Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Patrick Lyoya

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


Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2022

[edit]

Title is leading. Suggested changing “Killing of Patrick Lyoya” to “Fatal Shooting of Patrick Lyoya” LeonDias19 (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. You can kill someone without intent or malice. In this circumstance killing and fatal shooting are six of one, half dozen of another. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2022 (2)

[edit]

He was not shot in the back of the head. 24.56.73.226 (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that he was shot in the back of his head must be supported by reliable sources. HaraldTheBlue (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hide/screen picture please

[edit]

Please screen the photo at the top of this article. I clicked on the wikipedia article bc I wanted some basic info without being subjected to yet another photo or video of a black person being brutalized. Yet there’s an image right at the top of the article, unhidden. Doesn’t matter if it’s blurred, that is still a clearly recognizable image of a man straddling the body of someone he just killed. 70.133.170.122 (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic to this concern, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. See our Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. The image is highly pertinent and should be shown in the infobox. You clicked on the link knowing what the article is about, so it should not be surprising that we have that image in it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LizardJr8:@IrrationalBeing:@Cheysharvey:@Adakiko: @Qzd:@ImperialIdea:@Sethcampbell7293:@Muboshgu: @Leaky.Solar:@Sengbe7:@WMrapids:
Comment WP:NOTCENSORED had been referenced and it's probably worth revisiting what it says. Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Considering that there is a full video of the incident embedded in the article (which is far more informative and neutral) and it is optional for readers to view it, I think there is clearly an "equally suitable alternative" - actually a superior alternative in place. As for the concept of "no expectation of respect", would any one of us want to rise from obscurity to international notoriety enshrined forever in a dictionary as the man laying face first in the dirt, belly exposed, and dead? This is the man [1] PHOTO]. Why not show a photo like this? That said, I will yield to whatever the majority decides.Wiki-psyc (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That photo has not been uploaded to Wikimedia. There do not seem to be any photos of Lyoya on Wikimedia. There does not seem to be an "alternative". Do you have the rights to one that you would be willing to upload? If anyone could get a photo removed by making a 'take down request' based on don't like it it being 'offensive', probably any article with criticism/controversy/gruesomeness would not have any photos. Adakiko (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – As mentioned before, Wikipedia does not promote censorship and a multitude of other articles feature similar images. Also, I don't know why users assume the opinion of the family, especially when they are the ones who pushed for the video to be released.--WMrapids (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article is overburdened with highly detailed and tangential information

[edit]

As of version #|1083115913, this article has discussions of the refugee policies of two presidents, discussions about the eastern Congo, discussions about the reputation of the Grand Rapids police department, quotes/opinions from family, local politicians, pastors, lawyers, and even mention of the crucifixion of Christ and a Kid Rock concert. I would encourage editors to keep this focused and encyclopedic. There is very little known about this incident at this time other than it was a minor traffic stop that was handled badly by all involved, ended with a man being shot to death during a protracted physical scuffle, and is under investigation. It is clearly a tragedy and a "misuse of deadly force" investigation is underway.Wiki-psyc (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you concern. However, some of the information you describe as "tangential" provides a background and explanation of the situation according to sources.--WMrapids (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WMrapids: You are technically at the point of edit warring and I have followed the recommendations for avoiding an edit war as per WP:EDITWAR. In the spirit of cooperation, I would encourage you to make a good faith effort to reinstate the majority of the edits I made and that you have reverted and for you to discuss your specific concerns about those edits here so that we may work them out or engage others to help reach consensus. I am not close to this topic and don't have a bias other than trying to provide balance to an article that is largely written by one person and where constructive edits are being blocked without discussion or consensus. Wiki-psyc (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is As the march approached Van Andel Arena, authorities blocked the area as there was a Kid Rock concert underway. tangential? How is it tangential that we're in the Easter season? His family fleeing DRC? The history of the Grand Rapids police department? All relevant. Please self-revert the tag or I'll take it off. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your specific questions (hopefully they are not rhetorical)... This is an article about a police shooting and probably the best model/format article for this is Shooting of Michael Brown. Would you agree? That has all the possible elements of this case (shooting, possible deptment issues, protests).
1) The fact that there was protest march is encyclopedic. Specific's about logistics and who was in concert at Van Andel Arena are minutia that will get edited out sooner or later.
2) The shooting took place on April 4th. Easter season is technically April 17 2022 to June 5 2022.
3) The fact that the parents fled the DRC 8 years ago is worth noting, but is not a contributing factor in the incident requiring great detail. Now if he had limited English speaking skills that may have explained his reaction, that would be important. Or if he was involved in a police brutality incident prior in the USA, that would be important.
4) The three prior controversies in the last 5 years with the Grand Rapids police department are certainly worthy of mentioning, no one disputed that. The long explanation about things such as "Forbes' listing of Grand Rapids as the second worst city for economic prosperity among African Americans" doesn't belong in this article.
@Muboshgu:, I see that you are a admin here and I hope your priority is for the issues to be broken down and discussed.
Wiki-psyc (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not here acting as an admin (I recuse myself from American politics (post-1992) issues with the exception of blocking obvious vandals and protecting pages in dire need of it). Those questions were not rhetorical. So, we can change there was a Kid Rock concert underway to there was a concert underway. As for the Easter content, are you thinking that preacher's quote is too long? It could be trimmed. Fleeing the DRC is background that is clearly relevant given the language barrier issue the article raises. I agree that their level of economic prosperity among African Americans is a bit beyond the scope. Anything else? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wiki-psyc and Muboshgu: I'll slim some of it down. Economic prosperity could probably be removed and some other parts shortened. The tag can be removed (not sure how this is a POV issue anyways) and I will ask for a peer review so we can get more eyes on this. Not trying some WP:OWN stuff, just trying to find a good balance between the page protections and the lack of other users being involved. Thanks for the discussion.--WMrapids (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think {{overly detailed}} was the template Wiki-psyc was looking for. Seems better now. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki-psyc, none of these issues relate to WP:POV. Please do not reinsert that tag. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was just responding to your questions earlier. I see two things to resolve that relate to POV. A) The statement that the officer had Lyoya restrained with a knee to his head is not accurate or reported. Both men were scuffling with Lyoya trying to get up and the officer trying to hold him down when the gun went off. At the time the officer's gun fired his knees were near Lyoya knees and neither man was in control of the scuffle. B) The "Background" section suggest that this is a systemic issue and it is clearly to soon to reach this conclusion. That may change, but for now it is over-reaching. Any mention of prior police controversies should to be listed further down the article and under a neutral subhead like "Prior GRPD controversies". With this I would agree to pulling the POV banner. Thanks Wiki-psyc (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Police using excessive force on Black people is definitely a systemic issue throughout the U.S. The issue of how the officer restrained Lyoya is not a POV issue, but whatever is in there should be accurate to the sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu: @WMrapids: It certainly is bias (POV issue) to present the shooting as a back of the head shot to a restrained man. There is also a reference to execution style with a Facebook page citation. Both have been corrected and reverted more than once.
Additionally, adding politicized social justice editorial is bias. Everyone is entitled to their own bias regarding social justice which is being fiercely debated in 2022, but this is not the place to present one side of the controversy.
Police using excessive force on Black people is definitely a systemic issue throughout the U.S. This is a hotly debated issue. All reputable resources (DOJ, Statitica, Washington, New York Times) show that twice and many whites are killed by police each year as blacks. And reputable sources say that people misquote these statistics and Wikipedia is called out specifically by Reuters reuters.com Reuters reports "FBI data does not support the numbers put forth in this claim on interracial crime and police killings." And yes, there is also data that says, on a per capita basis, this is twice as many blacks killed by police as whites. And yes, the non-police per capita murder rate for blacks is four times that of whites of which 97% is perpetrated by a black person.FBI. If you look at Michigan, its worse Michigan.
My point is that we don't think we want to have this debate in this article or provide one side here. Please don't feel this is because I support the opposite bias, because I don't. I am just well versed on both sides of the bias and calling it to everyone's attention that we need to make neutral adjustments. At this point, every attempt to add neutrality edits have been reverted and the POV banner has been reverted twice.
Wiki-psyc (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to reliable sources, he was shot in the back of the head after the cop wrestled him down. This is not under debate. As for police shootings as a whole, I don't see any of that info in this article, so I don't see a problem here. The background on Grand Rapids police is highly relevant to an incident in Grand Rapids. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the police history of brutality would be better served later in the article. Readers must read that to find out the bit they actually wish to know, which is what happened as described by reliable sources. Solipsism 101 (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it to the end and titled the subsection,"Controversy". I also removed the inaccuracies in the incident description, such as "push head down with knee", and made it as neutral (descriptive) as possible.Wiki-psyc (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The background section was placed back. Controversy and criticism sections are to be avoided, especially when the controversy isn't related specifically to the incident (investigation procedures, controversial effects, trial issues, etc). MLive discusses the "past" multiple times in their article while The New York Times writes about "longstanding tensions" in their article, making this much more appropriate for a background section. The response of the city and GRPD was also expanded in the section to provide a more NPOV.--WMrapids (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't any reason why "Controversy" sections are to be avoided. They exist for reasons such as this. Nonetheless, there are no legal entities (such as Michigan Bureau of Investigation or US Department of Justice) alleging that there is a direct tie between any of the incidents listed as "background to the shooting" and the shooting that took place in March. If this was an article about the Grand Rapids Police Department, then it would make sense to put this information under the heading of "Background". I moved the information under the subhead of Grand Rapids Police Department as it is discussing the police department overall. Wiki-psyc (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki-psyc, please read WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu Thanks and fair enough. I already moved the information under the subhead of Grand Rapids Police Department, consistant with Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies". Instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, "2009 boycott" or "Hunting incident". Wiki-psyc (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No Weapons Recovered from Lyoya

[edit]

The section in the article regarding whether or not Lyoya was armed is confusing. It says that the Grand Rapids police chief stated that no weapons were recovered from Lyoya, but a few sentences before, it says that Lyoya had gained control of the taser. Whether or not he was armed with the taser should be determined, and the police chief’s comments should be clarified as factual or false accordingly. Azahariev (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Azahariev: Unfortunately this is due to the placement of false information into the article. After combing through the sources, there were no mentions of Lyoya having control of the taser, just that the two were grasping it.--WMrapids (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WMrapids I haven't seen Lyoya's control of the taser mentioned one way or another in the two articles that I checked, but after watching the cellphone video in the article, it does appear that Lyoya does gain control of the taser towards the end. Both men have their hand on it for a while, but then as the police officer straddles Loyoa's back, Lyoya seems to come away with it, and both of the officer's hands are not on the taser. I'm looking at around the 2:54-2:55 mark (but you have to watch the rest of the video for context).
As far as I can tell, the confusion is because the police chief was talking about weapons besides the taser, weapons that Lyoya may have brought into the altercation (i.e. Lyoya's body was searched and no hidden weapons were discovered). Azahariev (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Azahariev: Until we get confirmation from a reliable source, any allegations that Lyoya controlled the taser is original research, which is not permitted. Let's wait and see until we get some further confirmation.--WMrapids (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WMrapids: Ok, that sounds fair enough, but while we wait and see if any journalist from a “reliable” source will dare attempt to describe the video in a way that differs from what has already been established as the Correct Interpretation, can we please allow for editing the description of the incident leading up to the point where control of the taser becomes questionable? That entire lead-up is written in a manner that seems to be to be skewed maximally in favor of the officer’s guilt (the framing of Lyoya’s behavior as simply “walking to the hood of the car” (and not attempting to flee the scene) after repeatedly being asked to stay put, get back in the car, present ID, etc; Lyoya saying “okay” after being told to stop resisting (as if he then complied - he did not); at the same time noting that the officer had Lyoya’s hands behind his back (as if the officer was then in control of Lyoya’s body - he was not, the hands behind the back only lasted several seconds before Lyoya overpowered the officer again); the fight for the taser being described simply as Lyoya pushing the taser away from his own body (the maximally generous - for Lyoya - interpretation; the equally plausible interpretation being that Lyoya was trying to get complete control of the taser - interpretations that aren’t even mutually exclusive).
Most of this detail comes from thecut.com, hardly a bastion of journalism (though even a cursory skimming of their Lyoya article, as well as their other articles, does reveal them to be a bastion of a certain set of political and ideological presuppositions). Are we really going to consider thecut.com as a “reliable source”? I’m not very experienced with the Wikipedia editorial process, but I want to understand why such a source and such an interpretation of the primary source material (the video footage) is seen as more reliable than us all working together to come to an agreement when describing the primary source material. Azahariev (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Azahariev: A lot of what you are arguing to include is an interpretation of Lyoya or the officer's actions that you describe as "correct", which is completely subjective. What the Cut article did a good job of describing were the actions taken by each individual in a neutral manner. The article says that Lyoya walked towards the hood of his car, an accurate an neutral way to describe the actions. Also that Lyoya pushed the taser away from himself, also accurate and neutral. In the current Wikipedia article, it is mentioned that both individuals had their hands on the taser, which again is accurate and neutral. To make a subjective "interpretation" to serve as what is portrayed in the article is inappropriate and WP:OR at worst. Let's avoid that.--WMrapids (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether and for how long Lyoya had the Taser, the NYT states that "Chief Eric Winstrom of the Grand Rapids police said he was not aware of any weapons other than the officer’s gun and Taser being found at the scene." That seems a neutral way to describe which weapons were found at the scene—making clear that Lyoya wasn't found to have additional weapons on his body but leaving open the question of who had control of the Taser when. I've edited it here. Make sense? Thanks for input! ElleTheBelle 00:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WMrapids: Going back to the concerns of the originator of this discussion, there is no basis to claim that Lyoya was unarmed during the altercation. The police chief's comment was "There was no weapon recovered from Lyoya, Winstrom said, but he acknowledged he isn't aware of all the evidence since the Michigan State Police is overseeing the case." The second citation only says that "Mr. Lyoya, unarmed, stepped out of the vehicle". However, many resources describe a struggle for the taser, and the Wiki article says "Schurr shouts for Lyoya to "drop the Taser" or "let go of the Taser" at least five times" just prior to pulling out his gun. Wiki-psyc (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wiki-psyc: So they found no additional weapons on the scene, making him unarmed initially. Maybe that should be the wording in a way? Also, an officer can yell that someone can be doing anything (insert any "he's got a gun" example), and it would be especially POV using the officer's word in this article.--WMrapids (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WMrapids:, "during a struggle over the officer's taser" is neutral point of view. Let's get consensus on whether the addition of other facts such as his initial condition during at the beginning of the stop (i.e., severely intoxicated three times over the legal limit, and unarmed) are necessary. I'm good with adding both or leaving both out. Wiki-psyc (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wiki-psyc: With the precedent of the murder of George Floyd, a toxicology or substance report is only mentioned later in the article, so such details may not be appropriate in the lead.--WMrapids (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The background is incorrect

[edit]

I assumed while reading background that it would elaborate on the shooting not a lay a summary of unrelated incidents. Seems like a narrative is being built rather than objective reality being presented 2600:6C5E:5D7F:F073:848B:B426:A2D:5BD7 (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tense of "Incident" section

[edit]

Suddenly the tense changes to present, presumably because it is describing what is seen on video—but the effect is somewhat jarring and confusing. Would it not be possible to have the entire section in the past tense, given that the videos are showing what happened, not what is happening? Thanks for any input! ElleTheBelle 23:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WMrapids, please stop reverting everyone's edits

[edit]

I respect your passion for this article, but you are not the gatekeeper or editor-in-chief. I have watched you control 80-85% of the text in this article since its inception and you have done this by repeatedly reverting others edits. Other editors have expressed concerns. Please allow others to contribute. Wiki-psyc (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not accurate account

[edit]

The summary of the wiki account is not accurate. The officer did not shoot his taser. Lyoya grabbed the taser. You can here the officer order Lyoya to let go of the Taser. Lyoya tried to shot the policeman with the taser, resulting in a treat to the officer and the officer life. The taser ended up under Lyoya’s body in his possession. Please keep in mind, a Police officer hit with a taser would become incapacitated leaving his sidearm exposed to the attacker to grab and shoot the officer, and allowing the attacker to run and use the weapon on others in the community. 2601:404:D280:3E70:D86B:72C:2B5:4100 (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the summary to be as neutral as possible. The Michigan State Police investigation will provide more information when it is released. The determination of whether this was a justified action or if the officer was negligent in handling the situation or if this was an accidental shooting will be determined by the district attorney, Department of Justice, and/or a jury. I do agree that there is bias in the article and hopefuly it can be balanced out. It is best to stay with a clinical description of what is known from reliable sources. Wiki-psyc (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wiki-psyc: Most of the bias is being introduced by your edits. You have added false information that Lyoya had possession of the taser and placed copyrighted material. Now you are consistently pushing negative background of Lyoya into the lead. That then opens up the can of worms providing the officer's background of potential anger issues and being rewarded by GRPD for chasing individuals on foot. Keep things simple for the lead and expand in the main body, please.--WMrapids (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WMrapids: the originator of this section is complaining about your bias, not mine. As have others. The fact the Lyoya had a blood alcohol level of 3 times the legal limit when he was pulled over isn't background, it's material to the incident. So is the fact that it was a 3 minute scuffle. You are from Grand Rapids and you are too close to this thing. My comment was that Shurr lost control of the taser (factual). You're so biased you read that sentence to say Lyoya had control of the taser. You have made this point over and over. It's not the same. You are reverting everyone edits. Please stop. Wiki-psyc (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wiki-psyc: Wherever someone is from is not the issue. Placing false information, bias and plagiarism is. We are mainly the two users editing this article and I intend to maintain the good quality of this controversial article. A peer review was even posted on a page so more eyes can be here. Many of your edits I have incorporated the details into the article, though with more NPOV wording.--WMrapids (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Lyoya was not a refugee

[edit]

Patrick Lyoya was not a 26-year-old refugee from the Congo. He's been in this country since he was 5. 73.161.217.1 (talk) 22:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources say that the family was granted asylum in 2014 and describe him as a refugee. What you say is simply untrue.--WMrapids (talk) 05:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gross excess of background information - again

[edit]

This has been brought up by other users but apparently it needs to be discussed again - this article has way too much tangential background information. I understand the desire to provide context, the geopolitics of historical African conflicts does not not need to be discussed in this article:

Patrick Lyoya was a refugee from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a nation experiencing unrest fueled by repeated foreign intervention since the overthrow and execution of Patrice Lumumba, which was organized by Belgium and the Central Intelligence Agency, that led to the Congo Crisis and subsequent conflicts. According to Lyoya's family, they fled eastern Congo after experiencing years of violence in the Kivu conflict. Lyoya's parents sold beer and clothing for money; his mother was once raped by rebels on her way home. The Lyoya family moved to Malawi in 2003 and Lyoya spent half of his life living in a bamboo house at a refugee camp. In 2014, the family received asylum in the United States, with Tanzanian scholar Godfrey Mwakikagile writing "Ironically, Lyoya and his family fled the region and sought refuge in the very same country that has played a major role in the disruption ... in eastern Congo".

This is excessive bordering on absurd. This is an article about a US police shooting. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this bit could probably do with a bit of pruning, but your edit went too far. Some background is merited, as it may offer some explanation to Lyoya's actions. The sources cited also believe it is relevant. But perhaps not to this detail. And the observation of irony is not really neutral. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What specifically did I remove that went too far? I removed a large section from Patrick Lyoya's subsection, mostly what I just quoted, because it is of little to no relevance of the actual incident. It contains everything from Congolese Cold War politics, to sarcastic WP:NPOV remarks, to Lyoya's living conditions in 2003 - all of which are wholly irrelevant for the purposes of discussing the shooting incident. I am baffled that it was ever put in this article to begin with. I would have removed more from the other two sections, but I feel like what's there has more of argument to be relevant. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You went too far in removing the content entirely. Good sources appear to think that Lyoya's historical background could have contributed to his behaviour and events that day, and discuss them in relation to this article's subject. They also think the police department's past history with minorities is relevant, and discuss it in relation to this article's subject. So the article is entirely justified in including both. You also removed a sourced section on Schurr's background without explanation.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Escape Orbit but it has literally nothing to do with the events or the article. There is zero value add. 47.132.127.113 (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple, good reliable sources think otherwise. You're welcome to disagree, but this article works to sources, not your personal opinion. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Patrick_Lyoya&oldid=1256746662"