Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Kriss Donald

Getting started

 * A brief word about mediation - it can take a long time, so please be prepared if there is no speedy resolution. I am very impressed that you have chosen mediation over edit warring or escalation, so I have high confidence we'll be able to work through this and resolve the issues.
 * Please be patient if I ask for clarification on anything. I'm really, truly not being dense on purpose, I'm just trying to make sure I understand you correctly before moving forward.
 * First we need to make a determination of whether you would prefer public or private mediation. Private would be via email, public we can do here. The advantages of private is that it tends to reduce hostile reaction and counter-reaction. The advantages of public is that we can all see what is being said where. I will do whichever you prefer. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Given the very lengthly discussion between Ldxar and myself on the Kriss Donald discussion page, I would prefer private mediation. Judging by our previous discussion I believe a public discussion could possibly become very lengthly, repititous, and difficult to follow. Having said that, I have no aversion to a public discussion if Ldxar perfers that.

--Guardian sickness 22:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have two slight concerns about private mediation which I'd like clarification on.

The first is: would I have to make my email address publicly available, possibly leading to risks of spam etc?

The second is: if mediation fails, would there be any kind of log of what happened - for instance, if the dispute later went to arbitration, would logs of mediation be available to the arbitrators? I'm hoping mediation works, but I'm also concerned if it doesn't, about being accused at a later date of saying things I didn't, or GS stating that he or I said things in mediation that were not said... Since GS has accused me of misrepresenting what he said in the past, I would imagine the concen is mutual. Some kind of record of mediation would be needed if this happened, and we have ended up in disputes about what was/wasn't said before in the past.

If I can avoid making my email address generally available, and there's a log which would be accessible in further dispute resolution processes, I'd be happy to go along with private mediation. Otherwise I'd much prefer public.

-Ldxar1 14:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you wish to proceed via email, it would be by emailing me. I would correspond with each of you, working with you to clarify your position, etc, which then either I or you would post an edited version of here. I will have your email address, and you will have mine. No email addresses will be publicly posted. There will be no log for future reference except for what is posted here. Each of us of course may or may not keep a file of the emails from the case for our own personal reference. I will not conduct a mediation solely via email for an article mediation, as some record may be needed for future issues on the article, and for general transparancy reasons. I hope this clarifies things - if not, please let me know and I will answer whatever questions you may have. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm allowed to talk on this page, so please just ignore me if I'm not. But the disagreements on the Kriss Donald article are not just between Ldxar and GS, and the same issues are likely to continue to arise even if neither of these parties is involved. So a private mediation may be less useful to the encyclopedia than a public one, or at least a well-expressed public conclusion. Cheers, JackyR | Talk 16:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Given the concerns raised, we'll do this one publicly. To start with, I'd like the involved parties to post their side of the dispute in the sections prepared below. They're in alpha order, no preference is implied. Stick to the article and policy issues - any comments on the other editor(s) will be removed. Try to ignore the comments left here by others in this preliminary stage and just write what your raw view of the debate is, what you're specifically supporting and why. For now, please don't reply to the comments made by each other in your statements. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi KillerChihuahua, before I engage in the mediation process I would like to point out that I agreed to do so on the basis of the mediation being between Ldxar and myself. You can see from the discussion page that the issues of disagreement between us were extensively discussed and got to a point where they were clearly defined.

I note that you have now invited another user to engage in this mediation process. Jackyr does not seem to have contributed to the Kriss Donald page discussion or article in over two months. I am sure there are other issues that might be contentious, but if Jackyr needs to bring those to mediation then I think that is an issue for the future. I am not happy to continue in the mediation process with anyone other than the user who I have been in discussion with for quite some time - Ldxar.

If anything I am now more convinced that, providing you could address Ldxar's concerns, private mediation would be a better idea. I believe this would stop paralell discussion on the issues raised here spilling over into the Kriss Donald discussion, with the mediation becoming somewhat incidental. As Jackyr requsted, your conclusions could possibly be posted here.

--Guardian sickness 01:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I stated to JackyR that if JackyR considers him/herself to be involved, it might be a good idea to add his/her name to the mediation. As JackyR has not, but rather indicated no available time to contribute, and a desire to see this mediation reach a resolution, we can ignore that for the time being. Had JackyR responded with interest, I would have discussed that with you and Ldxar1. What precisely is your complaint? If this is mediation about that article, it does no good for someone who has strong interest to be excluded. Mediation is not binding, and doubly so for those who never even participated in the mediation. As it is, the mediation is still between you and Ldxar1, so you are raising an objection to something which does not exist - a non-issue. It is irrelevant whether the issues have been discussed on the talk page. Please post, clearly and concisely, your position below. If you prefer to email me and discuss how best to phrase your position, I will be glad to assist you. If not, please post your position below. Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 16:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi KillerChihuahua, I must take issue with you referring to my above post as a “complaint”. I had merely stated that if other users who were not engaged in the lengthy discussion between Ldxar and myself were invited to join the mediation process then I would no longer be involved. I don’t see how that is a complaint.

This could not be anything further from a non-issue. You have asked me to begin mediation below while inviting someone who was not involved in the lengthy dispute to add their name to the mediation. Although Jackyr, or other users, may hold an opinion on the issues; the users who have been involved in the dispute, which necessitated mediation, were Ldxar and myself. I am apprehensive about engaging in a process where the parties I have agreed to engage with may be subject to change.

In all honesty I was quite impressed with Ldxar’s willingness to mediate. I had also previously asked for impartial input on the help page because I believe in the merits of my arguments. However, it seems that Jackyr’s venting on your talk page has been an attempt to draw your attention back to small parts of a heated discussion nearly 4 months ago, influence your handling of the mediation process, and your opinion of me. Her post on your talk page could not possibly offer anything constructive at this point.

I notice after her input on your talk page that your attitude has changed; I am not happy with your description of my above post as a complaint. I am also unhappy with your earlier assertion that mediation between myself and Ldxar would be “pointless” if other people who have edited the article were not involved. I would therefore strongly urge you to offer this case to someone who is a member of the mediation committee. I have no confidence in you for the above reasons.

--Guardian sickness 20:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we have a difference in definition for the word "complaint" - it certainly seems so, as you take issue and apparently veiw it as a negative word.
 * No one has been added to the mediation, nor would they have been without the consent of everyone. You have made it clear you wish the mediation to be between you and Ldxar1, so it is indeed a complete and total non-issue, as it is a closed one. You have closed it. Was I somehow unclear in that?
 * JackyR's post was fairly simple, and stated only that s/he had no desire to become involved at this time, and that s/he felt it would be a good thing if mediation were successful. I fail to see how that is an attempt to influence me or distract me, or "venting" of any kind. My attitude has not changed; if your perception has, then we can certainly discuss that if you wish.
 * You have accepted me as mediator. I am sorry you now feel a lack of confidence, and believe it to be due to misunderstandings, and very possibly to poor phrasing on my part. Do you now reject me as a mediator? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

My only concern is that Jackyr posted links on your talk page to the past discussion in an obvious attempt to influence your impartiality in this case. I can see no other reason for someone who professes to have no time to be involved in this mediation case putting links on your talk page to comments made 4 months ago. It is, in my opinion, a clear attempt to prejudice your views and findings. My concern would be the same whoever was mediating. Jackyr's input into this mediation, especially on your talk page, is questionable and unconstructive.

Our definitions of "complaint" are definately at odds. I am not expressing resentment or finding fault - on the contrary I accept the system if that is the way it works - but since the post mentions that I am not happy with that situation I can now understand how you could perceive it as a complaint.

Providing you can assure me that Jackyr's unhelpful links on your talk page will be of no influence then I am happy to continue. I should point out that Ldxar and myself had similar issues in the discussion, but I am trying to focus on the issues where Jackyr clearly is caught up in venting about the past discussion.

--Guardian sickness 23:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I can assure you I am not biased by JackyR. I am also not biased by you or Ldxar1. I am, in fact, not biased. As far as JackyR is concerned, s/he posted, indicating to me there might be some concern of involvement, I posted - it appears I was less than clear, as you have interpreted my post as a direct invitation, rather than a sounding out, but as JackyR has stated s/he is not part of the dispute and you have confirmed that, that closes the matter so far as I am concerned. It is pointless to mediate a dispute without all involved parties - this is why all involved parties must agree to mediation - and it is also pointless to add uninvolved parties to mediation. Since both you and JackyR have stated s/he is not an involved party, I did not even broach the subject here of possibly adding JackyR to the mediation. If you have further questions, please ask - I asked for patience with me in my first post on this page, and am more than willing to extend the same to others, communication in general being prone to misunderstandings as it is. On the subject of misunderstandings: My definition of complaint, for what its worth, is "a grievance, problem, difficulty, or concern." KillerChihuahua?!? 23:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The mediator has discussed the issue with JackyR who has apparently decided not to be involved in the mediation, at least not at this point. I think we can trust the mediator not to be unduly influenced by third parties. JackyR has a point however, that the debate would probably continue with other participants even if you and I were not involved, so a public record of the debate is valuable.

-Ldxar1 10:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, see my answer above which confirms your statements. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the two most recent posts. Please confine yourself to your position, below, so I can continue. This is mediation, I have not volunteered to watch a verbal fight between the two of you. GS, do not respond to Ldxar1; Ldxar1, do not respond to GS. If either of you feels an overwhelming need to discuss something, email me. If I find your emails pointless ramblings about concerns that I might have missed something (before I've even had a chance to address it) or compaints about each other, you will receive very short email responses from me. If you have any questions, feel free to email me. I expect to see nothing on this page until GS has posted his position. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Guardian sickness' position
My position is that the most of the material that is the subject of this mediation is tiny minority or is not “directly related” to the subject of the article. However, I will also detail sections of this material that I believe to be original research or quoted out of context. This does not change my view that the material should not be included on the basis of it being tiny minority. It may help you to revert the article back to Ldxar’s edit to see the citations to the material mentioned below.

As an issue becomes more mainstream the requirement for prominent adherents should logically change. I have repeatedly used the example of someone like Professor Ward Churchill whose opinions on the victims of 9/11 may constitute a significant minority within his own field, but in relation to the mainstream coverage of 9/11 are tiny minority. At best such opinions receive enough coverage to be considered “fringe”.

My position has been somewhat misrepresented. I have repeatedly qualified my view on what constitutes a significant minority; however, this has been summarised by “NPOV=MPOV” which does not adequately explain my view. In issues to be mediated “Issue 1” the question posed is “Are views of reputable specialists (whose writings pass WP:Verifiability, WP:NOR and other criteria) ‘tiny minority’ (in the sense of requiring deletion from articles) if they go against mainstream political and media opinion?”

The above was never my position. I believe that a significant minority view voiced by prominent adherents can still go against the mainstream view, but have sufficient coverage to warrant inclusion. However, in this case there are two main adherents to the view that the killing was not racially motivated who I believe are not prominent (I will deal with the others below). Neil Davenport, who writes for an internet magazine called Spiked, which is not mainstream and clearly has a politically motivated editorial agenda. I should point out that the editor of Spiked objects to people being charged with racially motivated criminal offences whether they are guilty or not (he has expressed this view in relation to other racially motivated crimes in the UK). Also, I view the Neil Davenport article to be a tertiary source. He has written the article and based his conclusions on secondary sources (other newspaper articles). This is not an academic paper; it is an article based on other media reports (secondary sources).

The only mainstream article is from one BBC journalist, Bob Wylie. However, his article has only appeared on the BBC Scotland website. No other mainstream media report in the UK disputed the findings of the court. This includes many BBC reports, and other TV and print media organisations. This puts the Bob Wylie article into perspective. It does not appear to be a view held by a significant minority and the argument in the discussion that BBC journalists have an “institutional claim to authority” on any subject they report on is fanciful.

As for “issue 2”, I contend that all material in the Kriss Donald article should be “directly related” to the case of his killing and not material “which falls to some extent within a particular specialism”. This would be the equivalent of going to every article on individual victims of suicide bombings in Israel or Sri Lanka and inserting the wider political views of “specialists” that any death resulting from suicide bombings cannot be classed as murder due to the political situations in those countries. It has been repeatedly asserted in the discussion that the Kriss Donald article only warrants inclusion in Wikipedia because it falls within some field related to racist studies. However, this is not the case. A brutal child murder covered by the mainstream media warrants inclusion on that basis alone.

As for original research, Kriss Donald’s mother at no point stated that the murder was not racially motivated. She made the statement that her son was gone because of gangs, while she was appealing for no retaliation attacks against the Asian community in Glasgow. She is not quoted in context and the conclusion drawn is inference, and therefore original research. Equally, “Pakistan Forum Scotland,” which is mentioned in a BBC article written two days after the murder took place is quoted as saying the killing was not racially motivated. However, this is again quoted out of context. This statement was made when everyone was still ignorant of the details of the crime and while the police investigation was just beginning. At this point the BBC and police were still speculating on the motivation for the crime. The BBC was even speculating that the murder was related to a love affair between Kriss Donald and an Asian girl. An article from an organisation called CARF (Campaign against racism and fascism) is also included. However, this dates from 1998 – six years before the killing took place – and could not possibly be sufficient to comment on the crime. I believe it is not directly related to the article in any case. I contend that taking any report (predating the killing by six years or not) that is not “directly related” to the killing and relating it to the killing in any way is original research.

--Guardian sickness 00:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ldxar1's position
I have already written two extensive descriptions of my position, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kriss_Donald#The_causes_of_the_dispute.3B_fresh_call_for_third_opinions and previously, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kriss_Donald#A_third_opinion

To restate somewhat: as an encyclopedia with a policy of NPOV, Wikipedia should include multiple viewpoints where these exist to any significant degree, and should not promote contested majority or mainstream views as "fact". A viewpoint does not have to conform to the "mainstream", in the sense of opinions accepted by politicians, authority-figures and/or the mainstream media, to merit inclusion in any part of Wikipedia. It has to meet criteria of verifiability, neutrality and non-originality; these criteria are far more inclusive than an insistence on “mainstream only” in the sense meant here. I would maintain in particular that views widespread among specialists in an area of which a Wikipedia topic is a subject should be given coverage if at all possible. Hence, if an article is about racism, then views widespread among specialists on racism should be referred to if at all relevant to the case, and comments reflecting specialist opinion should be given weight based on their position in the wider specialism. GS in contrast maintains a position which I term “NPOV=MPOV”, claiming that neutrality amounts to taking as fact the position taken by the legal system and mainstream media. I agree that these viewpoints should be included as viewpoints, but I do not think they should be presented in a way that portrays them as fact or as the only notable viewpoint on the issue.

The alternative view that the killing was a (wrongly-targeted) gang-based retribution attack should be included, along with some kind of link to the broader issue of the context of supposed anti-white racism. I also maintain that the claims made by the trial defence should be included somewhere in the article, and that the interest attracted from the far right is sufficiently notable for coverage (given that far-right interest was regularly mentioned in the mainstream media and may have partly framed the mainstream perspective).

I have twice edited (and several times reverted) a section on motivations for the killing, which are based on material drawn from a number of sources all of which meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. These include an investigative report by BBC journalist Bob Wylie, which is the most extensive and detailed investigative report I have seen on the case; an article by Neil Davenport in Spiked-Online – Davenport being a politics lecturer with a specialism in sociology/politics of race; a quote from the victim’s mother Angela Donald (see below); and the views of two anti-racist groups (CARF and Pakistan Forum Scotland), one on the broader context and one on the murder. GS repeatedly blanks this material on the grounds that it is “off topic”, “tiny minority”, “not NPOV”, “original research”, or “biased” - his exact arguments changing over time. The position I have eventually pinned him down to, is that he takes NPOV to mean MPOV “on mainstream issues”, with the result that he reads “tiny minority” expansively and “prominent adherents” very rigidly. He claims that a “prominent adherent” has to be a political leader, senior editor or suchlike, and that specialism does not give prominence. He states that Wylie, Davenport and anti-racist groups are insufficiently “prominent”, and that the viewpoint I am seeking to include is “tiny minority”. I do not believe the perspective is “tiny minority”. It is at worst “significant minority”, held by a number of prominent adherents and recognised in the mainstream media, and may even reflect majority opinion in the relevant specialism.

Hence: Firstly, there are sufficient sources meeting Wikipedia standards to merit inclusion of the view that the killing was mainly gang-based; Secondly, these views approximate to scientific point of view on the issue, thus bringing the article into line with racism and other articles; Thirdly, the inclusion of these views is necessary to avoid bias.

There are also a few subsidiary issues. The first is that Guardian Sickness objects to what he takes to be an inference of Angela Donald’s comments, quoted in a mainstream media source, which clearly state adherence to a gang-based rather than a racism-based explanation and which have not been retracted. In my view the rendering of the claim “"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."” as support for a gang-based rather than racism-based explanation is a reasonable paraphrase of the original. In my most recent edit I simply left the quote with no qualification and GS still objected.

A second issue is regarding the scope of the article in terms of secondary impacts, effects etc of the case. GS objects to my inclusion of material dealing with the broader context of gang violence, as well as declaring any issues regarding inversion and structural racism to be off-topic, but leaves in another section dealing with accusations that the police failed to take action against gangs in the area because of political correctness. I would contend that either all of this material is off-topic or none of it is. My own feeling is the latter, but I object especially to the inclusion of discussion of a right-wing perspective on Pollokshields gangs and simultaneous exclusion of an anti-racist perspective, an inconsistency which leads to bias.

Thirdly, there are other issues raised in the course of the discussion which I have partly conceded and tried to resolve. For instance, I initially included a substantial discussion of the idea of inversion which was probably out-of-place here; I’ve now taken this out, but instead want to include a link to an article on inversion. Some of the phrasing of my original edit was criticised as “reading like an essay” and as involving inferences which might qualify as original research (such as referring to an earlier attack on the perpetrators as a “racist attack”). I realise my writing style is not always the best for Wikipedia and that my own edits may be more encyclopedic if rewritten, but I don’t think this is grounds for blanking significant quantities of verifiable, sourced material. My argument is that the broad outlines of the section should remain, not necessarily that my particular way of collating the material should remain.

Fourthly, there’s a possible issue regarding “undue weight” because of the length of the section I wish to include; I feel this would be best resolved by GS or another critic expanding the explanation of the mainstream/official account. Perspectives should speak for themselves and be treated equally in light of the verifiable evidence which can be provided for them. Ldxar1 11:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Short version as requested
NPOV requires inclusion of multiple perspectives where these exist to any significant degree. The view that the Kriss Donald murder was gang-based rather than racist is at worst a significant minority view, not a tiny minority view. In addition the murder should be seen as falling within a specialist field of racism studies within which this position is possibly majority opinion. My edits provide sources and evidence for the view which meet Wikipedia criteria of verifiability etc. A substantial section setting out the view that the killing was gang-based should be included in the article along with material setting out the mainstream media/court view. -82.31.7.93 23:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC) That was me. Something logged me out. -Ldxar1 23:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion: Gang violence
It appears including views presenting the incident as non-racially motivated gang violence is the central lynchpin upon which the dispute revolves - whether to include, include but indicate minority view, or not include; and the secondary disputes are about whether the sources provided by Ldxar1 meet a threshold for inclusion. If this is not the problem in a nutshell, please say so - if it is, please simply agree; if you feel some detail is left out in this summary which can be stated in one brief sentence do so; otherwise try to simply agree or disagree that this is the crux of the dispute. Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 10:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree. I would also add that even if you did agree that the gang explanation should be included I believe another issue would be whether the material would justify more than a single sentence in any case - as FrFintonStack's edit included. This would be an "undue weight" issue. --Guardian sickness 19:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree this is the core issue, but it has beneath it differences of position including: what field the article should be viewed as part of, whether "mainstream" issues should have a special status, and how/whether the broader context should be included. -Ldxar1 23:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ldxar1, in your shorter version of your position, you stated "the murder should be seen as falling within a specialist field of racism studies within which this position is possibly majority opinion" - which field is that, please? KillerChihuahua?!? 10:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The field of sociology of race/ethnicity. (The case clearly involves issues of definitions of racism, media coverage of race/ethnicity, institutional treatment of race/ethnicity issues and causes/dynamics of ethnic conflict which place it in this field). -Ldxar1 14:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a Wikipedia article on that field, or which mentions that field? KillerChihuahua?!? 18:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

For some reason nobody has contributed an article on "sociology of race" or "sociology of ethnicity" but they appears in this list: Subfields_of_sociology

The existence of the field and its broad contours can be confirmed from most introductory textbooks on sociology. For instance, it appears as a chapter in Haralambos and Holborn, "Sociology: Themes and Perspectives".

The Wikipedia article on racism gives extensive coverage to the perspectives from the field (WEB Du Bois, Jared Diamond, Molefi Asante, Stokely Carmichael all being examples of people either working in the field of academic racism studies or in closely allied activist/NGO activities). Authors in the field such as Paul Gilroy, Ambalavaner Sivanandan and Manning Marable receive their own articles, though the field is referred to in slightly different terms in each case (e.g. politics of race, African-American studies).

Postcolonial theory which is a closely related field is also covered, along with leading exponents such as Gayatri Spivak and Homi Bhabha. I added an article on inversion in postcolonial theory which GS has not contested.

I've tended in the discussion to refer to "sociology of race", "sociology of ethnicity", "politics of race", "anti-racist theory", "black studies" and "postcolonial studies/theory" as a single field, because the subtle differences between them are of relevance only to academic issues. -Ldxar1 22:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks - so if I understand you correctly, we can (for general purposes in this discussion) refer to the various terms with one term, as the differences are (for our purposes) negligible? And that term for the field could well be "anti-racist theory" OR "black studies" or any of those other terms? Those terms mean quite different things. This is unclear to me: it appears you wish to include content which declares the incident to be not racially motivated, yet you state the murder should fall into a special category, within a racist context? Please clarify, as concisely as you can. As far as I can tell, you're saying the crime is racist. All the rest is not clear to me. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think sociology of race and the areas I refer to only deal with incidents which are racist. They deal primarily with perceptions of race, perceptions of racism, and issues of "race and representation".
 * For instance, definitions of what counts as "racism" fall within this field. Issues of race relations fall within this field.  And issues of media representations of race and racism fall within this field.  Thus, the alleged presentation of a gang-related killing as racist would definitely fall within this field, as a matter of how the media, politicians, and mainstream opinion represent race and racism. -Ldxar1 19:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This reads like OR, do you have a source which uses one of these concepts which is directly about this case? If it is one of the sources you listed, simply give me the number, thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have an argument with the way some people use "OR" here; I don't see how descriptive use of a category can be OR. This must be a misunderstanding because every single use of language which is not a precise quote involves application of categories; if OR is understood in this way then all of Wikipedia is OR.  Categories refer to a set of conceptual contents; either something falls within the category or it doesn't; it doesn't involve any more original inference to put something in a category than to observe, say, that a cobra is a snake or Shakespeare is an author, which I can't imagine anyone here calling OR even if it wasn't specifically cited to somewhere (there are certainly articles here where someone describes the content of a TV programme in words, based on watching the programme; it's verifiable, but the actual words used may not have occurred in the programme).  The existence and use of the category is verifiable; the existence in a particular object of the characteristics relating to the category is verifiable.  In any case Neil Davenport (source 2) is within the field of sociology of race broadly speaking and has written on the subject.  I can find an instance of a specialist text saying, "media coverage of issues of racism falls within sociology of race" or something similar if that would help (i.e. I can verify that cases *of this type* fall within the category).

-Ldxar1 04:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence for Gang violence view
Ldxar1, would you please list below all your sources for the "Gang violence" view? Please use a numbered list. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Links? Urls? Please link items in list, thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Gangsters, murder and extradition Detailed investigative piece by Bill Wylie of the BBC
 * 2) The myth of ‘anti-white racism’ Article by Neil Davenport, lecturer in politics and sociology
 * 3) Three jailed for life for race murder of schoolboy Guardian UK Comment of Angela Donald, victim's mother: "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."
 * 4) Community's shock over killing BBC "Local community leader Hanif Rajah told BBC Scotland he did not believe it was a racist crime." (Rajah is a member of the Pakistan Forum Scotland)
 * 5) Behind Glasgow's Gangs Background details on gang situation from anti-racist group CARF (Campaign Against Racism and Fascism)


 * I would also add two further points. Firstly, that the status of the case in relation to the broader field is time-relative; so far there is not a single academic article dealing with or citing the case (I searched Google scholar search and Zetoc).  This is probably due to the delay between events and the emergence of peer-reviewed publications dealing with them.  I fully anticipate that the case will later receive treatment within the specialist literature.
 * Secondly that a lot of other sources which don't meet Wikipedia criteria also share the same view; in other words these five are not the ONLY sources - they're the only sources that I feel meet Wikipedia standards. -Ldxar1 14:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Guardian sickness, please note which sources above you do not feel meet the threshold for reliable sources, thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I should make it clear that since I object to the gang explanation as tiny minority I object to all the above sources on the basis of the requirement for prominent adherents. However as for sources being reliable I believe the “Spiked” article is a tertiary source from an Internet publication with a declared political agenda. The content of the article is based on secondary sources - newspaper reports.
 * The Guardian article does not contain any quote from Angela Donald denying that the motivation for the killing was racist. Gang violence and racist violence are not mutually exclusive. It is inference to take her comments as a denial of the racial motivation in her son’s killing.
 * The BBC article, which contains comments from Hanif Rajah of the “Pakistan forum Scotland” should not be worthy of inclusion on the basis of “Age of the source and rate of change of the subject”. This is due to the fact that the comments were made two days after the killing at a time when everyone was ignorant of the details of the killing, including the police and news organisations.
 * The CARF article is from a far left organisation founded by a “Marxist theorist” and black activist,Ambalavaner_Sivanandan. I do not think this is suitable as a source as his position, like CARF’s, seem to be loaded with too much far-left baggage to offer any type of impartial view of racism. Apparently, from my googling, Sivanandan is even considered controversial among the far left in the UK. In summary I view the CARF article as an extremist source. --Guardian sickness 20:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * By my count that is... none of the sources above meet your threshold for RS except the Guardian article and possibly teh Bill Wylie article - am I correct that it is the second BBC article to which you object? KillerChihuahua?!? 23:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in again, but the argument here seems to be upside-down? Rather than showing that a view is tiny minority because there are no prominent adherents, GS seems to be saying that an adherent can be labelled as insufficiently prominent because he's already decided the view is tiny minority. And he's using NPOV=MPOV as a criterion again. In a sense Sivanandan is not mainstream; but he isn't "tiny minority" in a Wikipedia sense. CARF isn't providing "an impartial view of racism", neither is anyone else including the mainstream news coverage - the point is whether including this analysis aids impartiality, not whether the viewpoint itself is impartial. He seems to be taking a position that the mainstream provides an "impartial" view which should be transcribed directly into Wikipedia - I consider this an unacceptably biased and repressive reading of Wikipedia policy.

He's objected to Wylie previously as well, apparently because Wylie is insufficiently senior in the BBC? (I wasn't that sure of the reasoning). The Spiked piece would on my reading be a secondary source (involving inference from primary sources). Is there a policy difference in terms of sourcing to secondary and primary sources?

-Ldxar1 02:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, The BBC and Guardian are reliable sources in general. However, in the context of them being cited to support the "gang explanation" I object to both these sources. I object to the Wylie article since I contend the view that the Donald killing was not racially motivated is tiny minority, and the Guardian article because Angela Donald has never stated that the killing of her son was not racially motivated. --Guardian sickness 00:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The BBC is a reliable source. That is a separate subject from the view, which may well be a minority but if the BBC is a source for it, is probably not an insignifant minority. The Guardian also meets Wikipedia RS guidelines; you may certainly examine whether it supports certain statements or not, but it cannot be dismissed as an unacceptable source - merely a non-source for certain assertions, if you follow. If the article is being used as a source for something, it must actually be a source for that. It can, of course, not be used as a source for something not in the article. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I see the Guardian and BBC as reliable sources in general, so I agree with most of what you say, apart from your analysis of BBC coverage meaning a source is not tiny minority. I don't know if you wish to discuss that here so I will refrain on that point for now. --Guardian sickness 21:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't WP:FRINGE say that coverage in the mainstream media implies that a viewpoint is significant enough to be included? And that for mere coverage - in this case actual advocacy is found in mainstream media.

- I wonder how GS defines "tiny minority"? I still think he's using "NPOV=MPOV".

-82.19.9.203 12:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Possibly irrelevant material
Guardian sickness, you mention several items in your position which are included (either currently, or off and on during edit warring?) which you feel are either completely irrelevant, or not terribly relevant - would you please list the items below in numbered format? If my phrasing doesn't quite describe your position on the questionable content, apologies, we'll discuss item by item after the list is entered. Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 18:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The reference to irrelevant material is to all material that is about far left views on race crime in general or gang violence in Glasgow in general, but has been brought into the Kriss Donald article and, by way of original research, has been used to comment on the racial motivation in the Kriss Donald case. I would also include the original research, which was part of the text of the Kriss Donald article and offered the editor’s analysis of the above material.

--Guardian sickness 14:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) CARF Article “Campaign against racism and fascism” article predating the killing by some six years.
 * 2) Inversion_in_postcolonial_theory Article created by Ldxar and the linked to from text of Kriss Donald article. This also seems to breach policy on avoiding neologisms.
 * 3)  An example of the original research, which I termed “irrelevant” in the discussion.
 * 4) Reverse_racism Previously included in article
 * 5) Collective_punishment Previously included in article

GS Item 2 discussion - Inversion
GS does not object to the section on Bashir Maan and the alleged gang crackdown which is about gangs in general and not Kriss Donald in particular. If this is relevant then so is the CARF piece.

Inversion is not a neologism, it is used in the specialist literature which I do not think GS has any knowledge on; there are cited examples in the article on inversion. The article on WP:neologism is guideline not policy, and does not say that neologisms should not be used, it basically restates WP:verifiability and WP:NOR. Kriss Donald should link here as the killing may be an instance of inversion.

The accusation that a killing of a white victim by Asian attackers is racist is an example of a claim of reverse racism. The accusation that the attackers tried to avenge an attack by white youths by carrying out a murder of a randomly selected white youth is an accusation of collective punishment.

-Ldxar1 06:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

GS Item 3 discussion - Explanations of the killing
GS, Item 3 on your list is to an entire section, which was removed and replaced several times. There have been other "versions" of this, using the term loosely: recently there was a "Racial allegations" section, and so on. Do you object to any background or content concerning the reasons for the crime, or just the content that has been inserted so far? KillerChihuahua?!? 16:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I object to any background or content that is not directly related to the Kriss Donald murder; engages in original research; or that is a tiny minority view and seeks to offer an alternative to the widely accepted view of the killing as one motivated by the race of the victim. The mainstream coverage of the case included events leading up to the killing, so this would warrant inclusion. However, the important thing is to avoid wording this to give the impression that the killers believed Kriss Donald was a gang member, or to give the impression that the murder was not racially aggravated.

--Guardian sickness 22:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, setting aside objections to content which violates policy, you state you object to content which is not directly related to the killing and specifically to content which gives the impression the killers believed Kriss Donald was a gang member and the murder was not racially motivated, is that correct? KillerChihuahua?!? 09:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That's correct. --Guardian sickness 14:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, one at a time, then - I presume you do not object to some background, for context? In other words, you do not object to the prevailing theory that the crime was racially motivated, and thus a little background on racial tensions in Glasgow would be acceptable? I draw to your attention the article Great Fire of London, a Featured article. Currently, the entire first section, including two sub-sections, "sets the scene" - with the main section being London in the 1660s, and the two subsections being Fire hazards in the City and Seventeenth-century firefighting. Prior to the rewrite, taken on by Bishonen, with assistance of several other of our most stellar editors, the article was very poorly written with no context at all - see this older version, which had no background or context. The article is clearly better with the background context. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don’t see how this background on racial tensions would be directly related to the Kriss Donald killing. There is no evidence that racial tensions played any part in the killing and I would therefore say such information is not directly related.
 * The issue is that this would contextualise this racially aggravated killing in precisely the way the items numbered 1 and 3 on my list attempt to do. The implication would be that Asians are the victims in these racial tensions and killing of Kriss Donald is somehow related to these tensions; otherwise why would such information be present in the article?
 * It is known that the killers were violent gangsters with long criminal records, but not that they were part of any racial tension prior to the murder. This plays exactly into the hands of an egregious falsehood, which had earlier been put into the article (see item 3 on my list), that the killers were themselves victims of a racially motivated attack. This was not true and has since been removed. --Guardian sickness 00:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You're saying it is a racially aggravated crime, but background in racial tensions in Glasgow is not relevent? Is that correct? KillerChihuahua?!? 15:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Unless it can be demonstrated that racial tensions led to Kriss Donald's killers targeting him. I am not aware of any evidence for this. Their racial motivation was inspired by a white person attacking them as a result of a gang conflict. --Guardian sickness 00:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Would background on gang conflicts be more appropriate then? KillerChihuahua?!? 15:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The only violence and gang that “directly relates” to the Kriss Donald murder would appear to be that of his killers, and their violent criminal past. I can see how fireghting in the 17th Century, and a brief history of London in the 1660s directly relates to the Great Fire of London. However, I am not sure gang violence in general is directly related to the Kriss Donald killing.
 * I’ve looked at a number of cases of racially motivated murders on Wikipedia, including those committed by white supremacists and other gangs. In none of those articles is a background offered on anything other than the killers themselves. However, I’m open to discussion on it. --Guardian sickness 01:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Background contect is important to fully understand what led to whatever event; that many articles on Wikipedia lack that background is something to be fixed, not something to emulate. It appears that you are not completely closed to the idea of some background, giving stronger weight to that which appears to be more directly influential in the case, which is appropriate - I now ask Ldxar1 to state, briefly and concisely, what background he feels would be appropriate - not an explanation, preferably a one or two sentence summary which would be phrased so it could be directly inserted into the article; and indicate which of his sources (by number) he would use to support that content. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"BBC correspondent Bob Wylie suggests that the murder was a ‘gangland killing’ by members of a ‘Mafia-style gang who maintained their gangster rule in Pollokshields by a reign of terror’ and who had been involved in earlier alleged incidents of brutality. ‘So in part what happened to Kriss was the result of youth gang clashes but the revenge took place through the methods of extreme gangsterism’"

"Anti-racist group CARF claim that racialised gang tension in Glasgow is largely shaped by a context of widespread racial abuse of Asians. ‘Young Asians in particular claim that they have been forced to group together to defend themselves against marauding white racists’, and this sometimes extends into gang violence which goes ‘beyond legitimate self-defence’."

These are the relevant background/gang sections from the contested edits, based on sources 1 and 5 respectively.

-Ldxar1 18:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

GS, do you have any objection to the two items above being included? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I object to both of these sources. Their inclusion would represent a way of circumventing the tiny minority and original research policies. The Bob Wylie article just happens to be one that supports the tiny minority view of the Kriss Donald killing as not being racially aggravated.
 * The CARF article would represent a way of introducing a far left or so called “anti racist” slant on racism into the article, “…young Asians in particular claim that they have been forced to group together to defend themselves against marauding white racists”. I don't see what this partisan and loaded view of gangs has to do with the Kriss Donald killing. --Guardian sickness 01:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If the BBC covers it, then it is mainstream press and by definition not a tiny minority. When there is a minority view, that view should be covered, unless it is "vanishingly small" - the amount of weight the view should be given is open to discussion, and the best way to present it so it is clear that it is minority not majority is open, but omission is a violation of NPOV. We do not omit views which do not coincide with our own. As far as possible, we should attempt to edit as thoug we had no opinion whatsoever; to do otherwise is to write from our own point of view and not a neutral one.
 * Background: I believe we all can agree that no murder takes place in a vacuum; there is always some motivation behind the murder. Even if the murder is committed by a psychopath, there is motivation in the murderer's madness, which lends relevence to the madness. You state the murder is racially motivated, yet object to background on racial tensions in the city in which the murder was commited. Your objection seems to be that "anti-racist" slant will be thereby introduced. I suggest to you that "anti-racist" is the prevailing view of most civilized peoples, and "racism" is generally recognized as a Bad Thing which leads to injustice and crime. If the crime is racially motivated, then racial tensions are very relevent. This "partisan and loaded" view is a valid view, with which you are of course free to disagree, and strongly - but again, to omit it utterly is to write from your point of view not a neutral point of view. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The criteria for what makes a view that of a significant minority is clearly defined in the requirement for “prominent adherents”. Wikipedia does not mention coverage being “mainstream press and by definition not a tiny minority”. The overwhelming majority of BBC coverage, as with other UK media outlets, was an acceptance of the verdicts. The Bob Wylie first-person piece is a lone exception, not just in the BBC, but in the British media.

Wikipedia content guidelines even recommend that fringe theories should have some mainstream coverage just to warrant inclusion of articles about themselves; this is not consistent with your view that any mainstream coverage at all is by definition not tiny minority. I reject any assertion that I am arguing for the omission of material based on my own point of view. I have consistently argued on the basis of NPOV and its requirement for prominent adherents, and you have not sufficiently addressed this very important matter of policy.

Background: Before I address your other points I should make clear that I used the words "partisan and loaded" in relation to a far left article, which dates from 1998, is far from mainstream, could not possibly be commenting on the Kriss Donald killing, and gives a far left analysis of gangs in 1998.

You are engaging in pure and utter original research, “If the crime is racially motivated, then racial tensions are very relevant”. This statement has no foundation, nor is it supported by the evidence, which showed that the racial motivation of the killers was linked to a revenge gang attack on one of the killers (see the Bob Wylie article). If you assert that racial tensions and the Kriss Donald killing are linked then you must find evidence to support that view. Some racist murders are clearly linked to racial tensions where there is evidence to prove this is the case: Isiah_Young-Sam In the Kriss Donald case, there is no such evidence.

You seem to miss the connotation of my scare quotes in relation to “anti-racist” groups, which in the case of CARF (founded by a Marxist) connotes far left campaigners, as is the case for many other “anti-racist” groups. I suggest to you that far left or Marxist politics is not “the prevailing view of most civilized peoples”. The views of such far left groups on gangs are as relevant as the views of those on the far-right Stormfront website. You will observe that the editor who included links to the far left articles also included links to the far-right, white-nationalist website “Stormfront” in the article. If you are propagating the far left article as a “valid view” then, by your logic, there is no reason why far right views like those on Stormfront should not be included. I contend both sets of views are based on extreme views on race crime and should not be included. I think it is vitally important that if you consider far left views to be - by way of correspondence with some mainstream views - worthy of inclusion, that you clearly state this now.

I have argued in the above discussion that we should follow the policy and only include material which is “directly related” to the Kriss Donald killing. There are mainstream articles which give a background on the killers and their criminal history. Trying to find an alternative view by way of “racial tensions” (a synthesis of published material – including far left material) or some other inference is original research.

--Guardian sickness 00:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not arguing for any point of view. I am asking questions and making observations. I have no intention of "finding sources which support my point of view" because I have no interest in editing this article. Your entire post is argumentative and mistakes me for someone other than the mediator. Please try again, and this time address yourself to the article issues without confusing me with a protagonist for any view whatsoever. I am not engaging in OR; I am attempting to engage you in a productive discussion. Please be concise, thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You are relating racial tensions to the Kriss Donald killing: “If the crime is racially motivated, then racial tensions are very relevant”; and "This "partisan and loaded" view is a valid view"; that is your professed opinion based on an article from 1998, which could not possibly be commenting on the Kriss Donald killing. If you are basing your above comments on a far left article from 1998 (six years before the killing) then I contend this is original research on your part.

You have clearly taken a position on the far left material in your above post. I responded appropriately with a post that was not excessive. My position is unchanged from the above post and is based on your comments. There is no need for me to "try again".

--Guardian sickness 13:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You are in error. I have taken no position. Since you decline to rephrase, and persist in your accusations of me, let's try something a little more focused.
 * Do you believe there was a motive for the killing of Kriss Donald? KillerChihuahua?!? 14:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. The motive was a racist one, which was inspired by a revenge gang attack, and seems to have nothing to do with racial tensions in the area, unless evidence can be found to the contrary. --Guardian sickness 17:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks for focusing on the article and not getting sidetracked - I know it can be difficult. Next question: If racism and gangs were part of the motive, do you object to any content which addresses racism and/or gang tensions/violence in Glasgow? Remember, NOR advises against Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position (WP:SYN) but that means that one cannot attempt to link unrelated content to promote an original theory - if one source states A, and another source states B, once cannot synthesize to promote C - but if one source states A caused B, and a second source is about A without mentioning B, that is not a violation of NOR, so long as the two were linked in the first source, and the second is used only for specific details about A. For example: If one source states "The murder was due to racism" and another article states "14 people were murdered in Glasgow in 2004 due to racism", one could include the statement "The murder was due to racism(cite1) which was the cause of 4 murders in Glasgow in 2004.(cite2)" That is an example, mind you - and I am not espousing this type statement, nor suggeesting it. We're not discussing specifics, just generally whether any content which addresses racsim or gang stuff in Glasgow might be acceptable, pending determination of relevence, validity of source, etc. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My preference is for material that is “directly related” to the Kriss Donald murder. This would include material on tensions between the gangs involved in the incidents which led up to the killing. I object to a background on racial tensions, as such tensions were not known to be related to the gang that killed Donald. It is a political opinion (apparently from those on the far left) to suggest that any Asian gang that exists came about as a defence against “marauding white racists”.
 * If you do intend to include information about gangs in general based on the Bob Wylie article, why should “B” be from a far left perspective, and from an organisation that is partisan? There are other more recent articles on gangs in Glasgow:
 * BBC Article,
 * Evening Times article,
 * Strathclyde Police press release.
 * I don’t accept your analogy. Stating a statistical fact from 2004 would be one thing, but relating a far left article on gangs and racism in 1998 to an incident in 2004 would be another. I objected to the CARF article on the basis of it being from an organisation founded by someone on the far left, and the summary given by Ldxar above. You then stated that to omit the far left material would be to write from my own point of view. As far as I can see even Bob Wylie did not mention any view of criminal Asian gangs being set up to defend themselves against white racists. --Guardian sickness 23:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don’t accept your analogy. Stating a statistical fact from 2004 would be one thing, but relating a far left article on gangs and racism in 1998 to an incident in 2004 would be another. I objected to the CARF article on the basis of it being from an organisation founded by someone on the far left, and the summary given by Ldxar above. You then stated that to omit the far left material would be to write from my own point of view. As far as I can see even Bob Wylie did not mention any view of criminal Asian gangs being set up to defend themselves against white racists. --Guardian sickness 23:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I repeat my request for concise, focused answers and you write minor essays dragging in all kinds of other details. This is a continuing problem on this mediation page - you're conflating mediation with a debate, and hypothetical and general questions with specifics elsewhere. You have also moved past my question, which was very very simple and focused, into discussing the validity and acceptability of a source which I am not espousing and specifically stated was not the question being addressed. What can I do to keep you focused? How can I help you from getting sidetracked into tangentially related debate type posts? Have you ever been in formal mediation before? Perhaps an example would help - Original indicates what you posted. Comments is me commenting on what you posted, and Preferred is what a concise response which addresses the topic would look like. NOTE preferred is NOT supposed to be a statement of your position - since you didn't answer what I asked, I had to guess. This is an example, please resist the urge to get off on arguing "that's not what I meant" because that's not what this example table is about. If you do not understand, please let me know. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

So, the kind of response which is focused and concise and does not go off on other topics would read something like this: "No, I do not categorically object to any content which addresses racism and/or gang tensions/violence in Glasgow." KillerChihuahua?!? 03:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you asked me in the above table for a diff:
 * 12:07, 14 February 2007
 * I should point out that "partisan and loaded" was used in particular to address the idea of Asian gangs being a response to “marauding white racists”. You now tell me “no one stated that” [to omit would be to write from my own point of view].
 * I asked you in my post of 00:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC) to clearly state your position on the CARF article due to your above comments. Your response was to tell me to “try again”. I see this as creating the problem of what you term becoming “sidetracked”. If you had clarified your comments I would not have mentioned the issue again, or assumed you had taken a position. I am still having problems reconciling your above statement to your statement that you have taken no position.
 * No, I do not categorically object to any content which addresses gang tensions / violence in Glasgow. --Guardian sickness 00:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Try again was to the whole post, which was like the above post - didn't answer my question, and dragged in teh kitchen sink. Asking irrelevant questions and making accusations is non-productive.
 * No one said "to omit the far left material would be to write from my own point of view." Which of my statements have you erroneousing interpreted as somehow meaning that? "We do not omit views which do not coincide with our own. As far as possible, we should attempt to edit as though we had no opinion whatsoever; to do otherwise is to write from our own point of view and not a neutral one"? Or " If the crime is racially motivated, then racial tensions are very relevent. This "partisan and loaded" view is a valid view, with which you are of course free to disagree, and strongly - but again, to omit it utterly is to write from your point of view not a neutral point of view. " - which might, if stretched, lend itself to that interpretation, if it were not the end of a two-paragraph post on significant minority views, and if the phrase "partisan and loaded" were not a quote from you, and as such duly in quotes.
 * Given that you do not object categorically to any mention of tension and/or gang violence in Glasgow, I am taking it that it is the sources and what they support that are items of concern. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "partisan and loaded" was a quote from me in relation to a specific part of the CARF article. However, it is not important to me if this was overlooked. The important thing is that there is now an understanding of the above.

Your last paragraph is right. I object to sources that I would consider to be partisan and on the far-left or far-right being cited.

--Guardian sickness 00:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Not responding to much at the mo because I haven't been asked directly, but just to add that I don't think there's anything of relevance in two of the three linked articles on gangs - the piece from Strathclyde Police is clearly both partisan and loaded, being an entirely ideological document existing for functional purposes, and neither this nor the Evening Times article say anything whatsoever about the CAUSES of gang violence. The BBC article is also mostly irrelevant to causes of gang formation except for two perspectives advanced by people interviewed (one that gang activity is linked to "territorialism", the other that gang violence is "recreational" for youths) which could conceivably be advanced as alternative hypotheses for gang formation; however, they do not specifically explain racialised gang formation, and both would imply the Donald killing is not racist. -Ldxar1 00:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Arrrgh, have any of those been mentioned or listed so far here?
 * Guardian sickness, looking for your input above at [edit] Evidence for Gang violence view, thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

One more into the breach
First, thanks much for your patience while I was "out sick".

Ldxar1 WP:FRINGE does seem to apply here. Would you consider rephrasing your desired content concerning the Wylie article to indicate this is a less accepted or minority view?
 * "BBC correspondent Bob Wylie suggests that the murder was a ‘gangland killing’ by members of a ‘Mafia-style gang who maintained their gangster rule in Pollokshields by a reign of terror’ and who had been involved in earlier alleged incidents of brutality. ‘So in part what happened to Kriss was the result of youth gang clashes but the revenge took place through the methods of extreme gangsterism’" KillerChihuahua?!? 15:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure quite which part of WP:FRINGE you think applies - the source certainly isn't pseudoscience or even amateur research and you've already stated that BBC sources are usually notable and "If the BBC covers it, then it is mainstream press and by definition not a tiny minority". The academic credibility of each explanation has not been established as there are no academic articles on the Kriss Donald case appearing either on Zetoc or Google Scholar search (the academic credibility of the inversion hypothesis as against the reverse racism hypothesis can be documented if needed). But the article cited implies that rejection, as well as affirmation, should not be implied if there is no documented evidence either way.

I wonder if you're meaning the question of "undue weight" more generally? If so - doesn't the fact that this one account is counterposed to a number of media articles proposing the mainstream account, demonstrate that it is a minority viewpoint? I guess one could add something like, "In contrast to most [or other] mainstream media sources [or correspondants], BBC correspondent Bob Wylie..." which would make it more explicit.

And yes, I wouldn't be hostile to adding other statements which clarify that Wylie's position is a minority position - actually I've asked GS to do this a couple of times - it's the complete exclusion of the viewpoint, or its reduction to a very minimal recognition, to which I object.

I've just discovered BTW that there is an academic article on the general situation in Pollokshields: Hopkins, P. "Everyday Racism in Scotland: A Case Study of East Pollokshields", Scottish Affairs 49 (2004), 88-103. which by the title I would expect to confirm the background material from CARF, though it's too old to refer to the Donald case directly.

You previously stated: " if one source states A, and another source states B, once cannot synthesize to promote C - but if one source states A caused B, and a second source is about A without mentioning B, that is not a violation of NOR, so long as the two were linked in the first source, and the second is used only for specific details about A" which would seem to permit such a source to be used as a perspective on the context of racial conflict which is central to the mainstream explanation? -Ldxar1 00:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Short version: Yes. See also Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ, Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ, and Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ all of which apply. GuardianSickness, please also read these and comment on how these points might be applied to the current situation. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The points in the NPOV FAQs do not seem to have any useful application. I have based my arguments on a policy issue, which has not been discussed so far. The Fringe guideline does not seem to elaborate on the issue of prominent adherents. It is also unclear when the guideline is referring to inclusion in Wikipedia at all, or inclusion in other articles. The clarification would appear to be the tiny minority or significant minority qualification. --Guardian sickness 19:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The policy to which I believe you are referring is the Undue weight section from NPOV. If that is the case, then the issue hinges on whether the Gang view is a minority view or a tiny minority view. Please confirm? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct. I would also say hinges on whether Bob Wylie's first-person piece at the BBC constitutes a prominent adherent, and even if it does who is the other "prominent" adherent? You appear to have already given your view on that, so I am not sure whether it even warrants discussion in this mediation. --Guardian sickness 22:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * GS, how would you phrase the minority view of gang violence being a possible contributory cause of the murder? KillerChihuahua?!? 17:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

As long as I make clear that I don't accept it should be included, I would say it justifies no more than the sentence given to it by FrFintonStack, an editor who vehemently disagreed with me in arguing for the inclusion of that view, but was of the opinion that it deserved no more than a single sentence. That sentence is currently in the article at the bottom: "Some commentators continue to doubt that the murder was racially motivated or that significant ethnic tensions exist in Pollokshields." --Guardian sickness 00:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That sentence is weasely in the extreme. "Some commentators"? No, no. Name them. And make certain the cites you use support the statement. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You are asking me how I would phrase something which I do not accept should be included. This is like asking me to find the right wording for the link to the white nationalist website that was also included in the article. I am not here to edit material I object to on behalf of those who do not object to it. --Guardian sickness 21:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * then if you completely reject that it belongs in the article at all, you need to make a case for that, and explain your reasoning, which you have failed utterly to do. Citing undue weight does nothing by itself; you must explain why undue weight applies in this instance. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Food for thought, which may help: NPOV can be difficult to achieve. In order to attain NPOV, it can help to examine two different aspects - consider the subject, and consider the source. In the case of some of the highly advanced physics, for example, one Nobel prize winning physicist on a topic may safely be presumed to comprehend the physics better than "mainstream" sources which we would otherwise consider reliable sources for general information. In this case, if five newspapers announce Theory Foo explains branes Thisaway, and Nobel prize winning physicist Bob states clearly that Theory Foo explains branes Thataway, Bob is the authority and is given precedence in the article, often excluding the five newspapers altogether - not as Undue Weight, but simply as Bad, or Less Accurate, Information. The expert is preferable to the amateur. Another example is the Celebrity - who are often full of opinions, and short on comprehension or specific knowledge. In this instance, their pronouncements are worth no more than anyone's idle speculation and can usually be safely ignored or discarded in favor of knowledgeable or authoritative sources. False authority syndrome can make this an issue on some edits.

In this case, we have a subject matter which is fairly mundane - a murder - and the main source is considered a reliable source for such items as murders which occur in the UK. In order to discount this source, and thus this view, one cannot cite either content (its a murder, not rocket science) nor source (highly reputable UK newspaper.) What, therefore, is your objection to this information being included? KillerChihuahua?!? 15:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I assume by newspaper you are referring to the BBC article. I do not accept your earlier statement that, “If the BBC covers it, then it is mainstream press and by definition not a tiny minority”.
 * Undue weight applies to this case given the lack of “prominent adherents” to support the minority view that the Kriss Donald murder was gang related and not related to a racial motivation. The qualification in the undue weight section is clear, and should be applied to this case given the overwhelming acceptance of the verdict by print media, broadcast media (including BBC articles, which were based on the BBC editorial line and were not first-person pieces), politicians and others. The justification for including the alternative view needs to be qualified, and the criterion for doing so (prominent adherents qualification) has not been met.
 * As I stated in the summary of my position, the Bob Wylie article has only appeared on the BBC Scotland website. No other mainstream media report in the UK disputed the findings of the court – this includes newspapers of all political persuasions. I do not accept an opinion piece by Bob Wylie is prominent, but even if you believe it is, that only constitutes one “prominent” adherent. This puts his article into perspective. His is not a view held by a significant minority in the UK and to portray it as such would be misleading in the extreme.
 * --Guardian sickness 12:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ldxr1, please state arguments regarding the view being a not-insignificant view - thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying, with slow progress here and my taking a break IRL I've not been watching so closely recently.

I think I've already set out the bulk of my case as to why the viewpoint isn't "tiny minority" or "insignificant".

Firstly, it appears in the mainstream media, which WP:FRINGE suggests means it is not "tiny minority" but at worst "significant minority" (hence it should be included). You also said above that "If the BBC covers it, then it is mainstream press and by definition not a tiny minority." I don't consider either the alleged "first person" character of Wylie's report (it is not stated as first person or opinion by the BBC) or its location on BBC Scotland (the main location of detailed coverage of Scottish cases) to be at all relevant to the notability of this source. In addition, a number of other Wikipedia-acceptable sources (listed above) express the viewpoint (Davenport, Pakistan Forum Scotland, etc).

Secondly, it is the primary view of anti-racist campaigners insofar as they have commented on the case. Anti-racist campaigners are a signicant group of people with specialist knowledge of the relevant broader field. This includes some people who qualify as academic specialists or are linked to academic specialists in the field. The anti-racist position is thus indicative of what position might eventually emerge in the relevant specialist literature.

Thirdly, the view is related to broader literature in the field both in related to gang violence in Glasgow and to causes of killings of this kind. The existence of significant anti-Asian racist violence and abuse, and of a dynamic of racialised gang conflict resulting from such abuse, has been documented by material which meets Wikipedia criteria (including the Scottish Affairs article and the CARF article). Any permissible source linking the killing to underlying racialised gang tensions renders these further sources relevant as background. Wylie qualifies as such a linking source.

Fourthly, the media "consensus" is not really a "consensus" so much as multiple repetitions of the same viewpoint; namely, a lot of mainstream media chose to report the trial verdict, and reported it as fact. This is not due to the sources concerned having verified the accuracy of the verdict, but to their attaching authority to it; it should not necessarily be taken as endorsement, and the later Wylie piece, as well as the further remarks in the Guardian piece, suggest that it is not necessarily endorsement. GS's view can be taken to imply that in any case where the mainstream media more-or-less unanimously reports a verdict as fact, alternative narratives should be excluded. This is not the position taken in other cases where motives or even verdicts are contested.

I do not question that the viewpoint expressed in the verdict is a significant viewpoint worthy of inclusion; however, I'd question its presentation as the only viewpoint in existence or the only plausible/credible viewpoint. The trial was not focused on establishing whether the killing was "racially motivated" but on establishing whether these particular people carried it out. Because the defence focused on the question of whether guilt was proven, the issue of motivation was not challenged in court. The court finding was racial aggravation, not motivation, and the British legal standard for proving racial aggravation is quite low (not requiring primary racist motivation) and was met in this case because racial insults were used. In other words, the trial verdict and the media coverage of the verdict do not make a substantial argument over the causes of the killing, as the trial was not an inquiry into the causes of the killing.

-Ldxar1 16:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * GS, agreeing to mediation more than implies you are willing to work with other editors to find a solution with which everyone, if not totally happy, can at least accept. Please indicate how you would include this minority view. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. I am more than willing to find a solution where Wikipedia Policy is the guiding principle. If there is any basis in policy for the inclusion of any of the above mentioned content or any reason to bypass the policy I have raised then, unfortunately, this has not been addressed sufficiently. As I have stated, the above tiny minority view is not that of a significant minority and I believe it would be misleading to include it at all. --Guardian sickness 09:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing we're at a dead end here? We seem to be going round in circles.


 * sighs*

I don't know what to suggest now. I'm pretty sure with some work we could clean up my edits, resolve some of the NPOV and OR issues, but GS insists the whole thing is tiny minority. KillerChihuahua, do you think there's any space left for mediation here?

-Ldxar1 01:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Ldxar1, I think your assessment is correct. I don't know why Guardian sickness agreed to mediation if he wasn't willing to work to find a solution which was, if not perfect for either of you, at least acceptable. There are multiple mainstream sources, Wikipedia is not paper, one brief mention is well within NPOV tolerances - and you have offered several phrasing alternatives to clarify that it is, indeed, a minority view. As far as I can tell you have done as much as you can.
 * Guardian sickness, you seem to be rejecting every offered compromise as being "against NPOV#Undue weight" and I am telling you point blank, that horse won't run. Its not tiny enough to be a violation of policy. You repeating it doesn't make it so. Ldxar1 is not attempting to "bypass policy" - you two have a content dispute, and he is trying to work with you, and you are not trying to work with him. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Killerchiuaua, first of all, I think your ruminating about me in the third person in this discussion is plain offensive - especially of someone who is meant to be a mediator - and reflects much of your input above. You have repeatedly issued your opinions on the policy issue above, neglected to ask me for my input, and then stated that I had “failed utterly” to provide that input.

When eventually I did provide that input you avoided addressing the issue like the plague, and then issued your ruling on what is “not tiny enough,” which is plucked out of the air, and completely ignores Jimbo Wales very detailed clarification.

You have stated that Ldxar has demonstrated that the view I contend is tiny minority is significant minority. Could you please provide your reasoning for this opinion and reconcile it to the tiny minority clarification in the NPOV policy? --Guardian sickness 12:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * One thing at a time: If it were a policy issue and not a content dispute, it never would have been accepted for mediation. Do you understand that? KillerChihuahua?!? 09:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have checked the project page and it is quite explicit from the “issues to be mediated” that the content dispute revolved around policy. I further made this clarification in the first paragraph of my position, which you asked me to state nearly four months ago. The policy issue was always clear. --Guardian sickness 10:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was unclear. What I am saying is that although policy is being cited, if the content were a clear policy violation, rather than a content dispute, it would not have been accepted. In other words, you two must work together to determine whether this is small enough to constitute "tiny" and hence fail undue weight; and if it is to be included how much to include and how to phrase it. Ldxr1 has made a case for "not tiny", which includes several sources which you have accepted as RS. Thus, the content is not a slam-dunk for "tiny". It is a content dispute, with the two of you stating it is (in your case) just too small to include, and (in Ldxr1's case) stating it is just big enough to include. You have made no countering case for "tiny", you just keep repeating Undue Weight as though repetition were discussion. It isn't. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue was absolutely clear. I reject your summary of my input above. I have made a case for tiny minority and have gone through every source and stated my position. I accepted only that the BBC and the Guardian are reliable sources in general. The source at question here is the BBC and whether or not an opinion piece by one journalist constitutes a prominent adherent, and even if it does who is the other prominent adherent? I contend there isn’t one, definitely aren’t two, and I clearly made that case above.

Your assessment of the above mediation is bizarre. You describe a situation where I have supposedly made no case, the other party to the mediation has made a case, I am unwilling to work with anyone, am using repetition as discussion; and you now ask that this be sorted out between myself and the other party while you state “that horse won’t run,” “it’s not tiny enough,” “this case would never have been accepted…” etc.

This mediation has turned into an incoherent farce resulting from your failure to understand even the basic issues of the case or follow the arguments. I am not sure what to expect next: backtracking, a denial any of the above was ever said (or wasn’t clear enough), or more tittle-tattle about me between yourself and the other party on this mediation page. --Guardian sickness 17:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you'd care to re-read what I said: if you are completely adamant that there is no common ground, that you cannot work out a compromise with Ldxr1, then you're not participating in mediation. Ldxr1 has offered several options; I have asked you how the material could be included to emphasise the minority view aspect; you keep repeating that the content violates policy. It does not. I welcome any constructive ideas you may have on how to proceed. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be constructive if you would answer the above question, which you evaded earlier on: You have stated that Ldxar has demonstrated that the view I contend is tiny minority is significant minority. Could you please provide your reasoning for this opinion and reconcile it to the tiny minority clarification in the NPOV policy? --Guardian sickness 17:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was not evading, just trying to focus on one thing at a time. Sometimes, Undue wieght is clear. Often, its a judgement call. In this case, its not clear. A clear cut case of tiny minority would be 1) No significant or reliable sources, or 2) a vanishingly small percentage. The first case has not been met, as a major news source is one of the sources, and on a murder case such as this one, its unlikely to be the subject of scholarly studies - although I certainly wouldn't rule out that it might happen in the future. With the second scenario, he's shown mulitple sources, and there aren't all that many sources overall. Again, no hard and fast rules exist, nor should they - but if, for example, there were 5000+ RS which state A, and 5 which states B, it would probably qualify as a tiny minority. If there were only 10 - 20 RS overall, and 1 or 2 state B, then it would not be a clear case. Loosely, a percentage game, if you follow. Ldxr1 has demonstrated that it is not a clear cut case of tiny minority, by providing multiple sources, of which at least one is accepted by all as a Reliable Source - but if you have any numbers and weighting you'd like him to consider, please do so. By numbers of course I mean RS's, and by weighting I mean authority of the source, another grey zone. Again, an example: The New York Times is an RS; the Orlando Sentinal is an RS; and a Nobel Prize winning physicist's published peer reviewed paper is an RS. If the subject is physics, consensus would probably be that the published paper carried the most weight, followed by the NYT and with the OS coming in last. If the subject is not physics, then the NYT and the OS would carry more weight than the physicist, to avoid the logical fallacy of false authority. So there is room for weighting within sourcing, as well as sheer volume of sources. I hope I've been clear, please let me know if I have not. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Part of my question was to reconcile your reasoning to the tiny minority clarification in the NPOV policy. Jimbo Wales states in the undue weight section “If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.” You have not addressed this clarification and the requirement for prominent adherents at all.

To summarise the past mediation once again, I have addressed every source given above. There were two (you use the word multiple) sources that I agree directly supported the gang theory: the BBC article and the Spiked article. I contend that neither source could be described as a “prominent adherent,” and that the Spiked article, from an internet magazine which openly states its political agenda, is definitely not a reliable source. --Guardian sickness 17:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Which leaves us with the BBC, which is a prominent news source, and all the sources on this murder are news sources, unless I'm missing something. If there are X sources, and 1 holds a minority view, then depending on the value of X, its at least in the grey zone; are you saying the value of X is high enough to render the minority view insignificantly small? And how do you reconcile that with teh prominence of the BBC, which has weight? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The only grey zone would seem to be the caveat you are applying of some kind of relative minority. Jimbo Wales did not apply this qualification. The issue is whether a theory by one adherent, BBC journalist or not, justifies inclusion. I also think it is questionable to call the BBC a “prominent source” (which I think you are using as a substitute for “prominent adherent”) with regards to the to the Bob Wylie article for reasons I give below.

There are a few people I would put forward as prominent adherents who have agreed that the killing was motivated by race and / or the findings of the court were correct. Kay Hampton, The Commision for Racial Equality chairwoman for Scotland; The Scottish National Party Justice Spokerperson and Member of Paliament in Scotland Kenny MacAskill, and The Conservative Member of Parliament in Scotland for Glasgow. Their comments can be seen on the following BBC page: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6129054.stm This is in addition to the editorial decisions made by all media outlets to report the findings of the court as fact, with no mention of any gang theory, excepting the Bob Wylie article.

As for the amount of reports, a cursory look at BBC news online, and the main UK papers such as the Telegraph, Independent, Guardian etc. reveal approximately 136 articles (about 80 on the BBC website) mentioning the Kriss Donald case. Only the Bob Wylie article mentioned the gang theory. The vast majority of articles on the BBC site do not mention the gang theory, and for that reason I dispute that the BBC as an organisation could be called a prominent adherent to the gang view. The adherent would have to be Bob Wylie himself and I also dispute his prominence. I don’t know where you live, but the Kriss Donald case was also headline TV news here in the UK in 2006 - the gang theory was never mentioned on TV. I appreciate this cannot be verified for you, but the above are some of the reasons I believe it is misleading to include the gang theory as a significant minority view – it is simply nothing of the sort. --Guardian sickness 23:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * GS: You're right about adherent vs. source, that was sloppy of me. Thanks for taking the meaning and not the verbiage, and pointing out my error so tactfully. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ldxr1, GS makes the case that the enormous preponderance of coverage on this gives no credence to the gang theory, and that on your one incontrovertible source, the BBC, all but one article give no support to the gang theory. Would you consider this a case of Undue weight? KillerChihuahua?!? 23:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)