Talk:Murder of Ben Kinsella

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Relevance of killers' skin colour[edit]

Highlighting the race of the murderers in the opening sentence is racist. To omit their race conceals nothing as this is stated later in the article. The opening sentence of an article should contain only the most important facts. Highlighting race in the opening sentence means that their race is one of the most important facts about the case. Consider a news headline "3 black men have rowed across the Channel". Would you say to someone, "I'm going cycling tomorrow with some BLACK friends"? No. There are many negative prejudices towards black people, especially young black men - namely that they are violent, sexually aggressive, antisocial etc. Wikipedia should not be used to reinforce those prejudices.

It may be true that the murderers skin was black, but that is not a reason enough to include it in opening sentence; that needs justification. No one is trying hide anything; why does their skin colour need to be loudly proclaimed? If you think it's important to highlight someone's skin colour, explain why.KeiraKate (talk) 11:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it so important to state the race of the murderers in the opening sentence? Why highlight this as opposed to any other characteristic? To do so perpetuates racist prejudices that black teenagers are criminals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.91.250.205 (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What relevance is it that they were black? I know that he was murdered by three black men and that should be stated in the article somewhere but I don't know why it has to be stated in the opening sentence, like it's so important to mention they are black...
Good point. You could go further though. Why mention that they were men? I know that he was murdered by men and that should be stated in the article somewhere, but I don't know why it has to be stated in the opening sentence, like it's so important to mention they are men...Shiresman (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are four photographs in the article, making the above irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.189.26 (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The photographs are obviously of men, so that detail can be edited out of the text too. Agreed? Shiresman (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, not agreed - Ben was 16. His attackers were men aged 18 or over, it's very relevant! Cj1340 (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just say they were "adults" then? Why the need to mention their gender? What's the relevance? Shiresman (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't you just get it? Ben was murdered cold blooded by three guys! What's so wrong about letting people know that it was 3 men whom murdered him? Don't have to try putting up blame on women for this! You have no idea how much of pain this family has gone through and I as Ben's sister am already sick and tired of all these kinds of opposites! what is really wrong with you people??!!183.171.166.18 (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My sincere commiserations for your loss. I can't imagine what it must feel like to have your brother taken away in such terrible circumstances.
I'm sorry about the above exchanges. The problem is that on Wikipedia there are people who will go to great lengths to cover up certain facts of cases such as your brother's. The best way to expose their hypocrisy, dishonesty and censorship is through mockery. My point was (and is) that reporting that the three murderers are black is no less interesting or justifiable than reporting that they are men. Both facts help the reader of the article to gain a fuller understanding of the case and place it in context. Facts should not be covered up and concealed for political reasons. Present all the information and let the readers decide for themselves, I say. Anyway, let's hope that sanity prevails and the Wikicensors don't remove any more pertinent and useful information from the article. Shiresman (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My question would be what would everyone be saying if the races involved were reversed ? If Ben happened to be black and he was murdered by three adult white men...I am pretty sure that people would be desperate to make a point of the skin colours, don't you think ? QuintusPetillius (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, this kind of 'what if things were reversed?' logic has serious issues. White people are not living with hundreds of years of years of oppression and negative prejudice, so it's not as simple as this logic assumes. The historical context (and current prejudice) is highly relevant. Secondly, the idea that Wikipedia should take an editorial stance because "people would be desperate to make a point" is also problematic. What kind of people? Why would they be desperate to make that point? The answer is: people who wanted to make political hay about skin colour and that would be just as prejudicial. Your argument is distraction from the central issue here: Is the murderers skin colour one of the most important features of this case? If so why? KeiraKate (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well you haven't actually answered my question, but first off any historic prejudice towards black people really shouldn't be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not a modern-day murder is racist, and the gist I get from what you're saying is that if the races were reversed then it would be ok to state the skin colours and call it a racist murder. You can't have it both ways. In this day and age the same rules and equalities should be applied across the board regardless of skin colour and ethnicity.QuintusPetillius (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not whether it was a 'racist murder' as you put it; that would be speculation, and not the realm of Wikipedia. And, yes I think it would be equally racist to highlight white skin colour in a parallel case. Regardless, in a prejudiced society, so-called equality isn't actually equal (see my comments above). I'd still be interested to hear any reasons that killers' skin colour is central to this case and needs to be in the opening sentence. KeiraKate (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Three photographs have vanished since 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:7C80:8401:6092:4D77:11CF:BA00 (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent bad arithmetic[edit]

It is possible that the 30 pints included transfused blood. This would explain the fact that the victim only started with seven pints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.11.202 (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?[edit]

was murdered after being stabbed to death 8 times by youths, just days after finishing his GCSE's.

He was stabbed to death eight times? That must be a record number of ressurections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.9.146.23 (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Facts about suspects deleted[edit]

WWGB, a user in Australia, has deleted the fact the suspects (Juress Kika, Jade Braithwaite, Michael Alleyne) belong to the black community. Why is the fact they are black a taboo? What relevance is the Kinsella case to an Australian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiliwack2002 (talk • contribs)
— Chiliwack2002 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What relevance is the race of the alleged assailaints to the incident? WWGB (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is young black kids doing almost all of these murders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.143.1 (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Applying the same logic, why did Wikipedia not report that Tony Blair was replaced by the white Gordon Brown, since it's white people doing all the prime ministering? WWGB (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the killers are black must be stated. Much of the media have deliberately omitted that, but it is fact: a) eyewitness reports; b) media reports that did state the race; c) the 3 remanded are all black. In reply to the person mentioning UK Prime Ministers, no-one is trying to suppress the fact that Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and all UK PMs have been white. There are many pictures of Brown, Blair, John Major, Margaret Thatcher, Ted Heath, James Callaghan, Wilson etc (including on Wikipedia) that clearly show them to be white. On the other hand, there are many instances of the pictures of recent victims of murder in London etc., taken when they were alive, shown by the media. As is clear, most victims of murder in London are black. Much less commonly shown are pictures/footage of the killers, most of whom are black. In recent years, most murders in London, especially those committed with knives and guns, are perpetrated by blacks; do not pretend otherwise, nor try to cover up the truth. 'Political correctness' has no place on an encyclopedia; the public have a right to know the facts. No-one would dispute the fact that most murderers are male, that most murderers are below-average intelligence, nor that most murderers are (relatively) young. No-one would want to hide the fact that each of Ben's killers are both young and male. If their age ang gender is relevant (which it is, then their race is as well). To try to block the truth about race and crime can only be done for propaganda purposes. Look at the incarceration rates for blacks compared to whites if you still don't accept the truth.Werdnawerdna (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Does that mean that this might be racially-motivated, similar to the Murder of Kriss Donald and Murder of Anthony Walker? If it is, then it definitely should be included in the article. That might also warrant the article's inclusion in Wikipedia. ~AH1(TCU) 17:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the Donald and Walker cases, it is not, despite specualtion, yet proved that this murder was racially motivated. That's why the article is not currently in the Hate crimes category.

Reasons to keep this article[edit]

This murder was a high-profile case, which received, and still receives, a great deal of media coverage. He was an innocent, well-liked and locally popular victim. He was not, for example, a drug-dealer killed by another drug-dealer to eliminate the competition. He had bit parts in TV programmes, so it could be inferred that he had just began an acting career. He had celebrity connections: his sister Brooke is a moderately well known actress; he was friends with Linda Robson's son and niece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Werdnawerdna (talk • contribs) 17:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to main article[edit]

A main article has been created on the murder of Kinsella. It is significant in the same way as the Murder of Damilola Taylor article. See Murder of Ben Kinsella. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChowMeinWarlord (talk • contribs) 19:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Murder of Ben Kinsella. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Murder of Ben Kinsella. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring[edit]

User Sherney21 has edited and reverted this article 14 times, only to include 'who was stabbed to death in an attack by three black men in June 2008 in Islington'. The user has been asked twice via their talk page to seek consensus, but has continued since. The user has made no contributions to wikipedia outside of the inclusion of irrelevant information within this article. What can be done to prevent further edit warring?

GJPG (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About the Third Opinion request: The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough recent talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. In case of an edit war, file at EWN, the 3RR doesn't have to be violated if it can be demonstrated that there's a slow-motion war. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, will look into that
GJPG (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Ben_Kinsella&oldid=1207988319"