Talk:Bahar Mustafa race row

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

A victim of deletionism?

Having recently created this article, I was a little perturbed to find that it was soon under attack, with about half of it being deleted by an editor exhibiting what could only be described as a highly

User:Ryk72 has subsequently pointed out, there are BLP:CRIME issues at play here which need to be considered, particularly focused on this section and I suggest that we use this space to discuss them. Hopefully this debate can be held without anyone resorting to such unilateral deletions and pejorative attacks on the article content that we have previously witnessed. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Hey m8! Here is my explanation for my actions. Firstly I'd like to clarify (per your comments at BLPN), that I am not secretly Bahar Mustafa, nor
WP:BLPCRIME word for word. As for the other stuff I deleted, it's because it's not relevant to the topic of the article. This article is about the race row incident, not any other incidents Mustafa has been involved in. Therefore the bullying accusations are irrelevant to the topic of the article and should be deleted. Bosstopher2 (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for your response and your explanation, Bosstopher2; it is appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLP:CRIME?

According to WP:BLPCRIME, "For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." Assuming for a moment (and I will contest this later) that Mustafa is not a public figure, then it is true that we should "seriously consider" not including information about the police investigation into her actions and its public impact. At the same time we do not inevitably have to conclude that such information must be expunged. BLP:CRIME is a recommendation, not a blanket ban. It needs to be assessed on a case by case basis.

I would like to argue that there is in fact a great deal to say in favour of including information in this article about the police investigation and its public impact. One of the reasons for this is that the criminal investigation, alongside the police's decision to abandon it, and then the press' commentary upon it, represent a core aspect of the 'Mustafa race row incident'. It was Mustafa's actions, coupled with the public outrage at them, which resulted in a police investigation, and then further press and public debate: all of these factors are connected and interwoven. By omitting information about this component of the event, we are downplaying the national significance of the incident as a whole and the dialogue about race relations and free speech that it sparked. Fundamentally, we are willingly misrepresenting the event that this article is about, to the detriment of Wikipedia itself.

One of the main considerations for not mentioning a BLP's involvement in criminal proceedings is the concern that stating such allegations

may further the victimisation of the individual in question. That is a valid concern. However, in this case I do not think it an issue that overrides other considerations. Anyone exploring the Mustafa incident on a search engine will soon find a wealth of reliable, mainstream press articles discussing the criminal investigation and commenting upon it; if Wikipedia avoids mentioning these aspects of the incident, it clearly won't prevent any potential future victimisation that Mustafa might conceivably face, but what it will do is make the encyclopaedia appear patchy and poor in its coverage of the issue. Moreover, as is made clear in this interview with Vice
, Mustapha has not hidden from the issue of the police investigation but rather has come out and spoken publicly about it; she's not trying to escape it, so why are we? These factors considered, are we seriously further victimising Mustafa by including a well-sourced summary of the police investigation and the public commentary that it received? I really don't think so.

Finally, I'd like to return to the issue of whether Mustafa is a public figure or not; after all, BLP:CRIME only applies to those not deemed to be public figures. Mustafa is a self-professed activist, who has repeatedly sought to promote particular socio-political causes through activities such as student occupations of public buildings; she has taken on a job as a Welfare and Diversity Officer at

the Wikipedia article on the subject. In conclusion, I see no reason that WP:BLPCRIME applies to a public figure such as Mustafa, and even if it did, I see sufficient extenuating circumstances in this particular case to strongly urge that the WP:BLPCRIME recommendation be set aside. Unless there are clear objections to this argument, I would recommend that the information removed from this article be re-installed, allowing our readers to gain a fuller and more rounded understanding of this interesting episode in recent British history. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I hope that a different standard isn't being applied to Mustafa, as compared to say Craig Cobb and Michael Brown/Ferguson.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@
Request for Comment on this issue?. I'm also assuming you have no objections to me removing the irrelevant stuff because you didn't address them in your response. Also User:TheTruth-2009 what do you mean? Bosstopher2 (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
There is much information in the articles I mentioned, and it hasn't been deleted.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I have not yet had time to digest all of the above, I share
'c.s.n.s.' 23:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
According to our article on Public figures, public officials are considered to be such, even though the two terms are not strictly synonyms. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I am unable to concur that a reasonable person would derive that meaning from the text of the
'c.s.n.s.' 13:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@Bosstopher2:; I'm fine with an RfC, although I'd rather that you didn't remove further information from the article just yet. I think that a separate discussion needs to be had there. (Also, good luck with the thesis!) Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the stuff about her resignation

Yo, I'm making a new section as recommended. So the name of this article is 'Bahar Mustafa race row incident.' This section of the article has nothing to do with a race row incident. Therefore it seems logical for me to remove it as off topic and irrelevant. Brustopher (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Police Investigation and Bullying/abuse allegations

Closing this RFC, which has had no comments in over a week. Determining consensus here is exceptionally difficult. The easy one is point 3 (should the article include details of the Geller email) - nobody thinks that should be included. However for points 1+2, we have three editors saying yes, and three editors saying no. So what are the arguments being used? The arguments for exclusion, such as those made by Brustopher, are
WP:BLPCRIME
does not apply. The references within the articles mentioned by Midnightblueowl are quite clear evidence, in multiple reliable sources, that Mustafa is, at least to some extent, a public figure.

CW Gilmore mentions

WP:BLP1E arguments into account when determining consensus for this RFC. The fact that this article is explicitly and specifically about the Bahar Mustafa race row
is a further point that suggests information pertinent to the race row should be included; the information about a police investigation as a result of the race row is clearly pertinent, Midnightblueowl and Iffy make convincing arguments on this point.

So, I believe by weight of arguments, the consensus here, rooted in policy and strength of argument, is that points one and two should be included. This is, at present, currently what is in the article. I hope I have explained the rationale for this closure clearly, should you have any further questions please contact me on my talk page. Cheers, Fish+Karate 09:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ladies and gentlemen I come to you with questions three:

  1. Should the article include details on the police investigation against Bahar Mustafa?
  2. Should the article include details on the allegations of bullying against Bahar Mustafa and her subsequent resignation?
  3. Should the article include details of the email received by Pamella Gellar?

See the above talk page sections for further context. Relisted by

WP:BLP
-related RfC. --Brustopher (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • No to all three: The police investigation is textbook
    WP:BLPCRIME, a police investigation against a not particularly notable person that went absolutely nowhere. It therefore should not be included in the article. The allegations of bullying and the email to Gellar should not be included because they are outside the scope of the article and aren't related to the race row incident the article describes. --Brustopher (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Yes on 1+2. Probably No for Geller (as this incident was both denied (fabricating a sending address is easy) - [1] and not so widely covered). BLPCRIME is not relevant as Bahar Mustafa is
    WP:WELLKNOWN and was in a public position. Furthermore the charges (subsequently dropped by CPS - actually beyond a police investigation) - were made on the basis of the tweet itself - if we cover the "KillAllWhiteMen" tweet mentioning that police investigated whether such a tweet was a crime is not revealing anything further that we're not saying (and if at all - the decision to drop the charges is in favor of Mustafa). In any event she is WELLKNOWN.Icewhiz (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • We have petitions for his dismissal - e.g. www.change.org/p/expel-bahar-mustafa-from-goldsmiths-university-for-criminal-misconduct-bahar-mustafa-should-be-removed-from-study-at-goldsmiths-university as well as a signature drive to dislodge her - [2] (which only reached 165 sigs - less than the 3% threshold needed for a referendum). These officers get elected by the student body (e.g. - [3][4], their election page is here - [5]) - a student body some 8,500+ strong. So yes - they public figures. Maybe not the most notable public figures out there, but they do get covered by student press and the like. Probably more notable than some small village. Even if she weren't a public figure the bar would be "seriously consider" - but in this case she clearly satisfies both being a public figure and being well known (with copious sourcing, from all angles, on this affair - part of the rationale for BLPCRIME was the lack of coverage for people who aren't known).Icewhiz (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for the second point, the article's coverage of Mustafa's resignation, the present text provides a good, if brief, overview of the fallout after the event. Again, something that will clearly be of interest to the reader and which is properly cited to Reliable Sources. The third issue, that of Gellar, is probably tangential; it received some coverage in RS and I would be inclined to include it (even if as a note) although it is far from being essential to the reader's understanding of the subject. It would be no great loss to see it removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get its a matter of considering, but I think on consideraiton the balance is to exclude. The O.J. Simpson and George Zimmerman cases, were massive cultural phenomena in the US taking up hours of news coverage. R v Peacock was a landmark case of significant cultural and legal consequence. Bahar Mustafa was barely notable for a short peiod, her case did not even go to trial. There are no significant legal or cultural ramifications of the same magnitude as was seen in the examples you cited. This was but a flash in a pan.--Brustopher (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page moved

I've renamed the page with the more descriptive title

formal move request. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Requested move 12 January 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was:  Not done No consensus (non-admin closure) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 19:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONCISE; since there are unlikely to be many such controversies at a single university, it's unnecessary to include Student Union in the title. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Noticeboard discussion, February 2018

I've started a new discussion at

WP:BLP. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Mustafa in 2018

Recently posted - [6] - in which she relates the "race row" among other things.Icewhiz (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Bahar Mustafa race row/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer:

talk · contribs) 16:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]


Please reply individually under each of my posts and mark with  Done,

talk) 12:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Lede

  • although initially charging her, they soon dropped all charges recommend rewording to avoid the duplication of "charge"
  • attracting media attention rephrase to avoid repeating this phrase
  • I've simply taken out the second "attracting media attention" as it was not needed at that juncture of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this is a biographical article, recommend using a free or fair use image of Mustafa
  • Ideally, we would have one, but I have been unable to locate a free image. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General

  • I've done some copyediting to tighten the prose
  • According to the
    Reliable Sources Noticeboard
    , there is no consensus that RT is reliable and it is recommended that it be avoided for "controversial topics". That said, I'm not sure that it's an issue in the way that it's used here.
  • Overall you've done a great job of keeping neutral on a hotbutton topic. From an initial read through of sources I think that you are reflecting mainstream coverage well.
Thank you for taking a look at the article; it is appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    talk) 21:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Sure thing,
    Catrìona. I think RT should be fine for this, but a second opinion should not pose a problem. In my personal opinion, RT are no more or less reliable than most of the world's state press agencies; they all have their obvious biases and slants, but then again - doesn't all media? I suspect that a lot of the fears about RT's reliability as a source here at Wikipedia have their origins in the present wave of Russophobia making its way through the West. The only issue here is if the RT article is deemed to have produced "fake news", and I do not think that it has. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • But all press are propaganda organs of one form or another, whether that be for states or for private interest groups. To say that we cannot use RT because they are propaganda for the Russian state would put us in a very difficult position because we would then have to also avoid using the BBC because they are propaganda for the British state. The only reason RT would need to be removed here is if there is concern that the information contained within the article itself is inaccurate; I don't think that that is the case. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    talk) 13:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I checked the list and it appears that there is no consensus as to the reliability (or lack thereof) of RT at Wikipedia. So the question has to fall down to how RT is being used in this particular article. At present only one RT piece is being cited in this article, and it is being used four times. Of those, two repeat claims found in other reliable sources, and two of the claims are only cited to RT itself. Specifically, RT is the only source being used to support the statement that Mustafa was "A 28-year-old from northeast London", and that the "KillAllWhiteMen" hashtag "was described as racist." I'm pretty keen on keeping the statement regarding Mustafa's age and regional origin in the article as I think that they are important pieces of contextual information, but do you guys have concerns that this information might be factually incorrect? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that there are other sources that provide the same information. This source gives her age and "northeast London", while this one [7] describes the #killallwhitemen tweet as racist. Given that these sources are considered by the Wikipedia community to be more reliable than RT, it seems like it would be best practice to use them in addition to/instead of RT, as Vami suggested. Cheers,
    talk) 15:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@Midnightblueowl: I gave two options. Replace or stack with a more reputable source. I recommend the latter if not the former. –Vami_IV† 19:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

Catrìona and Vami IV:; I have now ensured that all four of the RT sources are stacked alongside another, less controversial press source. Many thanks for your suggestions and your time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Good Article
review progress box
WP:CV
()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4.
free or tagged images
() 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the
Good Article criteria. Criteria marked
are unassessed
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bahar_Mustafa_race_row&oldid=1205621045"