# Talk:Bahar Mustafa race row

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 deletionist ethos. They did so unilaterally, not bringing the issue to the Talk Page first. Elsewhere they described the page as a "Trash magnet of an article that perhaps shouldn't even exist", which frankly I think is a gross mischaracterization of a well-written and well-sourced article that covers an incident which achieved both national and international media attention. However, as 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)

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 Frank Gaffney, Vani Hari, Roosh V or the unpopular subjects of any of the other BLPs I've edited in the past (Indeed I would have a very bizarre ideology if I secretly sympathised and personally supported all these people). As for what I deleted, the bit that has remained deleted is textbook WP:BLPCRIME, Mustafa is not a particularly notable person (see the deletion discussion linked above), and was never convincted with the crime she was charged with. That's basically the text of 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)
Thank you for your response and your explanation, Bosstopher2; it is appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


### 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 Goldsmiths Students' Union, thus becoming a public official; she has made various media appearances, such as here, here, and here, in which she has promoted herself as an activist and put forward her views. All this considered, I think that we can say with some confidence that – although not a politician or major celebrity – Mustafa is indeed a public figure, as is legally defined according to 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)

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)
@Midnightblueowl: Sorry for the late response, first draft of my thesis is due on monday and I have 88 words so I don't have time to write a lengthy detailed response, but I fail to see how responding to public accusations of scandal in public makes someone a public figue who actively wants to be one (i'll also note the wikipedia article you linked isn't about public officials but officials in general. Would you be ok with an 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)
There is much information in the articles I mentioned, and it hasn't been deleted.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
While I have not yet had time to digest all of the above, I share Bosstopher2's thoughts that the article subject is not a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. I also note that "public figure" and "public official" are not the same. George Clooney is a public figure, but not AFAIAA a public official; a person working for a city council is a public official, but not, by consequence, a public figure. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
With respect, I am unable to concur that a reasonable person would derive that meaning from the text of the Public figure article - A fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate people to public figure status. Typically, they must either be: a public figure, either a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs, - an ordinary public official (civil servant or government worker) does not meet the fairly high threshold of public activity unless they are pervasively involved in public affairs. There may, however, be a case made for a limited purpose public figure, meaning those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.". - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
@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)

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)

I've renamed the page with the more descriptive title Goldsmiths University race controversy for several reasons. First, "race row" is a vague term whose meaning the article doesn't even establish; second, Bahar MustafaBahar Mustafa is not notable enough for a Wikipedia biography, so calling her out in the title is WP:UNDUE and against WP:BLPNAME – this isn't the Profumo affair; third, the controversy evidently went beyond a single "incident". If there are any objections to the move, I'll start a formal move request. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I object. The incident had almost nothing to do with Goldsmiths University, it had everything to do with Bahar Mustafa. I also fail to see how an alleged call for gendercide (combine with white) is a "race controversy". As Bahar Mustafa was the locus of reporting here, as well as WP:PUBLICFIGURE - BLPNAME is irrelevant.Icewhiz (talk) 08:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to see the move request include options for both Goldsmiths University and Goldsmiths University Student Union; also not sure whether it's a "race" controversy or a "racism" controversy. And, while I don't necessarily object, and chose not to revert, the move, I'm not sure that either WP:UNDUE or WP:BLPNAME are supportive; perhaps it would be prudent to re-read them. I agree that "race row" is sub-optimal; almost tabloid; and strongly reject assertions that WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies. Finally, as an off-topic aside, I think there might be some wordsmithing done to remove some of the accusatory tone of parts of the article text. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 09:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I've started a new discussion at BLP/N about the title of this page, which still seems inappropriate per WP:BLP. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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: Catrìona (talk · contribs) 16:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Please reply individually under each of my posts and mark with  Done,  Fixed,  Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or  Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. Catrìona (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


### Lede
although initially charging her, they soon dropped all charges recommend rewording to avoid the duplication of "charge"
I've changed this to "they initially charged her on two counts, but dropped proceedings after concluding that they were unlikely to secure a conviction". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)


### 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)
@Midnightblueowl: After reviewing the sources, I am convinced that this is NPOV, but since I'm new to GA reviewing, I'm going to request a 2nd opinion on neutrality and the use of RT. Catrìona (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
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)
Second opinion I am personally against Russia Today, as they're a Russian propaganda organ. I suggest replacing it or stacking it with another, more reputable reference. –Vami_IV† 23:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
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)
@Midnightblueowl: For better or worse, that's not the current consensus on Wikipedia. I have no opinion on the use of RT as a source in this instance, but I do think it's important to follow Wikipedia consensus for RS, and I'm not convinced that this usage is within consensus. Catrìona (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
But is there an explicit consensus decision out there about this? If no such consensus decision has been reached, then it would be premature to start removing RT links. If there is such a consensus decision, then I will abide by it, but I'd like to see where that consensus was reached first. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
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)
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, Catrìona (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Excellent fine, User:Catrìona - I shall put those additional sources in immediately. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
@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)
@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)