." Twice. Keri (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I understand that more than one source uses "gang" but it is not clear to me from reading any of the sources that this is a gang in the sense of a "pre-existing criminal group" or just a word choice. See gang. If that is the sense in which they are using the word then fine, but I do not get that impression from what I have read. Nigel Pap (talk) 04:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
"Gang: A group of young people involved in petty crime or violence" (OED). That this group of men had armed themselves with tear gas, hammers and knives and set out on a common endeavour to inflict violence upon a person or persons previously unknown to them also constitutes "an organised group of criminals." The content of the Gang article is neither here nor there. Frankly, this is all starting to look like a bathtub full of unsinkable rubber ducks. Keri (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Whether we use "gang" (as the sources do) or "group" in the article is fine with me. I was simply explaining why I made the suggestion. It seems to be very difficult to have a discussion here without being accused of something. Nigel Pap (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Please propose the exact wording here before making any changes, so we can come to an agreement. Graham Colm (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
With all due respect I'm not going to do that for a minor change that I have already described. If you have any objections to what I have suggested, please voice them. If you want to make the changes yourself, go ahead, but please stop trying to control this article. Thanks. Nigel Pap (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
That's rich coming from you. We agreed on the current wording yesterday. I gather now you want to remove the word "Asians". This is not going to happen. If you continue this attempt to add your personal views to this article, I will propose that you are banded from making further edits to this article and from discussions on this page. Graham Colm (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I have not proposed to remove the word "Asians". I have proposed two small changes which align to the wording of the Times source. Are you actually reading anything that I write? Nigel Pap (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I've found a second source (already used in the article) which says "he was set upon by a gang of about 10 young Asians". This comes from the victim's girlfriend and the only witness to the attack outside of the victim and the assailants. Nigel Pap (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objection to changing the lede from "a gang of Asian youths" to "a gang of up to 10 Asian youths" to reflect what the two sources say? I suggest that the body of the article be changed to include this and also to specify the source of this number (the victim's girlfriend who was a witness to the attack). Nigel Pap (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how one could object to that--but at the same time I don't see why this would be necessary. The detail is already in the main body where, you'll note, I have made a minor tweak. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
The source for the term "muslim" was actually there all along and I'm not sure how everyone missed it as it is one of the most useful and significant sources used in the article. It is the Peterborough Telegraph article written on the 10th anniversary of the event (perhaps the only source in existence that takes a look back at all the events and summarises everything fully in one article).[1]. The good news is that at least the source hasn't been removed from the article, and it's still there as a source for the sentence.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that source is referring to the killers, not the attackers. Whether or not all the attackers were Muslim is not known as the number of attackers is unknown. Attaching the description of the killers to an unknown group of attackers is synthesis of sources. I thought we'd been over this already? Nigel Pap (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Continuing the above discussion from 2014: I've changed 'Pakistani' in the lead to British Asian. While I accept that the perpetrators probably were of Pakistani descent, judging by their names, I've checked the sources and can't see one that actually states this. If one can be found, it can be put back. Robofish (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

It appears to have been changed from the original "Asian" by an anonymous editor in June and July. Thanks for fixing. Keri (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The attackers were sentenced in 2002 to 16 and 18 years ... i.e. their incarceration ended in 2018 and 2020. Presumably they have been released. Is an update possible? Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)