Talk:2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon racism incident

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because this incident is of national importance, receiving national media attention and is sourced by multiple reliable sources.--The lorax (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

And the very same can be said about a dozen or so news stories every day. At any moment in time, the home page of the New York Times contains numerous stories at least as significant, none of which warrant their own article. Unless this story gets a lot more press attention than it has to date, it is worth a few sentences in University of Oklahoma. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep The article is not an "attack page", that is silly hyperbole. The article discusses important issues of race relations, and Constitutional issues of free speech. Keep, and certainly not a speedy delete. Juneau Mike (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I've removed the speedy template. Take it to WP:AFD, if you must. HiDrNick! 15:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I am STUNNED that the AFD was closed so prematurely, before more editors could think about it.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not, it was quite clearly not backed by policy and plainly going to fail. Artw (talk)|

"Racial" versus "Racist"

ZigZig20, You have been changing all instances of "racist" to "racial", and have only today begun justifying it as protecting against a lawsuit. Do you have any information you would like to share with the rest of us? By any common standard of the english language, talking about lynching black people rather than letting them into a club is considered extremely racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inicholson (talk • contribs) 17:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not obviously a racial incident, since all the people involved appear white. It was a racist incident, since it was an example of racism. I'm going to move the page back, since based on the above comment, it's clearly not an uncontroversial move. I suggest an RM discussion. Guettarda (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Also note that the sources cited use the work "racist". Guettarda (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Inicholson: If the word "racist" is a direct quote from someone, it could be used that way, e.g. 'So and so suggested the incident might have had "racist" undertones, though others disagreed.' But it is not our job as Wikipedia editors to pass judgements on what happened. That would be original research. Racial, or possibly racially insensitive, are neutral terms, and thus more encyclopedic. In this case, it is tricky because black fraternities don't accept Caucasian members either as far as I know. There is both freedom of association and freedom of speech in the United States. In any case, this is a non-story/waste of time. It was just an immature incident.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You're going down a path towards the destruction of language as a concept; especially since you are trying to replace it with the word "racial", which is less correct in this context: the incident itself does not have the a race, so the use of "racial" is less precise. I see that you are also trying to deflect the topic of discussion to the topic of black fraternities, which have nothing to do with the OK chapter of SAE being racist. I also notice that you dodged my question: do you have reason to believe that anyone will be sued for calling the SAE chapter in question racist?Inicholson (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Slander is not legal. "Racially insensitive" might work better. I would rather rename it, "2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon immature incident", but I am trying to compromise here.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not slander(or more accurately, libel) to call someone "racist" if they are singing about how they would rather lynch a black man than allow him to join their fraternity. You are not trying to compromise, you are trying to avoid the use of the term "racist". Inicholson (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems completely inappropriate. That word is not encyclopedic unless used in direct quotations. The incident was simply immature, which is to be expected among college students.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Zigzag, but I don't think chanting about lynching people really qualifies as "immature" or "to be expected." The definition of racist is also "a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another." By chanting that there "will never be a n----r in SAE" and "you can hang him from a tree, but he will never sign with me" seems to fit that definition prettyyy well. AvatarQX (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make up your own definitions for words, you're welcome to do so, but it's a little weird for you to choose an encyclopedia as the battleground for that crusade. Inicholson (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

How would you know if it was "racist" or not? There is no way to know. "Racially insensitive" or "immature" are safer bets. I believe it is inappropriate for you to let your opinion color this article (pun unintended).Zigzig20s (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Because singing about lynching black people is prima facie racist. Go look at our very own wikipedia article for racism. Inicholson (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This sounds very ideologically driven. I think Wikipedia should remain neutral/encyclopedic.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says that we should say what sources say. Which we did. WP:NOR says that we can't discard what they have to say and replace it with our own opinions. Guettarda (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Guettarda: I think what you are doing is original research. Also very strange of you to rename the page with a term that is meant to smear the fraternity, without waiting for my response. But I guess this reinforces my point that this is an attack page.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This article uses sources to document facts about an event in a neutral way, so it is not an WP:ATTACK page. "Racially insensitive" would be a euphemistic softener for racist, so using it as a substitute is unacceptable. Were the (young adult) college students immature? I don't know, do sources describe them that way? Regardless, that doesn't somehow exempt them from also being racist. Their behavior was racist, and the sources describe it as racist. Racist is a perfectly clear word to use in this situation. Grayfell (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Zigzig20s, I didn't rename the page. You renamed the page. Without discussion. Per WP:BRD, I undid your page move. In future, please read WP:RM#CM before performing a potential controversial page move. Guettarda (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Why would it be "unacceptable" to use the phrase "racially insensitive" when we don't know at all if those guys are immature or not? It seems like that phrase is more appropriate, as some people are indeed being very "sensitive" about this incident.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

As used "racism" and "racist" appear perfectly accurate and should be retained. I assume the silly POV tag that had been added to the page is about this? Artw (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Either way, please don't add "inflammatory". That's a completely biased term.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Zigzig, have you watched the video? I don't see much nuance in a chant that includes a racial slur and a reference to lynching, that sounds pretty inflammatory (i.e. intended to arouse angry or violent feelings.)--The lorax (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I will not watch a video which is said to objectify and dehumanize a group of people because of something as superficial as skin color. At the same time, I don't think Wikipedia should have this attack page either.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I think there's probably something stronger we can use than racially insensitive.--The lorax (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned below "inflammatory" is a perfectly fine description here. Artw (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, the use of the word "inflammatory" is inappropriate.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Your position is nonsensical and contradictory - the words of the song are, according to you, too shocking to quote, while at the same time can't be described in a way that makes them sound unacceptable. Basically your complaint is nonsense and an attempt at disruption. Artw (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Please try to read what I wrote. The n-word is a detail, which should not appear in the lead. That's how leads work. The word itself might be interpreted by you as inflammatory, by some other people as very stupid--the interpretation is an opinion, and thus not encyclopedic.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm just kicking around ideas here. What about "2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon closure"? HiDrNick! 13:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if the chapter wouldn't re-open in a few years, once this non-story has died down. Fraternities bring in a lot of donations through their alumni.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, though it's worth seeing how the story develops. Guettarda (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

BLP issues

Don't forget that BLP applies not only to SAE students, but also so Boren. We need to tread very carefully around accusations of wrongdoings. By all involved. Guettarda (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

He is welcome to sue the legal scholars who have analyzed his actions as unconstitutional. That is not our problem.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

How we present things here is, very much, our problem. Guettarda (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I've raised the issue at BLPN Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#University_of_Oklahoma_SAE_incident. Guettarda (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia is not censored. There is freedom of association and freedom of speech in the United States, as the legal scholars have reminded everyone. No one is calling Boren un-American.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

BLP does apply here, and yes as long as we're citing experts , their opinions (even though they're wrong) can be cited as their opinions. I see no problems with including their cited opinions, nor any issues with that and WP:BLP. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 15:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead

User:Zigzig20: it's not incorrect to describe what happened in the intro to the page. You can't even claim that it's slander, since I'm documenting what the men in the fraternity said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inicholson (talk • contribs)

whoops. Inicholson (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The use of the n-word, which is offensive to many people, seems unnecessary in the lead. I removed it for this reason.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

There have been several days worth of precident that the use of the word "nigger" in this article is not unnecessary, since it describes what the men were singing about. Do not continue to revert my edits, as that is against editing guidelines Inicholson (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The n-word in the lead seems unnecessary and offensive

The n-word in the lead seems unnecessary and offensive. I tried to remove it but it has been added again. Not only does it make the article sound unencyclopedic/not serious, it is also likely to inflict unnecessary discomfort to African-Americans who read this article. Do others agree that it should be removed, at least from the lead?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you even bother to read my reply that is literally directly above your new section? Inicholson (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I would like to hear from other editors who may offer a different perspective.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, since I added that part, I should explain my reasoning: the lead section is a summary of the article, and the entirety of this article exists because of what these men did. Inicholson (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue is well covered in Wikipedia:Offensive material. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Not specifically apparently. It seems unnecessary, especially in the lead. Anyway, I would like other editors to let us know what they think.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll quote from WP:OM: "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers[nb 1] should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." Omitting what these men did would be less informative and accurate. Inicholson (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

That is your opinion, and I believe you are incorrect, especially for the lead. You don't own the page, so I have started this topic to see what others believe. Please give them a chance to offer their perspectives. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the word is not appropriate for the lead, since the lead should summarize and the actual word is a detail. And I agree that there is a lot of POV-pushing going on here. If we have strong feelings about the subject, we need to write as if we couldn't care less about it. If we can't do that, we should be good Wikipedians and leave the article to those who can. That's what NPOV means. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Having it in the lead is appropriate in this case, because the lead is the place to summarize the body of the article. Any summary of the incident that did not clearly explain why the chant was offensive would be a poor summary. I am skeptical that a lead could be written that conveys the significance of the controversy without either using that word, or bending over backwards to avoid it in an artificial and contrived way. The word is vitally important to understanding the incident. By policy Wikipedia isn't censored, and the manual of style specifically says to avoid euphemisms. Grayfell (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Saving details for the body is not censorship, and something like "a song containing a racial slur" would convey the significance of the controversy and would be far from a euphemism. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It will take *more* detail to avoid using the word than to just use it in the first place and then not have to explain in the body. At the very least, it doesn't take any more detail to say "the word 'nigger'" than "a racial slur", and using the word is clearer. Inicholson (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Detail is not synonymous with word count, and I'm out. Good luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:Mandruss. It's a detail and should not appear in the lead. User:Inicholson, you do not own the page. It would be nice if you could stop bullying people into agreeing with you.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Zigzig20, if you feel that I am behaving incorrectly, please bring this to the attention of any governance body that you choose. If they thing that I'm in the wrong, I'll gladly cease, but don't imply that I think that I own the page, when you've spent the last few days doing nothing but reverting changes that you don't like. Inicholson (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I have to say it takes some incredible chutzpah to insists that the word "inflammatory" is too much to describe this language while at the same time insisting that quoting it is too much to bear. I would strongly disagree on both counts, FWIW. I'd also say that if you're trying to trim fat from the lede the sentence about the opinions of *some* legal scholars you keep introducing should probably go before it. Artw (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

No, the lead is supposed to summarize the entire article while not having specific details (which is for the rest of the article). That's just how leads work. The word "inflammatory" is absolutely inappropriate here as it conveys an opinion/judgement. The n-word is a detail as User:Mandruss explained. I created this section for OTHER EDITORS to give us their perspectives. Let them be heard.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Who are you to limit who can and can't contribute to this discussion? That is the first comment that Artw had made in this section. Or was "other editors" just your way of saying "editors who agree with me"? Grayfell (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

We need to hear from external editors who are neutral on this topic. This is not supposed to be an attack page, but an encyclopedic article. As a matter of style, the inclusion of the n-word in the lead seems inappropriate as it is not only a detail which should be excluded from the lead by definition, but also unappealing to our African-American readers. Let us wait and see what others think. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's the third time you have restated your original point in this section. If you want to keep restating it, don't be surprised if others do to. If you really want to hear from outside editors, why aren't you doing an RFC or something? Consensus is built by those who are willing to participate. You might disagree with some of us, but that doesn't make us non-neutral. Trying to limit participation by people just because they are already actively interested in this topic is totally unrealistic. Grayfell (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I just think you should let others offer their perspectives, since you don't own this page!Zigzig20s (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it is offensive to have that word in the lead of this article. The very word that caused this issue in the first place - so why should it be used again here? Why not just use n-word or mention a racial pejorative and hyperlink that to the wiki entry on the actual word if someone chooses to go read that. Andymease (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

User: Andymease, I couldn't agree more. User:Mandruss agrees with us as well, as they explained above. That's already three users who'd like to see the word removed from the lead.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Keep While I don't necessarily agree with all the behaviour on the talk page I agree with Inicholson that the word is appropriate for the lead. The basic facts of the article appear to be

1. The incident occurred on March 7 2015
2. The incident was Members of OU SAE singing a racially insensitive song
3. It was insensitive because; it referred to black people as niggers, referenced lynching, and implied racial segregation of the frat
4. The result of the incident was closure of the frat and expulsion of 2 students
5. There is ongoing discussion of legal action

That to me looks like a good summary of the article, and those details are all relevant, concise and lede appropriate. I don't see a reason other than WP:DONTLIKEIT to remove the word. SPACKlick (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't at all condone what happened on the bus, but I find it highly hypocritical that the word n-word (I'd use the word, not the euphemism but an edit filter is blocking it) can barely be talked about if you're not black, but some black people use it themselves and sing it in songs yet that somehow seems perfectly acceptable. No one should use racially offensive terms, including members of the group that don't like others to use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5805:A00:94B2:ED24:9A49:DDDA (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM, item 4. Your comments go to broader social issues and are not specifically related to improvement of this article. They have no basis in Wikipedia policy. If you wish to discuss or propose change to Wikipedia policy, please do it at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). ―Mandruss ☎ 13:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes it does because he's talking about the use of it in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.112.128.15 (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

POV tag

Zigzig20s, can you explain why you feel the article deserves a POV tag? If it is related to your insistence that the language of the article be softened I do not believe that is an appropriate usage. Artw (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

There are already two other editors who disagree with you on one word in the lead. See the section above. There are many other issues. Sorry, but you don't own this page. Until the tone is fixed, the POV tag should not be removed by yourself without consensus.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no discussion of POV above or in this section, as such I'll remove the tag pending an actual reason for it to exist. SPACKlick (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I looked through the article when I saw the tag was removed, I don't see a PoV issue here. ― Padenton|✉   19:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the language of this article be softened?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is to oppose the removal of the wording. The majority of opinions either follow and/or link to WP:NOTCENSORED. AlbinoFerret 20:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

---

It has been suggested that this article should be softened to avoid offense and possible POV issues. In particular it has been suggested that the word "racism" should be removed from the title and that the words "nigger" (used in the offending song) and inflammatory should not be used in the lede. Do these suggestions have merit and should they be followed? Artw (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose the song falls well within what the cultural mainstream would consider racist and it the event is described in terms of racism in all news media. I see no benefit in hiding that the word "nigger" was used and whitewashing the event in that manner may be itself offensive. Likewise I think "inflammatory" would be a fair description of the song, especially given the reaction. Artw (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose It's not unusual or unexpected to see racist words documented in an article about a racist incident. Inicholson (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Oppose I've already made my case for some of this, but for convenience, I will restate it here: I believe that both racism and the word nigger should remain in the lead of the article. The word racism has a discrete meaning, and the song itself fits that meaning, regardless of the motives of the participants. Sources support this.

The word nigger is prominently featured in the song and is a very large part of why the incident is noteworthy. The word is absolutely offensive, but Wikipedia should attempt to describe this incident in an accurate way. Removing it because it is offensive, in spite of the fact that it is both germane and factual, would be a form of censorship. Removing that word from the lead will subtly reduce the apparent impact of the article. The entire point of the article, and all sources discussing the incident, is the offensive nature of the song. Downplaying the offensiveness, even with the best intentions, is misrepresenting the incident.

As for the word "inflammatory", I don't think that is the best choice, but I don't think it's wrong, exactly. To me, that word as it has been used here implies a specific intention. Since the song was (presumably) not intended to be heard outside of the fraternity, it's not clear it was intended to inflame. It certainly has been inflammatory, but applying that word seems more confusing than informative in this case. Grayfell (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly support, but I feel like we are playing a game here. We already know your opinions. On the other hand, both User: Andymease and User:Mandruss have said they would like the n-word to be removed from the lead in the The n-word in the lead seems unnecessary and offensive section on this very talkpage. Do they need to vote here? Are you counting on them not wanting to spend the time to repeat themselves? This is just uselessly redundant.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

if you feel that it is important to notify them you are free to do so. Artw (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

They have already given their opinion. Even if they are busy now, that does not change. Three people believe the n-word should be removed from the lead. There is no consensus. This new section is a waste of time.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

You kept repeating that you wanted other editors to give their input, but now you're describing this as a waste of time. RFC is not a formal vote-gathering process, so let it run its course and let's see what people have to say. As I said, I repeated my case for convenience, and choosing not to participate in the RFC doesn't invalidate anyone's opinions. Grayfell (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to have more editors vote on this, but right now we have three for and three against it. So there is no consensus. The layout of this section gives the impression that the two other editors who are opposed to the word are invalidated, which is not the case.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support, but only in the lead. Please include the slur in the body of the article. Furthermore, improving neutrality is always good. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Guye I'd like to get your perspective: what's the reason that you don't want the slur in the lead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inicholson (talk • contribs) 01:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Well this is complicated. I was opposed to the existence of a separate article in the first place, on notability grounds based on the RS coverage to date. Then I supported substitution of "racial slur" for "nigger" in the lead, on the grounds that the lead should summarize and the actual word is a detail. This was slammed as "censorship", despite the fact that I supported the actual word in the body. Go figure. Now we have an RfC proposal worded far more generally than simply removing "nigger" from the lead, and I see no serious problems with neutrality in the current revision of the article. As for "racism" in the title, I don't think that warrants "softening". Therefore I must oppose this proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Mandruss: Do you still support removing the n-word from the lead? My understanding is that this RfC proposal is an attempt to conflate both, which is indeed confusing.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It is absolutely valid to consider the three words raised in the RfC question in combination or seperately, just state your opinion for each if you want to "split" your opinion. A bolded "vote" for each is acceptable also, though good arguments count as much as the number of supports and opposes. Artw (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding strongly implies that separate responses can be given if the proposal is worded that way, otherwise not. But my response is clear enough, I think, substitute "racial slur" for "nigger" in the lead for reasons unrelated to NPOV. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment So for the sake of this RFC, should we ignore the use of the word "nigger", and discuss that separately? I'm specifically trying to cater to User:Zigzig20s's concern that it may be confusing. Inicholson (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure users and the closer will be smart enough to figure it out - it's not like anyone who wants to go a different way in that specific issue has been shy about saying so. Artw (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I am pretty sure more than some editors will be confused by the RFC. It's not a matter of intelligence--there are several different issues at stake here.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep title as is, if the reported facts are in essence correct. I could guess that lots of alcohol and bad taste by some participants led to something they now deeply regret, and will regret for years or decades, but that's only a guess, while the reported facts more than justify to use the correct term racism for racism. OTOH "racial slur" is no alternative for "lynching niggers", if that's what they really said. And it's too late for some "is no newspaper" speedy deletion. –Be..anyone (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Be..anyone: I don't think it is our job to pass judgements. No illegal violent act occurred and as much as the song was stupid, it was sung on US soil, where it is protected by the constitution as legal scholars have reminded everyone. (I'm not condoning the song btw, I think it was stupid as I said before.) What did happen however, is that instead of teaching students how to think in a more intellectual manner (by teaching them not to essentialise the 'Other'), it has turned those immature fraternity brothers into victims. This makes the university look bad as they did not teach students how to think. Come to think of it, perhaps "2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon discrimination incident" would be a more neutral title: the song may have had some discriminatory undertones, but the fraternity brothers WERE actually discriminated against by the university for being immature and not having learned how to think in an intellectual manner yet. That is normal for undergraduates. And yet the university did the opposite, by not giving them a chance to learn how to think beyond stupid, essentialist societal norms.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Be..anyone: Btw, do you want to keep the n-word in the lead? That makes Wikipedia look bad as far as I can tell. It's also offensive to our African American readers.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It's right on the top of the The Volokh Conspiracy reference, if you can see that, otherwise please add subscription=yes or similar to references behind a paywall. Volokh helped to make it "encyclopedic", IMO it's also too late to suggest a move to wikinews. –Be..anyone (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

What is simply bizarre is that legal scholars tell us it was unconstitutional to censor their speech, and yet the Obama administration spokesman apparently sanctioned the cruel retaliations. President Obama was trained as a lawyer and he is very learned, so it is confusing behavior on his part. I don't quite understand how he was able to talk about a legal matter, which should be dealt with by the judiciary, if he represents the executive branch. Perhaps this conundrum should be fleshed out in the article. I wonder if this will end up at the Supreme Court.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you a citizen of the USA? The President of the United States can freely talk about whatever they want without breaking any laws or customs. Inicholson (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Separation of powers under the United States Constitution. Should this not be included in the article and if not, why not?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

That would be extreme overreach. This seems to be done out of a desire to advance original research/personal opinions, which is expressly forbidden in Wikipedia articles by our core principles. DreamGuy (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• I Oppose the removal of "nigger" from the lead. The lead serves as a summary of the article. Leads should be written pretending that it's the only part of the article that the reader will read - a complete summary. It's impossible to correctly understand the controversy if we couch it in euphemism. I am indifferent about changing the title of the article. I don't view the current title as a violation of WP:NPOV, but would be open to a different title if it suits other editors. I do think that substituting "racial" for "racism" as was tried briefly was a poor change. HiDrNick! 15:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose An RFC bot asked me to come make a comment. I see no valid reason to remove "nigger" from the lead or otherwise "soften" the wording as described in the RFC. The current wording is an objectiuve, factual summary of the incident. Removing the objected phrases would be censoring. The only real problems I see in the article is the part where people claim kicking the students out was illegal, as the wording of the article seems to clumsily endorse those views, while Wikipedia should not take sides. That part should be rewritten to say that it is those people's views, that they "argued" that, etc., so we make that clear. DreamGuy (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:NOTCENSOR: Wikipedia isn't censored, and shouldn't be. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 20:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose and Support respectively, for editorial reasons. I don't see any reason why the incident shouldn't be described as a racism incident, because that's what it is. I don't think the word 'racism' is highly inflammatory either, if we take out the fact that racism as a whole is controversial. On the other hand using the word 'nigger' goes into excessive detail. Furthermore the way the lead is worded now comes uncomfortably close to making the assertion that the song used the word 'nigger', therefore it is racist—an assertion that in my opinion isn't obvious, since it is probably possible to write a song that uses 'nigger' but isn't racist. I'd be more inclined to write something like "... filmed performing a song that used highly racist language, referenced lynching, and implied that black students would never be admitted to the fraternity." Banedon (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support Hello, brought here by an RFC bot. I support the removal in the LEDE but it is acceptable to leave it as it stands in the body of the article itself. Wikipedia is not censored, that much is certain, but the lede should not immediately jump to specifics of the offensive term right off the bat. In my opinion it's usage in the lede itself is unnecessarily provocative, intentional or not. Rotund but Reasonable (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Really? Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED. They did say that word, and that word should be prominently featured, as it is quite literally one of the core points of the entire controversy. The proposer of this RfC is advancing a terrible argument, that we should censor this article because it is offensive. Quoting WP:CENSOR, "being objectionable is generally not sufficient grounds for removal (or inclusion) of content." The incident IS racist, and we can't whitewash the entire thing because some people are offended. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:Chess. Additionally, there is all the difference in the world between using an offensive word and neutrally reporting that the offensive word was used. Pincrete (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I see no reason to soften any of the language if the article stays, it reads like a news story rather than a wiki article on a notable subject. SPACKlick (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Per wikipedia is not censored. The severity of the language is needed to indicate why this is a 'racism incident' (This article really needs a better name). ― Padenton|✉   19:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. According to WP:GFFENSE, Wikipedia does not include offensive material just because it is offensive. Instead, "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available". What, therefore, do we gain by using 'nigger' in the lead as opposed to 'highly racist language'? If we gain nothing, is 'highly racist language' not equally suitable, and therefore we should not use the word 'nigger' by WP:GFFENSE? Banedon (talk) 07:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Banedon: In today's world, people have unfortunately begun calling nearly anything 'highly racist language', which is an entirely subjective description. 'nigger' is what is said in the video, it's not being included in this article to be offensive but because it provides information on the subject. ― Padenton|✉   17:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

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.

WikiProjects

No reason to continue discussion simply because an editor refuses to get it
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Artw: You "restored" two WikiProject tags which have not been assessed, leading us to believe that no one from those projects believes this article falls within their scopes. Are you a member of both projects?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC) I am not a member of those projects. However given the age of the article and it's subject removing them did not seem appropriate. I also did not feel your edit was made in good faith. Artw (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Please assume good faith. Since you are not a member, I don't see why the WPs are there. If at one point those WP editors want to include this article as part of their WPs, they are welcome to add them back. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC) I removed the irrelevant WPs after discussing it here and my edit was reverted. I am sorry, but it is not your job to add WikiProject tags when you are not a member of those WPs. Ask members on their WP talkpages if they want to get involved. But otherwise don't add them to this page.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC) User:Artw and User:Inicholson: Please stop adding them back without asking WP editors first. Follow the rules.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC) User:Zigzig20s, Please see the first paragraph of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#WikiProjects_define_their_scopes and then consider that you are now making up your own rules that directly contradict the Wikipedia project's rules. Inicholson (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC) I do not believe they are "judicious".Zigzig20s (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Ok that's a fair complaint. Which one would you prefer to stay? I personally think the Discrimination one is more relevant, but I'm open to compromise. Inicholson (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC) WikiProject Universities would be relevant. Or WikiProject Immaturity, but there isn't one.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Zigzig20s that makes me think that you may not be arguing in good faith if you first complain that we're using too many wikiprojects, but then say that you don't want us to use any. Which one is it? Inicholson (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC) I've posted a comment on both of those project's talk pages asking for additional input. Grayfell (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC) As I said, the WP tags you suggested don't seem judicious. But perhaps some of those WP members will disagree. To be sure, some might argue that the SAE fraternity brothers were discriminated against by being tarred and feathered internationally and removed from the university campus for being immature college students. While that might be a valid opinion, it's not encyclopedic.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC) They were singing a song about how they would rather lynch a Black person than allow him to join the fraternity. That sounds pretty discriminatory to me. Grayfell (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC) User:Artw: Are you even for real? If you asked on the WP talkpages for input from those users, we should be waiting for their answers. Otherwise, what is the point in asking? I would like you to remove those WP tags until they get back to us please.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC) User:Grayfell: You have an opinion, but it is not encyclopedic. As I said, some might argue that the fraternity brothers were the ones undergoing discrimination and victimization.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Three editors think the tags are appropriate, one does not. So clearly they should stay. I'll add my voice in favour of WP:Discrimination, since racism is one of their central issues. And given the last section which deals with the conflict between free speech rights and anti-discrimination laws, I think it falls into the scope of the HR WikiProject. Guettarda (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Are you suggesting the fraternity brothers' human rights were violated?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC) No. Guettarda (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC) User:Guettarda: Then whose human rights were violated? Can you please link to both WP talkpages so that we can see the responses?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Please re-read my comment. I didn't say that anyone's human rights were (or weren't) violated. Guettarda (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Then let's remove the WP Human Rights tag, if you agree that it is irrelevant. Human rights relate to humans.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Agree it's irrelevant? I did nothing of the sort. You keep attributing claims to me that I didn't make. Please stop. Guettarda (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Sorry. So, can we please remove that one? It was added back several times with no explanation.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC) No, I don't agree with that. Free speech and anti-discrimination are both part of human rights as a subject. Because the article would be of potential interest to those projects, the banners should be left on the page. The banner is a tool to help interested and knowledgeable editors become aware of the article. That's enough reason to include them. Grayfell (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Can you please link to the response from editors at WP Human Rights who have expressed an interest? Otherwise, it does not seem judicious as I explained before.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC) I already warned you about disruptive editing. In particular, WP:IDHT. Four editors have tried to explain this to you. I think this is settled for the time being. Guettarda (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC) You need to assume good faith. Yesterday you said, "I've posted a comment on both of those project's talk pages asking for additional input." I have just looked up WP Human Rights and there is your question but no reply from editors there. Thus, it looks like they are not interested in this article.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Why did you close this? They are NOT interested in your tag as they did not reply and you are not a member of that WP and the tag does not look judicious.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

White House quote

Given that it's a fairly boilerplate reply in response to prompting and given without any consultation with Obama or anyone else do we still need that big quote? Artw (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It's so trivial, I don't think it really needs to be included at all, but it certainly doesn't need to be that long. Grayfell (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I edited it down. No objection to it being removed entirely if it's felt it doesn't warrant inclusion. Artw (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with the removal. HiDrNick! 22:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Cool. If there's a WP:SECONDARY source commenting on this, it could be put back, but it just seems too thin to me with nothing but a transcript. Grayfell (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Possibly we should take a look at if we need so many quotes on the rest of the page, but that was the worst offender. Artw (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. I explained why earlier regarding the constitution and the separation of powers. But I guess we could wait until there are secondary sources. This might make it to the Supreme Court.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You're badly misunderstanding what the Separation of Powers is and how it works. Inicholson (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Commentary in a secondary source would be needed for including this I think.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Off topic content

Please let us stick to the main topic--this specific incident in a specific chapter of this fraternity. This should not turn into an attack page on the entire fraternity. Please don't go off topic. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

If you check the references everyone there seems to very much see the fraternities history as relevant to the recent incident. Artw (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You could add it to the main Sigma Alpha Epsilon article if you want, although it seems libellous. It is irrelevant to this incident, especially as the national fraternity has denied the origin of the song. Assume good faith.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

An institutional culture that has supported discrimination is clearly relevant to a discriminatory incident involving that institution. Artw (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" only applies to other editors. It is however, not libelous by any reasonable standard and I suggest that you consider how your continued comments may be considered a violation of WP:NLT Inicholson (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict): I see you have restored the content without consensus, before this talkpage topic has reached a conclusion. There is no legal threat; one may simply note that using the term "racist" to describe the entire history of an organization is libellous. Besides, the national fraternity has denied everything. So you would need to rephrase it by saying "Some have suggested the fraternity might have had a history of discriminatory incidents." But the content seems off topic and gossipy anyway. You don't own this article. I would like more editors to tell us if they agree that this specific content is irrelevant to this page, or not. Wikipedia is a collaborative process. Right now the page looks like it is owned by two editors who don't think the fraternity brothers were victims. I would trust the legal experts more, who tell us the university President flouted the constitution and broke the law.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I see you making plenty of edits to the page that are unchallenged, the ones that do get challenged are generally disruptive and hard to support (characterizing the university response as "retaliation", for instance.) I think you're going to accept that your views being outside of the mainstream does not represent every other editor WP:OWNing the page. Artw (talk)

Regarding the importance of institutional culture, see also:

• Racist fraternity chant may not be limited to University of Oklahoma
• SAE's Racist Chant Was Not An Isolated Incident

Artw (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I stand with the legal experts. Should Wikipedia be ruled by the hysterical mob? I think not. It must remain encyclopedic, not gossipy.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? What legal experts? What are you claims they are saying, and how is it relevant? You appear to be spouting nonsense. Artw (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

At least three tenured professors, some of whom are so prominent they even have a Wikipedia page. Read the article. Please don't accuse me of "spouting nonsense." Assume good faith. Accusing the entire fraternity of "racism" (sic), which they deny, is still irrelevant to this article about a specific incident in a specific fraternity chapter. Unless this is an attack page meant to smear the entire fraternity? Surely, as I assume good faith about you, that is not your goal. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

And these three tenured professors are telling you to remove sourced content on dubious grounds? Artw (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

If this article reflects negatively on the fraternity, that is because it reflects reliable sources, which are largely negative. Coverage of the fraternity's own action by news sources such as the Christian Science Monitor, The New York Times, the L.A. Times, and many others do not make this a "smear" page. The sources directly link this incident with others in the past. The comment about "legal experts" seems like a non sequitur. Which article? Is this about the legal challenges? What does that have to do with past racist behavior? It's not clear what you're talking about. Grayfell (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's both dubious and off topic, but mostly off topic. This page is not about the national fraternity. It might be fine if it were merged with the main SAE page (it would still seem dubious, but at least it would no longer be off topic). Re: legal experts: my views about the victimization of the fraternity brothers are not outside the mainstream--or at least, they are shared by scholars, far from the madding crowd. Anyway, hopefully other editors will share their views. I've made my point.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• It would be very weird if the article didnt reflect negatively on the fraternity, that is in the nature of the event and the coverage. And it would be very weird if the article didnt mention other incidents with the national fraternity organization that have been described as similar in the sources. If legal scholars publish their opinions in reliable sources they can be quoted, but their opinions do not decide how the content is covered here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Maunus: We can agree to disagree--like the legal experts, I think this is a constitutional problem, not a race problem. Why do you think the other incidents should not appear on the main page instead of on this specific article about this specific incident in a specific chapter at a specific time? It seems off topic here, but relevant there (though dubious of course).Zigzig20s (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I have not expressed an opinion about whether anything should appear at the main page (I am assuming you mean of the fraternity). What this page should include is what reliable sources include in the discussion of the incident. The main page should include the what is included in the literature on the fraternity. There may very well have to be overlap in content between the two articles- that would be natural between a main article and a spinnout article. And by the way it is entirely possible for something to be a constitutional problem and a race problem at the same time. And presumably if a univerisity cannot deny its students the right to engage hate speech and discrimination on campus then a state cannot deny its university the right to teach curricula that promote "racial resentiment" either. So yes it will be interesting how the legal matters play out. But really they are at this point entirely irrelevant for how the topic should be covered.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) User:Maunus: Don't you think merging both pages would make more sense?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Why? It seems to me there is more than sufficient coverage of the incident on its own, as well as of the fraternity on its own.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Maunus: It overlaps a lot, including in this instance about the other alleged incidents. Doubtful this page would ever reach GA status unless it becomes a Supreme Court case. I guess the merge could be proposed and we'd see where it leads, but not if it's closed speedily as another editor threatened earlier.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Not being GA potential is not a valid argument in a merge discussion. There doesnt seem to be much support for the idea of a merger, so probably it would be a waste of time to propose.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

We would have to see what the others believe.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The "not a race problem" is where you'll find you are outside of the mainstream. Any constitutionality legal experts may have commented on is irrelevant to this particular content. FWIW I am not aware of any editors challenging any edits of yours as relates to legal issues, so it seems weird to base your WP:OWN claims on that. Artw (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Is calling me "outside of the mainstream" an attempt at a personal attack?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The apologist view you are pushing where nothing racist happened is pretty WP:FRINGE and so not likely to gain much ground here. Sorry. I don't consider that a personal attack, it's just how it is. Artw (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Dude, "apologist" sounds like a second personal attack to me. Please stop. Assume good faith. It's not "fringe" as legal experts tend to agree. I am color-blind; I don't think we need to focus on race when the main issue is the constitutional/freedom of speech and association violations here. Being color-blind seems more neutral and encyclopedic. Either way, please stop personalizing this and calling me names. It's inappropriate.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You may have Daltonism but you are very clearly not colorblind, judging from your editing history. And this is not the first time I see you advocating for white people accused of racism in wikipedia. Last time we crossed paths you were arguing that Earnest Sevier Cox should not be called a white supremacist. It is not a personal attack to point out a pattern in your editorial behavior and judgment that is readily observable for anyone in your edit history. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Before the content in the article showed that he was, sure. I don't jump to conclusions. Once it became clear, I thought that was fine. Because I am color-blind (assume good faith), I don't think it is right to attack people on something as trivial and superficial as their skin color, whatever they may look like. But it seems a bit inappropriate to bring this up now tbh. Is this a cabal? I think we should focus on improving the article and not ganging up on me. Wikipedia should remain a bully-free zone. Let's stick to the article.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The AGF policy does not require us to assume empirically counterfactual positions. There is no such thing as a color blind person in the US racial debates. Merely claiming that you are positions you in the debate. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I am color-blind. You might not be--that is up to you. The Cox example is not very good btw because a black organization, the Peace Movement of Ethiopia, agreed with him about repatriation. But it has nothing to do with this fraternity chapter and it sounds like you just brought this up out of nowhere to try and smear me. Please stop the personal attacks. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I have not made any personal attacks against you. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's stop talking about your perception of who I might be. It's not interesting at all. This talkpage has nothing to do with me. It's about the constitution and the public humiliation of immature college students.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it is about institutionalized racism in the US.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I respect your opinion and neither of us has the ultimate truth.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Summary, their damage control worked, and mere speculations why it worked so fast on a weekend aren't a good reason for a {{merge to|ΣΑΕ}} ten days after the fact. Please correct me if I didn't get it. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) User:Be..anyone: I don't think it's "damage control." It's the US constitution!Zigzig20s (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

ZigZig has already tried a PROD, an AFD and a rename as an attempt to minimize descriptions of racist behavior by SEA, I doubt any merge proposal on his part would gain any more traction. Artw (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You don't get to decide. We could vote. Freedom.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:WIKINOTVOTE. It would just be speedy closed and waste everyone's time. Grayfell (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

All the merges I've seen, the editors would all vote. It sounds like you want to dismiss anybody who might potentially disagree with you. There's no way to know until the merge is actually proposed. I don't think the three of you should close it before more editors have a chance to vote. You guys don't get to decide--it should be a much broader group of editors.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be confused about how wikipedia works. Talk page consensus decides. Also when it is against you.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Some meta stuff, there is already a not yet closed RfC on this page. In theory a brave editor could close this RfC stating that two "support" had the better arguments, and various "oppose" and a confusing "keep" were wrong. RfCs where the nominator immediately opposes their own suggestion can be interesting.

IOW, as others said, it's not a vote, and about a dozen posted pro + con opinions might be not representative for thousands of active editors. Adding some other "non-vote" while the outcome of the first "non-vote" is at least in theory still unclear would be a bad idea known as "cascading". You'd have to suggest alternatives if the RfC is accepted, alternatives if it's rejected, and maybe alternatives if it's partially adopted (no n-word, n-word later, n-word as is, etc., whoever closes this RfC will have a bad day, no matter what they decide.)

It's okay that you try to rescue something, in the direction of "immature", but I doubt that Volokh is your best witness. Actually I think his priorities are his publicity, his blog, his income, his colleagues on the blog, his Wikipedia page, the Post, the page for his blog, the constitution, and the immature students in precisely this order, give or take some items before the constitution. –Be..anyone (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Do lawyers say this is not about race?

From Reynolds: First, some members of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity were videotaped singing a racist song on a bus, and a video went public.[1]

From Volokh: First, racist speech is constitutionally protected [2]

Timothy McVeigh’s lawyer does not comment on the song but thinks we shouldn't rush to judgement on the frat, so there's that at least, but I don't think the notion that legal experts say this has nothing to do with race stands. Artw (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Lol. Racist speech is constitutionally protected, but you cant teach Chicano studies in Arizona because it incites resentiment.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Maunus: Chicano Studies are irrelevant to this discussion. User:Artw: Now, Glenn Reynolds's op ed in USA Today (the third most read newspaper in the US, not "fringe" or "outside the mainstream") tells us this incident is about Boren's "illegal" actions and how badly this reflects on the university, nothing else. As I noted below, you conveniently removed those critical new pieces of information from the article. Hopefully others will revert your censorship. I can't do it all--I am not Joan of Arc.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Glen Reynolds does not say that the incident is not about race. Neither do any other legal scholars that you claim do so. Artw (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

He says it's about Boren's "illegal" actions and how they reflect badly on the university; how the trustees should pressure Boren, etc. Read it.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing against you there, but nothing about that contradicts the incident being about racism. Artw (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

That's your opinion. As I said before, we can agree to disagree. Legal experts have argued this is about the constitution and freedom of speech.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

On wikipdia "disagreeing to disagree" simply means conceding the point to the consensus view and anyone whose view is clearly in the majority is expected to do so.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

No, the article should include both perspectives as both are cited. The constitutional perspective should not be censored/redacted from this article. Otherwise it becomes one-sided, activist and an attack page, which is unacceptable.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

First edit here. See WP:BALANCE. If it can be verified, it should be included in some form, but the question is how much WP:WEIGHT should each side be given?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

New edits removed new relevant information, added irrelevant information about another chapter...

Three new edits were recently made by User:Artw. 1) I fundamentally disagree with this edit, which removed relevant information and was done without consensus. The fact that Boren's action was "illegal" is not excessive information; it is new, germane information. The same goes for the fact that Boren's actions reflect badly on the university. 2) I also disagree with this edit, which added some information about another chapter and is thus off topic here. 3) I also believe this edit is not particularly helpful, as it is a direct quote. Please let us know what you think and if you would like to revert those edits. If you don't, please tell us why not. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Shrug. I'd stand by those edits per WP:QUOTEFARM. If we're already quoting someone saying something broke the law an extended quote saying they thought it was illegal isn't adding anything. And yes, if they sung the song elsewhere it is relevant. Artw (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Illegal and reflects badly on the university. Not redundant. New information. Basically Boren destroyed the reputation of the university by violating the constitution, according to the USA Today article. It's not trivial and should be included in the article.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

That's not really a legal opinion - maybe it should be mentioned in the Media Reactions section? Artw (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Accusing Boren of crimes when no court has ruled is a clear violation of WP:BLPCRIME. We can't do it in the article space, we can't do it on a talk page. Guettarda (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Boren is not a "relatively unknown person" by any standard; WP:BLPCRIME does not apply. There's no need to censor discussion about this. HiDrNick! 19:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a BLP issue in using the op-ed, excessively relying on it may be WP:UNDUE though - reducing the quote helps mitigate that without losing the sense of what it is saying. Artw (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

BLP requires us to rely on high-quality sources. Op-Eds are generally not fact-checked; this USA Today op-ed is just a report of Reynolds' opinion. Reynolds makes far more inflammatory claims than Volokh, and is less notable as an expert on the subject. So it's a poor source for a BLP. It's an especially poor source for an accusation of criminal acts against a BLP. BLPCRIME does not allow us to accuse people of crimes who have not been convicted. If we used Reynolds to say "here's what was wrong" we might be OK (but again, it's an op-ed). But we're using Reynolds to accuse Boren of a crime. And that's not acceptable, per BLP. Guettarda (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I've tweaked the wording removing the direct reference to Boren. Artw (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't solve the problem - it's still clear who's actions are being discussed. Think of it this way - imagine we were accusing a living person of a more serious crime. Do you really think that it would be acceptable of use an opinion piece - not a fact piece, but an opinion piece - to say "person X committed crime Y"? Do you really think we're safe if just quote someone? Maybe safe from libel law, but BLP is far more specific. Boren has not been charged with any crime, much less convicted of one. We can't use Reynolds' op-ed as a backdoor to imply otherwise. Please self-revert. Guettarda (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Your understanding of WP:BLP in this case is incorrect. Boren is a career politician and was acting in this official capacity as the President of a public university. There are editorial arguments to be made for cutting down some of the quotes, but to imply that they are forbidden by policy is a canard. HiDrNick! 19:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

User:HiDrNick: Thanks for your edits. There is still censorship, however. Reynolds, who is a tenured Professor of Law at a state (taxpayer-funded) university like OU, and a columnist for the third most read newspaper in the US, suggests Boren destroyed the reputation of the university he was employed to represent. Reynolds also calls on the Board of Regents and the Trustees to take action. I don't believe those two critical kernels of information should be redacted from this article. They would only add two lines to the article. If you believe they should be censored, please explain why. Thank you again.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I used the word "censor" above when another editor redacted part of your comment on dubious grounds. But please don't describe article editing as censorship. An important part of writing anything (and I mean anything: encyclopedia article, personal letter, PowerPoint presentation) is knowing what to cut out. Editors who disagree with you about what should and should not be included in the article are probably not trying to censor you. HiDrNick! 01:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Foul compromise, I've transformed the reference to {{cite web}} style, and added the excessive quote as quote=. Check out WP:UNDUE why the removal of excessive quotes is perfectly okay. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Good call. Artw (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@HiDrNick: - please read WP:BLP.

Boren is a career politician and was acting in this official capacity as the President of a public university.

This is relevant to libel, but not to BLP. Guettarda (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's the thing: WP:WELLKNOWN says that we can document the accusations. We documented what Volokh had to say. Reynolds goes further. We have RSs documenting Volokh's claims. Reynolds, on the other hand, published his accusations in an op-ed. So it would appear to fail the requirement that there be "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out". Guettarda (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I assume this is in reference to this edit, removing material with an edit summary implying that the material is alleging that the someone is being accused of a crime (per BLPCRIME). However, I think we're getting our concepts confused here; this is not a situation where someone is being accused of a State or Federal crime (i.e., something for which one could be indicted, prosecuted, convicted, and/or sentenced). Rather, the writer/professor (Reynolds) is accusing the OU President (Boren) of "breaking the law", meaning that he believes that in his capacity as University President of a state institution, Boren is not abiding by the U.S. constitution as a state actor. Accusing someone of "committing a crime" is defamation per se, while accusing someone of "breaking the law" is not. Similarly, the former runs afoul of BLPCRIME, while the latter does not. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

This is how I would recommend phrasing the material in question (see below), in order to make the concepts clear and also make it apparent that it was from an opinion piece in a newspaper. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

In an opinion column published in USA Today, Glenn Reynolds, a Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee, commented that state universities are constrained by the Constitution and legally prohibited from taking action against individuals for speech, even if it is repugnant. Reynolds expressed his opinion that as a former U.S. senator, OU President David Boren should have known that the university was breaking the law in expelling the two students.

References

I wonder if this would work better if the USA Today column moved into the Media Reactions section. Though that would put it ahead of Legal Issues in our present structure, which seems wrong.

On the other hand, do we really need it at all if funding a way to include it is this much hassle? This seems like pretty well travelled ground without describing the contents of another op-ed. Artw (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

After realizing it was somewhat redundant, I paired it back to just the key point here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Restructure seems very solid, FWIW. Artw (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

More deletion of referenced information

I added: "Writing for See Thru Edu, the website of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, scholar Neal McCluskey of the Cato Institute suggested the incident was "another reason to privatize college".(ref) Indeed, he explained that public universities like the University of Oklahoma are protected by the free speech clause of the US constitution, while private universities could enforce their own speech codes.(ref) He concluded that it would be preferable for private employers to censor unpalatable speech.(ref)" User:Grayfell kept the first sentence but not the rest, alleging "quote-farming" and suggesting the article is non-notable, even though both the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the Cato Institute have Wikipedia pages. Besides, the other sentences, which were short, explained his point. I believe that should be reverted so that readers can understand what McCluskey meant. What do you think? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The added content was not phrased impartially. It implied that McClusky is correct, which it is not Wikipedia's place to say. There have been many, many, blogs, op-eds, and briefs about this case, and it looks like there will be many more. Not every single piece is going to warrant a lengthy quote. Using the word "scholar" in front of Neal McCluskey's name doesn't change that, and seems like an appeal to authority. Institutes and schools can be notable. The opinion of everyone involved in a notable org isn't somehow automatically worthy of inclusion at length. Grayfell (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

He has a PhD. But let's replace "scholar" with "Associate Director of Cato's Educational Reform Institute" and keep the rest. And you are projecting and not assuming good faith. I don't necessarily agree with McCluskey. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it should be censored. The content is neutral and should be restored.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

"Censored"? You're free to say whatever you want, but the article is in Wikipedia's voice, not your own. This is not about censorship. We mention that someone in the Cato Institute disagreed with the University's actions, which is zero surprise to anyone even passingly familiar with the Cato Institute. Why do we need to expand on this any more? This was just a springboard to talk about a different issue. We mention the issue, and that is more than enough. Grayfell (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It would only add two more lines and it is germane to the issue, contrary to veering off topic about other chapters. This article will never reach GA status if everything is trimmed like mad. This is an article, not a list. Let us wait and see if the others believe McCluskey's point deserves two more sentences to explain what he meant.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Good edit. Probably would have done the same myself if I had gotten to it first. Artw (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Why? Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it should be censored. What is wrong with adding two more lines to explain what McCluskey meant? There's no point in trimming like mad when it leads to confusion for the reader, especially for a short article like this one.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

For the reasons already given - prior to the edit it was bloated and unencyclopedic, now it's something more fitting for the page. You should thank GrayFell instead of whining. Artw (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. Do two more lines make a page "bloated"? Is it "unencyclopedic" if a scholar writes an article? Both reasons seem frivolous. Accusing me of "whining" seems like yet another personal attack. Don't call me a whiner. I am trying to improve the article, by making sure the readers will understand McCluskey's explanation without having to read his entire article, since this is not a list. Let us wait and see what the other editors will think about this, since you two don't own the page.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

"Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone" Artw (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but you guys don't own the page either and this is why I posted my concern on this talkpage. Not to go round in circles with you. But to see what OTHERS believe.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Zigzig20s, you keep talking about these mythical other editors who have opinions, but it's been like two weeks now and they haven't shown up. It's just been the handful of us bickering back and forth. Inicholson (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I have only been trying to make constructive improvements to this page, and have been harassed, insulted, threatened, vilified, etc, for it. As I said, I am not Joan of Arc. I hope more editors will join in and help make this page sound more balanced and encyclopedic, instead a platform for biased activism where the fraternity brothers are stripped of their constitutional rights, dehumanized and humiliated once more. I am very dismayed by the personal attacks and I wish this were a more constructive collaborative process.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh FFS. You are not being "censored" by "activist editors". Please self revert this ridiculous piece of WP:CANVASing. Artw (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Why would I not be allowed to bring more attention to this article? I do believe the deletion of referenced information for frivolous reasons is, well, censorship, yes. Besides, you seem to have an agenda--you all want to focus on race, not the constitution despite the references from legal experts (which you trimmed like mad)--that seems very activist to me. I am not trying to sway anybody. Please let me know specifically why you would like to censor my speech at WP Conservatism as well. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Zigzig20s, isn't this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mason.Jones#2015_University_of_Oklahoma_Sigma_Alpha_Epsilon_racism_incident an instance of WP:CANVAS? Inicholson (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Very creepy of you to watch my contributions. I censored my comment on his talkpage, to follow your orders/instructions. I do feel like I am being bullied, so it is a natural reaction to reach out to other editors. Can you please stop harassing me and start de-personalizing this to focus on the content of the article please? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

To what "orders/instructions" are you referring? Inicholson (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

He left a little note claiming he'd been censored, them redacted it... [3] Artw (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

You asked me to censor it. I did as I was told. Isn't that what you wanted? As I said, I don't want to be bullied/harassed.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Wait, it's creepy for another user to watch your contributions, but it's okay for you to do it? Seriously? Even setting that aside, yes, that message is absolutely canvasing. You posted a non-neutral call to arms to an ideologically-oriented talk-page specifically requesting editors to side with your side of a disagreement. Grayfell (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me like Zigzig20s's message on WikiProject:Conservatism is also an instances of WP:Votestacking as well. Inicholson (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It sounds neutral to me, but I am happy to oblige. Can you please let me know how you would like me to censor/edit it? I am feeling lost right now. (There is no vote btw.) Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

If you think that we're bullying you, why don't you involve some administrators? Inicholson (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Because I would like to spend more time creating and improving pages, not wasting my time by arguing online with complete strangers. I did as you ordered and censored my comment on the WP Conservatism talkpage as well. I have been intimidated. Please leave me alone.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I started an ANI thread here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Artw (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's all have a nice cup of tea and sit down. I think that WP:ANI is premature here.

Artw, I know that Zigzig20s may be frustrating to work with sometimes, but I'm sure that you can agree that this article would be more interesting if some of the free speech issues that he is interested in are well-represented in the article (in a manner adhering to WP:NPOV, of course. We need editors like Zigzig20s.

Zigzig20s, I know for a fact that you're frustrated and feeling censored, but I assure you that is not anyone's intention. I am confident that most reasonable editors agree that the issues that you keep bringing up do belong in the article, but maybe not in the way that you're pushing to include them.

Artw, my advice to you: assume good faith on the part of Zigzig20s and be patient with him.

Zigzig20s, my advice to you: you are coming across as combative and argumentative because of the frequency and tone of your edits around this topic. It's obvious that you feel passionately about this, but that comes across as zealotry. Try to focus on one major issue at a time, and try not to see other editors as enemies. And as always, feel free to come to me with any questions, and I'll do my best to help.

Let's all work together to improve this article. Everyone's on the same team. HiDrNick! 01:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Over on the ANI page ZigZig20 has agreed to leave the article alone - assuming they stick to that promise I will ask for no further action against them. If they come back guns blazing then I will be requesting a ban. Artw (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to read that. I may ask about it again on Saturday, after everyone has a chance to cool off. HiDrNick! 02:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Just an observation. As it stands after editing, we are left with: Writing for See Thru Edu, the website of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, scholar Neal McCluskey of the Cato Institute suggested the incident was "another reason to privatize college".. It seems to me that this either needs some additional elaboration, or else to be removed completely - because it doesn't add any information as is. In particular, it fails to explain why McCluskey thinks privatizing college would help matters. 70.24.4.51 (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Looking at it again the peice is pretty slight, I went ahead and removed it. Artw (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Fraternity and University reaction

The LA Times article sourced here also makes claims (via a statement from Tyrone Speller) of vandalism against the property of fraternity members (it doesn't appear to say which fraternity(ies)). The LA Times and NY Daily News articles both describe a specific act of vandalism against the SAE frat house. Speller appears to condemn this acts. Is it WP:DUE to mention any of this? 70.24.4.51 (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Dunno, without links I'm not going to check what you have in mind. The house on this page is now empty, two persons lost their jobs, and the Greek letters were removed. OTOH it might be relevant to reference the former SAE-member stating that those were not his brothers, if that's not already referenced. The "there will be never" text is in direct conflict with reality. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)