Talk:Kriss Donald

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article, Kriss Donald, is currently the subject of formal mediation from the Mediation Committee. The mediator assigned is KillerChihuahua. Please read relevant talk page discussions below before making substantial changes, and respect Wikipedia's talk page guidelines. Links: Case page • Case talk page • Mediator's talk page • Mediation information • Mediation guide This message should only be placed on talk pages.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kriss Donald article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Talk:Kriss Donald/archive1

Contents 1 Verifiability and weasel words 2 Bad reverts 3 Blog link 4 unverified material 5 issue of racism etc 6 Post-trial revisions 7 Added material 7.1 Comments about new material 7.2 Response to comments about new material 7.3 Responses to responses... 8 Major edits of far left material 9 My two pence 10 Apologies for absence 11 The dispute and its stakes 12 Controversies section 13 3RD PARTY question 14 The site is valid and should be allowed 15 A third opinion 16 Edits to contested section, attempt to address criticisms 17 Another third opinion 18 The causes of the dispute; fresh call for third opinions 19 Allegations of racial motivation 20 RFC response 21 Mediation?

[edit] Verifiability and weasel words

I have added the weasel tag for the following reasons:

1. "Some commentators have contrasted the relatively small attention given to Donald's murder by the British media with the extensive and long-lasting attention given to the murder of the black teenager Stephen Lawrence"

2. "Other groups like the National Front say that the media and the British Government did not see this to be as important as the murder of.. Stephen Lawrence"

Also we need a reference for the claim that the BBC dropped the story from its national news coverage. The article needs a lot of other work done on it before it can be considered NPOV but these are the most blatant problems with the article. Rugxulo 13:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• That the BBC dropped the story from its original news coverage is undoubtedly accurate. That they were criticised for dropping the story is also accurate (both from my recollection and a quick google search). The *reason* for why they dropped it is speculation, and unless someone can actually *prove* that they dropped it *because* it was discovered that the murder was racially motivated, then we can't say that is why they dropped it. Average Earthman 22:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Unsubtantiated claims: The trial is now finished, and I can see no reference in any court reports so far to the claim that the victim suffered castration, or had his eyes gouged. Googling brings up sources which are inappropriate for Wikipedia, and even they use expressions like "the word on the grapevine". --Newshound 13:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just Googled around for quite a while myself, and while there are many news reports about Kriss Donald and while pretty much all of them mentioned that he was stabbed and set on fire, I have been unable to find a single one that mentions that he was castrated or had his eyes gouged out. These claims are only made elsewhere: in comments, blogs, newsgroups and the like, especially on right-wing sites, but none have actually provided a citation for these claims. Since the cited Glasgow Evening Times article is not available anymore, either (access can only be purchased for a fee), I'm removing those claims as unverifiable. -- Schneelocke 13:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad reverts

Arrgghh! If I have to reference this article one more time I shall scream. Everytime I get refs in there, someone (different) reverts the article to some substantially earlier version and everything gets lost again. Please, do not revert past several versions. If you want something from an earlier article, cut and paste it in. Guardian sickness, yours was the most recent revert where this happened. JackyR | Talk 03:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

JackyR, I believe the article did at one time achieve some balance and reflected the effort people had put into the discussion. I know for a fact that people from white nationalist websites and people of a socialist persuasion had both edited the article until it was butchered. I therefore put an old version of the article up out of frustration. Ideally I would be able to find the exact wording of the article at the point before these people came and edited, but even if I did others would still be annoyed with me for using that version because they have made other non political and useful edits since. Guardian Sickness 02:14, 27 Aug 2006 (UTC)

First of all, JackyR. It is very dishonest of you to go back and edit your above post weeks after I have replied to it in order to accuse me of vandalising an article I worked hard to achieve balance in. YES I DID revert to an older version of the article. As I stated, people have edited the article again and again without discussing it. I discussed the article at length and it was a balanced article until socialists, white nationalists and others came here to vandalise the page. I could not find the article that the discussion agreed on, but was certainly not going to use a version that had been heavily edited by people who had not discussed it.

If you want to edit the article then discuss your edits and we can agree before you edit the article. I have no agenda, or aversion to such edits as long as they are agreed. If people edit without discussing then I will go back to an older version.

This is a very long discussion, and I'm coming to it late. I'm reading it sequentially, so I haven't read beyond the next paragraph. But this comment is pretty revealing. You can't OWN this article, and you can't automatically revert edits that haven't been previously discussed. There is no mandate that an edit must be discussed before it's made, and a revert requires a reason. Dragging one's feet to avoid edits is entirely inappropriate to the wikipedia standard of collaborative edits. Sure, discussion is ideal, but the editors don't need to await approval before making edits, and there's no owner of the page. Reverts are generally a bad thing unless explicit vandalism is the case.zadignose 14:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If other people have also edited the article without discussing it I have no sympathy with them either. My suspicion is that you, JackyR, finally took the time to read some of the above disucssion (which you could not previously be bothered to do) and then decided you didn't like my contribution to the discussion so edited your post while leaving the date as 24th August 2006. You are a joke! Guardian Sickness 14:04, 03 Oct 2006 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? JackyR | Talk 15:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What is distrubing about this article (rather than the discussion page) is that more attention seems to have been given to the perceived bias in reporting rather than on the actual murder itself. For what it's worth, I agree that it's curious and, to my mind, imbalanced, that the BBC has reported this case only from its Scotland link on the website (albeit, it has been extensively reported there). However, I believe it does the victim an injustice to have more than half the article taken up with comments on what the BNP/BBC/"left wing"/"right wing"/"commentators" say. Also, I find portions of the first paragraph extremely POV:

"His murderers, who were British Asians of Pakistani Muslim origin, were found to have been racially motivated and had chosen Donald at random while seeking revenge for an alleged racist attack against one of the murderers in a nightclub the previous evening. After the murder, some of Donald's attackers fled the United Kingdom and sought refuge in Pakistan. Three suspects were arrested in Pakistan in July 2005 and extradited to the UK in October 2005."

Only one person has been convicted of murder; the others deny it and should be treated as innocent until a verdict to the contrary is returned. If convicted, then the term "murderer" is warranted in relation to all of the accused, but NOT before. The second last sentence above (about fleeing to Pakistan) is also POV. The fact that some of the accused were extradited from Pakistan is already covered later in the article. I would suggest changing the above to:

"The accused, who were British Asians of Pakistani Muslim origin, were alleged to have been racially motivated and to have chosen Donald at random while seeking revenge for an alleged racist attack against one of the accused in a nightclub the previous evening. Three suspects were arrested in Pakistan in July 2005 and extradited to the UK in October 2005."

The rest of the article on the facts of the case (as opposed to the commentary on the issue of bias) looks ok. I also agree that using words like "some commentators" and "there have also been accusations". It's relatively easy to footnote those statements so that at least people can see what commentators are giving this opinion. Siofra 11:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

While the first comments from Siofra are largely moot now the verdicts have been returned, I agree that the balance seems skewed, and now the trial is concluded the article could do with a rewrite to focus on:

1) the actual events first, in chronological order (discovery of body and its' condition, investigation, initial trials of first 2 suspects, extradition and later arrests of later 3 suspects, final trials and verdicts)

2) Controversies arising from the case in a later section (alleged bias in media coverage of race crime with white victims, counter claims of right-wing hijacking of the case, etc.) - Newsbeat 15:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. There are multiple references in an earlier version of the page, which I've been intending to draw on. I confess I've been put off by the bizarre and spurious attack by Guardian Sickness above: I know I shouldn't let that stop me, but if even those trying to do their best by this article end up casting aspersions, how are the more difficult issues to be dealt with?

The only potentially practical thing I can offer is that I too have been looking through the media for anything to confirm or rebut the assertion about eyes and genitals being mutilated (which has been added more than once). I've so far found nothing to support this claim, and on the other hand a BBC article reporting the injuries as described at the recent trial[1]. Good luck with sorting this article out. I'd like to contribute too, but Guardian Sickness either explain your accusations or check the discussion history and withdraw them. And please stop labelling everyone who disagrees with you: it doesn't help. JackyR | Talk 16:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Something else I found interesting in terms of the bias conversation was that, on a cursory search of material on the Anthony Walker case, the trial news (day by day) is also linked off the England link of the BBC site, not the UK link. This matches with the location of the extensive coverage of this case (linked under Scotland). Also, the convictions and a general article on racially motivated crime is currently (Nov 8th) the lead story on the overall UK site. Siofra 00:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blog link

I think it's objectively verifiable that the overwhelming interest in this case, as well as what has now become the dominant account ("racist anti-white murder"), have originated from the far right - a quick google search on Kriss Donald and anti-racism draws allhits on far right sites. I don't think it's useful to speak of racism in cases such as this - it isn't the expression of the prejudices of a dominant "race" against subordinates, it's a violence of inversion. Especially clear in this case since it was precipitated by a previous racist attack by whites. In fact it's very unclear to me why it's being assumed Kriss was targeted "simply for being white", though this is clearly the media majority opinion - the perpetrators were looking to retaliate against those who committed the earlier attack against them, so a more likely explanation is that they mistakenly believed him to be one of the perpetrators of that attack.

I'd suggest the BBC coverage was muted, not because of any ulterior political motive, but because the case became uninteresting once the motive was established and perpetrators identified. Coverage has resumed in the trials, with the "anti-white racist" trope repeated several times.

The "Progressive Contrarian" blog is more-or-less openly racist - one poster openly advocates white people being privileged in Britain, and on the other hand there are no anti-racist posters - and so flagging it as a "discussion of anti-racism" is misleading.

This unsigned drivel shouldn't go unchallenged. The high degree of criminality of the murderers has been demonstrated in court and their is no way that the brutal murder of a child can be construed as retaliation for anything. The boy was targetted by criminals, because he was white and Scottish and these criminals wished to stab and burn to death a child from the ethnic group they despised. Sentencing has been carried out and hopefully a quarter century in Barlinnie Jail will prove fruitful. Let us hope that apologists for the criminals learn to hold their tongue and develop some degree of morality.--Jamesfmun 21:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't comment on the Progressive Contrarian blog link as it was removed by the time I got back here (and to be honest I'd be suspicious of any blog being used as a source reference for something like this, rather than a verifiable news organisation or official police/public authority source), but I would caution on the seeming "weasel words" or some of the above comments.

Firstly, "I don't think it's useful to speak of racism in cases such as this": well I'm sorry, but the BBC and the sentencing judge clearly disagree. The BBC's (current) headline is "Three get life for racist murder" and in the sentencing speech, the judge is quoted as saying "You have all been convicted of the racially-aggravated abduction and murder of Kriss Donald..." That's the verdict, whether it suits your personal interpretation or not.

As for the crime being somehow explained or justified as being in retaliation for a previous attack by whites - that is not proven, although it was alleged as part of the defence. This smacks of an attempt to downplay the seriousness of the offence or to deny the possibility of a racial motive, without substantive evidence to back it up.

I much prefer in issues like this of potential volatility and emotion to stick to the facts, which in this case thus far are: A white youth is horrifically murdered, a group of Asian men are tried and convicted of his murder, the jury and court finding that the crime was racially-aggravated. If we keep to these facts in the bulk of the article, and reserve any coverage of interpretations by left vs right, political or race-based interest groups, etc, to a secondary position, then we will be able to keep this article NPOV and encyclopaedic.

And one last thing - please sign your comments with a - and 4 ~s to give name (or IP address) and date/time... Thanks. - Newsbeat 21:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A judge saying something doesn't make it true. It's just the judge's POV. And most of the press reports backing this view just parrot the judge's remarks while mistakenly paraphrasing "racially aggravated" as "racist".

Also, racial aggravation is not the same as racism. Suppose someone beats up a guy he thinks is having an affair with his wife. In the course of doing so, he uses a racist epithet. He would probably be convicted of "racially aggravated assault". It doesn't mean the motive for the crime is racist in the way that is being claimed about this case; the distinction should be made clear. -82.31.4.165 00:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

So a person who engages in "racially aggravated" acts, particularly those that lead to murder or serious injury, using terms like "white bastard" or "black bastard" is not racist in his motivations? I doubt many of the "anti-racist" groups would agree with you there. Although I understand the point you are making that a crime aggravated by racism is not necessarily the same as one initiated by it. I wonder if the police and Home Office actually record "racially aggravated" as a separate category of offence to "racist" crime? If not, that would tend to suggest the entire area of racist crime reporting is completely inaccurate and questionable. Interesting theory - have you pointed this out on all the other "hate crime" referenced pages too since it has wider implications?

In fact it would appear according to the legislation that proof of a "racially aggravated" element in an offence can cover either "racial motivation (wholly or partly)" or "hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial group" (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/98037--e.htm#28). Based on that, the assumption that a verdict of "racial aggravation" doesn't mean the killing was "racist" is just as presumptuous and smacks of playing semantic games or applying one's one personal interpretation to events...

In your example, the crucial point is whether the offender has bothered to seek out the "correct" victim (ie: the one who actually did have an affair with his wife), or merely picked on one of the same racial background or profile on the likelihood that he is the guilty man, or out of a desire to get back at one of his "type". Since there is no evidence that Donald was actually one of those involved in the gang who (allegedly) attacked the other youths, nor that they went to any lengths to try and establish he was, their choice of him could have been based on their own such "profiling". The use of the phrase "white bastard" in relation to the attack was understandably taken as evidence therefore that there was a racial element, just as it is in cases where a non-black perpetrator in a similar offence uses the term "black bastard".

Oh and one final point - re: the blog reference to "Anarcho-Akbar" - what makes this blog any more relevant to the subject than any other that might be floating around on the web from advocates or apologists for one viewpoint or another, such that it should be referenced in an encyclopaedic article? - Newsbeat 23:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unverified material

Just out of curiosity - why are there such vivid descriptions of this murder, without any verified source? It should, according to my opinion, be removed, in order to show some respect to his family.

[edit] issue of racism etc

I think the blog was rightly removed as it did not add much to the discussion.

The definitions of racism contained in the Wikipedia entry on this confirm that the term is inappropriate in this case. I refer especially here to he section on the term "reverse racism".

That the (racist) criminal justice system uses this label does not prove that it was accurate, nor does the BBC and other mainstream media parroting a label they received directly from this system. I feel the issue needs raising here, of different definitions of racism and the stakes involved - i.e. that while the case may involve ethnic prejudice which would qualify it as racist on a liberal definition, it does not involve the systematic racial discrimination and privilege implied in more sociological approaches, and that characteristics such as a consistent hatred of members of a particular ethnicity have not been demonstrated to be present - in other words, that the typification of the killing as "racist" is POV and implies a very specific conception of what "racism" involves.

The POV and personally offensive remarks of "Jamesfmun" are really below what I should deign to reply to, but I repeat - the claim that the motive was simply racist and did not involve (for instance) mistaken identification is being widely asserted without any specific backing (nor is it required for a court to reach a verdict of "racial aggravation", even assuming the verdict is accurate). The allegation of retaliation for an earlier incident has been stated in a number of news reports, and is extremely important in confirming the incident as an invertive phenomenon of the kind discussed by Fanon rather than as racism properly speaking. Adding that the perpetrators "exhibited criminality" means nothing - criminality is a label not an attribute, a "crime" is an act which another judges to be against their normative code and not a characteristic of individuals - it simply shows that the author adheres to a misguided theory of the origins and motivations of actions labelled as crimes which echoes that of discredited authors such as Lomroso rather than the current state of criminological research. Interesting, too, that he chooses to read an impartial interest in truth as "immorality" and "apologia"; he obviously thinks that truth is his own property as holder of a particular point of view.

Hunting down a member of another ethnic group based on skin colour alone is not consitent with how street gangs usually act in cases of retaliation; on the other hand, killing an innocent person who is wrongly identified as belonging to a rival gang is not uncommon. For this reason the dominant explanation is not plausible. What comes out of the trial shouldn't really be trusted because a lot of the case depends on an accused suspect who turned prosecution witness - and who has motives for confirming an already dominant discourse to mitigate his own sentence.

It would also be beneficial to find and note an anti-racist response to the dominant discourse, though I'm not aware of one at this time.

-86.29.24.27 17:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)antiracist

Aha - a philosophy undergraduate speaks!

Please sign your posts! I can't easily tell where one person's begins and ends, or whether someone has augmented their contribution. Ta, JackyR | Talk 13:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post-trial revisions

Sterling work, particularly by Newsbeat. Well done everyone on the vast improvements in the article.

One tiny cavil: the iWitness article actually says the opposite of the WP article: the allegations of "political correctness" are being made by Mike Liddell; Maan is strongly refuting this and saying that fear and intimidation are the problem instead.

In view of this, the reference to Maan's claims on TV also seems unlikely - although again such an allegation is made in iWitness by Liddell. Is it worth expanding this to give Liddell's assertions and Maan's refutations, or is this puffing out the controversy section too much? JackyR | Talk 00:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks for highlighting that error with the iWitness article - apologies for the mistake, I obviously didn't read that article as thoroughly as I should, as I saw "Bashir Maan" then skimmed down and saw "He said..." in the next para, but that was from the police chief named in the middle of the para above! A nasty error on my part. Thanks to whoever set that straight in the text. - Newsbeat 22:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Bashir Maan did indicate that there was a problem with fear and intimidation, but he also indicated that Stratchlyde Police were unwilling to tackle the problem of crime among Pakistani gangs on the south side of Glasgow. This is not an issue of political correctness as such - I don't think it's suggested the police were uncomfortable with the idea of tackling Asia crime per se. They were afraid of the negative public response which might involve allegations of racism, rather than thinking pursuit of such criminals might in itself be racist. --Jamesfmun 12:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I get what you're saying. However this still appears to be the opposite view of what he says in the iWitness article ("I don’t think the police are scared to apprehend Asians who are causing trouble.") And I can't find a BBC website article or audio clip of the Maan TV interview (doesn't mean it's not there...).

If the important point is that the claim was made that police were afraid of accusations of racism, should we just cite Liddell? JackyR | Talk 16:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a link to the Frontline Scotland video file (realplayer) on the following page: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6133028.stm Maan states that "the police, shall we say, had become reluctant to come and tackle these problems in these areas where there was a concentration of ethnic minorities." This was used as a quote in support of the presenter's assertion that members of the ethnic minority communities considered that the police were afraid of accusations of racism as described above. Maan's statement is about 22 minutes into the programme.--Jamesfmun 20:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see as this question of alleged police reluctance to pursue Asian gangs has any place in an encyclopedic article dealing with one particular killing. The insertion of such material amounts to the concealed promotion of a POV account of the causes of the killing (more specifically, a far-right/white-chauvinist POV account in which alleged "political correctness" by police is taken to encourage rampant crime by minorities). If comment must be included on such allegations of inaction, they should be balanced firstly by recognition that such fear of condemnation for racism may serve to impede actual police racism (witness for instance the big decrease in deaths in police custody after the McPherson report), and secondly by references to continuing accusations of police racism (against non-whites).

-82.31.14.218 21:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The alleged reluctance to pursue (and I'm not convinced the allegation is justified) relates specifically to the place in Glasgow where this one particular killing occurred, the period during which it occurred and the group of individuals responsible for the killing. So, the allegations should stay. It isn't a generalised suggested that police are scared to tackle Asian crime. Your suggestions for balancing material are not specifically relevant, even if generally correct. Again, the allegations are contextually specific to the time and place of the crime, not the general picture of polic/ethnic minority relations in the UK. This is not a race issue article, even if some would wish it so. The insertion of the material by myself does not amount to concealed promotion of a far-right, white chauvinist POV. The allegations are not my point of view: the fact that they were made is a reality, even if they are false. Thus, they have been reported here.--Jamesfmun 09:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me patently obvious that the allegations are a political attempt by the police to use this incident to get out of pressures to avoid racial profiling and to avoid antagonising minority communities. There's an obvious vested interest here - the police don't want to be constrained by issues of tolerance, and want to disguise their own institutional racism. In other words, the comments have a bias. To report the comments without a counterpoint is to reproduce this bias.

-82.31.4.165 00:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, Unsigned, stemming from the primary fact that the police have not made the allegations. They have denied them. --Jamesfmun 07:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added material

I've done quite a bit of editing to improve this article. Since there's a controversy over whether the murder is racist, I've added a long section detailing different narratives. Since there is considerable disagreement I felt it necessary to present different perspectives, referenced to their respective holders.

I included references to a number of far-right sites for the reason that it's important from a neutral viewpoint to be aware of the overwhelming interest from this section, the relationship between this narrative and the others expressed, and the ways in which the narrative relates to the broader ideological agenda it is used to promote. I feel the absence of a specific discussion of the far-right leads to the conflation of far-right concerns into the mainstream narrative which furthermore was previously presented as fact, despite being contested even in the mainstream media itself; the overall effect of these two phenomena being to promote a far-right viewpoint by making it seem fact rather than opinion.

I also included one blog entry but it is as a reference for opinions not facts; it is used to represent particular viewpoints.

I have also added some material on the unusual extradition situation, and made alterations to the controversies section. The BNP/police claims regarding political correctness now have a counterpoint, as do the arguments about mainstream media censorship. In both cases, NPOV seems to me to require that the origin and bias of the viewpoint expressed be recognised, and that opposing viewpoints be presented.

-82.31.4.165 03:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the following statement added to the text: "That one of the perpetrators said he was looking for revenge on a “white bastard” prior to the case is sufficient to amount to racial aggravation in British law;" No such thing as British law pertains in Scotland. Scots law is the system in Scotland and the terminology should be altered. I haven't done so, as I'm unaware of the legal details here. --Jamesfmun 07:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The legal system is different but a lot of the laws are the same - I assume the "racial aggravation" charge derives from the Race Relations Act which is a British national law and is implemented in Scotland.

-82.31.5.200 15:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments about new material

Wow! Well I can see why other editors have got frustrated on this article. This new material is... interestingly... written.

I see some specific flaws:

1) This essay spends a lot of time and energy discussing ways in which the attack on Donald might not have been racist, moving through different definitions of racism, looking at the gang aspect and so on. But it also makes the entirely uncritical statement: "the people convicted were themselves victims of a racial attack earlier in the day." Sez who?

And as you answer that, even to yourself, submit your answer to the same scrutiny you give to the attack on Donald. The POV revealed here pervades the whole of the new material.

2) Strong and detailed claims are made about the modalities of gang behaviour. Can we have some sources for this, or is this simply "Everyone knows that..."?

I ask because I don't have specific knowledge of gang behaviour (just general knowledge), and your comments on such seem contradictory: above you made the very strong statement,

"Hunting down a member of another ethnic group based on skin colour alone is not consistent with how street gangs usually act in cases of retaliation; on the other hand, killing an innocent person who is wrongly identified as belonging to a rival gang is not uncommon. For this reason the dominant explanation is not plausible."

This is contradicted by your own comment in the article about collective punishment. You also mention killing of bystanders possibly associated with gangs. I can't make out whether you are referring to gangs killing a bystander entirely accidentally/carelessly, or deliberate targetting of someone whom the gang suspect may only be a bystander. Either way, I'm not prepared to spend ages trying to tease this out unless we have some reasonable sources for gang behaviour (cos if you just made it up from what you think, I could as easily do the same: and we'd both have wasted our time).

3) This essay makes several unsubstantiated statements or conclusions eg:

"this narrative seems to have spread from far-right to official sources" and

"Although one of the killers referred to the rival gang as ‘white bastards’, this was simply a supplement to the main motive of gangland revenge."

Again, sez who? Either may be true, but we can't know for sure (and no stronger evidence than "similarity" is even advanced for the first); the Wiki-way is to simply put the positions, with cites, and leave it to the reader to decide. (Modulo not giving "undue" weight to minority opinions - another Pandora's box, but let's leave that alone for now.)

4) The Macpherson Report definition of a racist incident is an incident "which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person"[2]. Since this is about crime and policing in the UK (tho not explicitly Scotland), we should reference this.

Clearly this article is not the place for a detailed discussion of different definitions (that belongs at Racism), but there is the problem that, if "racism" is defined narrowly, eg as "a system of oppression" (Racism), then we need another word to mean, "individual action in which the race of the actor/interactor is a factor." It's not enough to walk away saying, "X isn't racism because it isn't about a system".

I raise this because I have concerns about your writing above, where you say a) that the case might be "racist on a liberal definition"; and, immediately afterwards, b) that to describe it as racist "implies a very specific conception of what "racism" involves". These can't both be true, but they do give the unfortunate impression that you have a fixed aim, and will approach the question from any angle to try to get the "right" answer.

5) Much of this material doesn't really belong here but at the article on Racism, or perhaps one on "The Impact of the Macpherson Report on Policing in Britain" (eg "Rather, prejudicial acts are often viewed as inversions of dominant social practices, as is revealed in the work of Franz Fanon."). These can then be referenced in the Donald article where relevant, rather than it being stuffed with generalised exposition. If, as with Stephen Lawrence, the legacy from the case becomes much larger, stimulating academic discussions or a review like the Macpherson Report, then of course there would be more of this material - which would probably get its own article, anyway. But currently this seems like an original essay, not a mere synthesis of well-developed studies.

On the plus side, this new material does introduce a great deal of cited information, for which congratulations. (There's currently some technical problem with the refs not linking correctly to their numbered superscripts, but I'll look into that.) It also does a good job of separating the mainstream coverage from the far-right coverage, so well spotted and well done.

So in summary, my general concern is that, although containing good material, this addition currently reads as an essay, with very clear indicators of the writer's POV. I feel it should be re-written, and will undertake this. However, I have no desire whatsoever to get into a revert war, and would prefer some thoughts from others first. Cheers, JackyR | Talk 20:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to comments about new material

Brief responses:

1) The claim that anti-white killings in general, and this killing in particular, can be racist is controversial. The claim that anti-Asian attacks by whites are racist is less controversial - though in this case it's probably worth noting that the previous attack may also have been gang-related.

2) The claims regarding gang modalities (in talk, not the article) are based on my understanding of sociological research on the topic, though I don't have exact sources handy (Matza's "drift" thesis contains references to this topic, i.e. the exact circumstances in which members of youth gangs consider illegality to be justified or in fact engage in it); the reference to collective punishment could be taken to mean punishment of those suspected of involvement with the gang, but in any case is summarising a POV which is not necessarily my own (as are a number of my insertions). Killing of bystanders happened in the Nottingham gang feuds, in a way very similar to the Donald killing (i.e. someone seen standing around with someone a gang member thought was a member of a rival gang would be killed).

3) The quoted sentence starting "Although..." is a paraphrase of material from Neil Davenport's piece. It is not stated as fact but as Davenport's view; this should be clear from the reference after the entire section dealing with Davenport.

The other sentence referred to here is indeed my own; the inference is made because the core element similar in both narratives (the depiction of the crime as a random racially-motivated anti-white killing) appeared in far-right coverage from day one in far-right coverage: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=122130&highlight=kriss+donald (early posts dated the day of Kriss's death) whereas as already reported, the BBC covered it as gang-related for several days. The "racial" narrative later became dominant in the mainstream. This seems at least to show a de facto expansion of elements of this narrative from far-right to mainstream sources, though it doesn't demonstrate actual influence.

My intention isn't to give undue weight to far-right views, which I personally despise; I feel they need substantial coverage for two reasons - firstly because they represent a disproportionate amount of coverage of the case (in terms of word volume, links available etc), secondly because interpreting the role of these views may be crucial to understanding the stakes in the related controversies.

4) I don't see a contradiction in the two claims. The case is racist on a very particular definition, i.e. the liberal one (meaning liberalism as a political theory/perspective, in which racism is viewed as individual prejudice rather than as systemic; see racism article for details). The racism article gives a lot of space to differing perspectives and it would thus be contradictory to treat one of these as contentious here.

You're right, if "racism" is taken to mean systematic discrimination then a different term is needed for some kinds of individual prejudice; this is a problem for the systematic perspective (one it sometimes addresses through conceptual innovation such as the idea of "inversion"), but there are also problems with/criticisms of the liberal definition (e.g. it treats a reaction to systematic oppression as equivalent to an action constructing such a system, and is unable to deal with "agentless" discrimination). In other words - it's a problem with a POV which demonstrably exists - not specifically with my alterations to the article. You've said yourself that we shouldn't be trying to legislate between perspectives; my point is that, given the way the dominant narrative constructs the case as racist, it is important also to include opposing narratives or else one is promoting bias. (If you object that the opposing narratives are insufficiently widespread, this contradicts the importance they are given in the racism article and elsewhere on the site).

5) I looked for relevant articles to cross-reference, for instance "UK police racism", "anti-white racism", "inversion" (in the technical sense in postcolonial studies), "reverse racism" (which redirects to "racism"), and hit blanks. I felt that the material about systematic vs individual racism was necessary to make sense of the explanation of differing perspectives. I've certainly been concerned to make sure the anti-racist perspective gets a fair hearing, but I don't see how what I've said advocates as opposed to simply presenting it.

The material here is "original" in that it hasn't been synthesised in this way before, but I don't see how it's original research in the sense of NOR; it doesn't involve primary empirical research but simply collates existing materials.

On another note (due to later POV edit) - CARF is not a SWP front. ANL and UAF are the SWP-linked anti-racist groups. I'm not sure the group could be called "far left" either as it only takes positions on anti-racism issues and not on politics and economics more broadly; to my knowledge it is true, however, that its founder Sivanandan is some kind of Marxist.

-82.31.12.255 01:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Responses to responses...

Hmm. I've pondered how much to say in response. I think not much, as this is supposed to be a discussion page about this article, not a general appraisal of post-colonial studies.

So I'll pick up only a practical issue. Your use of very narrow definitions of racism in response to (1) and (4) is itself highly controversial, as you well know. They are not supported by my dictionaries, for example (these are descriptive, not prescriptive, of usage), nor by the Macpherson Report. I'm not sure precisely what you mean by "liberalism as a political theory/perspective" (and neither is Wikipedia: Liberalism), but it is clear that a broader definition of "racism" is used by people with a very, very wide range of political views and indeed in a wide range of countries.

You do, however, refer to "technical" definitions within post-colonial studies. I'm quite sure that schools of thought within this field have their own technical definitions - each subtly different, of course. But just as mathematicians do not campaign for Trafalgar Square to be renamed because it is not a square (geometry), and saying that one finds this conversation depressing does not mean one suffers from clinical depression, so one cannot pick up a technical, localised definition of a word and expect every English speaker in the world to assign it this meaning. Wikipedia does not sit within a given school, or indeed within academia.

I don't know how important this will be for the article, but if it comes up I don't want you to think I'm ignoring what you have said: just that I vehemently disagree with parts of it and feel I have strong grounds on which to do so. I keep wanting to expand this Talk with even stronger arguments, but don't think they advance the article so will hit Save before I write-and-delete them for the third time...

And with all that, I've not had time to work on the article! Cheers, JackyR | Talk 22:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. This article really has been altered beyond all recognition since I last passed through here, from one where we were gradually beginning to reach a clearer, more factual statement of events - with the controversies and the politicised arguments confined at least to a lesser position - to one of totally politicised, loaded and contradictory pseudo-intellectual commentary. Can we at LEAST return this article to a simple statement of facts regarding a crime, and not turn the whole thing into a poor version of a postgraduate thesis on socio-political theory?

If we listed all the phrases, assumptions and weasel words used in the article now which render it ridiculously POV and "politically correct" (to use the buzzphrase) it would probably fill a whole article in itself. But let's start with:

"High-level state officials went to extraordinary lengths to capture the three men who had fled to Pakistan, suggesting a strong determination by the British state to convict."

What makes these lengths in this case "extraordinary" over and above those of others relating to murder (or other serious criminal) cases where suspects travel abroad immediately after the murder to nations where there are difficult or non-existent treaty relationships, and therefore diplomatic negotiations are required? Why is it notable that there was a "strong determination by the British state to convict" in this case, and how is this demonstrably different from any other such cases as mentioned above? The wording strongly implies a bias by "state officials" against the suspects, when 1) no evidence of this exists, and 2) at least one footnote specifically contradicts this, stating that such "state officials" as the then Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary actually blocked the extradition request.

Additionally, much of the (long-winded and over-wordy) text in the "Explanations for the killing" section is not factual, but is viewpoint or subjective material and enters into the realms of political and personal belief - or even bias - and semantics and should therefore be under the "Controversies" section (if it must be used at all) since it is speculative and, as the original heading implies, open to debate and controversy.

The meat of this article is now seriously in need of de-politicising (ironically, given most articles of this type are hijacked by the NF/BNP-style political angle this seems to have swung over to the other extreme in my view), and the contributors should remember that first and foremost this is a record of a criminal act and the subsequent verdicts and outcomes, NOT a lengthy study on socio-political, interracial or left- vs right-wing minutiae. - Newsbeat 22:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major edits of far left material

I have been right through the article and have given reasoning for the changes I have made. I have listed all the edits I have made by section with relevant references to Wikipedia policy. I find it hard to believe the article was untouched, and left with this politically motivated edit for over two weeks. Apart from my edits, the input that is needed is whether the article need contain references to the BNP or the responses to the BNP by those on the left in Scotland at all. While the section on “controversies” may be justified by way of the aborted police operation and media coverage in this case, I’m not sure the BNP, or the trade unions and their concerns need be mentioned.

Kriss Donald Summary.

I have changed the reference to Pakistani men, as those convicted were in fact British born Asians.

Kidnapping and murder

“According to the BBC, the gang who kidnapped him took him on a 200-mile journey”

I have removed “According to the BBC,” since these were the findings of the court and are facts.

Added info on the ward of Mohammed Sarwar, “Glasgow Central,” which is more accurate.

“The five men convicted of the abduction and murder, all of whom were British Asians of Pakistani origin, were convicted of racially aggravated offences, though there is disagreement over the motive and causes of the attack.” I have removed “…though there is disagreement over the motive and causes of the attack.” This is a view of a tiny minority, and is incidental to the facts of the case.

Removed “himself a well known member of the Pakistani community in Glasgow.” This is a political point and the article is not about Sarwar. His background is obvious from the rest of the article giving his job and place of birth.

“High-level state officials went to extraordinary lengths to capture the three men who had fled to Pakistan, suggesting a strong determination by the British state to convict.” There is no information to say the government or police were any more vigorous in their pursuit of Donald’s killers than they would have been for any other child killers. The British state does not have a policy of pursuing some child murderers and not others, so the above reference to “…suggesting a strong determination” is nonsense. An individual effort by Sarwar or the Lord Advocate does not indicate more determination by the state in this case than any other.

“…who allegedly were only discovered because Sarwar comes from the same village and thus learnt of their location.” I have removed the above as there is no supporting citation, even on the basis of it “allegedly” being the case.

“The issue of the killing quickly became politicised because of the alleged racial element” The racial element is not “alleged”. The crime was and is known to be racially motivated.

Arrests and trial

“These other men, Imran Shahid (aka Baldy), Zeeshan Shahid (aka Crazy), and Mohammed Faisal Mustaq (aka Beck)” I have removed their gang names. I do not see what relevance these have to the case. It is obvious they were part of a gang, and they were all convicted and sentenced under their real names. This reads like something from a tabloid newspaper.

Explanations of the killing

This section was not relevant to this article. Theories on what constitutes racism or racially motivated murder to those on the “Marxist far left” are not a matter for the Kriss Donald case. Just as views on what constitutes racially motivated murder to those on the far right are not matters for the Stephen Lawrence or Anthony Walker cases. The facts of this case are that his killers were found guilty of racially aggrevated murder.

The speculation of journalists or those on the far left is neither here nor there and is not based on fact. The findings of the jury were clear and constitute the facts of the case. Also, Angela Donald has never denied that the murder of her son was racially motivated. This was a false claim, which I removed from this page a few months back. No such statement from Angela Donald was contained in the far left article cited, and even if such a quote exists it in no way implies that she would deny the racial motivation for her son’s murder.

The “Explanations of the killing” section of the article was a very poor attempt at a diversion from the facts and nature of this case, which, incidentally, would have been in breach of Wikipedia’s “Undue weight” policy. The reason being that the contributor offered 3 paragraphs on the far left position on race crime with 3 quotes to give oxygen to their arguments. However, when the contributor comes to the far right arguments he offered one paragraph, and no quotes. At best he offered a subjective summary of the far right position.

Secondly, the “Undue weight” policy also states, “Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.” It goes on to state, “We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.” There are too many reasons for this section to be deleted, and those are in addition to the fact that these far left ramblings have nothing to do with the Kriss Donald case.

Controversies surrounding the case

“From the earliest days of the case, racist pro-white groups have intervened, interpreting the killing as an instance of problems close to their own concerns, particularly their widespread accusation of mainstream bias against working-class white people and in favour of ethnic minorities.” I have removed this reference as it is a subjective interpretation of the far right and their motives.

“There have been accusations from groups such as the British National Party (BNP) and the National Front that the media” I have removed the ref to the National Front as they are a tiny minority group, and should not warrant being mentioned. Whether the BNP need be mentioned in the article at all is a matter for discussion. The controversies about the police operation and media coverage were raised by BBC viewers and at least one newspaper editor on Newsnight.

“this has led to allegations of bias from far-right organisations” I have replaced this as BBC viewers also criticised the coverage. It is impossible to identify the politics of those BBC Viewers who criticised the BBC.

“Contrary to such accusations, the trial itself was widely covered throughout the mainstream media, including by the BBC, which has a number of related articles on its website”

The above is simply not true. The part about the “mainstream media “is unqualified and a personal point of view. The case received scant TV coverage in 2004, and zero reports on national news bulletins from the BBC once it was discovered the case was racially motivated . I refer you to the Newswatch interview with Fran Unsworth for confirmation of that fact. That is an impartial source, where the above opinion offers no evidence and is not a statement of fact. The trial was not widely covered. As a measure of that, BBC newswatch confirmed that the Walker case (the coverage of which could better be described as “widespread”) was mentioned 36 times compared to the Donald case being mentioned 3 times - those 3 times being before it was known the murder was racially motivated.

“There were also apparently reporting restrictions interfering with coverage, linked to the problematic process of extradition from Pakistan; this may have further affected media coverage.” I have removed this as the Guardian link contained no such information and the “may have” is apparently personal conjecture. I dispute this logic in any case; the conviction in 2004 was covered in Scotland so the reporting restriction theory on the lack of coverage nationwide does not hold true.

“Similarly, liberals suggest that the area has often received police attention of a kind which has resulted in ‘harassment rather than protection’.”

I have removed the above reference as it is a tiny minority view and comes from the far left “Campaign against racism and fascism”.

“The idea that the media fails to cover anti-white racism is supported by blogger Anarcho-Akbar, but with a different explanation – that while these crimes are dealt with uncontroversially, the problems in convicting white racists lead to “newsworthy” controversy. He also stresses the importance of distinguishing between racism as individual prejudice and systematic racism. ^[1]”

I have removed the link to the personal opinion of the above “Anarcho Muslim” blogger whose opinions are moot in any case - there was no difficulty in convicting the murderers of Anthony Walker and the disparity in coverage was clear. I again refer you to the interview on BBC Newswatch. This removal is in line with Wikipedia policy on “Links normally to be avoided,” which includes “Links to blogs, except those written by a recognised authority.”

“Liberals have predictably opposed such attempts to weaken pressures on the police. A BBC report suggests that the real reason for inaction was lack of evidence, as locals were more prepared to make complaints than to give evidence in court." I have changed the “real reason” as this is a personal opinion that this one reason has more weight than the others. In fact, the opinion given in the BBC article is just one of many reasons from one of many sources. Also, I’m not clear on the “weaken pressures” choice of words.

“Attempts to exploit the situation politically have not been limited to the right; advocates of crackdowns have also used it to attack the early release of prisoners.” I have removed the above as it is a side issue and is a politically partisan statement. Interestingly, the person who inserted this did not accuse far left groups or even mainstream politicians of exploiting the case for the purposes of multiculturalism or far left definitions of racism.

External Links

“http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2081/”

The above article is a far left article, and was also linked to in the “Explanations of the killing” section of this article, which was less to do with the facts of the Donald case than arguing about politically extreme definitions of race crime in general. The article is written by a Politics and Sociology lecturer who questions race crime against whites on the basis that, “Like so much that is labelled ‘racial’ today, this presentation is based on a subjective interpretation of racism as much as objective facts.” His political article on race crime is clearly irrelevant – in the same way the “explanations of the killings” section was.

Again, I'd appreciate some effort by people to comment on whether the BNP and the reaction to them by Scotland's left wing politicians need be mentioned at all. This article was very good a couple of weeks back when the convictions were headline news. Like I said above, there were controversies surrounding the case, but people editing this article with far left material to vent their frustration at the Donald case being headline news is not acceptable. I am disappointed that people allow this to happen without identifying the extreme nature of the edits and going back to a previous version. --Guardian sickness 15:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've put a reference to the above article, simply to point out that some commentators doubt that the murder was racially motived, without endorsing the position. Mentioning this as one sentence does not give undue weight to the view: the statements that the murder was racially motivated (rightly) occupy much more space and are presented in a manner that gives them much more authority. The idea that an article on the issue ought to be dismissed entirely because one contributor believes it to be politically biased (seemingly based on it being written by a Sociology lecturer) is absurd, as long as the WP article doesn't endorse its claims. Let's present the information and claims given by various (notible) commentators and let the readers use them to draw their own conclusions. The idea that Spiked is a far left-wing publication is way off the mark: a quick scan of their material show that they sit on the libertarian right and have, many, many time, defended the BNP's right to free speech, written extremely critical articles on anti-racist campaigns and organisation, opposed 'positive discrimination' programmes and resisted what they see as attempts to characterise white working-class Britons as racist.

Of course the BNP's position and activities to it from politicans and unions etc., (barely) left-wing or not, ought to be included: this provoked substatial public controversy and media coverage. It certainly belongs much more that the lengthy section on police responses to gang-activity in general and the opinions of Bashir Mann, which are only tenuously related to the issue at hand.

I've also removed the 'liberals predictibly': it was unsourced and weasel-worded, and the 'predictibly' marks 'liberal' as a perjorative and and suggest that the claims lack authority, and makeing the statement nNPOV. For that matter 'real reason' did not make it nNPOV: it claimed that BBC suggested it was the real reason, not that it was.

I've reworded the bit on the BBC withdrawing the story from it's main bulletin (which I'm not disputing), as 'dropped' suggested that it was removed as part of a deliberate or considered policy, and have included the interviewee's 'defence' that lack of coverage was a result of discrimination against Scotland, rather than whites. That the BBC's coverage of the recent verdicts was much improved deserves a mention, though I've not done this. Finally, I've removed an unreferenced claim dealing with the (unknowable) private motivations of the BNP.FrFintonStack 03:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You have edited the description “…because the story was dropped from their main national news bulletin three days after the murder, and confined to regional Scottish bulletins,” and changed it to, “…because the story received little attention on main news bullletins, and was largely confined to regional Scottish bulletins.” This edit should at least include the information that the BBC ceased to report on this murder three days after the murder, which is accurate and stated by the interviewer in the BBC Newswatch interview.

If you insist on picking parts of the Fran Unsworth interview for this article then I believe a more balanced representation of her defense of the BBC should be included in the article. I have therefore included more of her comments.

Whether or not you doubt the nature of the “other commentators” politics as far left, the view given in the far left article is a tiny minority view. Wikipedia policy states “We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.” I am not here to engage in a debate on where the far left often happen to agree with Islamic extremists, National Socialists or the BNP on certain issues, but Wikipedia policy should be the guideline and your inclusion of the far left article is a diversion from the facts of the Kriss Donald murder. If you want to represent this academic’s opinions in an article on racism then that is one option for you. As I stated, his opinions have as much place in this article as the opinions of those on the far right have in the Stephen Lawrence article; some on the far right still say his murder was gang related, but they are a tiny minority - whatever their politics.

Lastly, the part about liberals was not my edit, but I welcome its removal. The BBC article states only that this reason was “the problem” for Bashir Maan and the Police. The article does not address other problems or compare them so the reference to the “real reason” is a subjective opinion.

--Guardian sickness 15:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that the publication referenced is "far left", though that is ultimately beyond the scope of this discussion and indeed, irrelevant. The claim has been made in a widely read publication and its existance thus deserves to be mentioned. The implication that because a view belongs to a member of the "far-left" negates not only its merits but the need to report it is preposterous when one considers, say, the contribution of Noam Chomsky (anarcho-syndicalist) to the field of linguistics or William Morris (Marxist) to architecture and town planning. At any rate, the view is not a "tiny minority view" (which, in my book would be one involving conspiracy theories or referenced in unaccountable publications) but a "minority view". As such, it deserves to be mentioned. As the article stood, it did not in any way violate the Wikipedia policy on minority views you reference above as it did not represent it as having equal weight or authority. In contrast to the view that the murder was racially motivated, which is given many lines and is presented as established fact, the article merely mentioned that some commentators doubt that the murder was racially motivated. The article did not represent the author opinions: it merely stated that they, and opinions like them, exist. That is a matter of established fact, and in my view it is worth briefly mentioning. Please do not removed referenced articles of established fact; please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Information_suppression ("Explaining why evidence supports one view, but under-representing (even deleting) opposing views in order to make an opinion appear more accepted/rejected than it really is.") The article is not comparable to far right views on the Lawerence murder as Spiked is not an organisation with an anti-racist or anti-white political agenda (as I have mentioned, and a scan of its website will reveal, its articles often oppose anti-racism campaigns and multiculturalism), because it is not alligned to a political party or movement and because it is a registered publication with a substantial readership and notible contributors.

Secondly, nowhere in the stream does the interviewer or interviewee state that the murder was dropped after three days; rather, that it was featured on new bulletins only three times. The reason why I included the quote from Fran Unsworth is that when a criticism is levelled, it is a matter of ethics and good grace, not to mention expediency if one wishes to avoid a libel suit, to provide the person or institution that is criticised with a reply. As the article stood after your last edit, there was a strong insinuation that Unsworth was, at the very least, misinformed. That was potentially libellous, and needed to be changed. Your previous contributions show that you believe that the BBC dropped the story because Donald was white. I'm keeping an open mind on the matter and rather than have the article imply that Unsworth alternative explanation is insufficient, I would rather it simply stated the two positions and left readers to make up their own minds. This stuff cuts both ways; on the same day Thomas ap Reese Price was murdered, an asian man was murdered in a car-jacking a few hundred yards away, yet received no national news coverage at all. I am unsure why you included the fact that Unsworth defended the inclusion of the opening of a sports centre. Bearing in mind that she admitted that the BBC had got the coverage of Donald wrong and it should have been included in that bulletin, this represents a false dichotomy; she did not claim that the opening should have been included at the exclusion of Donald. Thus, I'm unsure why that's relevent. I'm also unsure what bearing her ignorance of whether or not Kriss' murder was racially motivated has.

Finally, I have taken no action as yet, but the Operation Gadher/Bashir Mann paragraph does not deal with issues relating directly to Kriss' murder and I believe it should be reduced to a single sentence if it is to be retained at all.

I would welcome thrid party discussion on these matters and thus have tagged the section appropriately to direct attention here and to point out that there is a conflict of opinion. I have also removed the weasel words tage from the top of the article as this issue seems to have been dealt with.

FrFintonStack 05:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

An opinion piece being “widely read” on the internet does not make the view held by its author any more popular, and the author is not a recognised authority on this case, whether or not you think he might be recognised as an expert on something in the future is of no consequence now. The view that the judicial system and mass media have made an underhand attempt to frame the murder in racial terms is not a view that is widely held. It is, at best, one of those views that you might find a political extremist (multicultural Marxist of the far left) ranting about, which is what you seem to have.

To add weight to your claim that the view of the author is not a tiny minority view you claim “The article did not represent the author opinions: it merely stated that they, and opinions like them, exist.” However, the article does nothing of the sort; the article clearly expresses the view of the author throughout.

In fact he is a glorified Internet blogger. You’ll notice not many people seem to be interested in his actual blog either. This is something less than an opinion piece you might see from the likes of Richard Littlejohn. As a parallel, Robert Kilroy-Silk’s opinions on Arabs and Islam were published in a national newspaper, but they deserve no place in any encyclopaedia article on either subject because such views are the opinions of a tiny minority. It is not relevant who read them or what the circulation is of the newspaper he was published in.

You show your support for an undue weight policy by dismissing the relevance of far right opinions based on their prejudice. I am not doing the same, although the roots of Spiked, its far left support for multiculturalism, its predecessor Living Marxism, and even the “Revolutionary Communist Party” are an interesting foundation for their views today. The idea that people who take issue with criminals being charged with racially motivated offences at all, even when they are motivated by race, could comment on any case of racially motivated murder with a lack of political prejudice is laughable. See the Spiked articles on the Anthony Walker murder.

You state, “The reason why I included the quote from Fran Unsworth is that when a criticism is levelled, it is a matter of ethics and good grace, not to mention expediency if one wishes to avoid a libel suit, to provide the person or institution that is criticised with a reply,” but you then express your dissatisfaction with the parts of her response that show her to be ignorant of the Donald murder, and which, you say, insinuate that Unsworth was “misinformed”. Well, actually her own comments display that she was ignorant. It isn’t my non-existant suggestion that irks you, but her choice of words.

Your desire to cherry pick her comments to make the BBC reply look as convincing as possible is not acceptable. Anything she stated in the interview was part of her reply against the allegations made by BBC viewers and I will therefore include them to give a more balanced view of what was said in the interview. You may well think she could have done a better damage limitation exercise for the BBC, but she didn’t; and you cannot change what she said, her ignorance of this case, or the comments she considered relevant for inclusion in her reply to accusations of bias. --Guardian sickness 21:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, this is getting deep, and I can only comment in passing. Guardian: Having compared the versions and revisions around the time of your major revisions here, I'd say a few things. The bulk of what was added, that you reverted, seemed charged with POV. Your reasons for reversion also seem POV motivated. Your edit seems more inline with NPOV ideals, but it is perhaps too extreme and uncompromising here. An effort could have been made to edit in stages. If an article takes a mainstream view, that seems largely NPOV, but yet embodies a few challengeable assumptions, and fails to represent certain minority views, well perhaps the next step is a POV charged revision that shifts the article radically. If that's the case, then the correct response is still not an extreme revert. You could have pared down sections of the edits, but attempted to be moderate. Take time to consider how the minority view could best be represented, rather than react forcefully to suppress it. For instance, the court found that the violence was racially motivated. This carries a lot of weight. Some people continue to challenge the legitimacy of this determination. Whether you agree with this evaluation or not, that FACT (that the determination has been challenged, and has been the cause of controversy) must be reasonably represented within the article. If you feel it was not reasonably represented, then you could have sought ways to make the representation more reasonable and balanced. It need not be done in one massive edit. You could fix the parts that are most explicitly POV, and find ways to temper the language here or there... but you could also leave an article that you think is "flawed" in place for a few days while negotiating for favorable compromise. Your edit seems too much like an attempt to silence a view, rather than address it, and fairly represent it.

Of course, any event that links race and crime is bound to be highly charged and controversial. It's very hard to come to a decent, fair, and balanced representation. But try to find a way to allow an evolutionary edit, rather than a back and forth of revolution and extreme reaction.

I'm not very close to this discussion (yet). But I could find ways to approach this stage in a more moderate way. Just taking an early significant edit, for example: you changed "According to the BBC, the gang who kidnapped him took him on a 200-mile journey..." to "The gang who kidnapped him took him on a 200-mile journey." Sure, "According to the BBC," seems less like a citation than a phrase planted to seed doubt in the report. If you felt this was excessively POV, or showed too much bias, instead of taking it out completely you could have changed it to "It was determined at trial that the gang who kidnapped him took him on a 200-mile journey..." This citation also shows a kind of POV, perhaps, but it may also be more mainstream, and most significantly, it still demonstrates that the reported event has a source that could theoretically be contested. Determination by trial is a strong indicator of truth or plausibility, but it still allows room for discussion, whereas reporting the same as an uncontestible fact doesn't even allow that there may be alternative theories or opinions... this is too reactionary, too POV, too uncompromising.

A similar approach could have been taken on many points, seeking such moderate phrasings as "The issue of the killing quickly became politicised because of differing reactions to the racial element of the crime." Again, not as charged with POV as the use of the word "alleged" after the fact of a trial, but still allowing room for expansion and discussion. And even if you edited out large sections of the POV "Explanations of the killing" section, you could have left a fair amount intact, at least for some time, as a demonstration of good faith that an ongoing process of editing could have further neutralized the POV and found a way to integrate the pertinent details."zadignose 16:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Wikipedia's policies prevented the reporting of the existence all opinions that are not those of 'recognised authorities'. By 'the article did not represent', I meant the Wikipedia article as it stood before you edited it. The statment was true: the Wikipedia article did not endore the opinion, it merely stated that it existed. It gave it no weight, let alone undue weight. I should also point out here that the view that the BBC did not report Kriss' murder, or that the police did not give it a sufficient response, is hardly mainstream opinion either, yet you appear to have little problem with the article reporting the existence of those views.

As for Spiked's "support for multiculturalism", this is simply preposterous. You are claiming that black is white. Go to their website and read any of their articles on the topic. In fact, I'll make it easier for you: try this one [3], this one [4] (by the writer you claim to be a multiculturalist), this one [5] (ditto)...

It is true that Spiked grew out of Living Marxism which was linked to the RCP. Francis Fukuyama used to be a Marxist, along with most of the rest of the neo-cons. So did Benito Mussolini, Michael Portillo, Lyndon Larouche and most of the architects of New Labour: are you going to argue that they're also members of this 'far-left'? 'Is' and 'was' are two very different things. Spiked are now one of the most consistant advocates of free-market capitalism you're likely to find. At any rate, as I've stated, this is both beyond the reach of this page and irrelevant. I will say it again: the idea that because an opinion belongs to a person of a particular politial persuasion it becomes unworthy of reportage, regardless of it's merits, is absurd. I'm not sure where your obsession with the 'far left' stems from, but this encyclopaedia is not the place to persue your agenda. I will refer you again to Wikipedia's page regarding information suppression. Whether you agree with the claim or not (I don't, as it happens) or like the publication (ditto), the claim was made in a widely read publication whose contributors include noted authors and academics, Times and BBC journalists, members of government advisory bodies, regular contributors to TV and radio discussion panels and a Lib Dem peer. The claim's existence is notable and deserves to be reported. Very simply, do you deny that "some commentators continue to doubt that the murder was racially motivated?". If your answer is no, I will ask you not to remove a statement that is by your own admission demonstrably factually accurate. If yes, I will wonder at which point you took leave of reality.

I have no desire to 'cherrypick' Fran Unsworths words, and I will thank you not to project motivations onto me. I have little to say on the matter other than what I wrote in my last contribution to this page: make an allegation, you print the accused's response. It is a matter of basic ethics. In your last edits, you made the clear insinuation that she was lying (I used "at the very least, misinformed" as a polite euphanism for "lying": at any rate, she stated that she was unaware of the racial status of Kriss' murder; that would have made her uninformed) and that her response was insufficient, by introducing irrelevant swipes. That cannot be allowed to stand. It's also interesting that you didn't regard her lack of knowledge of the racial nature of Kriss' murder or her views on the sports centre as worthy of inclusion until I included her rebuttal. The article reports an allegation and presents the reasoning; the accused responds. Why can't you just leave it there and let the readers examine the respective evidence for themselves?

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "You show your support for an undue weight policy by dismissing the relevance of far right opinions based on their prejudice." Where have I done this? The only "far right" claims I have removed from, or objected to being included in, the article are those that were unreferenced and were previously tagged as such for long enough for references to be provided, or self-contradictory vandalism FrFintonStack 00:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all I questioned whether the controversies section should exist at all. I did not remove the reference to BBC coverage or the Police operations because both subjects had featured on national TV and in the case of the Police operations, in numerous articles. I deleted a comment from the National Front because I felt that was a tiny minority view.

As for the far left tag, the BNP apparently support many left wing policies, but are referred to as the far right based on some of their views. Norman Tebbit often takes issue with the BNP not being called the “far left,” but such tags stick. Whether or not Spiked are now on the Trevor Phillips bandwagon of racial integration I care not.

My “agenda” is not to represent a tiny minority view, which should be in some other political article, as an opinion relevant to the Kriss Donald murder. You have avoided my point about the likes of Littlejohn, Kilroy Silk and his opinions on Islam etc. Readership makes no difference to his tiny minority views, just as other writers who contribute to the Daily Express do not make his opinions “notable”. The idea that excluding Silk’s comments, or someone like Peter Hitchen’s comments from articles on Islam or Arabs would be “information suppression” is ridiculous.

No I do not deny that "some commentators continue to doubt that the murder was racially motivated?" My contention is that opinion pieces by individual journalists or columnists do not make a tiny minority view worthy of mentioning regardless of the publication, its readership or its other contributors.

Again, Fran Unsworth’s comments were wide ranging and I included more of her comments after your edit because you had chosen the one part of her reply that you thought sounded most convincing. Why would you mention her “Scottish blindness” as her rebuttal rather than her professed ignorance of this case? After all the case was reported on national news before the racial motivation was known. This would appear to make her ignorance of the case far more relevant than the “Scottish blindness,” which didn’t stop the case being reported in the first place.

I have insinuated nothing about Fran Unsworth, least of all that she was lying. Looking at the history of edits you took issue with my use of the word “dropped”. Dropped has many meanings, but I fail to see the definition you are applying in order to understand that I accused the BBC or Unsworth of lying. I am happy to let her words do the work, but you are not. You state “The article reports an allegation and presents the reasoning; the accused responds. Why can't you just leave it there and let the readers examine the respective evidence for themselves?” The reason is that you picked the part of her response included in the article, and it represents only your “obsession” with that part of her reply. You then dismiss other parts of her reply that you consider to be “irrelevant swipes,” despite those being her choice of words in reply to the questions posed on the Kriss Donald murder. In any case, I see no reason why specific allegations or the reply from the BBC need be in the article. As you indicated, people can watch the video and make up their own minds.

You stated, “I'm not sure what you mean when you say ‘You show your support for an undue weight policy by dismissing the relevance of far right opinions based on their prejudice.’ Where have I done this?” You had stated, “The article is not comparable to far right views on the Lawrence murder as Spiked is not an organisation with an anti-racist or anti-white political agenda,” in response to my comment, “As I stated, his opinions have as much place in this article as the opinions of those on the far right have in the Stephen Lawrence article; some on the far right still say his murder was gang related, but they are a tiny minority - whatever their politics.” In other words, it is justifiable to exclude the opinions of certain groups based on their prejudice.

--Guardian sickness 01:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is clearly getting us nowhere. We clearly have different interpretations of what constitutes a "minority view" and a "tiny minority view" and it is unlikely that we are going to reach a common ground on that. That is why I invited others to contribute to the discussion. I believe the Spiked article is relevant in a way material by far right groups is not, as the article quoted is carefully considered, written by someone of a professional background that provides a relevant grounding in the subject matter, and is produced by a professional, registered and notible publication, rather than a press-release from a political group. Also, I don't see far-right groups running summer schools for the City of London, hosting debates with major contributors in their fields, nor seeing their contributors as regular panelists on The Moral Maze. I will also point out, yet again, that Wikipedia article merely notes that the Spiked article exists: it does not endorse it, nor does it draw evidence from it. If you want to include far right material, feel free to do so, and I will consider it and edit if see it as inappropriate, as you have agressively done with the contributions of other users. However, it appears that you do not, making me wonder why you've made such a fuss of me suggesting, in the abstract, that material from a particular publication might be more relevant. As it happens, while I believe that Kilroy-Silk's opinions would be irrelevant to an article on Arabs (Arabs being such a huge topic and one of enormous global importance compared to anything Kilroy might have written), if he, or Richard Littlejohn, had written about, say, the Anthony Walker case, it would have merited inclusion.

That said, I believe the "Explanations" section that was added a few days ago was inappropriate; it did give undue weight to the dissenting viewpoints, and the new section dominated the article. The correct way forward, I believe, as well as a reasonable compromise, is to include a short statement to the effect that such views exist, and to link to one or two of the more notible organisations espousing them

You may believe that the controversies section should not feature at all. I do not, as these enhance an understanding of the case and will be of interest to many readers of this article. I also find your claim somewhat hard to swallow, since much of it, including the BBC material was added by yourself. On the topic of Fran Unsworth, I will say one more time, if you print an allegation, you publish the denial or rebuttal where one is offered. As the article stood after your last edit, we have a serious allegation being made against the BBC and the BBC's response not being included. That is simply unacceptable. I did not pick parts of Unsworth defence: I took both her admission that the BBC had not reported Kriss' death satisfactoraly, and her denial of the specific allegations made by the BNP. In otherwords, the essense of her defence. BNP make an accusation and offer a particular explanation, the BBC say the explanation was something else. Exactly what is your problem with representing it. I did not include her statement regarding the racial nature of Kriss' murder because the subject at stake was the allegations made against the BBC, not Fran Unsworth's knowledge of the case (which might just belong on a Fran Unsworth page), thus making the "Scottish blindness" the only relevant element, and because former statement was not offered as an aside, not as part of the rebuttal. You seem to have a strange idea of what is most relevant to the topic at hand, and it seems to correspond closely to what will best promote your particular slant on events.

Again, bearing mind that you do not want to provide space for the BBC's responce, I can't help wondering why you included more information and wonder ever more why you included her defence of the opening of the sports centre considering that she was not supporting its coverage at the expense of Kriss'. It is also bizarre that you protest that you did not suggest that Unsworth was lying (and there I was clearly refering to your above additons, rather than the use of the term 'dropped') which my previous comm regarding the "Scottish blindness", then explicitly state above that the explanation is unlikely to be true. Such reasoning is primary research and is no grounds to remove a sourced statment of rebuttal. Your reasoning is also based on the assumption that some figure in the BBC actively chose to "drop" the story: that is not how news stories are collated and selected. If you find a notible source making such a claim, feel free to include it in the article. I should point out here that you have previously concurred with the allegations on this matter, as we can see from your very first edit to this discussion page: in fact, it seems to be what prompted your involvement with this article and indeed, this encyclopaedia. That, and your talk of "the aborted police operation" hardly give you the high-ground on objectivity, nor on the matter of "tiny minority views" and this being the case, your attempts to suppress the BBC's response to these claims appear somewhat suspicious. The retention of the Spiked link is not a matter of massive importance: this is. I am not going to have allegations made on this article and the response of the accused suppressed. I will ask to strongly not to remove the response, and not to add irrelevant details in a clear attempt to discredit the spokesperson. FrFintonStack 17:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi FrFintonStack. First of all you seem to have removed the timestamp and signature from my above post. Could you please be careful of this if it was you as the discussion then becomes jargon to everyone but yourself and me. (I have since replaced the signature).

I am becoming increasingly baffled by your comments in relation to my recent posts, as well as those from well over one year ago. The problem for you is that you need to engage in this discussion based on the merits of my arguments and not what I posted over a year ago when I was unfamiliar with the Wikipedia “original research” policy. I would not get excited if I were you given that I have been aware of the past discussion for over a year.

Where I differ from you is that I do not believe Littlejohn’s or Silk’s opinions would automatically warrant inclusion. The issue is whether the view they express has much backing. So if Littlejohn claimed Anthony Walker might have been involved in a street gang would this be allowed in a Wikipedia article if he were a lone voice out there commenting on that case with this particular version of events? I would say not.

I think you should take a step back and reflect on something you mentioned further down in this discussion: the best you can do by finding someone else with Davenport’s opinion on this case was the comments section in the Scotsman. You seem to be catching at straws in order to justify this guy’s inclusion. Davenport may have other views on hate crime that you could show are shared by many others. In that case those opinions may be inserted into an article on the subject of hate crime in general.

Extending your logic, professors who are invited to speak at universities and engage in debates with “major contributors in their fields” cannot express a tiny minority view at all. So, for example, someone like Ward Churchill’s opinion that the victims of 9/11 were “Little Eichmanns” would not be a tiny minority view and should be in the article on 9/11. I believe this is not the case. Perhaps if many journalists, professors and others shared the view he expressed on that particular event one could argue that it would be a minority view and would warrant inclusion.

Wikipedia’s Undue Weight policy states, “If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents.” Remember, we are talking about the Kriss Donald murder here, not views on hate crime in general. You can find only one person with Davenport’s opinion on this case – him. I dispute the idea he is “prominent”. Furthermore, one person can’t be “adherents”. I would encourage you to “let it slip” as you said you would to “IronDuke” below.

Regarding Fran Unsworth and her comments, you stated, “In your last edits, you made the clear insinuation that she was lying”. I then referred back to your issue with the word “dropped”. Instead of providing any evidence from the article you have had to go back over one year in the discussion page and get excited about the fact I have an opinion, which you described in numerous edits of the discussion page as an “agenda”. I’m afraid that is not good enough. First of all I am entitled to a personal opinion as long as I do not put this in the article, and secondly you still have not backed up your claim that I inserted, in the article, an allegation that Fran Unsworth was lying.

I don’t think you even read my last edit. I had removed any specific allegation against the BBC and merely stated that some BBC viewers had complained. This was not an allegation so did not warrant any response. But you still stated “As the article stood after your last edit, we have a serious allegation being made against the BBC and the BBC's response not being included. That is simply unacceptable.” The problem for you here is that you are incorrect on this “matter of massive importance” because my last edit done no such thing.

It seems that you are connecting the BNP allegations against the media generally, and my edit, which stated “The British state broadcaster, the BBC, was criticized by some BBC viewers over its coverage of the case.” So Unsworth is actually responding to BBC viewers and not the BNP. The BNP was not mentioned a single time in the Newswatch interview, only “BBC Viewers”. If your justification for including Unsworth’s rebuttal is that there are specific allegations from the BNP and Unsworth is responding to them then I should point out to you that this is incorrect. I will ask you strongly to leave the edit as it stands.

I said that I had suggested removing the controversies section; this was incorrect. Looking back on the discussion, it seems I suggested removing the BNP comments and the response to the BNP. You suggested they should remain.

--Guardian sickness 01:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Davenport's opinion is not only representative of what the main currents in relevant academic studies will no doubt eventually say, but also: BBC correspondent Bob Wylie; views expressed by Kriss's mother prior to the trial; Campaign Against Racism and Fascism,

As well as anti-racist commentators such as Anarcho Akbar and various posters on Indymedia. And these just the examples I know about.

"Guardian Sickness" would know this VERY well if he bothered to read what he keeps hastily deleting.

82.31.10.69 05:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop removing the NPOV tag until there is agreement on that section. I dispute that the people you have mentioned are "prominent" by any stretch of the word. Blogs are not permissible. Angela Donald did not deny that the motive was racially aggrevated. Read the above dicussion where these points have been addressed. --Guardian sickness 15:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I never touched the NPOV tag.

I have already made clear that "racially aggravated" does not mean "primarily racist", it just means an element of racial abuse has been added onto a crime which may have had a completely different primary motive.

Wikipedia policy does not say that blogs are "not permissible" but that they should be avoided where possible and not be the main source. Stop twisting policies to suit your agenda.

06:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The history of edits shows you removed the NPOV tag. Again, I said read the above. The policy, which I quoted on 29th November 2006, states: “Links normally to be avoided,” which includes “Links to blogs, except those written by a recognised authority.” Why don’t you read the policy before you accuse others of twisting it?? --Guardian sickness 15:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have read all of "the above", including your ridiculous attempt to claim that Angela Donald's explicit statement that the killing was not racist is somehow overruled by her failure to publicly denounce the ruling that the killing was racially AGGRAVATED (not primarily racist), your failure to differentiate between at least four different perspectives, and your ridiculous implied labelling of the BBC, most serious scholars of racism, Angela Donald, the trial defence and who knows who else as "far left".

"Normally to be avoided" does NOT mean "not permitted".

A view is not "tiny minority" because a judge disagrees with it, or because it falls outside the mainstream media.

Stop suppressing information to suit YOUR agenda.

-82.31.15.153 03:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Angela Donald said no such thing. I challenge you to provide any quote where she denied the motive for the murder was a racist one. The view is not tiny minority because of any judge; it is tiny minority according to Wiki policy. Again, I challenge you to come up with "prominent adherents" to this left wing view on the Kriss Donald murder. Blogs are normally to be avoided, and should conform to that norm unless (and wikipedia policy outlines the exception) "written by a recognised authority". In other words the islamic blog is not an exception, has no place here and should not be permitted. --Guardian sickness 15:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"It doesn't matter to my family what colour these men are. Kriss is gone because of gangs, not just in Pollokshields but every area of our communities." It's in the article, it's the most publicised statement she's made, and it clearly suggests a gang-based rather than race-based interpretation. On the other hand, she has NOT said anything like, "I lost my son because of anti-white racism". I challenge YOU to prove otherwise.

-82.19.5.222 22:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You stated in your last post "Angela Donald's explicit statement that the killing was not racist". I challenged you to provide such a quote, and you came back with the above. Again, she did not give an "explicit statement that the killing was not racist". I again challenge you to provide this statement.

--Guardian sickness 22:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The statement seems pretty explicit to me. Since the claim that the primary reason for the killing is gangs and the claim that the primary reason for the killing is anti-white racism are constructed in most of the sources as exclusive, an explicit endorsement of a gang-based explanation implies a rejection of racism-based explanations unless qualified otherwise.

-82.19.5.222 05:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And yet neither of you are providing a tangible source for your claims. If one of you guys can find hard evidence then this dispute could be over quite quickly. --Wizardman 05:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I DID provide a tangible source, a long, long time ago - and it's contained as a footnote in the material Guardian Sickness keeps reverting. ""It doesn't matter to my family what colour these men are. Kriss is gone because of gangs, not just in Pollokshields but every area of our communities."" http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1942990,00.html

-82.19.3.186 09:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the discussion should now be confined to the sections lower down the page where these points are addressed --Guardian sickness 03:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My two pence

Hey, FrFintonStack told me there was a disagreement here and asking for comment (I commented on this page quite a while ago). I don't know FrFintonStack, and I have no specific opinion, "right" or "left" wing about this case. You two have written a great deal above, but the diff ultimately shows not much of a difference of opinion in actual editing. Glancing over it, I would say FrFintonStack has the right of it in the bit about Fran Unsworth, as it's tidier and more to the point, and Guardian sickness is right to take out the bit that depends on the "spiked" ref, which seems to not really meet WP:RS. Helpful? IronDuke 02:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution, IronDuke. (I should point out here that I do not know IronDuke but have invited all those with accounts and user pages who have contributed to this page to join the discussion). I should point out that the Spiked reference does not endorse Spiked's position, which I personally disagree with; it is merely intended to illustrate that opinions of such a nature exist. I believe the article should reflect that.FrFintonStack 03:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If those points of view are widespread, might it be possible to come up with other sources to support it? IronDuke 03:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous sources listed in the discussion above and in the archives of the article, but have been deleted by numerous users. I retained the Spiked article as it appears to the most noteworthy source.FrFintonStack 03:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, well, if they are less noteworthy than spiked, it may be that they deserved to be deleted. Does this help any: [6]. IronDuke 04:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

They probably did. I thought a link to the Spiked article would have served as an emblem that such views existed. However, if the consensus is that it is not sufficiently notible either, that's fine, I'll let it go. The Scotsman article is informative, but the only part that suggests the murder was not racially morivated is in the "comments" added by readers, so is definitely not notible. Thanks again, FrFintonStack 17:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies for absence

Sorry, I promised to help more with this article and then disappeared. In fact, I've had a family bereavement which has left me for a while without the sort of energy or patience required for this particular article. I think it's best if I continue to recuse myself from it for the time being, as I'm likely to snap at people. Apologies for having let Wikipedia down. JackyR | Talk 15:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The dispute and its stakes

The dispute here is not about “political” versus neutral versions of the article, nor about “facts” versus “interpretations”. It is about which particular specialism or field this falls within. In my view, given that the case is only notable (hence worthy of inclusion at all) because of its location in the politics of race, its factual status is established by the field of scientific inquiry into race and racism.

Post-colonial studies and sociology of race have the same status with regard to “racially-motivated” killings that physics has with regard to gravity or astronomy with regard to planets. The “facts of the case” are those revealed by serious scientific investigation. Anti-racist and postcolonial theories make up a significant portion of serious academic inquiry into racism. This is implicitly recognised in the Wikipedia article on racism. The subject of this article rightfully belong to the field of sociology of race – not to the dogmas of perspectives which, however widespread, are also utterly ill-informed and lack intellectual respectability in the relevant field. The situation here is thus NOT analogous to that of, say, BNP views on Anthony Walker, or Kilroy-Silk’s views on Islam; it is more akin to the situation which would arise regarding evolution and Creationism if a majority of the population, politicians, courts and media happened to support Creationism. The critics of my edits would logically have to maintain in this case that the majority opinion among scientists researching the area would have to be treated as a “tiny minority opinion” and effectively excluded.

Newsbeat seems to be asserting that the article legitimately belongs to a different specialism – that of legal studies. I disagree on two grounds. Firstly, both the law and its interpretation are matters of opinion rather than fact. Secondly, the causal structure of actions and events is social, not legal; their legal inscription is a secondary, after-the-event addition.

That the perpetrators were “convicted of racially-aggravated murder” is a matter of fact; that the murder was in fact racially-aggravated is NOT a matter of fact. That a court, acting on limited evidence and within a framework of institutional racism, makes a decision which is out of sync with what intellectual inquiry reveals, is no more relevant to the facts regarding causality and motivation than is Copernicus’s conviction relevant to an encyclopaedic article on the relationship between earth and sun. Findings of courts are opinions (of a socially powerful institution), not facts (which is what Guardian Sickness states). The finding of racial aggravation is also complicated in two other ways – firstly because the nature of the defence mounted was based on claims of innocence rather than motivation, so the specific claim of racial aggravation was not seriously challenged in court; secondly because racial aggravation in strict legal terms does not necessarily amount to racist motivation in a more usual sense – because it is a technical legal term. The media jumped on the phrase “racial aggravation” to infer things like, “the victim was killed for being white”, which is a misunderstanding of the term.

Which brings us to the question of what the facts are. The assessment of the facts of the case is itself contentious and controversial, and encyclopaedic practice in such a case is to report on the perspectives offered by the different contenders, without reaching a conclusion as to what is the truth of the matter.

The inclusion of the official perspective, without countervailing perspectives, is such as to suggest that this official perspective in fact amounts to the truth. The absence of recognition of the existence of controversy amounts to pretending that this controversy does not exist.

The responses to my edits have generally been to attempt to impose a single point of view, relying on arguments from authority to back up this privileging.

The term “far-left Marxist” was added by hostile commentators as a way to sabotage the inclusion of anti-racist perspectives; similarly the reference to CARF as “liberals”. I do not accept this designation of the views in question. We are talking here about perspectives which are intellectually respectable within the relevant field of inquiry – indeed, which come close to being the dominant accepted perspective among specialists in this area. These viewpoints are thus extremely notable, and should be given at least equal weight with more widespread but less intellectually respectable views disseminated through the media, popular opinion, the legal system and suchlike. But they are being suppressed by people with an aversion to the current state of academic inquiry.

We even have “Guardian Sickness” directly labelling an article by a politics/sociology specialist as “irrelevant” despite its being clearly on the issue of the case, bringing specialist knowledge to bear. If a specialist on the sociology of race is not an authority in this field then I shudder to think who is!

I would also add: First, the perspectives I cite as explanations are multiple – NOT an attempt to impose a dominant reading – hence the fact that many of these views contradict one another (e.g. the view of collective punishment contradicts the view of non-racism); Second, the views are largely representative of the type of perspective which is widespread in the relevant specialism (eventually there will no doubt be better sources to reference, but academic publishing takes forever); Third, that the claims made by these perspectives are claims ABOUT WHAT THESE PERSPECTIVES SAY and not direct factual claims in the article.

I’d say the far-right views are also relevant because of their overrepresentation in coverage of the case and in understanding the controversies around it, even though the views are not intellectually respectable or widely held.

I do think that maybe the sections on inversion etc. are excessive here and it would be better to create new articles on inversion (postcolonial theory meaning) and anti-white racism, and to link from here to those articles. Unfortunately I don’t have the technical knowhow to create new articles requiring disambiguation.

The Donald case WAS covered in the mainstream media, it was headline news on MSN Today on the day of the conviction and I had no problems finding extensive articles on the websites of the Guardian, the Times, the BBC and so on. It’s hard for me to verify that it was headline news on MSN Today since they don’t keep records, but the presence of articles on the other sites is verifiable. I haven’t seen the TV or print versions of these sources but usually material on the website reflects material broadcast in other media.

The “extraordinary efforts” to extradite is in comparison to the Great Train Robbers who were able to spend a long time in Brazil, as well as to many people in exile in North Cyprus which is outside of the extradition system for recognition reasons. Granted, the point would be stronger if there were available evidence as to how many people are extradited from countries without extradition treaties. But the news coverage of the extraditions referred to it as extraordinary/unusual. (I haven’t restored this as I accept there may be POV problems regarding the extrapolation of conclusions from facts).

I have restored the "explanations" section as I think it is necessary in trying to reach a factual understanding to be aware both of the multiplicity of perspectives and the claims which each presents. I would not be opposed to the inclusion of more details on the assumptions and claims of the official perspective in this section.

82.19.11.157 19:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

As explained above you are trying to include a tiny minority view. Also, you are claiming this article should fall under the umbrella of "politics of race" in order to justify the material you inserted; that is not the case. The article is about the Kriss Donald murder. --Guardian sickness 02:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The Kriss Donald murder is an example of "politics of race", or at least has been made into one by the media coverage. The viewpoints inserted are not a tiny minority position but are majority opinion of specialists in the relevant fields.

Even other critics of my additions admit that these positions are not "tiny minority" in the Wikipedia sense.

82.19.9.97 19:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

No consensus has been established that the material I added is not relevant. Guardian Sickness is distorting the facts in saying this; in fact it is impossible to establish wider views within Wikipedia at this time. Among the people who have posted here, most have objected in some way to what I've added but mainly in the sense that it needs counterbalancing and/or needs rewriting. Several users have stated that the viewpoints covered here (I emphasise they are PLURAL, including the distinct defence account and several variant explanatory accounts, NOT a single viewpoint) are NOT "tiny minority" but only "minority". I still maintain they are SPOV for the broader field in which this article should be located and as such should be given significant coverage (NPOV would entail taking account of both SPOV and majority POV in cases where they conflict).

I'd suggest the following compromises: 1) someone write a longer section detailing the mainstream explanation (why the killing is seen by some as racist), to establish balance; 2) someone (other than me) re-edit the material I've written for ostensibly "politicising" turns of phrase or so it reads less "like an essay"; 3) someone add an article on "anti-white racism" or "inversion", export the more generic material there, and then link from here.

82.31.10.69 06:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the explanations of the killing section, which "Newsbeat" had asked to have reverted back in November (he also compared your edit to the far right and their tendancy to usually hijack these types of articles) and FrFintonStack recently agreed should not have been put back into the article. You still don't get the point. Whether or not this section is reworded and made less biased, it is still not relevant to the Kriss Donald murder. If you want to make such an edit then go to the articles on hate crimes or racism. The most dubious thing is that you have chosen the Kriss Donald article to write about what the left think of hate crime in general. It does not belong in this article. --Guardian sickness 16:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Why Kriss Donald was murdered is not relevant to an article about the Kriss Donald murder? That's a strange argument. If it holds, then all reference to racist motivation should also be eliminated.

FrFrintonStack accepted that contending viewpoints should be included but not if they depend solely on Spiked. Clearly my section includes a number of sources (BBC News, official legal defence) which are more "notable" than Spiked, though I still maintain an article by a specialist in the area is notable regardless of where it is published. Newsbeat just said it needs "depoliticising" (I have a problem with his apparent view that "encyclopedic" means "minimise coverage of disputes" however, as there are many other articles focusing on disputes and controversies - describing different points of view is compatible with NPOV). In any case two users are not "consensus". JackyR says my additions are important but need rewriting to remove what he perceives as POV. Siofra, Average Earthman and several other contributors have not taken a position as yet. That doesn't sound like "consensus" to me.

What is happening here is straightforward information suppression. "Guardian Sickness" is repeatedly trying to prevent the existence of controversy over the causes of the killing being recognised, and is suppressing evidence of the existence of points of view other than his own.

82.19.0.3 06:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You are not interested in the motivation for Kriss Donald’s murder. You are interested in projecting the opinions of a minority about hate crime in general onto the Kriss Donald case; these issues are nothing to do with this article. Wikipedia policy does not use the word “notable”. It says “prominent adherents”. I dispute that the two sources given are prominent.

The other contributors you mention have had nothing to offer to this discussion in the last two months, but this is more a matter of policy than opinion. The extensive and off topic “explanations of the killing” section is there because of an agenda and is not relevant to this article. I doubt you have made any attempt to add this section to the articles on hate crime or racism. If not, why not? It does not belong with this article. Stay on topic and do not add material until the content is agreed on. --Guardian sickness 15:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth would I add material about the Kriss Donald murder trial defence, coverage of gangs in the area of the murder or articles relating specifically to the murder to all of the articles on hate crime and racism? It WOULD be off-topic there; it is NOT off-topic here.

Aside perhaps from the fact that Kriss Donald was killed, I think the MOST relevant issue here is WHY, and your prejudices to the contrary involve imposing a particular explanation of why, which happens to be your own point of view and which you are trying to portray as fact by suppressing information contrary to it.

I would also add that EVERYTHING in the explanations section is far MORE relevant than the pointless speculations about gang crime in the area in general, which I notice you've not deleted, or vague speculation approaching original research on the BBC's alleged failure to cover the case, which is certainly about broader social impact and not the case itself.

I have an interest in presenting the full diversity of points of view, giving readers the opportunity to make their own judgements by examining different viewpoints and following up different lines of thought.

I ask anyone seriously interested in this to look through the explanations section and show objectively where this alleged bias and irrelevance comes from. There are only a few lines in the entire section which deal with general theories of racism/anti-racism/hate-crime.

The first paragraph summarises the mainstream narrative which is implied, but not explicitly stated elsewhere in the article. The second paragraph suggests a possible weakness in this. The third involves an account of the trial defence. The fourth, details from a BBC article explaining the killing as gang-related. The fifth provides an account *referenced specifically to the Donald case* that the crime may have been an inversion or retaliation (it's the first half of this section which the criticism of irrelevance presumably refers to - admittedly it would be better to put this elsewhere and cross-reference from here). The sixth provides a context for the gang conflict with two references *specifically to Pollokshields* and *specifically to the Donald case*, and the seventh details the interest the case has inspired from the far-right.

In short: there are five distinct perspectives here (mainstream - defence - gang - inversion - far-right), NOT an attempt to impose a single perspective.

-82.31.15.153 03:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

But all commentated on from a biased perspective. The views you are propogating are tiny minority by Wikipedia policy. Again, you have not come up with any prominent adherents to this view. Again, far left definitions of hate crime and how the mainstream view is "contoversial" do not warrant inclusion in this article.

The "particular explanation" is not a tiny minority view and was established by the courts and accepted by mainstream opinion. How do you "approach" original research? It either is or it isn't. The interview with Fran Unsworth contains plenty of information. The coverage was also criticsed on Newsnight. There is no original research there.

Your interest is in "presenting the full diversity of points of view" whether or not those views are tiny minority. That is not in line with Wiki policy. --Guardian sickness 16:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it perfectly adheres to Wiki policy. --Strothra 17:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In that case will you name two "prominent adherents" to the view that the murder was not racially motivated?? --Guardian sickness 20:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Four "prominent adherents" in the original article:

1) BBC correspondent Bob Wylie 2) victim's mother Angela Donald 3) lecturer and writer Neil Davenport 4) anti-racist group CARF

If more examples are needed: "Local community leader Hanif Rajah told BBC Scotland he did not believe it was a racist crime. Mr Rajah, of the Pakistan Forum Scotland, said: "I think the trouble at large in the south side has been consistent for many years and is a gang fight among youths. It is not a racially motivated killing." "

As yet there are no academic articles or books which discuss this subject; once there are, my case will be even stronger.

-82.19.5.222 22:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I challenged you above to provide any statement from Angela Donald that the killing was not racist; you could not. CARF is a front group for the far left "socialist worker's party" and the article linked to does not comment on the Kriss Donald case at all. In fact it couldn't possibly, given that it predates the Donald murder by about 6 years. If you Google "Pakistani forum Scotland" you will not get a single result, because it seems they are not worth even putting on the internet.

So, you are left back where you started with Bob Wylie and Neil Davenport, although you are clinging to the hope that someone might comment on the case in future. Again, these sources are either flawed or cannnot be described as "prominent adherents".

--Guardian sickness 23:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Coverage criticised on Newsnight? By whom? Is this verifiable?

CARF are an independent anti-racist group run by the anti-racist scholar Sivanandan, one of Britain's leading race relations specialists. They have NOTHING to do with the SWP. The SWP anti-racist "front" is the Anti-Nazi League and Unite against Fascism (which is ANL + NAAR). Check your facts before possibly libelling people, please.

Pakistani Forum Scotland are obviously considered notable enough to be approached by the BBC (though a bit of googling suggests the name should be spelt Raja). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3519054.stm

The Angela Donald case clearly says the killing was gang-related rather than race-related (see above).

Davenport and Wiley are both sufficiently prominent sources too. In fact you have provided no reason to eliminate Wiley at all.

The point of view is not "tiny minority". Nobody but you has stated this, and your reading is heterodox to say the least.

Here is what the WP:NPOV page says on this: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."

I'd read this as follows. Experts on the subject would include scholars working on racism and anti-racism, and certain investigative journalists such as Wylie; "concerned parties" would include anti-racist groups, Pakistani community groups, Angela Donald, arguably also the BNP and the far right (as participants in the subsequent controversy and discontent), as well as people like the trial judge, prosecution, defence, etc.

"Significant minority" would thus include all those I listed (especially since this position may well be "majority" among anti-racist specialists). "Tiny minority" refers to things like Flat Earth theory in relation to an article on the Earth - in this case, it would be something like, a conspiracy theorist who claimed Kriss Donald was assassinated by a secret service/the far right/giant lizards to serve conspiratorial goals - I haven't included views of this kind.

Now to turn this back:

Can you find two prominent adherents - referenced if you please,in line with Wikipedia:Verifiability - of the view that the BBC failed to give coverage to the issue because the victim was white? Can you find a second prominent adherent for the view that gangs were out of control?

If you are arguing that *only* claims which are accepted by the mainstream as a whole can be included in the article, then this kind of claim would not pass moot, nor would the claims about Bashir Maan and policing of gangs pass your interpretation of the relevance test. You have not established that the claim "the BBC failed to cover the case because the victim was white" or the claim "the crime happened because police were afraid to tackle Asian gangs" (to summarise the positions somewhat) is mainstream opinion.

"Approaching original research": there are borderline cases with original research as with everything else; in this case you're clearly extrapolating from what you take to be facts about media coverage. You (or whoever inserted this section) have compiled these facts into a general pattern and extrapolated from it. In a sense this is clearly original research but there is no consensus on Wikipedia as to whether or not this kind of thing violates WP:NOR (see discussion and votes for deletion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_films_that_most_frequently_use_the_word_%22fuck%22).

I think you may be making as a strong objection (tiny minority) what is actually a weaker objection (undue weight) which could be addressed by better fleshing out the reasoning behind the prosecution/judge/media reading. If you think the current article violates NPOV due to undue weight then please try to add factual information supporting the mainstream view in order to redress the balance, instead of deleting viewpoints you disagree with.

-82.19.5.222 05:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem for you is that you are mixing policy to give your interpretation of tiny minority. Wikipedia policy states these must be "prominent adherents" and you have not provided any. Regarding the BBC, both Kelvin McKenzie, Fran Unsworth (BBC Head of Newsgathering) and BBC Newswatch all commented on the coverage. I did not insert the material on gangs.

Angela Donald does not state what you say she did. I have again and again asked you to provide me with such a quote from her, and you have not. The last edit did not state "the BBC failed to cover the case because the victim was white". This is just plain ridiculous!

You are attributing comments to people who never made them (Angela Donald); attributing text to the article, which does not exist; and refusing to address the Wikipedia policy on "prominent adherents". --Guardian sickness 14:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed adequately your flimsy objection regarding "prominent adherents". The cited sources are all sufficiently prominent.

The statement made by Angela Donald in the article is referenced to news coverage.

On the other hand you haven't provided verifiable references either for these three BBC sources you claim, or for the Newsnight example you cited before. -82.19.3.186 08:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies section

Regarding the perceived lack of media coverage of the case due to the victim being white, this article may be helpful. It contains Home Office figures and comments from the Chief Constable of Cheshire, who is also a spokesman for race issues for the ACPO [7] One Night In Hackney 19:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RD PARTY question

Someone gave me a note to help out here. Some commentators continue to doubt that the murder was racially motivated or that significant ethnic tensions exist in Pollokshields.^[2] Is the above a valid statement, if so why isnt it added, as I think the user is trying to say there is not 100% agreement that the attack was racially motivated. If there is this "other opinion" then it must be allowed in, because despite the traditions of the major press the opinions of others are valid, esp when we see the bias in the news and the language they use which seems to always fit nice and neat with the politics of the respective country, re words like terrorist and Islamicist. help me out, but take the time to get good sources as well--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 04:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Halaqah. There is a great deal of blanking in this article and not enough representation being given to the controversy. A controversy clearly exists and thus it should be discussed in the article. --Strothra 19:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Will you then address the point on Wikipedia policy: “If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents.” Explain to me how the sources given constitute "prominent adherents". --Guardian sickness 14:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The site is valid and should be allowed

I remember there was a case in the UK about Asian gangs attacking an African Caribbean boy, that caused some serious racial tension. and the news was the instrument of provoking much tension, just like "Arabs" killing "Africans" in Sudan--and we know the janjaweed are African too, so the news has an agenda lets be clear about these so-called sources. show balance, the site looks okay according to wikistandard so allow the content. contact me again if you need help.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 04:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A third opinion

Okay, here's the dispute as I see it... Strothra wants that allegations section in, Guardian does not. I can say right now that the fact that that section is larger than the rest of the article doesn't seem to fit right, yet I can see why it may be in there. Could both sides explain to me their positions here? I browsed through the talk page but I don't quite get it. I want to help, but I think I need more info from you two. --Wizardman 05:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wizardman. My position is outlined in the lengthly discussion above with user FrFintonStack under the section "major edits of far left material". We had narrowed our disagreements down to two points. My position is that those who question the racial motivation for the crime are a tiny minority. Wikiepdia policy states, “If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents.” My contention is that the sources given in this article (one professor, and one BBC investigative journalist) are not prominent by any stretch of the word.

The lenghtly section would even be against policy if it was a significant minority view, but I contend it is a tiny minority view and should not exist. I base this on the above policy, which user strothra will not address. --Guardian sickness 14:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Position summary as requested

Here is my summary of the dispute, since you asked for a clarification.

Guardian Sickness’s objections keep shifting around between alleged bias, undue coverage, tiny minority, irrelevance, etc.

Dispute 1 – alleged bias.

Guardian Sickness claims that the section promotes a particular viewpoint. He takes the mainstream view to be fact, and alternative framings to be viewpoints. “The racial element is not “alleged”. The crime was and is known to be racially motivated.”

I claim that it presents five distinct viewpoints, and does not legislate between them. Each of these viewpoints is described on its own terms, along with the arguments or evidence it presents. The five viewpoints listed are: mainstream, trial defence, gang explanation, inversion explanation, far-right. The section does not directly promote a viewpoint. If it appears to promote a viewpoint this is either because the evidence actually points towards that viewpoint (which does not count as bias), or because evidence for another viewpoint has not been fully presented (in which case the appropriate response is to add the missing evidence). Without this section, I maintain the article promotes a point of view because it only presents the mainstream viewpoint and presents opinions as facts.

A subsidiary argument has recurred, regarding whether racial aggravation of an offence is the same either as “racism” or as “racist (primary) motivation”.

I have conceded as a compromise there may be a need for stylistic reworking to eliminate an appearance of bias, as well as for expanding certain sections of the article to ensure a fair hearing for the mainstream viewpoint. Some of this work has already been accomplished by Stothra.

I don’t, however, think it should be edited down to a paragraph. I have no objection to people addressing alleged undue weight by expanding the discussion of the mainstream narrative, adding evidence which points towards this viewpoint, or expanding other sections of the article. I do object to sourced, relevant material being removed. If imbalance is due simply to overrepresentation then expand elsewhere.

Dispute 2 – interpretations of NPOV.

Guardian Sickness apparently interprets NPOV to mean that articles should reflect the mainstream or majority viewpoint, and should exclude contending viewpoints. He claims, contra Strothra, it is not Wikipedia policy to give a hearing to different viewpoints. He treats the mainstream point of view as established by the trial as factual: “these were the findings of the court and are facts”.

In my view NPOV means that viewpoints and the reasoning behind them should be presented. The article should not express a viewpoint but should present different viewpoints and the claims they make. The section presents a controversy, it does not initiate one. The existence of a trial verdict, or of a mainstream media viewpoint, does not make the viewpoint in question “fact”, except that it is a fact to assert its existence, status and origin as a viewpoint. The explanations section descriptively presents a number of different viewpoints and links the article to broader issues within which it is located. Excluding these sections is inconsistent with the handling of racism for instance, where the same controversies are foregrounded in the article and are not excluded. Absence of contending viewpoints effectively presents the terminology of the verdict as fact when it is really POV and controversial.

Dispute 3 – over whether the sources in the section are “tiny minority” and linked to this, whether they, or other sources mentioned, are “prominent adherents”.

In part this dispute is over what counts as prominence, majority, significance etc in this area. I would claim that the viewpoints expressed are at least significant minority, and may well be majority in the relevant specialist area, which is sociology of race / postcolonial studies. In one post I likened the situation to what would occur if most physicists agreed the world was round, but the majority, media and legal system insisted it was flat. In such a case, I believe Wikipedia would have to give prominent coverage to the scientific viewpoint even though prohibited from endorsing it. The scientific and majority viewpoint would both be covered. This argument is based partly on the balance of arguments presented at Wikipedia’s article on Racism, which expresses the full diversity of conceptions operative in sociology of race, not simply the media or judicial view. “The definitions of racism contained in the Wikipedia entry on this confirm that the term is inappropriate in this case. I refer especially here to the section on the term "reverse racism".”

I maintain that Guardian Sickness’s reading of “tiny minority” is unduly broad, and that he labels anything that is not an established mainstream view as “tiny minority”. I also argue that the terms “prominent”, “minority” etc should be considered relevant to two frames: firstly, the relevant specialism, which is sociology of race and postcolonial studies; secondly, the people affected, which clearly includes anti-racists, the trial defence, etc. (I make the former case most strongly in “The Dispute and its Stakes”). My claim that the assumptions behind describing the killing as racist are controversial in the relevant area of knowledge are confirmed by the wikipedia racism article and other articles linked to it.

I also maintain I have provided at least six prominent adherents to one or another objection to the official version: Wylie, Davenport, CARF, the trial defence, Angela Donald and a spokesman for the Pakistan Forum Scotland. (I suspect there will be a much longer list when the academic turnaround time is reached and articles on “race relations”, media coverage etc start appearing, though obviously I can’t verify this at present).

Guardian Sickness’s reverts imply that none of those cited in the section are prominent adherents, though he hasn’t explicitly stated that BBC correspondent Wylie was not, nor why he objects to the inclusion of the trial defence. He explicitly denies that sociology/politics lecturer and Spiked Online columnist Neil Davenport is a “prominent adherent” on the basis that he views Spiked as far-left, a claim which has been contested. He denies Angela Donald counts as a prominent adherent because he maintains she does not endorse the claim that the killing was not racist (his argument for this being that she did not publicly dispute the ruling of racially aggravated killing). He denies that CARF is a prominent adherent because the article predates the murder and because he alleges CARF is a front for the SWP (a false allegation – CARF is headed by sociologist Sivanandan). He denies that the Pakistan Forum Scotland is a prominent adherent because, though cited by the BBC, the group does not have a web presence.

Dispute 4 – relevance.

Guardian Sickness has claimed that the section is about general points of view on racism and hate crime, rather than the case. “You are not interested in the motivation for Kriss Donald’s murder. You are interested in projecting the opinions of a minority about hate crime in general onto the Kriss Donald case; these issues are nothing to do with this article.”

I have argued that the core of the section is the issue of explaining the killing, which is one of the most relevant issues to the case. Key claims are referenced to articles specific to the case. This material is thus on-topic to Kriss Donald and would be off-topic in a general discussion of racism or hate crime. This includes the bulk of the explanations section: the trial defence, the gang discussion (Wylie), etc.

I also argue that Guardian Sickness is applying a double standard as the sections on BBC coverage and on alleged police failure to deal with Asian gangs are only indirectly related to the murder itself. In the latter case, the claims are specific to the area but not to the case, and in this are on a par with the CARF comments he rejects.

I have conceded as a compromise that some of the material on inversion, definitions of race, etc., would be better dealt with by creating a separate article on inversion; however, I also maintain any such new article should be linked from here. Dispute 6 – “Consensus” for deleting the section

Guardian Sickness claims his repeated blanking of the section is based on a “consensus”. He later clarifies this as consisting of three users, and it later became clear that several other users did not agree.

Dispute 7 – original research.

This is a new argument, introduced by another user and picked up by Guardian Sickness. The claim that the section is original research has not been substantiated. It seems to hinge on the view (expressed earlier by JackyR) that the article reads like an original essay. I think my collation of the material is “original” in the sense of bringing together material from existing sources in a new way (most of Wikipedia is “original” in this sense), but I don’t think it is “original research” in the relevant sense – it does not provide primary evidence I have generated myself.

I would argue that it is not original research in the relevant sense (i.e. primary research). It is encyclopaedic because it collates information about different viewpoints. It is fully referenced to external sources. The repeated controversies about whether http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_films_that_most_frequently_use_the_word_%22fuck%22 counts as original research seem to be concluding that it is not, and this would certainly make my additions – which involve far less extrapolation in relation to the material cited – not OR either.

I also argue that there’s a double standard here, as similar analytical claims, and in some cases non-verifiable claims (about how many days the case was on the mainstream news for instance) occur in the aforementioned sections to which Guardian Sickness does not object.

Additional issues

My own edits were subject to more precise criticisms from some other users, which I was intending to address, but this was overtaken by Guardian Sickness repeatedly reverting. Newsbeat questioned for instance: reference to earlier attack on perpetrators as “racist” given broader challenging of this term; lack of source for claims about gang behaviour (this was actually based on Davenport, primarily comparing Donald killing to Laetitia (sp?) Shakespeare and related cases in Nottingham); two allegedly unsourced claims (one of which could do with the unworded, the other is part of a description of Wylie’s position); objection to some material on Fanon etc being out of place here but appropriate for Wikipedia (i.e. should be moved elsewhere).

I haven’t reverted two statements I added, one being analysis by an anti-racist blogger (bloggers not “normally” appropriate source – I maintain he is relevant as an anti-racist specialist, though I won’t push the point) and the other regarding the state’s “strong motivation” to deport the suspects (which I think holds up – extraordinary deportations without deportation treaties just don’t happen – and if they didn’t for the Krays or the Great Train Robbers, this case is very exceptional). I have led these issues slide to concentrate on the main controversy.

Guardian Sickness has repeatedly reverted past versions, including the removal and blanking of cited material. He also repeatedly assumes bad faith and is uncivil in talk. He has refused to engage in compromise. He ignores responses to his arguments, and then claims they have not been addressed.

-82.19.3.186 10:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Dispute 1 – alleged bias.

I did object to the use of the word "alleged". The defendants were after all convicted of killing Kriss Donald, and any view that they did not commit the crimes would also seem to be a tiny minority view. There is obviously no requirement for the use of the word “Allegedly” in Wikipedia articles. For example, “Between 1939 and 1945, the SS, assisted by collaborationist governments and recruits from occupied countries, systematically killed about 11 million people.” Similarly Roland Adam’s racist murder is referred to as racially motivated. Isiah Young-Sam’s murder is also referred to as such. Someone has used the word “apparent” in the Anthony Walker article, which I would not object to in the context of pre-trial “tensions”.

Just because a viewpoint is distinct it does not mean it warrants inclusion. I do not believe your “Stormfront” material warrants inclusion either. I suppose when you include the far left you have to try to balance it by including the far right. However, I still contend both of these are tiny minority.

The section does indeed “promote a viewpoint”. In at least two paragraphs you express your opinions on reverse racism being “controversial”. You also compare Kriss Donald’s middle-class murderers to Palestinian suicide bombers. You also clearly draw a conclusion from your the material you cite. You stated in your edit “Thus, while the victim was innocent of involvement in specific racist acts, and may have been targeted partly or wholly based on skin colour, the murder was an attempt at collective punishment of a dominant group, not a simple acting-out of prejudice as in racist killings in the full sense.” Nobody, but nobody, has taken such a position on the Kriss Donald case apart from you.

Dispute 2 – interpretations of NPOV.

These points are dealt with below.

Dispute 3 – over whether the sources in the section are “tiny minority” and linked to this, whether they, or other sources mentioned, are “prominent adherents”.

Wiki policy does not state “For a view to be that of a significant minority it may well be majority in the relevant specialist area,” but even if it did, you would then only have one such opinion, with Bob Wylie being a journalist.

Your analogy of a round or flat earth dispute between the media and physicists is moot. You do not have such a diversity of opinion on this murder; you have a single professor, and a single journalist. This is not the media and academia disagreeing on the Kriss Donald murder. You have picked a single definition of racism to apply to the Kriss Donald case, yet such a view has not been expressed by anyone in relation to the Kriss Donald murder – except you. Even the Spiked article or Bob Wylie’s article did not mention anything about “reverse racism”.

I realise that you claim the “assumptions behind describing the killing as racist are controversial in the relevant area of knowledge,” since you have repeatedly expressed this personal opinion in the article. Again, the problem for you is that these are your opinions on the Kriss Donald case, and have not been expressed by anyone else in relation to this case. This may be the opinion of many academics on “reverse racism” in general, but this article is not about “reverse racism” in general, it is about the Kriss Donald killing.

Bob Wylie is not a prominent adherent in my view. He is not well known, important etc. I would accept that someone in a senior position in the BBC may be well known or prominent, but Wylie is an investigative journalist for BBC Scotland. I also assert that Neil Davenport is not prominent. Apart from his blog (which nobody seems to visit) or his online column with Spiked, I’m not sure how you could find any other questionable basis on which to describe him as prominent.

I have already dealt with your other “prominent adherents” in the discussion above, including CARF, an organisation which is so prominent that it places adverts on its homepage such as, “Urgently needed – new or newish laptop”. I think you would at least need to demonstrate that these kinds of organisations (Pakistani forum Scotland included) are anything more than one guy with a laptop, a bit of money and an agenda.

Your comments on Angela Donald need to be dealt with. You asserted in the article that “Similarly, Kriss’s mother claimed the killing was gang-related rather than racial.” The quote you provide from Angela Donald to back this up is, “It doesn't matter to my family what colour these men are. Kriss is gone because of gangs, not just in Pollokshields but every area of our communities.” Clearly there is something wrong here. Like many of your opinions in the article the citations do not back up the wild assertions you have made.

For some reason you cannot see that Angela Donald made no such claim. You then shift the burden of proof to me when you state, “He [Guardian Sickness] denies Angela Donald counts as a prominent adherent [to the view that her son's murder was not racially motivated] because he maintains she does not endorse the claim that the killing was not racist (his argument for this being that she did not publicly dispute the ruling of racially aggravated killing).”

So, by your logic, we should assume she does deny the racial motivation because she did not state that the killing was racially aggravated. This would be no different from assuming someone supported 9/11 because they had not spoken out in condemnation. This logic is bizarre and is clearly nonsense. You should note that her comment after the killers were convicted of racially aggravated murder and sentenced was “justice has been done”.

Dispute 4 – relevance.

You stated, “Guardian Sickness has claimed that the section is about general points of view on racism and hate crime, rather than the case.” Actually, I had dealt with the Bob Wylie article and Spiked article separately as tiny minority views, which do not warrant inclusion; but, yes, much of that section is about views on racism in general. Hence the comparison between Donald’s killers and Palestinian suicide bombers, and the view that “The very idea that members of underprivileged minorities can engage in ‘racist’ acts is challenged by many anti-racists”. Much of the above material would be on topic in an article on hate crime. You are taking these far left definitions of racism and applying them to the Donald case; that, unfortunately for you, does not make them on topic.

The BBC head of newsgathering acknowledged the BBC coverage when she said they had “got it wrong”. See the BBC Newswatch interview with Fran Unsworth. Kelvin McKenzie criticised the coverage as well. http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article1963528.ece I contend that both these people are prominent (BBC Head of newsgathering and a former national newspaper editor), and that the media coverage is, of course, related to the case. There is no double standard.

Dispute 6 – “Consensus” for deleting the section?

I claimed consensus that the “Explanations of the killing section” should not exist on the basis of the opinions offered by three registered users who had most recently taken part in the discussion and not in relation to the unregistered user who appeared to be engaging in an edit war (you). Those registered users were Newsbeat, FrFintonStack (with whom I had other disagreements) and me. Of course if you go back over some unspecified time period to include those who no longer seem to be taking part in the discussion there could never be consensus in many articles.

Dispute 7 – original research.

You did indeed engage in original research. For exampled you reach the conclusion that “Thus, while the victim was innocent of involvement in specific racist acts, and may have been targeted partly or wholly based on skin colour, the murder was an attempt at collective punishment”. Again, nobody but you took this opinion on the Kriss Donald case.

Wikipedia policy states, “Original research excludes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any personal analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position the editor may hold.”

You also asserted, “This interpretation of the killing is reinforced by news reports revealing that the people convicted were themselves victims of a racial attack earlier in the day.” You then cite the Bob Wylie BBC article – but (and this is important) the Bob Wylie article states no such thing. It actually states that Imran Shahid “was attacked by a group of white youths from Pollokshields as part of that long standing [gang] war,” and that, “after the attack Imran Shahid told a pal that the attack was revenge for his attack on a young man, Paschael Farren, nine years before.” Therefore, your attempt to claim a racial motivation for this attack is flagrantly wrong.

The claim about how many days the Kriss Donald killing appeared on BBC news was removed nearly one month ago, yet you are talking like it is still there. I believe I removed the claim that the Donald case was reported for “3 days” when FrFintonStack pointed out that the Fran Unsworth interview states “3 times”. I agreed with him that that was the case. You should have read the article.

Additional issues

You quote Newsbeat as commenting on the content of your edits, but I think the most recent comment he made on 17th November 2006 should be quoted: “The meat of this article is now seriously in need of de-politicising (ironically, given most articles of this type are hijacked by the NF/BNP-style political angle this seems to have swung over to the other extreme in my view), and the contributors should remember that first and foremost this is a record of a criminal act and the subsequent verdicts and outcomes, NOT a lengthy study on socio-political, interracial or left- vs right-wing minutiae.”

It is not my place to compromise on Wikipedia policy. I believe I would be abusing Wikipedia if I were to do so. I have exhibited a willingness to discuss the issues and point out why I believe content, which ostensibly breaches policy, should not be included. I believe my views adhere to Wikipedia policy.

In summary

This User, 82.19.3.186 (seemingly editing under slightly different IP addresses too), justifies the inclusion of material on hate crimes in general, with the dubious claim that the Kriss Donald killing is only worthy of inclusion at all “…because of its location in the politics of race, its factual status is established by the field of scientific inquiry into race and racism.” This premise is bogus. He makes attempts to link people’s opinions on hate crime in general to this case, where they have not even done so themselves.

He draws bizarre conclusions based on insufficient information. He claims in the article that Angela Donald (murder victim’s mother) denied the motivation for the attack was a racist one based on this statement from her, “It doesn't matter to my family what colour these men are. Kriss is gone because of gangs, not just in Pollokshields but every area of our communities.”

He misrepresents the BBC article on gang warfare in Pollokshields when he states “This interpretation of the killing is reinforced by news reports revealing that the people convicted [Donald’s killers] were themselves victims of a racial attack earlier in the day.” When in fact the BBC article he cites states that one gang member “was attacked by a group of white youths from Pollokshields as part of that long standing [gang] war,” and that, “after the attack Imran Sahid told a pal that the attack was revenge for his attack on a young man, Paschael Farren, nine years before.”

He uses the above erroneous assumption based on the BBC article to give his own opinion on the material when he offers the following conclusion, “Thus, while the victim was innocent of involvement in specific racist acts, and may have been targeted partly or wholly based on skin colour, the murder was an attempt at collective punishment of a dominant group, not a simple acting-out of prejudice as in racist killings in the full sense.”

I also note that a user posting under IP 82.31.15.153, who I assume to be the same editor as above based on the content of his edits, has been soliciting help from people he knows are opinionated on the subject. In a message on one user’s talk page he compares the Kriss Donald article to the “Reverse discrimination” article. He also complained that I had said “anti-racist views are tiny minority,” which was not actually the case: I had said that the views of those anti racists commenting on the Kriss Donald murder were tiny minority; he consistently chooses to avoid that distinction. This is the crux of the problem with this user. He sees anti racist views in general to be relevant to the Kriss Donald article, which they are not; and somehow believes “anti-racist sociology and postcolonial theory” are relevant to the Kriss Donald murder. I state again that these premises for his edits to the Kriss Donald article are flawed.

The article, as edited by the above user, breaches original research. It also breaches WP:NPOV on “Undue weight,” by including the opinions of a tiny minority, and other policies. This user is attempting to cite one policy while ignoring others (however explicit they are) in an attempt to avoid the fact that the material he has inserted just does not conform to Wikipedia’s content policies.

--Guardian sickness 03:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

1) Again moving goalposts. GS now accuses me of using the word "alleged". In fact I never added this word, which was a hangover from the pre-trial edits.

That the idea of reverse racism is controversial is clearly documented in the racism and reverse discrimination articles for instance. That it is controversial among scholars of racism is fact.

The point where you allege I "draw a conclusion", I in fact simply summarise the point of the article cited. If this appears to be "drawing a conclusion" then that's simply a stylistic matter; it needs making clearer that this is the view of the source rather than a statement of fact.

I don't see where the harm is in including different viewpoints. It gives readers the ability to make their own minds up. On "tiny minority" see below.

3) You know damn well that anti-racist positions are the majority positions in the relevant specialism, even though most of these specialists have yet to publish on the subject (google search of articles scores no hits for Kriss Donald so far). The balance of the specialism is clear from examining relevant textbooks and even encyclopedias of sociology. e.g. Haralambos, "Sociology: Themes and Perspectives", the relevant chapter is almost entirely anti-racist approaches. So by excluding anti-racist viewpoints, you are excluding the majority position taken by specialists on the general area in question.

It is not true that advocates of this position have not written on the case. Neil Davenport (politics/sociology lecturer) and CARF and PSF (anti-racist groups) are representative of this position directly on the Kriss Donald case. These are the early, journalistic outreachings of the forming of a (majority or at least significant) position on the case.

I don't see why an investigative journalist would not be "prominent" in relation to the case, nor why a head of BBC (who has less understanding of the case) would be more "prominent". "Prominent" is clearly related to having some kind of claim to intellectual authority or to be knowledgeable about a topic, which Wylie clearly is (he has an institutional claim to authority as an investigative journalist published by the BBC, a reputable news outlet; and he is a specialist on the case). Further, most of the material sourced in the article is sourced to regular news reports, so that if Wylie is not "prominent" then we'd have problems even with the most basic facts of the case.

Since you apparently object to my take on "prominent", I would like to hear yours. Please remember that your own evidence and the material you have failed to delete should also be viewed by this criterion. You also contradict yourself here - you earlier argued against Davenport on the grounds that being popular and well-known (widely read online) does not amount to prominence; now Wylie is denied prominence using exactly the criterion you rejected re Davenport.

Ditto with tiny minority - you accuse the people I cite of being tiny minority within what relevant/interested group or community, and on what basis do you assert the consensus among this group or community?

I continue to maintain you are setting unreasonably high hurdles both for "prominence" of adherents and for "significance" of positions, which are not those being applied elsewhere in Wikipedia.

The meaning of Angela Donald's statement is very clear - that the cause is gang-based rather than racial (if it was racial then she WOULD care what colour the perpetrators were). She never retracted the statement, nor did she qualify her position after the verdict. At a time when there was extensive debate about whether the killing should be understood as primarily racist or primarily gang-related, she described it as the second and expressed disregard for the question of race. The import of this is clear. In fact, it is you who is stating that she must think something she hasn't explicitly said, by effectively saying that unless she condemns the court decision, she must view the killing as racially motivated. "Justice has been done" = she's glad the accused were convicted and she thinks they got the right people; I don't see how it implies anything about the racial issue.

4) The alleged off-topic section makes up a tiny proportion of the much longer disputed section. Admittedly this material would be better elsewhere, but I maintain it should be cross-referenced from here, and from other articles on supposed anti-white racism, because it expresses a significant position among specialists on the broader area of which this killing is a case.

7) Any apparent editorialising on my part is simply stylistic and could be edited out without much ado, and certainly without removing all, or the bulk, of the section.

I've also just noticed that the source you provide for relevance of the media coverage controversy, also provides a source for the "Scottish blindness" hypothesis which you dismissed above as original research.

Additional issues:

Your reading of Wikipedia policy is selective, unduly strict in some areas (your version of "tiny minority" etc), unduly lenient in others (on information suppression for instance). I think you take a very specific interpretative position on policy which is not necessarily shared by other users (Newsbeat shares your view that controversy should be excluded, but this is not what WP:NPOV suggests).

Wikipedia policies, like many other things, are open to interpretation and debate, and there are doubtless many cases where two or more interpretations are formally valid and defensible. Guardian Sickness has arrogantly appointed himself as sole arbiter of the meaning of Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, he has done this in a very aggressive and dismissive manner, has consistently refused to compromise and is clearly following a political agenda of trying to keep out opposing viewpoints.

-82.19.3.186 08:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

1

Please sign your above comment.

Where did I accuse you of using the word “alleged”? Please provide evidence for this. I explained only why I removed the word.

I have nowhere denied that those on the left may find the idea of reverse racism “controversial”. But you are not addressing the point that they take this position in general and nobody, but you, has applied it to the Kriss Donald case. You have also stated your intention to do the same thing with other articles on what you term "supposed anti-white racism".

You did draw a conclusion, which is against Wiki policy: “Original research excludes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any personal analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position the editor may hold.”

3

Read your own comment. “So by excluding anti-racist viewpoints, you are excluding the majority position taken by specialists on the general area in question.” That is exactly the case, because this article is not about “the general area in question”. It is about Kriss Donald. “Early, journalistic outreachings” they may be in your opinion, but this article cannot be based on what you think might happen in the future.

I believe “prominent adherents” on mainstream issues should at least be easily recognised in the mainstream and have mainstream acceptance of their opinions when the issue they comment on has been the subject of mainstream opinion. Prominent, in my view, would be someone who determines what is news and what is not rather than a journalist who writes articles. I would also say that someone in an important position of responsibility in an institution, be that a Director, an editor, a government minister. Also, someone who has achieved mainstream recognition or fame through their work.

Otherwise opinions like those of “Ward Churchill” could be described as prominent, which is ridiculous. An opinion of one or two professors who are seen as “prominent adherents” on a subject covered by the national media, politicians etc. could give a misrepresentation of an opinion being that of a “significant minority” when it is not. For example, if you could find another professor with Ward Churchill’s opinions, his would still be the opinion of a very tiny minority – the overwhelming reaction to 9/11 being that the victims were innocent. In any case, the Spiked article does not mention any theories on “reverse racism”.

You express your frustration that: “these specialists have yet to publish on the subject [the Kriss Donald murder]”. Yet, your way of trying to circumvent this fact is by inserting your off-topic analysis of their general opinions on “reverse racism” into this article. I have addressed the points on CARF (“laptop needed” on their homepage) and the untraceable “Pakistani Forum Scotland”.

Again, I don’t accept Wylie is prominent. Peter Hitchens or Melanie Phillips may have some knowledge about Islam or multiculturalism, but their knowledge of those subjects would not make them “prominent”. Nor would John Ware’s documentary on Islamic extremism in the UK necessarily give him an “institutional claim to authority” on that subject. The idea that any BBC journalist who reports on a subject automatically has a “claim to authority” at all is fanciful.

In your attempt to bring up my earlier points about Davenport you only do my work for me in this discussion. I never conceded that Davenport was well known in the mainstream. I made a point of pointing out that his articles were internet based and that hits on a website were a bad measure of his popularity in the mainstream. I stated “an opinion piece being widely read on the internet does not make the view held by its author any more popular”. If we extend Frfintonstack’s logic then Stormfront, or BNP articles would also qualify as prominent. There can be more than one reason why someone is not “prominent”, as listed above.

You are inferring what Angela Donald meant: “if it was racial then she WOULD care what colour the perpetrators were”. This cannot be acceptable. There was clearly an issue regarding the possibility of revenge attacks being carried out in her son’s name; this could equally explain her comments. However, your inference is plainly unfounded. I did not state her view on racial motivation in the article at all because I do not know her view. Neither do you.

7

You will observe that I did not dismiss Frfintonstack’s insertion of Unworth’s Scottish Blindness comment as “original research”. I objected on the basis that he had selected only part of her defence for this article, which, I believe, sounded most convincing to him. I thought a better compromise would be to remove any specific allegations against the BBC, and therefore negate the need for a defence to be included. He has not yet replied to that point. You should have read the above discussion.

I respect Wikipedia policy and since I have started editing this article I have removed material I inserted as and when I found out it was against policy. My position on “information suppression” is that a view needs to be that of a “significant minority” for a removal of that material to breach the information suppression policy. I maintain that I have adhered to both these policies.

You have called me arrogant, but I am not interested in trading insults with you. I reject your allegation of a political agenda, and I note the person who wants to include general political theories on racism in this article is you. I was content with this article when it was just a statement of facts edited by someone else at the time of the most recent convictions, but you have clearly asserted your intention to go to all articles on anti-white racist attacks and insert links to dubious political theories on “reverse racism” into all of them. Furthermore, I think a “political agenda” might be apparent if I had gone to the article on Anthony Walker’s murder, claimed (falsely) that his killers were the victims of a racist attack, and then offered a citation, which stated nothing of the sort. I would not do such a thing. --Guardian sickness 02:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"Where did I accuse you of using the word “alleged”?" When you interpreted my point 1) above as being about the word "alleged" (when actually it wasn't).

"You have called me arrogant, but I am not interested in trading insults with you."(GS) So that's why you repeatedly make comments like: "This premise is bogus" "unfortunately for you, does not make them on topic" "the wild assertions you have made" "You are not interested in the motivation for Kriss Donald’s murder. You are interested in projecting the opinions of a minority about hate crime in general onto the Kriss Donald case" This is why I say you are being arrogant - not as an insult, but because you're addressing me in a constantly belittling way which I find very offensive. Please stop doing so.

"I have nowhere denied that those on the left may find the idea of reverse racism “controversial”. But you are not addressing the point that they take this position in general and nobody, but you, has applied it to the Kriss Donald case." - this is patently, demonstrably untrue. Neil Davenport and Pakistan Forum Scotland are just two examples. Davenport in particular links his analysis of the Donald case specifically to an argument against the idea of "anti-white racism" in general.

"You did draw a conclusion, which is against Wiki policy: “Original research excludes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any personal analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position the editor may hold.”" - if this is the aspect you're using, then you are in breach of it because your synthesis of published materials in editing the article appears to advance your personal view that the killing was racist, unduly suppressing other viewpoints.

"Read your own comment. “So by excluding anti-racist viewpoints, you are excluding the majority position taken by specialists on the general area in question.” That is exactly the case, because this article is not about “the general area in question”. It is about Kriss Donald." - I think we have an irreconcilable difference about whether this single case belongs to a broader area or not. But also, you keep misrepresenting my argument. I have never said that the article is, or should be, about the general area. What I'm arguing is that the specific article on a specific topic should be located within a broader area of specialism of which it is a part. This is standard policy in Wikipedia - I don't notice you going around all the articles on mammals, deleting the details on their location in tables of species etc, on the grounds that "this article is about mice/rhinos/zebras not mammals in general". What I'm doing is locating this case within a broader specialism, NOT placing a specialism INSTEAD of the specificity.

"I believe “prominent adherents” on mainstream issues should at least be easily recognised in the mainstream and have mainstream acceptance of their opinions when the issue they comment on has been the subject of mainstream opinion. Prominent, in my view, would be someone who determines what is news and what is not rather than a journalist who writes articles."

Do you have any basis whatsoever in Wikipedia policy or precedent for that interpretation? In my view it is not only unduly narrow but also biased, since obviously the mainstream will only present mainstream views. Please remember that the point of Wikipedia is presentation of knowledge, not of the standpoint of the political establishment, or of opinions of the powerful. Therefore, "prominent" must be related to having a claim to be a bearer of knowledge on a subject. Being a definer of mainstream opinion does not necessarily entail this; being a specialist in a relevant area does.

"Otherwise opinions like those of “Ward Churchill” could be described as prominent, which is ridiculous."

It's ridiculous that a professor working on imperialism should be considered prominent on imperialism? Please explain, also, why people like Churchill are widely covered in articles on Wikipedia, e.g. why Churchill has his own article, "Roosting Chickens" another, etc. And isn't occupying a university position an "institutional" position of expertise?

"I have addressed the points on CARF (“laptop needed” on their homepage) and the untraceable “Pakistani Forum Scotland”."

No you haven't. Not having a website does not mean "not prominent", it means operating primarily offline. "Laptop needed" denotes poverty, not insignificance.

"You are inferring what Angela Donald meant: “if it was racial then she WOULD care what colour the perpetrators were”. This cannot be acceptable."

Yes it can. It's unacceptable to you because it leads to conclusions you dislike. Logically, if the killing was racially motivated, then caring about the killing would mean caring about the perpetrators' racism, thus about their race; and not caring about their involvement in gangs.

"My position on “information suppression” is that a view needs to be that of a “significant minority” for a removal of that material to breach the information suppression policy. I maintain that I have adhered to both these policies."

You have engaged in edit warring which I've been warned is against Wikipedia policy.

Finally, your counter-case of whether BNP, Stormfront etc are "prominent" is moot, because my interpretation would be that the disproportionate coverage from these kinds of sites is worthy of comment, being a verifiable matter of fact. However, I would also argue they lack the intellectual respectability of someone like Davenport.

Whatever the merits of your arguments regarding "general" material on racism, you haven't presented an argument against the inclusion of material from anti-racists which is addressed specifically to the case at hand. You can't simultaneously claim that the killing is known as a matter of fact to be racist, and that it is not part of the legitimate concern of the sociology of racism. Anti-racists are specialists in the study of racism.

-82.19.3.186 08:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, so you have no proof that I accused you of using the word alleged (because I didn’t), only that I objected to the word. You are in the habit of drawing inferences and concluding they are fact as you have done with Angela Donald and her comments.

You have thrown an insult at me: “arrogant”. But you cannot find a single instance where I have done anything other than criticise your spurious assertions, inferences, analyses, conclusions etc. These are not insults, and if you find them belittling then you will have to accept that other adults are entitled to point out glaring flaws in your argument, such as claiming racial motivation for an attack against Donald’s murderers where no such information existed

I have found the comment from “Pakistan forum Scotland” in this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3519054.stm Nowhere does the comment mention any principle of denying “reverse racism” in general. The comment was made 2 days after the murder and “Mr Ranjah” is speculating, as were the BBC at the time. You have yet again misrepresented the content of a BBC article, as you did with the Bob Wylie article.

Wikipedia policy does not state that a “specific article on a specific topic should be located within a broader area of specialism”.

Ward Churchill and his “Eichmann” opinions are not in the article on 9/11 for good reason. His view is a tiny minority view, despite your claim that specialisation and knowledge should warrant inclusion of such a view. The mainstream does not only present mainstream views. Ward Churchill’s opinion was well covered but is still tiny minority.

The “specialists” you talk of have not been commenting on this case. The only “specialist” you can find is Davenport, who is writing for a publication with an agenda and basing his material on newspaper articles. His internet article is dwarfed by media coverage of the case, and relative to that coverage his opinion is tiny minority.

--Guardian sickness 15:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And here we go again with the insults dressed up as not insults: "and if you find them belittling then you will have to accept that other adults are entitled" which is a disguised accusation of childishness combined with yet another arrogant order to "accept" whatever entitlements you happen to arrogate to yourself. I say again, please stop it. I'm quite capable of civilised discussion with people who discuss issues properly, but these kinds of asides you have repeatedly made are out of place. Your style of argument is of a kind to drive people away from editing, creating a desert around yourself; it would be far better to engage in productive discussion.

I am in the habit of assuming people mean what they say. If someone says a killing is due to gangs, I take it to mean they are advancing gangs and not racism as the causal explanation. If you insert a comment about the word "alleged" in a series of responses directed specifically at me, responding point by point to things I've said, then I assume you're talking to me about it. I could write a long discussion showing exactly how you projected the use of the word "alleged" onto me, but it would gain little as you'd just deny that you meant what you did, and nobody offering a third opinion is likely to care about such side-issues (which don't even affect substantive editing), so I won't waste my time. I think you also need to read up on the interpretations which are necessarily involved in even the most literal communication, and be aware of how the things you say can appear to others. It's not my fault if you have difficulty saying what you mean, and you really need to stop attacking me for criticising what you've actually said rather than the intent behind it.

There are a lot of differences between this article and the 911 article, not least the massive length that article has already reached; though there are certainly non-mainstream citations there, e.g. to conspiracy theories.

"Wikipedia policy does not state that a “specific article on a specific topic should be located within a broader area of specialism”." - nor does it state that it shouldn't, nor that something ceases to be a matter of specialism if it becomes "mainstream". But standard Wikipedia practice is for topics to be located in areas of specialism.

I'm not misrepresenting anything, both Wylie and Rajah (and Angela Donald for that matter) state very clearly that gangs were the cause of the killing. There are at least two distinct interpretations of the killing: the main cause was racism; the main cause was gangs. Each commentator who adds a remark blaming gangs without mentioning racism is endorsing the latter explanation. It's that simple.

-82.19.3.186 21:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, you called me arrogant, and that is on the record. You have failed to cite a single instance where I have done anything similar.

I took issue with the word alleged because you quoted my previous point “The racial element is not alleged”. I wouldn’t have accused you directly and was not implying you put that into the article because I did not know who did. If drawing that inference means something to you then fine. It isn’t important to me because it is simply wrong.

Let’s review what was said again: I stated, ”I have nowhere denied that those on the left may find the idea of reverse racism “controversial”. But you are not addressing the point that they take this position in general and nobody, but you, has applied it to the Kriss Donald case." Then you stated, “This is patently, demonstrably untrue. Neil Davenport and Pakistan Forum Scotland are just two examples.” So you did misrepresent what “Pakistan Forum Scotland” stated since they mentioned nothing about “reverse racism”.

It isn’t that simple. If I blame gangs for violence in the community that does not exclude the possibility that there are many reasons behind the crimes they are committing. If Angela Donald had blamed revenge and excluded racism you could take it she agrees with you, but she did not. You are using flawed criteria for inferring what you would like Angela Donald to mean. How about the main cause being racism perpetrated by a gang?

--Guardian sickness 23:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You have a little wriggle room there with Angela Donald, but if you actually read Davenport, Wylie, and the statement from the Pakistan Forum Scotland figure, you'd be very clear on what their positions are. Davenport specifically says anti-white racism is a myth. Wylie has an entire article to mention racial hatred as a motive, and all we get are gangs, gangs, gangs. PFS specifically said the killing was not racist.

The gang explanation is not simply the claim that there were gangs involved. It is a claim that Kriss was killed because he was mistakenly associated with, or wrongly profiled as a member/supporter of, a rival gang. This doesn't rule out racism of a sort (use of racial profiling as one factor in misidentification) but it DOES rule out the dominant narrative which is that Kriss was killed simply "because he was white", that the killers were just "looking for a white boy to kill".

With Angela Donald: I'm simply reading the obvious content of her statement. Speech occurs in a context. Omission conveys information because speakers are usually aware of seeking to convey meanings. If I say, "the Titanic crashed because it hit an iceberg", that would normally rule out my thinking, "the Titanic was blown up by aliens". Now of course, someone could technically argue - as you do with Angela Donald - that maybe aliens blew up part of this ship and made it hit the iceberg, so maybe strictly speaking one reading doesn't preclude the other, maybe I didn't mean to preclude this, maybe therefore I can't be cited in support of the iceberg explanation. Clearly this is absurd! Now add, further, the condition that other people are coming out in favour of the alien explanation in large numbers; and assume I add on the start of the statement: "I don't care about aliens". Would you still suppose I might support the alien theory, when I added this qualifier in this context to a statement in support of an alternative view? So - if we interpret all statements with the strictness you're applying to Angela Donald - I daresay most articles would have to be pared down because each advocate's statements do not sufficiently preclude their also adhering to alternative explanations.

-82.31.11.81 19:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

“Pakistan forum Scotland” made the statement when everyone was still ignorant of the crime. At that time the BBC were still speculating on Donald possibly being in a relationship with an Asian girl (why you haven't included that I don't know). Pakistan forum seem to have made no such statement since then. Davenport makes no mention of “reverse racism” theories in the article - whatever the title of it is.

I know what the gang explanation is.

The Titanic analogy is flawed for a number of reasons. Icebergs don’t have any motivation at all; icebergs and aliens are, in my opinion, mutually exclusive while gangs and motives are not; the iceberg (in your example) was not deliberately put there by aliens to sink the titanic, and the person giving the statement, in your analogy, does not seek to avoid any revenge attacks on aliens. You haven’t even quoted the full statement from Angela Donald, which really shows the context. The last part was, "…However, I would urge the public not to target the Asian community because of his death." She gave that statement to discourage people from retaliation attacks. Your logic is badly flawed and original research based on your inference cannot be good enough to state as fact.

--Guardian sickness 00:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to contested section, attempt to address criticisms

I've substantially reworked the contested section in an attempt to address the criticisms. Changes have included removing the material on inversion, instead adding a link to a new article on this subject; cutting, merging and correcting some of the gang material; removing the contested qualifying comment about Angela Donald's statement, simply leaving the statement to speak for itself; and moved the trial defence section to "controversies". (I hope the references still conform to the footnotes after this reworking).

The reason for this reworking is to take away some of the most pervasive objections which have been raised. This doesn't mean I accept the objections as valid; I'm seeking to make the stakes of the argument clearer by removing grounds for misunderstanding. For instance, the material referred to as "irrelevant" is now entirely removed, so is the contested statement about Angela Donald.

I have added “alleged” before “racial element” because firstly the element is contested and secondly no verdict had been established at this time, so assumptions of a racial element at this point were speculation.

I have replaced “racially-motivated” with “racially-aggravated” in all descriptions of the verdict. This is the proper legal term, and the terms are NOT interchangeable as I have explained before. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ldxar1 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Another third opinion

The material in question looks like original research to me. It seems to argue its own point of view (in violation of WP:NPOV) and try to draw new conclusions. For that I would have dumped it. Reswobslc 07:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There was never consensus on that edit and some had asked for it to be removed or stated it should not exist. Some users here are ignoring the lenghtly disussion above --Guardian sickness 14:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Much of it is OR, yes. However, that does not mean the entire section should be scrapped. The BBC is a highly notable source and thus their comments should be included into the article. I'm not advocating the inclusion of every word of the article, simply an edited down version of the section. The section itself can be edited down to a paragraph, but not completely removed like this user wants. --Strothra 15:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Strothra, I have asked you on your discussion page and elsewhere, but you have consistently avoided addressing the point on Wikipedia policy and its requirement for "prominent adherents" to make a view that of a significant minority.

If you were only interested in representing that view with "one paragraph" you would have gone back to FrFintonStack's edit (if you had read the discussion), but instead you are intent on an edit that, without any doubt, is against a number of Wiki policies as outlined above. Will you now address the above policy on prominent adherents if you are going to contribute to this discussion? --Guardian Sickness 16:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Guardian sickness has been disscussing quite a lot lately Strothra. I do suggest that you read what he has to say and mull it over for a while. Also please stop editing other peoples edits, its against the talk page guidelines last time I checked. Again, I hate harping on the subject, but my brother got blocked for doing the same thing (changing talk edits that is). Cheers! --Darkest Hour ^{Ж Ж Ж Ж Ж} 22:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed a pattern here. The goalposts keep moving. First it's irrelevance, then it's political bias/tiny minority, now it's original research.

I don't think anything in the section I added was original research for the following reasons. Firstly, it has all been said before; hence not original. Secondly it is verifiable, and its sources are cited. These sources are notable, but even if they were not, this wouldn't affect whether it's original research.

Also, if this material is original research then so is the material on the BBC's supposed non-coverage, and so also is the material on alleged police failure to take Asian gangs seriously.

-82.19.3.186 10:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The goal posts are not moving. The problem is you are not paying attention to the fact that the material you inserted does not conform to the above policies. The material on the BBC draws no conclusions and satisfies the policy on prominent adherents. --Guardian sickness 03:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You're constantly changing which policies you claim I'm breaching. Your insistence on deleting the material I added has been constant, but your pretext for doing so has changed constantly. You did not even mention "original research" until another user did. When your argument that it is compatible with one policy is rebutted, you creatively read another policy to keep your argument going on new grounds.

I would also add that I feel you're being offensively aggressive and belittling, and trying to avoid any kind of compromise. You claim to be an expert on Wikipedia policy despite being apparently unable to avoid repeated edit wars, information suppression, vandalism, assuming bad faith and incivility.

-82.19.3.186 07:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

When did I "claim to be an expert" on Wikipedia policy? Please provide evidence for this. I had no reason to mention your breaches of other policy since I contend none of it should exist on the basis of it being tiny minority and off topic. Since "Reswobslc" mentioned the other breaches of policy I agreed with him. I still do. "Reswobslc" has a right to contribute to this discussion as well.

The other points are addressed in the above discussion titled “A third opinion”. --Guardian sickness 02:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You're claiming to be an expert whenever you assert as matters of fact about Wikipedia policy what in fact are contested interpretations, such as your view of the "tiny minority" criterion as excluding for instance anti-racism. Otherwise you would show rather more humility in interpreting these kinds of complex issues.

You interpret "tiny minority" and "prominence" in an extremely rigid manner, and wrongly identify trial outcomes etc. as establishing facts verified as true. I interpret NPOV to require presenting all opposing viewpoints, and the excluded category of "tiny minority" as referring only to intellectually non-respectable viewpoints propagated solely in conspiracy theories, small-community blogs etc. My reading is based on my understanding of how controversies have been negotiated elsewhere, the reasons for the introduction of particular policies, and their application on other articles (which I'm reluctant to name incase you decide to do the same thing there). In other words - it's a situated reading of how policies should be interpreted, constructed primarily to help defend the spirit of the pursuit of knowledge (including knowledge about disputes) as opposed to the propagation of one-sided views. You take a very mainstream-centred and unduly restrictive approach which sets unreasonably high hurdles for opposition viewpoints. Similarly the idea of "prominent" - you're taking this to mean only leading figures within the mainstream, refusing to accept other claims to be a bearer of knowledge. I feel you're using policies designed for one purpose for a very different purpose, using them to exclude viewpoints you disapprove of by sweepingly declaring these to be "tiny minority".

-82.19.3.186 08:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And you stated information suppression as a matter of fact. This discussion is going on in three places now. Maybe it is better to keep it in one or two places as I have explained my position elsewhere.

--Guardian sickness 15:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Your information suppression IS matter of fact. Wikipedia procedure is for editors to discuss changes and try to reach consensus. Deleting material where there is no consensus that it is "tiny minority" is information suppression. This is thus very clear - unlike your various interpretations which are disputed.

Actually I think it would be better to carry on the discussion in different places, but keep each one about a separate issue. That way it will be easier for others to follow what is being disputed instead of being confronted by thousand-word back-and-forth exchanges. People offering third opinions seem to be having distinct problems making out what the exact stakes are, as Wizardman's comments show. The minutiae of whether Angela Donald said this or that, whether one line within a long section might fall down on WP:NOR or whether such-and-such source is sufficiently prominent are separate from our broader dispute over your rendering of NPOV as MPOV and your attempt to eliminate all non-mainstream views from the article.

-82.19.3.186 21:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine then. Just show me the exact policy that states exactly what you stated above. "Deleting material where there is no consensus that it is "tiny minority" is information suppression." I look forward to it.

--Guardian sickness 01:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You conveniently respond only to those aspects of what I say for which you have a response in mind. For instance, you've completely ignored the fact that the 911 article includes sources which are non-mainstream (conspiracy theories). I notice, too, that you haven't produced a source for your "NPOV=MPOV on mainstream issues" interpretation.

Now you're asking for an exact reference for an impression I've got from previous reading on Wikipedia policy. And on previous form, I expect you to object that the quotes I've found don't say "deleting views without consensus on tiny minority status is information suppression", even though this is a reasonable derivation from the specific things I have found.

"Ignoring or deleting views, research or information from sources which would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms. (This may be done on spurious grounds such as not being "valid enough")" is information suppression. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Information_suppression "Reversion wars between competing individuals are contrary to Wikipedia's core principles," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_war "Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution

In other words: blanking verifiable material is information suppression; if in dispute over whether material is appropriate then don't revert, improve. Which amounts to the same thing in my view, though possibly you're about to find some technicality by which it differs slightly.

-82.31.11.81 19:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, so there is no policy that states, “Deleting material where there is no consensus that it is tiny minority is information suppression”. As you know, I do not only object to your edits as biased or inaccurate (although they have been and are), I object to them as tiny minority, and off topic.

I used the Ward Churchill article on 9/11 because your argument was that a professor, as long as he was a “specialist” in his area, should be considered prominent. I contend Churchill is not and should not be in the article on 9/11 because his opinions are not held by any but a tiny minority. Many newspaper editors across the world seem to have given oxygen to conspiracy theories around 9/11 including newspapers in Iran and Syria.

The US state department also comments on the issue of conspiracy theories, and elements of the conspiracy theory were the subject of a US Senate investigation. As far as I know only Ward Churchill calls the victims of 9/11 “little Eichmanns.” Also, you have only two people speculating on the motivation for Kriss Donald’s murder. The last two examples are not similar to the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

--Guardian sickness 00:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ward Churchill would not in principle be out of place in the 911 article. In practice you've picked a bad example - the 911 article is very long, covers a field in which there are literally thousands of sources satisfying Wikipedia criteria - many with distinct information, and furthermore, Churchill's views are widely covered in articles on Churchill himself, his Roosting Chickens article, and the controversy around his being witch-hunted.

You object to my edits on the basis of a shifting sand of different pretexts which amount to the view that NPOV=MPOV and that views you see as not mainstream should be excluded. You never have explained, why commentary on the reasons Kriss Donald was murdered is "off topic" for instance; this claim is solely down to your bad-faith imputation of motives for the edits.

-82.19.5.150 09:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ward Churchill would be out of place in the 9/11 article. I know he has articles relating to himself. Why are you telling me things I've been telling you?

The discussion is dead. I have explained myself about 5 times, but you come back looking for the same explanations. General theories on "inversion" and "reverse racism" = off topic. The views relating to a lack of a racial motivation for the Donald murder = tiny minority.

--Guardian sickness 19:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The causes of the dispute; fresh call for third opinions

Guardian Sickness explicitly takes the following positions, which I contend are counter to Wikipedia policy as generally applied:

"I believe “prominent adherents” on mainstream issues should at least be easily recognised in the mainstream and have mainstream acceptance of their opinions when the issue they comment on has been the subject of mainstream opinion. Prominent, in my view, would be someone who determines what is news and what is not rather than a journalist who writes articles. I would also say that someone in an important position of responsibility in an institution, be that a Director, an editor, a government minister. Also, someone who has achieved mainstream recognition or fame through their work."

“Otherwise opinions like those of “Ward Churchill” could be described as prominent, which is ridiculous. An opinion of one or two professors who are seen as “prominent adherents” on a subject covered by the national media, politicians etc. could give a misrepresentation of an opinion being that of a “significant minority” when it is not. For example, if you could find another professor with Ward Churchill’s opinions, his would still be the opinion of a very tiny minority”

“The idea that any BBC journalist who reports on a subject automatically has a “claim to authority” at all is fanciful.”

On the basis of this reading of "tiny minority" as meaning "non-mainstream", he repeatedly deletes content related to significant minority perspectives and even to the views of relevant specialists. I contend that this is a misinterpretation of WP:NPOV, serves to restrict the expression of encyclopedic knowledge (namely, the verified existence of particular viewpoints and of controversy), and imposes a single point of view. This is not in fact NPOV but MPOV - "Mainstream point of view".

Logically this MPOV position would condemn a lot of what is currently in Wikipedia, leading for instance to the elimination of most sections dealing with radical theory (which would be rendered non-verifiable by prominent commentators), the elimination or severe reduction of most controversy sections, etc.

I believe this is the core of the dispute, which has previously been muddied by easily soluble surrounding issues (e.g. whether my writing style is sufficiently encyclopedic - easily addressed by "cleanup"). It is on this issue - whether "tiny minority" can be taken to include all non-mainstream viewpoints, and whether such an extremely high and biased hurdle for prominence can be maintained - which I request third viewpoints. I feel the third opinions given already by Wizardman and Reswobslc don't really engage with this issue because they become sidetracked by the side issues. Therefore, I am seeking opinions on whether NPOV can be read as MPOV.

I contend that if it doesn't, then some version of the referenced material I added (notably Wylie, Davenport, something on the trial defence, a link on inversion or anti-white racism, extent of far-right interest, anti-racists' hostility to the "racial motivation" claim) should be included, even if not arranged in the same way I arranged it, and even if it needs a lot of cleanup.

-82.19.3.186 09:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

But you seem to have missed an important qualification I made. I said “on mainstream issues”. In other words those issues covered by mainstream opinion.

You state “Logically this MPOV position would condemn a lot of what is currently in Wikipedia, leading for instance to the elimination of most sections dealing with radical theory”. But “logically” that is not the case. Wikipedia policy states “We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.” So, radical views would be represented while still conforming to the undue weight policy.

You have misunderstood my point as I am not stating NPOV should be read as MPOV. I am stating that where the issue has become mainstream the requirement for prominence would logically change. Where Ward Churchill and his opinions may be prominent within his field, his “Little Eichmanns” opinion in his essay “On the Justice of Roosting Chickens” deserves zero coverage in the 9/11 article, despite him being a “relevant specialist”.

Edited to add: You seem to be aware of Ward Churchill having his own article on Wiki so you are obviously aware that radical theory does have a place. You edited that article this morning.

--Guardian sickness 15:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite aware that all kinds of things have a place here which are not covered by your proposed policy. For instance, the current (protected) version of the 911 article may not include Churchill, but it most certainly does include a section on 911 conspiracy theories, which are not "mainstream opinion" at all; along with a link to a larger article on conspiracy theories which is relevant only by mediation of this section.

Now you've backtracked from what you said above and are making a more limited claim that NPOV only issues MPOV if the issue is "mainstream". I don't accept that this is the case. Further, if you're now saying "radical views would be represented while still conforming to the undue weight policy", this frankly goes against your actions as an editor which have been to eliminate radical views full stop - even a single citation being too much for you.

Interesting, too, how one is to determine what counts as a "mainstream issue"? I refer again to the analogy above with a situation where the majority believed flat earth theories. This would therefore be subject to your NPOV=MPOV on mainstream issues rule, and scientists' views would be excluded.

Also, it's none of your business what other articles I've read or edited. Please stick to the relevant issues. We're meant to be trying to reach a consensus on the article here, for all my scepticism that we ever will.

-21:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC) -82.19.3.186 21:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no backtracking. I worded the above quite clearly. It states “I believe prominent adherents on mainstream issues…” That is not backtracking. The qualification was there, but you missed it.

I agree. If Wikipedia existed hundreds of years ago the round earth theory might not have got much coverage at all, but it’s easy to look at that as preposterous with hindsight. Maybe in future people will regard it as preposterous that fringe scientific theories at this time were tiny minority and not generally accepted.

Radcial views would be represented. This is not against my actions as an editor. Again, the policy says “and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views,” which is why I mentioned your editing of Ward Churchill’s article - as an example of the above policy.

--Guardian sickness 23:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

But your position is that "on mainstream issues" any radical view lacking mainstream proponents is "tiny minority", which means you do embrace NPOV=MPOV on what you take to be "mainstream issues", and you do advocate excluding radical views, even if held by significant groups of specialists, from such issues. This is not Wikipedia policy.

"Science and objective, verifiable sources often conflict with subjective and unverifiable claims derived from religion and pseudoscience. It is to be expected that Wikipedia articles will give extra space in articles to POVs based on verifiable science while limiting the amount of space devoted to unverifiable POVs that are based on subjective belief systems." Hence, no suppression of SPOV as non-MPOV. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Information_suppression

-82.31.11.81 19:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I don’t support excluding radical views where “prominent adherents” hold these views. I would not support, for example, Ward Churchill’s opinions being included in the 9/11 article while it seems you would differ.

The policy you quoted does not mention levels of prominence. It only makes a distinction between scientific claims, and unverifiable claims.

--Guardian sickness 00:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The policy I mentioned (actually a guideline I think?) is that SPOV should not be excluded because it's non-MPOV. You were advised on Village Pump to look at WP:FRINGE which also seems to back my contention - although it uses the language of "mainstream" to describe what is permitted, it includes all scientific/specialist material as "mainstream", as well as any fringe perspective which is mentioned (even disparagingly) in the mainstream media.

Ward Churchill would not in principle be out of place in the 911 article. However, there are literally thousands of relevant articles on 911, so prominence etc are not the only criteria there - it isn't possible to include every notable statement from sufficiently prominent sources in the 911 article, because it is so long and drawing from such a wide range of sources - hence, Churchill along with a lot of other topics gets "forked".

-82.31.2.92 23:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Just came back from Village Pump where a user has told me that your NPOV=MPOV position is unfounded.

":They are trying to intimidate you hoping that you don't know the rules. In most cases, mainstream sources should make up the thrust of the main premise, but non-mainstream sources are fully acceptable everywhere else (eg, don't use a non-MPOV for as your primary source, but it can be used either to agree with it or to dispute it)"

So in other words, what I've done here (adding non-mainstream views as disputing the mainstream) is broadly in line with Wikipedia policy.

-Ldxar1 23:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This user, who didn't sign his name, heard your version of events - noticeably minus any mention of tiny minority versus significant minority. He didn't hear anyone elses version of events. He would have to accept, as will you, that there are articles where tiny minority views should not be represented.

--Guardian sickness 14:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I have already expressed my displeasure at your uncivil assertions regarding what I "have to accept" - please stop it.

NPOV seems to assert that tiny minority views should not be included. But I do not accord with your reading of what counts as tiny minority, and neither does WP:FRINGE. For instance - a conspiracy theory mentioned disparagingly in the media ceases to be tiny minority because it has a mainstream primary source; a viewpoint finding expression in even a tiny number of specialist journal articles ceases to be tiny minority. I do not concede in the slightest that the material I added is "tiny minority" in the Wikipedia sense. NPOV=MPOV expressed your view pretty clearly and "prominent adherent" references to "tiny minority" so the latter accusation was implied.

I do, however, "accept" that there are cases - extremely long articles such as the 911 article - where issues completely independent of NPOV, OR, Verifiability etc may require the exclusion or forking-out of material which otherwise meets Wikipedia criteria. This is due to the sheer volume of material.

-Ldxar1 19:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You called me arrogant. You have been uncivil.

Wikipedia policy does not mention tiny minority only applying when articles get long. That is something you just made up.

--Guardian sickness 19:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

WHEN DID I SAY "Wikipedia policy does not mention tiny minority only applying when articles get long"? I can't possibly have "made up" something I didn't say. Please look carefully through my post again. Did I ever say Churchill's position was "tiny minority"? No, I did not. Did I say the issue of article length has anything to do with "tiny minority" status? No I did not. So what did I say? That article length may be a reason for excluding or forking what would otherwise be included (hence NOT tiny minority); so my rejection of your view on Churchill does not necessarily mean I think Churchill should be in the 911 article.

This little incident is symptomatic of what's happening here. You argue very strictly when it comes to certain things, such as your unduly strict criteria for including Angela Donald's comments, your objections to reasonable interpretations of your own statements, and your protestations over any attempts on my part to interpret Wikipedia policy; yet you often use very loose and extremely ungenerous readings of my and other contributors' comments.

"Arrogant" is almost a synonym for "uncivil". It's a particular type of incivility. In any case, this is one incident on my part, which I have not repeated; compared to many incidents on yours, which you continue to repeat despite my asking you not to. You say a lot of things which are only likely to entrench me in my positions and make me less likely to take your views seriously. e.g. your telling me I will be "forced to accept" your judgements will simply make me want to never, ever accept them, no matter how well you argue for them. Instead of sticking to arguments, you are making this talk page a hostile environment for me. This goes against Wikipedia goals in terms of pursuing consensus.

-Ldxar1 20:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree I read that sentence wrong. Although that's all I agree with.

--Guardian sickness 01:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of racial motivation

This section was such garbage filled with original research.

I mean really.....

I have never read such twisted nonsense.

The official narrative regarding the case is based on the prosecution arguments and judge’s statements in the trial, and has been reproduced in the mainstream news media. This perspective states that the killing was racist

Really????

FFS, if all reputable media sources and the judge + jury concluded this, anything else is ORIGINAL RESEARCH.

And the rest of this stuff is garbage too. Apparently anti-white racism doesn't exist. Racism exists in every country in the world, and between every race. Does anyone seriously believe this is a mainstream point of view. It's about as mainstream as saying the holocaust never happened.

The BBC report was also deliberately twisted to push an agenda: if you read the story it gives a very different sense.

The obsession with the far-right is also odd, so I trimmed that.

Plenty of other things were deliberately twisted - apparently

Similarly, Kriss’s mother has stated that "It doesn't matter to my family what colour these men are. Kriss is gone because of gangs, not just in Pollokshields but every area of our communities." ^[3]

i.e. the victim's mother is seen to endorse the bias of the author of this section.

If you see the reference however,

Community leaders were extremely worried about the risks of an explosion of racial violence, with accusations that the British National party was stoking up tensions. Mrs Donald intervened with an appeal for calm, stating: "It doesn't matter to my family what colour these men are. Kriss is gone because of gangs, not just in Pollokshields but every area of our communities."

In other words she said it as an appeal for calm.... So by missing the context the words are twisted.

The quote from CARF too seems outdated and intended to promote a certain agenda.

I have edited this section so it is less intensive on a single rather outlandish viewpoint.

Nssdfdsfds 18:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC response

I have had a brief look at this article. It seems to me that it is fair to write the introduction from the perspective that Kriss Donald was a victim of racially-motivated violence, given the criminal conviction was for a racial motivation, and the only dissenting voices are in a small minority.

Further the article is suffering from weasel words. The sentence "Some Marxist scholars question this label, describing violence against dominant ethnic groups as inversion rather than racism" is begging for an attribution and a lot of unpacking. The remark that far right websites have highlighted the case in order to exacerbate (spelling!) the racial tensions seems to be endorsing a point of view.

Finally, "Some commentators continue to doubt that the murder was racially motivated or that significant ethnic tensions exist in Pollokshields" needs to be attributed directly to the commentators who have these doubts (only one is cited). Sam Blacketer 18:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You should read the article before I edited it. It was even more weaselish. Nssdfdsfds 22:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you could both read the above sections where myself and the unregistered user outline our opinions. I refuse to edit the sections of the article he has added since I believe they are either tiny minority views or off topic. However, much of it, even in its current form, is against Wiki policies. To see what we are discussing, maybe compare the page history of my last edit with the current one. --Guardian sickness 01:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd contest some of the revisions (e.g. why Davenport was removed, why CARF statement about the context of gang formation is irrelevant if Bashir Maan gang discussion is not) but I'm glad that even someone hostile to the section can see the point of keeping it in, in an edited form. This is a lesson to certain other people who have edited this page.

The only serious inaccuracy is in alleging that the gang viewpoint is held by "Marxist scholars" only. The assumption that critical theorists are necessarily Marxist is flawed. None of the scholars in the inversion article are Marxist.

On the other hand, the editorial statement "FFS, if all reputable media sources and the judge + jury concluded this, anything else is ORIGINAL RESEARCH." is not true. Original research means not traceable to verifiable sources. All the material included was verifiable. This statement is a repetition of the NPOV=MPOV fallacy (see above) but this time with "original research" substituted for NPOV.

-82.19.5.150 09:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

But remember that when two people above who were up to date with the discussion said the section you added should not be in the article, you were not interested in what they thought.

--Guardian sickness 19:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I was interested in that I modified the article in line with some of their objections later, and in that I debated with them here. I'm not going to agree with people who want to blank verifiable, relevant material unless they have very good arguments for doing so. I don't accept the interpretation NPOV=MPOV, the exclusion of specialist views or the use of "tiny minority" to refer to sources or viewpoints considered notable in the mainstream press.

I see that you've started reverting again - despite the fact that I had specifically not reverted the previous (clearly hostile) edit. I'm frankly disappointed that you've gone back to edit warring.

-82.31.2.92 23:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is nobody who disagrees with your large off topic and tiny minority sections of the article seem to have a good argument in your view of things. That includes both of the people who objected to the inclusion of your large section on "allegations of racial motivation". Newsbeat, and FrFintonStack (who wanted the spiked article to be given a single sentence).

I refrained from editing for a week in the hope you might engage constructively in the discussion. First of all, you began replying only every 3 days when you were getting your way, and secondly you have been going round in circles: asking me to explain my argument when I have clearly outlined it above 4 or 5 times at least.

--Guardian sickness 14:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have already explained that I do not agree with the ridiculous reading of NPOV as meaning MPOV, which is fundamental to your labelling of the sections I added as off-topic or tiny minority. The people you mention all adhere to a variety of NPOV=MPOV, so of course I did not find arguments starting from this premise convincing. However they had worthwhile points about some of my phrasing etc.

I asked you to explain your argument until I got a clear statement of the premises from which you were working, with which I disagreed, namely the claim "NPOV=MPOV on mainstream issues". I have not asked for clarification of your arguments since then.

My arguments, AS WELL YOU KNOW, are made clearly above, in the section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kriss_Donald#A_third_opinion and those relating specifically to NPOV=MPOV here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kriss_Donald#The_causes_of_the_dispute.3B_fresh_call_for_third_opinions

They include among other things: neutrality requires diversity of perspectives; particular topics are located in specialist areas; analyses of specialists are sufficiently prominent for inclusion; a view finding expression in the mainstream media or among verifiable specialists is not "tiny minority"; "undue weight" normally justifies expanding other sections, not blanking or cutting; one of the views I added expresses substantial, probably minority opinion in two major specialisms with relevance to the topic, and prefigure likely later contributions of these specialisms; terminology or inference introducing alleged bias or alleged OR should be answered by altering the terminology or removing the inference (not the source).

-Ldxar1 19:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You stated that I had not explained something which I had explained numerous times in your post of 09:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

What was the point in writing all the above when your argument was already explained? As I said the discussion is going nowhere. I know your position and, hopefully, you know mine.

--Guardian sickness 19:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am hoping however fruitlessly to convince you to actually address my concerns rationally. So I persist in trying to reason with you and attempting to reach consensus, as Wikipedia policy suggests. Certainly it doesn't always seem very fruitful, because I just end up having to explain yet again the same things I have already explained. But I have to keep trying.

-Ldxar1 20:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, I'm fully aware of your argument, which I disagree with. I have read every single word you have posted in this discussion. There isn't much more to be said for now, and mediation seems to be the right move

--Guardian sickness 01:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation?

I don't think we're going to reach agreement at present because of our fundamental dispute over "NPOV=MPOV on mainstream issues". Calls for comments and third opinions have so far failed for two reasons: firstly, because you ignore third opinions which go against your views; secondly, because the discussion has become very convoluted and it is hard for third commentators to pick out the main issue - most have not even addressed the NPOV=MPOV dispute. You have recently reverted an edit which resulted from two "third opinion" editors, both of whom were broadly sympathetic to your politics but who apparently did not accept your reading of Wikipedia policy. This reversion seems to say that you have rejected third opinions as a means of resolving this.

We have discussed extensively on the talk page without reaching a conclusion.

We have both gone to Village Pump, and received answers broadly hostile to NPOV=MPOV, which you appear to still be ignoring.

I would suggest that the next stage in dispute resolution is to go to mediation. However, I need the consent of Guardian Sickness to go to mediation as it requires agreement of all parties. Guardian Sickness, do you agree to take the dispute over NPOV=MPOV and over whether the section about racial motivation should be deleted entirely to mediation?

-Ldxar1 23:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight should not be given to minority views. While they can be covered, devoting more than half the article to them does not represent a rational encylopedic article, and to maintain such an article is to promote a partisan point of view that is entirely inappropriate, conveying an impression of the issue that just does not accord with the reality of the way the issue is perceived by society as a whole. Nssdfdsfds 00:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Nssdfdsfds, my argument with this user all along had been between tiny minority and significant minority. Wiki policy says tiny minority views should not be mentioned at all expect in articles about themselves.

I'll compromise for now with FrFintonStack's edit on the basis that there will be mediation, but if he goes back to his own edit it won't be accepted.

--Guardian sickness 14:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Nss, I've said before that GS may be wrongly expanding an argument similar to your own (undue weight). I think any undue weight problem with this section could be addressed by expanding other sections of the article, in particular, expanding the explanation of why the mainstream assumes the killing to be racially motivated; this is the advised response to undue weight concerns due to the amount of space given to a perspective - not to delete or substantially reduce verifiable and relevant material. Also, it is not encyclopedic to try to express "the way an issue is viewed by society as a whole", but rather, to try to express the status of knowledge on an issue - in which specialist views carry much greater weight than a thousand repetitions of an uninformed position.

I'm calling for mediation, not certifying GS's endless edit warring. It's not up to him to decide what a "compromise" version would be. FrFrintonStack's version is GS's version with one sentence added. I don't think that's a compromise given the other options available.

-Ldxar1 18:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not say "specialist views carry much greater weight than a thousand repetitions of an uninformed position;" these are things you are making up as you go along. You think Ward Churchill's views should be in the article on 9/11 and that says it all

--Guardian sickness 19:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that as well you know; I said they shouldn't be excluded as "tiny minority" (there are other reasons relevant to 911 specifically which have nothing to do with this - i.e. that there is a case for exclusion of otherwise adequate material from that article because of the volume of material, and that there is a case for forking it out because it's a specific controversy). There are other subtle differences (e.g. regarding whether Churchill is writing within his specialism when he writes on 911) which also differentiate this case from the current instance.

Whenever I advance an interpretation of Wikipedia policy you say "Wikipedia policy does not say...". Of course I have used my own words, but I've provided a basis for saying so in each case. I shouldn't have to remind you of this, but Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Encyclopedias present the current state of KNOWLEDGE - not the current state of public opinion. Specialist views have always been given utmost respect here, even when alternative positions are also presented. Some people here - i.e. Guardian Sickness, and maybe also FrFrintonStack, Newsbeat, NSS - take the position that views which meet Wikipedia criteria but are not endorsed by the mainstream media or majority opinion should be excluded from "mainstream" articles. This goes against what it said in WP:Fringe for example. It effectively turns large sections of Wikipedia into the online equivalent of a straw-poll of public opinion, with majority views allowed to censor dissent. One effect is the suppression of specialist views, which are clearly notable for inclusion.

In any case, Wikipedia policy does not say "Ward Churchill's views should not be in the article on 911" so your attempt to provide an acid test issue is utterly unfounded in Wikipedia policy. You haven't provided any reference to policy or precedent as to why this statement would be taken as policy.

-Ldxar1 20:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You used your own words because the policy says nothing of the sort. There is no basis for that.

--Guardian sickness 20:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is, although it's implicit rather than explicit.

A couple of examples:

""Mainstream" here refers to ideas which are accepted or at least somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications (large-circulation newspapers or magazines) or respected and peer-reviewed academic publications. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FRINGE

"Science and objective, verifiable sources often conflict with subjective and unverifiable claims derived from religion and pseudoscience. It is to be expected that Wikipedia articles will give extra space in articles to POVs based on verifiable science while limiting the amount of space devoted to unverifiable POVs that are based on subjective belief systems." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Information_suppression

Statements such as these can be interpreted to mean that specialist views should be included, and that these views carry more weight than non-specialist views based on subjective belief-systems. I am interpreting these in line with the goal of presenting knowledge (as opposed to majority opinion). "Specialist views carry much greater weight than a thousand repetitions of an uninformed position;" is a rendering of this in a slightly hyperbolic way. In any case, you have presented no evidence to the opposite - that sheer numeric superiority overrides status among specialists for instance, or that only mainstream (media/politics/etc) and not specialist (academic) views are permissible in mainstream articles.

I am not "making it up" (another instance of your incivility) - I am interpreting. You are also interpreting, and making more extrapolations than I am. You have still failed to provide any basis for your NPOV=MPOV position.

-Ldxar1 21:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've put in a request for mediation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Kriss_Donald which now needs your second signature to be recognised.

See HERE for instructions on using the form: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Guide_to_filing_a_Request_for_Mediation so please don't do things like altering my specification of the issues (you can add anything you think I missed under "additional issues"), or engaging in debates/polemics on the page, as this could lead to an automatic rejection of the request.

You need to sign up "#agree" on the section where I've signed "#agree" - the request can only be accepted if both of us have agreed.

-Ldxar1 21:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You didn't seem to be interpreting any policy. You were stating what is and isn't encyclopedic, which is different. I've added my name to the mediation so I think any more discussion is better saved for there.

--Guardian sickness 01:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I've jumped into the middle of this, rather late, and can't digest it all in one go. However, I pointed out ABOVE that there were early indications that a compromise could have been found, or at least attempted, but that the reaction went more in the direction of silencing discussion and eliminating any room for minority views. And, again, I have a lot to read to get up to speed on this, but even the very first paragraph of WP:NPOV makes it clear that minority views are required to be represented, unless they are so extremely tiny as to be non-notable and lacking sources: "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source."zadignose 16:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Without prejudice or premature judgment, allow me to state that the key word here is significant. All significant views... Not all views, and not even all views which are not vanishingly small. That said, significant minority views are indeed to be included, but not given undue weight. I offer this merely as an observation on the nature of NPOV#Undue weight, and not as an opinion on this particular conflict. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. I'll try not to be too noisy here, as I'm just an observer, and not a principle participant in the discussion/mediation. There's a lot that could be discussed, but I don't want to be guilty of fanning flames.zadignose 04:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)