Talk:Murder of Ross Parker

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

British crime (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 May 2009. The result of the discussion was keep.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ( Wikipedia: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 ( Wikipedia:Conflict of interest)).--ChessMaster2011 (talk) 07:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]