Talk:Bahar Mustafa race row

A victim of deletionism?

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

Removing the stuff about her resignation

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

RfC: Police Investigation and Bullying/abuse allegations

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

---

Ladies and gentlemen I come to you with questions three:

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

See the above talk page sections for further context. Relisted by Cunard (talk) at 01:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC) to allow for further participation on this WP:BLP-related RfC. --Brustopher (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• No to all three: The police investigation is textbook WP:BLPCRIME, a police investigation against a not particularly notable person that went absolutely nowhere. It therefore should not be included in the article. The allegations of bullying and the email to Gellar should not be included because they are outside the scope of the article and aren't related to the race row incident the article describes. --Brustopher (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes on 1+2. Probably No for Geller (as this incident was both denied (fabricating a sending address is easy) - [1] and not so widely covered). BLPCRIME is not relevant as Bahar Mustafa is WP:WELLKNOWN and was in a public position. Furthermore the charges (subsequently dropped by CPS - actually beyond a police investigation) - were made on the basis of the tweet itself - if we cover the "KillAllWhiteMen" tweet mentioning that police investigated whether such a tweet was a crime is not revealing anything further that we're not saying (and if at all - the decision to drop the charges is in favor of Mustafa). In any event she is WELLKNOWN.Icewhiz (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• I would dispute that Mustafa is WELLKNOWN. It seems a stretch to define student union officers as being public figures. Most are completely unnotable and receive no press coverage (outside of the student press). After the short burst of news coverage relating to this incident she has faded into irrelevancy, with no recent coverage. Hardly comparable to actual public figures like politicians and celebrities. Brustopher (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• We have petitions for his dismissal - e.g. www.change.org/p/expel-bahar-mustafa-from-goldsmiths-university-for-criminal-misconduct-bahar-mustafa-should-be-removed-from-study-at-goldsmiths-university as well as a signature drive to dislodge her - [2] (which only reached 165 sigs - less than the 3% threshold needed for a referendum). These officers get elected by the student body (e.g. - [3][4], their election page is here - [5]) - a student body some 8,500+ strong. So yes - they public figures. Maybe not the most notable public figures out there, but they do get covered by student press and the like. Probably more notable than some small village. Even if she weren't a public figure the bar would be "seriously consider" - but in this case she clearly satisfies both being a public figure and being well known (with copious sourcing, from all angles, on this affair - part of the rationale for BLPCRIME was the lack of coverage for people who aren't known).Icewhiz (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes on 1+2. The fact that the police investigated Mustapha's public comments—and were openly criticised for doing so by various prominent commentators, organisations, and press sources—is a key part of this whole public controversy. Removing any mention of this is highly detrimental to the article's coverage of this incident. The police investigation is already covered in Reliable Sources like the BBC, The Independent, The New Statesman, and even The Washington Times, and Wikipedia should follow their lead. I do not think BLPCRIME should determine the coverage in this article, given that Mustapha is (or at least was) a public figure at the time and was WP:WELLKNOWN; she was an elected representative, gained much media coverage, and openly courted media attention by speaking to journalists and carrying out public protests and events. Moreover, Wikipedia features plenty of articles discussing incidents where living individuals are charged with crimes and found not guilty (O. J. Simpson murder case, Shooting of Trayvon Martin, R v Peacock etc) so why remove any mention of a police investigation here? What makes this situation different? I would also like to point out that BLPCRIME explicitly states that "editors must seriously consider not including material": "consider" being the optimal word. It isn't a hard and fast rule, and we must use our judgement as to whether it is appropriate in each case. In this instance it isn't.
  

As for the second point, the article's coverage of Mustafa's resignation, the present text provides a good, if brief, overview of the fallout after the event. Again, something that will clearly be of interest to the reader and which is properly cited to Reliable Sources. The third issue, that of Gellar, is probably tangential; it received some coverage in RS and I would be inclined to include it (even if as a note) although it is far from being essential to the reader's understanding of the subject. It would be no great loss to see it removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• I get its a matter of considering, but I think on consideraiton the balance is to exclude. The O.J. Simpson and George Zimmerman cases, were massive cultural phenomena in the US taking up hours of news coverage. R v Peacock was a landmark case of significant cultural and legal consequence. Bahar Mustafa was barely notable for a short peiod, her case did not even go to trial. There are no significant legal or cultural ramifications of the same magnitude as was seen in the examples you cited. This was but a flash in a pan.--Brustopher (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes on 1+2 I got summoned from here by WP:FRS, and it seems clear that Bahar Mustafa is a public figure, she was name dropped in The New Statesman here just a few months ago. No on 3 as it goes against the principles of WP:BIO1E. Iffy★Chat -- 20:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • To quote that source, "We’ve had this conversation so many times, like when Goldsmiths University diversity officer Bahar Mustafa was charged for using the hashtag #KillAllWhiteMen on social media". That might show that the controversy is well known, but not that Mustafa is a true "public figure". Other people known for a single event also get name-dropped frequently; see Ken Bone, Ieshia Evans, or Charlie Davies-Carr. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• No to all. No trial, no conviction, subject not WP:WELLKNOWN apart from this brief flurry of news coverage. No one outside Goldsmiths had likely heard the name Bahar Mustafa before this controversy. Per WP:BLPCRIME, omit the details about individual charges, but preserve the commentary about the investigation itself, which is relevant to the purported "race row". Bullying allegations are trivial details about a barely notable person's career – insufficient WP:WEIGHT in reliable sources and in any case off-topic for this article, which is not a biography of Bahar Mustafa. Sourcing for the purported email is poor (just the free London Evening Standard and The Huffington Post). Just tabloid scandal-mongering. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC) (edited 15:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC))
• Comment The result of the RFC as to 1 and 2 seems to hinge entirely on whether Bahar Mustafa is a public figure or not. The lack of definition at WP:PUBLICFIGURE has probably prolonged this debate for longer than necessary, but assuming the definitions at public figure are applicable, to add to my !vote above, I think that she is a public official per IceWhiz and therefore a public figure, or at a minimim, a "limited purpose public figure" for the matter of the race row which this article is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iffy (talk • contribs) 12:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• Note: I've removed the details about the criminal charges for now. The general rule is to remove contentious material pending a definite consensus to include. See WP:ONUS and especially WP:ARBBLP#Principles: In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Aside from the circular argument that "there's an edit war, therefore it's contentious", what makes you think that saying that she was charged at one point is contentious? The text doesn't imply guilt as the article already stated that the charges were dropped. Iffy★Chat -- 09:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Aside from my concerns about the way in which Sangdeboeuf is acting unilaterally to forcibly remove material from the article and engaging in WP:FORUMSHOPPING, we are currently left with the illogical situation whereby sentences stating that Mustafa was charged have been removed, while sentences stating that the charges were dropped have been left. If the purpose is to hide the fact that Mustafa was ever charged at all (which is what I believe Sangdeboeuf wants), then this really does not achieve that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Contentious does not mean "wrong" or "factually disputed"; it means "likely to cause disagreement". The existence of this RfC proves that the material is contentious.

        I am not the only editor who has raised objections based on BLPCRIME (I count Brustopher and Ryk72), and consensus for inclusion does not magically appear once editors who have objected in the past are no longer participating.

        WP:BLPCRIME covers material that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed [a crime] (emphasis mine). That includes charges that never went to trial.

        Here is the text I removed, which Midnightblueowl has restored. I really don't see what part of The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content per WP:V and [S]uch material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached per WP:ARBBLP is so difficult to grasp.

        I've posted a notice about this RfC at BLP/N in order to hopefully attract some competent editors to the discussion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

        What really should do - is have someone close this RfC, which has been open for 2 months (has no new comments, and has a 4-2 headcount in favor of inclusion (of 1+2) - though the relevant policy arguments should be assessed by an admin), instead of arguing what will stand in the article until it closes. I'm not sure that the closed CPS case reflects badly on Mustafa - in fact it would seem to reflect that the police have checked and found no fault (or nothing worth prosecuting) here - it can be argued this actually detracts from the possible notion that her sayings may have been a crime. Though as a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, BLPCRIME is not relevant here.Icewhiz (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

        Ignoring that this is WP:NOTAVOTE, the actual headcounts so far are 3-2 for 1, 4-1 for 2 and 0-5 for 3 (assuming that those who didn't comment on a question in their bolded !votes take the opposite view to the ones they commented on, otherwise if we assume silence means no opinion, then 2 is 3-1 and 3 is 0-2). Iffy★Chat -- 12:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

        As I've been tagged may as well clarify that I'm not adding any further comment because I'm not really sure what there is left for me to add. I think Mustafa, as a student union officer who had 15 minutes of fame, does not count as a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, others don't. The policy page is vague on what actually counts as a public figure, so its just a case of wait and see what happens when the RfC takes its course. That said I'd oppose closing the RfC now. Cunard, an experience RfC closer, instead of closing felt it necessary to relist the RfC to obtain better consensus, so lets wait for the relist to conclude before closing. Brustopher (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• No to all. - This appears to be a singular case involving subjects that are not large public figures per the guidelines of WP:BLP, this should not even be an article. The events are small scale and not notable, the case is all allegations and office politics without even a criminal case coming from it. WP:BLP1E, WP:NPF, WP:BLPCRIME and more apply to this article and make it worthy of deletion from what I can see. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2018 (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.

Page moved

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 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)

Requested move 12 January 2018

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

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

---

Bahar Mustafa race row incident → ? – The current title is undesirable for several reasons: Bahar Mustafa is evidently not a WP:PUBLICFIGURE (evidently being not notable enough for a Wikipedia biography); her notability appears entirely tied to this one controversy; per WP:ONEEVENT, the "general rule" is to make the article about the event, not the person; the phrase race row is vague, and vaguely tabloid-like; who is "rowing" exactly? The article does not say; calling it the Bahar Mustafa race row incident is essentially implying, editorial-wise, that Bahar Mustafa is solely responsible for any "row" that may ensue. That is manifestly not WP:IMPARTIAL wording. There were also multiple incidents that attracted controversy, not just one "incident".

The controversy concerned "several events at Goldsmiths, University of London in which white students, and in another case both white and male students, were banned" (quoting from the article). Suggested article titles include Goldsmiths University race (/racism) controversy and Goldsmiths University Student Union race (/racism) controversy (see § Page moved, above). I would favor the former as being more WP:CONCISE; since there are unlikely to be many such controversies at a single university, it's unnecessary to include Student Union in the title. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose proposed move. I'm not saying that the present wording is perfect, but the proposed alternative is worse. The whole incident surrounded one individual who was a representative of Goldsmiths University's Student Union, not Goldsmiths University itself, so I certainly think that "Goldsmiths University race/racism controversy" would be inappropriate. The RS produced by media outlets tend to refer to "Bahar Mustafa" prominently in their titles, and it is appropriate to follow their lead; I also think it incorrect to say that Mustafa was not a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support Goldsmiths Students' Union racism controversy, Goldsmiths University racism controversy, Goldsmiths Students' Union race controversy, Goldsmiths University race controversy, in that order (with little to split the second and third). Agree that GUrc is more concise than GUSUrc, but feel we should reflect that the controversy was w.r.t. actions taken by officials of the students' union, not the University proper; feel GSUrc is an acceptable compromise of conciseness & accuracy. Concur that "race row" is suboptimal & impacts poorly with WP:IMPARTIAL. Concur strongly that Bahar Mustafa is not a WP:PUBLICFIGURE as meant by that policy. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose OP is confusing Wikipedia notability with PUBLICFIGURE. A local mayor may fail WP:NPOL , yet he is still a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Likewise Bahar Mustafa who was elected by a citizen body of some 8000 citizens, and covered by local coverage prior to the event may indeed fail NPOL (though she is not far off), yet she is still a PUBLICFIGURE. These inccidents involved primarily Bahar Mustafa and not the university nor the student union - to suggest otherwise in the title would be libelous on our part. Since Bahar Mustafa was the focus of this event would could per BLPNAME name it after her even if she were not a public figure (just as we do for a host of other incidents). I agree "race row" may perhaps be improved, but it is concise. The sole controvesy here was Bahar Mustafa's words and deeds - and the appropriate response to such words and deeds.Icewhiz (talk) 11:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

---

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

Noticeboard discussion, February 2018

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

Mustafa in 2018

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

GA Review

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)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed