Talk:Murder of Kriss Donald

Link Dead

The link http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/hi/news/5058624.html, which is the source for the details of the murder "stabbed 13 times... castrated... tongue cut out... set on fire and left to die" is dead. Either a new link should be found or the reference purged and the article revised to not include this details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.19.147 (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I can't find a single authoritative link for these details of the attack. The only places they seem to crop up is on extreme right-wing sites (eg Stormfront). The murder itself was vile in the extreme, but the details need to be verified or excised. Tsuguya (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Then you didn't look very hard, there are plenty of authoritative links for how he died and what was done to him. Besides, that link would have been verified at the time of editing, the fact that the link is not there, doesn't change what was reported at the time and was online for many years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6123014.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.175.252.115 (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but that link has no references to castration, or to Kriss having his tongue cut out. I have only seen those details related here, and at various hard-right sites (Stormfront, American Renaissance, Opinionator, etc). All the legitimate sites I can find mention the stabbing and burning – which are of course horrific in themselves – but not the more lurid details. Smells a bit like a combination of racist shit-stirring and urban myth to me. But if you can find an objective news source, ideally a contemporary newspaper of broadcast report of the case, that includes those details, I’m happy to stand corrected. AuntFlo (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

here is the most detailed account of the injuries so far:

http://web.archive.org/web/20061110212846/http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/hi/news/5058624.html --Shakehandsman (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Misunderstanding in editing of lead

There seems to be a misunderstanding with regard to the lead. The source I recently added [1] was only in order to further reference the Pakistani origins of the perpetrators. Content in the lead does not actually have to have the reference directly after it and references for their religion were already in place elsewhere in the article (e.g. in the next sentence). Anyway I hope this clears things up and apologies for not explaining this more clearly earlier. One of the best references for the Muslim information is this one. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2006-11-17/rest-of-world/27813647_1_sikh-leaders-sikh-political-party-sikh-federation --Shakehandsman (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That article clearly states that the Sikh organisations believe Muslims did the murder, its not stating it as fact. It just seems to be another opinion piece. British sources seem more reliable than the Times of India article. Not even the Daily Mail called them Muslims. It just doesn't seem warrant it being in the lead just as Kriss's religion doesn't. NarSakSasLee (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but you've totally misread the piece. The Times of India themsleves (a very reliable source) explicitly addresses the fact that the murders were Muslims: "The attack on British political correctness comes nearly a fortnight after the high-profile sentencing in the Scottish city of Glasgow of three 'Asian' Muslim men who horrifically killed a young white man, Kriss Donald, in a racist attack that shocked Scotland and much of the world." You're correct to point out there is a Sikh association highlighting the religion also in the next sentence, and had that been the only quote it wouldn't be especially useful/reliable. However that's not the case at all.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a third party source however, and they don't even cover the murder in great detail. We cannot take that as being reliable since non of the primary sources (British articles such as those from the BBC) even mention their religion. They could all have been atheists even, that's also a possibility. If primary sources do not mention it then secondary and tertiary sources can't be reliable. The Times of India, although a reliable newspaper, can't be used in this circumstance as the primary sources seem to override it. NarSakSasLee (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I really think you also need to read up on Wikipedia policies/definitions regarding primary sources - the above is as inaccurate as most of the other posts you have made regarding this issue if not more so. It once again make you look like a highly inexperienced editor I'm afraid. I know this might not be the case but it's exactly the sort of reason I didn't give a more personalised message on your talkpage earlier.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make me look inexperienced. I got all the above from Wikipedia (see WP:PSTS). I'm giving sources yet your attacking my editing. Please refrain from doing so because your edits really do look like vandalism. You don't seem to be reading your own sources. NarSakSasLee (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You are the one misreading sources there's absolutely no doubt of that now whatsoever - just take a look at all the above discussion on The Times of India article for example - total misreading on your part (no acknowledgement of your mistakes yet though on your part yet though I see, you just change the subject/complaint). On the other hand I'm more than happy to acknowledge any mistakes. What have I misread, with quotes/diffs please? thanks. Also I don't appreciate the vandalism accusation either you I strongly suggest you retract it or provide diffs.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You've said more than once, and provided more than once, sources that do not even contain the word "Muslim" except in the tertiary source above - a source that's so far removed from the original British sources. That's just one. You're giving undue weight to their religion when the article doesn't even concern religion. How about we put down their political beliefs instead? That he was murdered by a "Liberal Democrat gang" - if sources say such a thing. It just doesn't make sense since it was racially motivated. I can also add that the source has been used in the article but is at least backed up by a primary source next to it. Perhaps you can find a similar article that goes along the lines of the TImes of India one with reference to them being Muslim? Just on its own it can't be reliable. NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been looking to provide large numbers of sources that say "Muslim", the other one was to cover their Pakistani origins and I've spent much of this discussion explaining them to you. This article is very much unfinished and in need of expansion. If you really want further refs (I suppose they wont' do any harm) then I suggest the following: [2][3][4]. As for your Lib Dem comparison, well that would of course be permissible and a good comparison if there were reliable sources covering the crime with reference to some of the following: "the Liberal Democrat community", Lib Dem offices, Lid Dem associations, "tensions with the Lib Dems" and the Lib Dem aspects of Pakistan etc. Also I'd urge you to please re-read the definition of primary sources in that link you gave as your interpretation seems to be way off there as is your interpretation of Wikipedia policies. To quote some key content from your link "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully."--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Disputed addition replaced without discussion

Hi regarding a replacement of this addition without discussion - it is supported only by a primary citation that fails to support its notability in wikipedia terms - Can anyone present additional independent wikipedia WP:RS that report the details - If that doesn't occur I will remove the content - currently its promotion of primary detail - thanks - Youreallycan 22:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The actual murder

This article contains very little information about the actual murder, and mostly focuses on the trial. It should have a narrative of what happened that night.KillerBoogie (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

An entire section concerning the murder was blanked by an IP in October 2012. I have since restored the content.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Racism redefined to no longer exclude or include white victims?

The [[5]] page providing the reference for the sentence containing the word under dispute:

"It is also suggested the crime demonstrates how society has been forced to redefine racism so as to no longer include/exclude white victims"

states:

"Racism was once defined as "prejudice plus power" - a definition which, in a British context, has tended to exclude all but the white population.

However, the "racist murders" of Kriss Donald in Glasgow in 2004 and Ross Parker in Peterborough in 2001, young white men killed by Asians, demonstrate how society has been forced to redefine racism."

clearly, the meaning is "no longer exclude white victims".

Please do not revert my correction.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Cause of death?

As reported in "Boy was set on fire as he bled to death" Glasgow Evening Times:

"SCHOOLBOY Kriss Donald was doused with petrol and set on fire as he bled to death from stab wounds, a court heard. "

"[The pathologist] said two of the 13 stab wounds had cut major arteries, adding: "These injuries would have resulted in haemorrhage from which he would have died." "

"The seven stab wounds to the boy's chest and abdomen and five to his back had chipped ribs and damaged internal organs as well as severing major arteries causing massive bleeding, the court heard."

"Advocate depute Mark Stewart QC, prosecuting, asked Dr Black for her opinion on the primary cause of death: "Stab wounds to the chest and abdomen," she told him"

Admittedly, also:

"But [the pathologist] said the burns were also so severe that death from those injuries would "not be unexpected". "

It seems that what actually killed Kriss Donald was the stabbing and blood loss, the pathologist's point being that the burns might have killed him otherwise.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 06:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: One Blood: Inside Britain's Gang Culture, by John Heale. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Korruski^Talk 19:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Korruski^Talk 19:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It may be the other way around. That was added November 2006[6] and I think the book is later. Doug Weller talk 20:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, meant to ping you User:Korruski. Doug Weller talk 21:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

That's ok, thanks Doug. I guess you may be right - it didn't even occur to me that a published author would have copied Wikipedia quite so blatantly! The book was written in 2007 but I'm not sure exactly what date it was published - I'll dig into it further.Korruski^Talk 22:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Murder of Kriss Donald. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050204154218/http://www.sundayherald.com/46396 to http://www.sundayherald.com/46396
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iwitness.co.uk/scottish/0105s02.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Facebook bigot warning

Reporting this murder on Facebook, I quoted directly from the main article here on Wikipedia. Facebook has judged those quotes RACIST and has banned me for 30 days.(2405:9800:BA00:451B:4056:5976:8619:2232 (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC))

Welcome to the plight most of us face. I am a civil liberties lawyer and have spent my adult life promoting freedom and liberty for all with a focus on fighting censorship. In the last five or so years I have faced attacks on a level I never imagined possible. It only gets worse from here, if you're a moral actor you will pursue it like a dog with a bone which will seal your fate like mine is. See my post below for what I've faced. But at least we can die knowing we fought for liberty and justice for all. 124.190.192.20 (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Bradley Gledhill

Found this while trying to research Bradley Gledhill, his murder was horrific and was actively suppressed by the media. Where I live this is a common thing, we even caught the media, police, and government colluding to cover up terrorist attacks by screen shotting the Facebook pages of the criminals before they were memory holed. The response wasn't outrage, but rather the police knocking on our door asking us if we think posting the evidence of terrorist attacks is a good idea, and systematic deplatforming everywhere. I've drawn attention to many silenced crimes, from priest sex abuse, to corrupt politicians, but I have never ever faced such attacks as when I began to expose the suppression of crimes because they don't meet an approved narrative. I have had my home and cars shot up, I have been arrested then released three times without charge (I've never broken a law, and never will.) and have had my home invaded and tens of thousands of dollars worth of damage to property. I am banned everywhere. For the record I don't even swear, and never break TOS. It is just impossible to get exposure to this particular topic without a lynch mob coming after you. Justice for a mountain of dead sons and daughters is less important than peoples political views, unfortunately as always political views poison a persons sensibilities for what is right and wrong.

I would like to know if anyone could possibly create an article for Bradley Gledhill from what little information we can glean out there? I am not an editor, so I really wouldn't be good for it. Also could someone please expand on what happened to this chap? Three sentences doesn't really explain why this crime is so horrific. When I watch the few videos out there about it they avoid saying anything about it.

The one thing I know for certain is the person said "I'm only 15." when they kidnapped him, and they told him "It's because you're a white boy." and those words were testified to in court. But other than that I cannot find more information about what happened to this poor lad. Can someone expand this? Or is Wikipedia part of the stone wall of cowardice protecting criminals from justice? 124.190.192.20 (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Picture of Kris Donald.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Done.