Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:41, 24 July 2010

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 November 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Schools Low‑importance This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about 2009 Richmond High School gang rape. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 2009 Richmond High School gang rape at the Reference desk.

Help

Help with the article! Currently working on this, and I would like all to help with it. it's a big case that's gotten america's attention. Cyanidethistles (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Title

Richmond rape incident?? Pretty awful title.

Better get this shaped up

It's only a matter of time before someone comes along and wants to delete this article. So get it in good condition and make it noteworthy Justforasecond (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is this a standalone article, rather than being merged into Richmond High School (Richmond, California)#Crime? tedder (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Incidents like that shouldn't be merged in with an article about the school itself. For example, Virginia Tech doesn't mention the shooting on its campus on its article, on in the template, because it has no relevance to the school itself. Cyanidethistles (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about this article, but I think that the incident is notable enough to qualify under WP:N/CA. I have made a few changes to be conservative in the treatment here, the biggest of which is commenting out the names of the juvenile defendents. The school article does not mention their names, and juveniles's names often are not reported. However, quite clearly reliable sources have published the names. Because I want to at least have the issue of whether to list the names discussed, I have placed comment tags around their names for now. If there is consensus to include, them, the information is still there in the source text. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 15:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the justification for removing the names? Justforasecond (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I commented out the names (they're still in the text, but hidden by <!> tags) because some of the reliable sources covering the case have chosen so far not to release the names of the juveniles - see here and here for examples of non-California media that have to date not released the names. Since my understanding of WP:BLP is that we act with caution, I commented out the names until we have consensus here that it is appropriate to include them. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 03:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Xymmax, what exactly do you mean by school article? Also, their names were released because of the seriousness of the case. Cyanidethistles (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

By "school article" I meant the Richmond High School article Tedder linked above. I know that some sources have released the names. As best I can tell, there's a split in how the reliable sources are handling the issue, and was trying to err on the side of caution. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 03:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think in the non-CA articles the names weren't released because the names were just being released at the time, and it was the local news sources that added them on first, I believe on Wed. or Thur. when their names were given out. CNN has given out the minor's names.

Xymax, please ADD or REFINE content, don't remove cited info. If the name are published we are in the clear. Justforasecond (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The race angle

Unless the trend changes, it looks like most of the attackers were Latino. Probably need to address this at some point.

Justforasecond (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Count on the racial aspect of this case to be ignored. The boy who lured her into the attack was the youngest. He was 15 and white. The rest, including the 18, 19 and 21 year olds were black and hispanic.

P.S. The young girl was white. (see Contra Costa Times columnist Tammerlin Drummond's recent column "What's Race Got to do With It?").

Sean Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.45.173 (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

pick up the torch?

i've filled in some details here but it is really exhausting, especially using that annoying ref/cite formatting.

a little background on the girl, and the security situation at the school the night of the attack and before hand could use some coverage. here's some info (more in the cnn video of kami baker) http://www.wibw.com/nationalnews/headlines/67318442.html

Richmondian (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

recent stripping of info

Ummm, much info was removed from the article, especially about the charged.

I am going to put it all back as I don't see an appropriate justification for removing the names in particular. We are not dealing with minor offenses, this is a very heinous crimes, and the names are all widely published. Removing the names also makes working on the article difficult because it is hard to tell who did what.

If you have an appropriate rationale please detail it here, till then, all goes back in.

Richmondian (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

wait wtf? who removed that? I'm gonna put it back on. Cyanidethistles (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Please take care to read and follow the WP:BLP guidelines, we have to be very careful adding material that can affect real live people. Off2riorob (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob, you need to tell us *exactly* what part of BLP you are referring to. Not just "BLP". I'm reverting your changes, do not re-do until you have clearly explained yourself. Richmondian (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not reading it. Can't you at least mention the ages of the people or something? people would like to know if anybody was arrested, just mention who the person is but not their age, just their age and when. Cyanidethistles (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've trimmed it back, leaving in the range of ages and other details of the arrests, but not mentioning any names. It should be remembered that one of those mentioned here wasn't even charged, some of the others are minors, and none have been found guilty. Thus it seems reasonable not to mention them by name, and at this stage there is no pressing need to mention them by name anyway. As a general rule with BLP concerns, it is probably better not to reinsert contentious material, as is being done here, but to try and seek consensus on the talk page before readding it - no harm is done if we leave it out while things are discussed, but there is (potentially) a risk of harm if we put it in. - Bilby (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm. OJ Simpson was never found guilty but we have plenty of information about his case, so the not-guilty logic is weak. We also have numerous cases of underaged committing or accused of crimes, see Child_suicide_bombers_in_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict. I am not sure if we cases of underaged being charged, but this is a case in motion which is more rare than cases that are closed.

As far as I can tell, the root of BLP is to prevent libel/slander lawsuits against wikipedia, but if we have good sources (we do) I don't think that's an issue. It also doesn't affect what we do with the name's of people under 18, who, btw, are being charged as adults. In fact, the whole reason this story made nationwide news is because of the ages of the actors.

I see that the responses of the accused associates have been removed. What does that have to do with BLP?

I'll wait a bit, if I don't hear any solid counterargments I'm going to start putting info back in. Richmondian (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not do that, repeatedly reinserting contentious material will get you a warning and then a block. In fact take this as your warning, please do not re add contentious material to the article that has been removed for BLP protection.Off2riorob (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Off2riob, I am asking for a solid reason for stripping of info. If there is one, I will leave info out but if not, and if the information is useful to the article, I will wait for a short period of time, then put it back in. As far as I can tell, I have wikipedia policy on my side, unless you can show me the part that where this is wrong. I took the time to read that BLP piece.

I also request that you stop repeatedly removing information that we have worked hard to put together, with numerous citations, which btw take forever to get right. And your warning is totally unwelcome. You just put a "welcome to wikipedia" thiny on my page and now you are warning me with getting kicked off wikipedia? How two-faced is that??? How are we going to have a discussion when you threaten us? Richmondian (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I tend to look at it differently. These people have been accused of a truly horrible crime, but have yet to be shown to be guilty. It may be that some won't be - even now, one person arrested and named here has been released without charges being laid. Given that there are threats of violence around these people, and that naming them can potentially lead to significant harm occuring (not just violence, and especially if some are later found to be not guilty), I think there's a good reason not to mention them by name. At least not yet. On the other hand, I can't see any pressing reason why they should be named here - it doesn't add anything to the article as such, we aren't discussing the individuals accused, and all that is really important for our purposes now are the ages, numbers and (possibly, given that it has been raised in the media) racial backgrounds of the accused, which can be covered without additional identifying details. So I guess I see teh case going the other way - is there are particularly strong reason why the names should be included? - Bilby (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The names of the accused have been published many times elsewhere, and using their names is in full accordance with wikipedia policies. That is our guide. OJ is a great example, we have a lot of info about his wife's murder even though he was found not guilty (and later lost a civil trial). I would be OK with removing the name of the guy that was released without charges, but wouldn't debate anyone that really wanted it in there.

But back to my other question, why are people removing info like friends responses? There is no BLP issue there. Richmondian (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that the editor(s) in question feel that the material adds nothing of encyclopedic value to the article. While a news story often will look for the "human angle" and detail the responses of friends and the like, a good encyclopedia article will have as its primary focus the larger context of the incident - what is it about the event that has an application not just to the local community, but to observer around the state/nation/world. Does it tell us anything about Americans, or urban youth, or the like? The focus of the article should keep the wider context at the forefront; there are plenty of newspapers covering the local aspect. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 19:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thansk Xymmax, there were a couple of responses, but the one that was most shocking was the "no snitching" quote and how it referred to a white accused student as his "nigga". Maybe if the other editors return we can hear their rationale. Richmondian (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

OJ doesn't really work as an example, I fear, because OJ was independently notable, and any biography of him would be expected to discuss the murder accusations. At any rate, that other people have listed the names isn't my concern - I know the names are publicly available, but the question I'm wondering about is whether or not there's any encyclopedic value in listing the names here that is sufficient to outweigh any possible harm. - Bilby (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What I was hoping you would explain is why information other than names has been removed? I'm not sure exactly who did it. Richmondian (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The names should not be added again. Part of the rationale for some 'keep' votes in the AFD is that the names are not mentioned. Richmondian should not be adding the content against consensus while also relying on the keep votes of people who want the names kept out. ~YellowFives 22:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to stay away from the names for now as it seems like a hot-button issue. I have been asking about other info that was stripped but haven't been able to get a response. I'll put it back if I can find it, if anyone has a problem with it please let me know. Richmondian (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

BLP claims?

Off2Rob, what precisely the BLP issues that you are reverting? Here is the last edition that you reverted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2009_Richmond_High_School_gang_rape&oldid=324523402

Thanks Richmondian (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with it, it has previously been removed and I would request that you do not reinsert it without consensus or the support of an experienced editor, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not want to get to involved in protecting this article, I voted to delete it. Please suggest your edits here and wait for opinions from other experienced editors. thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If you revert claiming BLP violations common courtesy would be to explain what those violations are. It isn't enough to say "I have a problem with it", per WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. If you don't want to get involved feel free to ... not get involved Richmondian (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't comment here and then copy and paste the same comment to my talkpage, this is excessive, I am quite capable of watching here and there for posts that I am following. As I said here just above, this is material that has previously been removed, please do not replace it unless you can get some support for the re adding.Off2riorob (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You need to explain your own BLP claims if that is the reason for your edits. FYI someone removed some of the material for reasons unexplained, that does not justify repeatedly remove it. I have edited the material to remove any names and don't see the BLP claims. If you cannot explain them yourself, I don't believe you should be making them. Richmondian (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Lets have a look then, what do you want to add to the article? Post it here for discussion, if you wouldn't mind.Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, here ya go. Tried to get rid of names from earlier versios Richmondian (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't see that, what is adding and what is going, please could you place the actual comment here that you want to add. Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

you can't see the diff? just click on the link? it shows exactly what is added and what is going. Richmondian (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said, it is hard to see, just post what you want to add here. So I can have a good look at it Off2riorob (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this something that you want o add?

Associates of one of the accused saw racism in the charges, and friends of another verbally attacked those that reported the crime.

If you want to add that there are racial elements to this incidentt then you will need that this aspect has been widely covered in the reliable press. Off2riorob (talk)22:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that is a BLP violation, which was your claim. But in any case, I didn't know that we need each statement in an article to be "widely covered", please show me that policy. Richmondian (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, you will have to get someone else to show you policy, who says it was a racial event? If John says..then we would be giving johns comments undue weight if that opinion had not been widely commented on and supported by other respected publications. Off2riorob (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Riorob, I don't know why you keep taking the names out of the Richmond gang rape page. These names are open source, in tons of print and broadcast media outlets. I don't remember this ever coming up in other pages involving current events and alledged crimes. For instance, the suspect in the Fort Hood shooting has his name, a much more serious incident on the page. Seems like an inconsistent pattern.

Why does wikipedia have double standards like this? Why not block the name of the Fort Hood shooting rampage suspect as well? I am going to place the suspect names back into the article, as there is NO BLP issue here Regisfugit (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you also want to add this

Is this something that you want to add? I have opened up the quote . and the citation, which is a broken mysace friend link.? really?

Associates of one of the accused saw racism in the charges, and friends of another verbally attacked those that reported the crime The African-American accused's aunt saw racism in her nephew's arrest. He is the one they've arrested who is black, and if they give my nephew a life sentence, I will sue Richmond. There is no way in hell I will see my nephew blamed in this because he is black Friends of the Caucasian accused posted messages on his myspace page, now unavailable, demanding his be release from jail, using profanity, all caps and slang, and attacking any "snitches". Both male and female posters expressed the sentiment, with a female declaring "F*** the system f*** the snitchz.free ---- fast.imy." and a male saying {{quote|FREEE MAH NIGGA ---- FAYYYSSTTTT F*** DA SYSTEM F*** DEM SNITCHES </ref>

yes, would like to add that. as i understand it, myspace is an OK for sources reporting on themselves. we're going to have a tough time getting a look at these kids other than through social media. Richmondian (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither external link in the above works for me. Dragons flight (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think he pasted the links incorrectly.

• The aunt who claims racism link is
• the myspace page has been shuttered, no doubt because of the offensive comments that appeared.

Richmondian (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, looks a bit of a poor edit to me, perhaps you will get some people posting in support of this inclusion but I think it is ... a bit... well...rubbish really, who are these people commenting? are they notable? afaik we don't inline link to myspace like that, who are these so called associates? Why is it relevent that it is the caucasian accused..why can he not just be the accused, or the tall slim caucasian accused...broken links, gossipy comments..very very poor edit, wait a day or two and see if you get any support for adding it. Off2riorob (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:N it isn't the case that every statement in an article must be made by a notable individual. Rob, you know this stuff better than I do but keep throwing up these misreadings.

I listed him as the "caucasian accused" instead of by name to satisfy your BLP concerns but still be able to distinguish who the comments refer to. It is also an interesting detail since the comment calls him a "nigga".

Waiting is not a great option, the myspace page was shuttered, luckily content was grabbed before that. Other paywalls are erected every day. The whole deletion campaign has really stifled this article.

BTW "very very poor edit" is not a nice thing to say after the effort to satisfy your BLP concerns. Have you considered doing some actual work on this article instead of constant reversions, talk page comments, etc.. Richmondian (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

regisfugit / blp

Regis does have a point, with "why not leave out the name of the Fort Hood shooting suspect then as well?". Anyone care to comment? The Fort Hood suspect has not been convicted either. Maybe to protect minors? I don't think that's part of the BLP policy anyway, but some of those arrested are not under 18. Richmondian (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, you'll need reliable sources to add the names of the non-minor accused. Secondly, the names of the minors in custody, and the victim (also a minor) should absolutely be left out at this time - Alison 00:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

For good or ill, there are newspaper sources for the accused (including the minors). Dragons flight (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Even so, I'm not a big fan of including the names of accused rapists who are otherwise non-notable. Once convicted, sure, but it is still possible that one or more people accused in a large messy case like this is actually innocent. Dragons flight (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely per Alison. Don't even think of posting the name of an under age (minor) sexual assault victim again. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Alison, thank you.

There are reliable sources for ALL the accused, but not for the victim. The names are published extensively, which is unusual but I suppose it is because of the gravity of the offense and because they are being tried as adults. Can you point to the portion of BLP that says minors charged with crimes should not have their names in articles?

And, can I take this as approval of publishing the non-minors' names? Richmondian (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines but also works on discussion and consensus, if you can establish a degree of consensus and support for your desired edit here on the talkpage then feel free to add it. Off2riorob (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that policy is our guide here. Richmondian (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you are fine with the defendants names, maybe not the juvenile, as soem folks here aren't comfortable with that, and I respect that. Regisfugit (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Policies are good, in that they tell us what we can't do - but they're somewhat less useful in terms of what we should. We're not creating a newspaper, so we're not under the same obligations as newspapers to report on all aspects - our role is to present what is encyclopedic. But in doing so we also have some unique characteristics, such as being the first hit on searches, and having the problems that emerge when articles such as this one get old, such that they become open to vandalism or they don't get updated as circumstances change. In situations like this, where there's a case that can be made that publishing the names of the accused creates a risk of harm, (remembering that one accused name here was released without charge, and that there have been threats of violence made to the accused people), I think we need to make an argument as to why adding those names is sufficiently important for us as an encyclopedia that it outweighs the risk. My feeling is that such an argument may be possible, but it hasn't been made yet. - Bilby (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

We need to avoid being opportunistic and including names as soon as one newspaper mentions a suspect. Everyone editing this article should take a moment to review the Death of Baby P article. In that case, newspapers were forced (by court order) to remove names from their online editions, and we needed to use oversight liberally. This was done not just to protect the innocent - it was to give the criminals a fair trial.

Please, wait until the courts have had a chance to indicate how this is going to be handled on their side. John Vandenberg 01:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me agree by saying things slightly differently. People seem to feel that our WP:BLP policy is more or less equivalent to what responsible newsmedia choose to report. That's not true. Our primary goal is to avoid doing harm, and to be sure to get things right. We're not a commerical outlet that has to be profitable, and there's absolutely no need to be the first to report every detail of an emerging event. Newspapers do that, and they do it better than we ever could. Instead, we try to give the event a larger perspective. As such, we don't have to have the names of suspects who haven't even entered pleas. We don't have to have juvenile rantings on MySpace pages. And under no circumstances do we need the names of minors. There are a few new editors involved in writing here - welcome. If you haven't all ready, take a look at WP:CONSENSUS - that's how we decide what to do in disputed areas, and right now I don't see consensus to add these things. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 04:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

But back to my original point, he has a good question: "why not leave out the name of the Fort Hood shooting suspect then as well?" Richmondian (talk) 08:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're not getting an answer, it's because this argument, while attractive, has been thoroughly rejected as being unpersuasive given the way Misplaced Pages works. You've previously cited to WP:IDONTLIKEIT; further down in the essay you'll find WP:WAX. The short version: in an encyclopedia open to anyone, with no central authority exercising editorial control, you can always find inconsistencies. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do the right thing here. Also, as I mentioned above, we are governed by consensus, which could yield different results in different situations. Speaking just for myself, I'm consistent; I am opposed to the minors' names, but can accept the adults' names. However, I don't think there is consensus here to add the adults' names back in, so I'm leaving them out. Dysfunctional though it may seem, that's how Misplaced Pages works. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 13:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

has been thoroughly rejected as being unpersuasive? News to me.

I'm curious about the others who want to keep out those that have been charged, do you also think the Ft Hood guy's name should be removed? Richmondian (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That is not really a discussion for this talkpage, however I am in the UK, and the Hood story has been running prime time news here since it occured, still is running, however this situation is not being reported on the news channels at all, even if it was a notable story here in the UK, the names of the children or even the adult accused would not be broadcast, at least until there was a trial and the Judge allowed them to be broadcast.There is no comparison between the two cases. Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

i am asking about wikipedia, not what a judge in the UK might order about a crime in the UK. judging by fort hood, an article that is very busy, the wikipedia consensus is that it is A-OK to include the names of those charged with crimes, which seems in line with BLP in any case. Richmondian (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha, your last edit is disgusting, go on stuff in whatever you want. Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The argument isn't that BLP will automatically say that names can't be included, although the issue of do no harm, especially as it applies to minors and victims, does come into play. But as Xymmax stated, we consider each article in terms of its own merits. In this case I view publishing the names of the accused to contain sufficient risk of harm so that I don't think they need to be included here. In the Fort Hood case, I might take the same view, or, more likely, I'd see the risk of harm to the accused to be much lower. - Bilby (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Blaming the victim

WP:SPA Richmondian is determined to add this irrelevant coverage that blames the victim for being raped. Speculation in general is useless for encyclopedic articles, and this speculation is especially inappropriate. Bielle opposes this, Off2riorob opposes this, and I oppose this. You do not have consensus, Richmondian, and you need to stop edit warring until you gain consensus here. ~YellowFives 22:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This edit is awful, I had a look for it on the web, it is vague and speculation and not an opinion that is notable at all, support removal. .Actually the worse it is the more chance there is that whoever closes the deletion discussion will be weighted in favour by the poor state of the article when they close. Off2riorob (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob, you've finally crossed the line in acknowleding your motivations. it is NOT ok to try to get the article in very horrible condition in order to convince others to delete it. I can't believe it has come to this. You welcomed me to wikipedia, remember? Richmondian (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood what Off2riorob is saying. The inclusion of this citation puts the article in worse condition. So Off2riorob supports its removal, halfheartedly because a worse article is more likely to be deleted, but ultimately the choice is for a better article. ~YellowFives 10:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

if are going to even contemplate adding this reference, we would need to give it context by including any comments directed at ktvu, esp. from experts in this phenomenon of blaming the victim. it does not surprise me that kids would say this, its probably highly irresponsible if ktvu doesnt followup with discussion of this, and its very POV to include it here. might as well include any random comments made to any news agency. we do have a responsibility to be NPOV and careful here, and erring on the side of caution when creating an article on an underage crime victim is necessary. I am surprised that there are opinions that we should delete as a blp violation, as in this case its not just about one person, but is a public event of note, but i do understand: if its a serious enough violation of blp, nearly anything can be deleted here at WP.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the arguments to delete are about the potential for BLP violations and about whether or not this news story is sufficiently notable to warrant coverage per WP:NOT#News. On the BLP front, this issue isn't so much that an article has to be a biography to be a concern for BLP, but that it needs to contain biographical information about living people, which this article does. Anyway, it will be interesting to see where consensus lies. - Bilby (talk) 08:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

My initial reaction was to oppose the kind of information that YellowFives is highlighting, but the "community reaction" (broadly defined) is arguably part of the story. And additional independent coverage, such as this New York Times story, has dealt with the fact that some people blame and even threaten the victim. I think there may be a place to mention that side of the reaction within the larger context of community response. I generally believe (and certainly hope) that the bulk of the community reaction has been more in the direction of rallying to oppose violence and offer support to the victim. And a discussion of the community reaction would rightfully focus on the positives, but it does seem appropriate to make some mention of the negatives too (though not necessarily phrased in the way presented above). Dragons flight (talk) 12:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the sentiment is disgusting, but it is widespread. I believe it is worthy of inclusion, as well as coverage of the vigils. KTVU mentioned it, the NY times mentioned it, and I've seen it expressed by many in online boards & blogs. All that I've seen saying it appear to be locals. For those that live around here it isn't surprising and goes hand-in-hand with a community that could create the crime itself.

It is hard to judge the general feeling in the RHS community. Hundreds show up for vigils and marches and I hope that is how most people feel, but the blame-the-victim crowd isn't going to organize a vigil to express their feelings. The vigils have many people from nearby cities that tend to be a little more educated. Please keep in mind that the whole case is awful, I support supressing the name of the victim, but not the horrendous nature of the crime or responses. Richmondian (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The victim-blamers seem to be, mostly, young. This is just speculation, but one possibility is that they'll grow out of the mentality.

My thought is that the 'blame the victim' stuff doesn't help the article at this point. If it becomes a larger part of either the defense, or the broader community discussion then ok. But for now, keep it out. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"Blame the victim" is, uhappily, a universal response by some. It is not unique to this tragic event. There is nothing in the reference cited that suggests this is a majority view or even an unusual one in the context. Rape has always been the kind of crime where the victim is put on trial, too; there is nothing novel here that belongs in this article. Misplaced Pages does not give room to insignificant minority trash talk, even if there are news reports that permit it. Bielle (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Rocks, take a look at the NY Times piece if you haven't. KTVU just touched on the sentiment but the Times goes into it pretty deeply (and mirrors what I've been seeing). I think this adds a lot to the story.

Still, as in the hallways of any high school, the chatter can be raw. “People used to make fun of her,” Miqui Maciel, a 10th grader, said of the victim. “So when people found out who it was, they lost a lot of sympathy for her.”

Summerlynn Sigler, an English teacher, said there were some boys planning to beat up the victim once she returned to school, on the grounds that she was to blame if her attackers received life sentences.

Daisy Santoya, a ninth grader, said schoolmates had accused her of snitching and told her to watch her back after she went to the police with information.

Bielle, I do believe that the NY times published this story because it is notable & revealing. "majority view" or "unusual" are not the standards for inclusion, but these views do seem shockingly widespread, by the tone of the article. The reporter says nothing to the effect that these views are few and far between.

Judging by the reactions of many of the students, the girl is very lucky that someone finally called 911. Her injuries were apparently quite bad and the attack was continuing (after 2.5 hrs and observed by at least a dozen people) until the police showed up. The caller may have saved her life. Richmondian (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That a teacher would repeat this garbage is the astonishing part to me. The rest is same-old, same-old and does not deserve immortalization in WP. In fact, I think it should not be here on the talk page either. "Tone of an article" is an opinion, and not one I share, having read the whole of it. The article you are quoting from the NY Times () opens with “.. . the predominant reactions — horror or sympathy or even fear — were understood by the school’s principal, Julio Franco”. If this is the predominant reaction, then the other is a minority view. Please don’t cherry pick your quotes. The same article actually says blaming the victim is not a majority view: "In two dozen conversations, teachers and the majority of students expressed frustration at how many students remained callously indifferent, if not antagonistic toward the victim." The “callous indifference” is also explained in that same article: “But teachers and community leaders also say the students, struggling with the incident, are playing down the brutality and blaming the victim to establish emotional distance.” The "how many" is not explained. I would be personally horrified at a dozen who held such ignorant views, but people's standards vary. It is clear, however, that the "blame the victim" is not a widespread view at all, and that it even exists is shocking to the majority. I do not believe that either the town or the students at the school should be demonized by the unthinking responses of some and the explicable, if less than kind, distancing of others. The weight of the press reports in general focus on the community's response of outrage and horror. Please do not make more of this than it is, a self-protective view of weak few looking at a fearful event. Bielle (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

the majority of students expressed frustration at how many students remained callously indifferent, if not antagonistic toward the victim. the "how many" is not quantified, but i'd guess it is a sizable number for the students to be frustrated about it. really, this article would barely exist without these claims. the callous blaming is actually the entire point of the article:

"But the story of the Richmond rape with its daily updates now occupies a larger stage. There it unspools daily: a tale of unmoored adolescence, with multiple acts.

If the first act was a group crime with a willing audience, the second is the impulse of some students to dismiss it all as trivial, at worst a mere misadventure in which the victim was complicit."

i don't believe i ever said this was a majority view, but, then again, majority view is not our standard for inclusion. as for removing discussion off this "discussion" page, well, that's taking this a little far. Richmondian (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If it's "blaming the victim" to point out that being an idiot will make you a victim, then blaming the victim can't be wrong. We only cause more crime if we insist on the idea that people can be oblivious to the possibility. Pointing out this simple fact in no way excuses the criminals of course. One can also lay some blame on our drinking laws because she wouldn't have gone off to an unsafe place to drink if she could have had alcohol in safer surroundings. 72.40.152.209 (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Reason for Deleting This Entry

Hi all, I've not been involved in the discussion of this page before, as I have been concentrating on the discussion of the Mark Levin article. After reading the article as it is on Nov 9, 2009 I do not see any reason why it should be deleted. First, this is an extremely important news event. As a sociologist it is my gut feeling that this story will have some long standing implications for violence against women, sexualization of American children, and race relations. Simply because it is already seeming to mobilize a community and parts of American makes it noteworthy. Second, the article is encyclopedic in that it presents the facts of the case a nothing more. Even the 'Response' section is written better than most similar sections. Third, I see no NPV violations. Fourth, in my opinion there is no violation of BLP policy here. It is not a biographical page and it does not even mention names of the victims or the accused. If there is a BLP violation here, I'd love to have someone show it to me. (Remember I'm coming off the Mark Levin discussions.) I do see one problem with the article. The final statement in the 'Responses' section should be removed. First, article quoted is not a news article, it is a column by an opinion writer. Therefore, it is not valid to generalize anything he says to the local media. Second, the article states his opinion that no evidence of race has been presented. However, I have not read anything in police reports that completely excludes race as a factor. In fact, in at least one instance, a friend of the victim has stated that the rape was a symptom of race problems in the school (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2009/10/29/rape.victim.friend.cnn). So the statement is at best dubious, at worst factually incorrect. Before this sentence is included, the police need to talk more about the role of race. Remember, if it is your own conclusion that race was not a factor, that is your opinion and not what should be in a Misplaced Pages article. If there are statements from the police, a better source should be cited. Finally, I would like to say that the discussion I have read, bothers me. I am a relatively new editor, and I do try to be judicious in the edits that I make and the comments I make. However, there seems to be more condescension than is necessary here. I will ask people to please be civil to each other. Misplaced Pages only works if everyone operates in good faith and is respectful to others. To that end, I have already reported this talk page to an admin I have worked with in the past to get his opinion of whether the incivility has gone to far on this page. Please everyone, be nice to each other. Again, I see no reason why this article should be deleted. Ericsean (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I applaud your call for civility in the discussion of this article. There is also an onging AFD discussiong for this article here where you should post your arguments as to whether the article should be kept or deleted.

The reason for the Article was nominated for deletion has less to do with the overall quality of the article and more to do with three specific Misplaced Pages guidlines: WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:BLP1E and WP:N/CA. It basically comes down to whether this event will have "long standing implications" as your "gut" says or not. Looking at crime statistics here and here which shows Richmond, CA to have incidents of rape, murder and violent crimes far above the national average; sad as it is, I suspect this event will have less of an impact than you think. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

deletion debate closed

Conclusion: no consensus to delete, also no consensus to keep. The article will stay, for now.

It's been a slog, but I hope we can all move from this and make this article the best it can be.

Richmondian (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The closure of the deletion debate was reverted. It was innapropriate to close it early. Discussions should run for the whole 7 days unless there is a speedy keep or speedy delete reason to close. ~~ GB fan ~~ 12:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Denial of race as a factor removed.

I removed the sentence that claims local media said race was not a factor because the article cited was not a news article but a columnist giving his opinion. By definition he cannot speak to what 'the media' believes. In fact, this is written using weasel words. In addition, other media (i.e., cnn.com) shows that some students did think that this is part of a larger racial issue in the school. I stated this argument yesterday, and nobody responded. Therefore, I feel it is appropriate to wait until a better source is available to say that race was not a factor. Ericsean (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Eric, welcome to the page.

The phrase you removed said both that some people thought race was a factor and that others said race was not a factor.

I think it was OK in there, it is cited and balanced, but seems like a few people don't want it in. You also pointed me at Kami Baker's cnn statement where she mention's race. That is a reasonable source to include, but I don't think she discussed race at length.

Richmondian (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Richmondian, Thanks for the welcome. I deleted the statement for two reason. First it does not conform to the wikipedia policy on reliable sources from news agencies because it generalized statements from an opinion piece to the media in general (see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations). Second, the words "some media organizations" could and should be considered weasel word in that they imply large amounts of the media have dismissed race as a factor. When in my research, this does not seem to be the case. Instead, most of the media seems to be silent on the point. I agreed with you that Baker did not talk much about race, though I do feel what she said was telling. However, because it was so little, I though it was best to leave her accusations out. Race should be discussed, but not in the way it was in that sentence. If someone has better sources with a discussion of race, that would be a perfect fit. Best, Ericsean (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ericsean, you are correct. The media has been mostly quiet on the issue, but the community has certainly been talking. When the media mentions race at all, it is usually an indicator that the sentiment is palpable. The media does its best to keep racial tensions down, in an earlier era in other parts of the country, a case like this could have been the flashpoint for mass violence. The Tulsa race riot happened after, at most, a very minor scuffle in an elevator. The Jena Six case was somewhat similar to this one and led to big marches etc.

As I said on your talk page there are very few Caucasian girls at the school. White population is less than 2% of the student body, undoubtedly fewer at the dance. One of the small number of white male students at the school lured her into the courtyard where the rape occurred; other than him all none of the perpetrators were white. It could be just a statistical thing, but the racial themes are right there.

The other thing I'm wondering about is...where did all the African Americans go? That area used to be mostly Af-Am but is now predominantly Latino. Richmondian (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Richmondian, I cannot speak to the changing demographics of the area. By the look of your name, you are probably more knowledgeable on that point than I.

I hope you do not misunderstand me. I feel that a discussion of a racial component is warranted. However, I have not found any good sources for such a discussion. The article cited, as it was used, was a to me a clear violation of the reliable source rule. Without that source, I do not feel that there is really any good information to create a discussion. Ericsean (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Last change...

When did we reach consensus that all information about the victim had to be removed? Can some administrator undo that last change? Ericsean (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary speaks to identifying information , which we do remove, concensus or none; it's a BLP matter with respect to a minor. I would agree about the first paragraph that was originally deleted, and would recommend it stay deleted for the reason given. However, I am not as convinced that the second parapraph, that notes the parents' press briefing, should be deleted. It seems generic enough. I will make these changes to Ericsean's revertof the whole. Bielle (talk) 04:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Note: also moved paragraph about parents' response to "Response" section.

OK. Perhaps I do not understand the BLP policy after reading it several times. Can you tell me why this is too much information. Please don't just say that it is too much. I am finishing a PhD in sociology and have used university institutional review boards before. I know a thing or two about identifying information, and I am not sure where this crosses the line except for maybe the fact that she was an honor student and church going. Where specifically does this cross the line?Ericsean (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Detail that clarifies the significance of the event is appropriate, but every other bit of information about the victim that is added increases the opportunities for identification. Out of the first sentence in the deleted section, her age, her course status, her year and her school are mentioned. Her age and the school name are already in the article. Those two establish, beyond the fact of the event itself, the legal concern (a minor) and the venue (the school). Everything else is not essential to the significant content; it is personal to the victim and could be used to identify her and/or her friends. IN BLPs, the "presumption is in favor of privacy". Bielle (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wise edits, Bielle and Rjanag. This is an article about a rape. We don't need to know whether she went to church. ~YellowFives 05:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree. We don't need her name here, but the other stuff adds to the article. It doesn't identify the victim and has all appeared in reliable sources. The article has been reviewed by BLP experts and that section was left intact. Richmondian (talk) 07:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The title of this article is 2009 Richmond High School gang rape. Not irrelevant details about the life of a rape victim. Knowing whether she was a churchgoer does not "add to the article." ~YellowFives 11:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yellow, I disagree. Some things such as that she had trouble fitting in does add to the story because it shows the specific predatory nature of the attach. (I make the assumption that there are many forms of predation that lead to rape.) The Church goer part might be relevant at some point if it turns out religion played a part in some way. The honor student part, in my opinion, is unneeded. I personally think race might be important, since there maybe a racial element, but it seems consensus is against me. Ericsean (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That is all original synthesis on your part, not to mention grasping at straws. We're not here to tell a story. You're welcome to get a blog, Ericsean. This is an encyclopedia. "This trivia might add to the story" is not a reason for inclusion. Unless you can find reliable sources saying "they raped her because she had trouble fitting in," you absolutely can not include it. Even then, the argument for inclusion would depend on whether it's some random student's opinion or the conclusion of investigators, but that's the absolute bare minimum before you even have an argument. ~YellowFives 13:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok Yellow, I did not to imply that I though she was raped because she was an outsider or that people did not report it because it was an outsider. I just thought it would add context to who she was. But I do see your point. Is there any particular reason you don't want to actually have a discussion about this. You completely ignore the two parts I said I though should not be included and the fact that I think race should be included since CNN had a clip where a student did say it was a sign of racial tension (or at least that is what I got out of it). Ericsean (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

But we're not supposed to be just adding context to who she was. Whenever we have the choice between trivia and privacy, we are supposed to choose privacy, every single time. Unless the incident cannot possibly be understood without some personal detail about her, leave that detail out. So for instance if the police said that they were treating this as a racial hate crime, then the police response could not be understood except in the context of race, and we would have to include that. But some ignorant student's speculation on why she was raped does not matter. The incident can be understood just fine without said ignorant speculation. Whether or not she went to church has not been established to be integral to the rape. We aren't going to include it unless we're certain that it's necessary. And don't claim that I'm not having a discussion about this when I'm in the middle of having a discussion about it. I'm not obliged to answer everything you say, and if I don't have time for it all then you can hope someone else takes you up on the offer. ~YellowFives 14:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Yellowfives and the removal of the identifying detail in regard to the suspect. I also agree with his comment that some students unqualified opinion as regards race or in fact any other matter is speculation and adds nothing of any value to the article. Off2riorob (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand an accept both Yellow and Off's arguments for excluding of identifying information. However, I would like to respectfully ask what the standard should be for when connections between race and a crime should be included. In the Jenny 6 article there is a discussion of the noose hangings, even though the district attorney said that he did not believe that the fight and the noose hangings were related and that there was no lingering racial tension. However, he did think that they were both signs of the same thing. However, there were people, mainly from outside of Jenna who did see the incidents as connected. What determines when opinions about race should be included? Investigators' assertions that race was involved? When there is mass public support?

Ironically, this section has completely gotten away from what I intended it to be. My whole issue is that people who have not engaged in the discussion are making major edits and simply saying there there is too much identifying information. I respectfully think it would be helpful for people to give reasons on the talk page for the edits they make if there is in effect more than one edit. Ericsean (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it would be good if more of the article editors would participate in the talk page discussion. But I also think Rjanag's edit summary was adequate for the beginning of a bold, revert, discuss cycle. Anyway, the allegations of excessive punishment for black teens in Jena were based in part on allegations of inadequate punishment for the white teens who hung the nooses. The story became centered on nooses, people were writing songs about nooses. Unequal justice was the theme of the rallies. Could the Jena 6 article be understood without specific reference to the nooses? I would suggest the answer is no. Undoubtedly it could not be understood without reference to race in general. Now, what is the basis for the claim that there is racism in this incident? Someone was white and someone was brown. Anything more? Some student's speculation. I don't see the case being made that this article needs the discussion of race to be understood. And if it doesn't, then we should err on the side of the girl's privacy. ~YellowFives 18:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

So would a good standard be: if reputable sources report report a significant number of individuals associated with the incident or prominent activists believe that race is involved, and that they conduct some action to demonstrate so? Ericsean (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

My standard is whether the incident can be understood without race. This incident can. The Jena 6 can not. ~YellowFives 21:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Who are you to say that this can be understood without race? Were you in the minds of the attackers or other students? In the homes of the community? Richmondian (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the article as it stands is quite complete, unless more details worth inserting emerge then the article should enjoy a degree of stability, the article as it is now is a simple report and as encyclopaedic as it can be for the time being. Off2riorob (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems very coincidental that the same people that want to delete this article are constantly removing content, and not adding or polishing. The BLP issue has been assessed by a BLP expert and there is no issue with reporting that the victim was Caucasian, having trouble fitting in, an honors student, or a churchgoer. These all add to the article. The content that was just deleted had been in the article for a while and no one cared, now several editors are quite insistent that it be removed.

Really stretching the limits of credulity here. Richmondian (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What content there is in the article should not affect the deletion debate. Either it is notable, or it isn't. That is what the AfD is meant to discuss. Who is this "BLP expert", by the way? Black Kite 18:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It still seems very coincidental to me. Why aren't you adding any content? Or polishing up the prose? Why didn't Y-5 let the deletion debate end? Why all the claims about no notability after it was clear this was news all over the US, and even outside the US? I saw this article linked to on another page..... I was on the verge of departing but got some words of encouragement and found another place to work, EricSean seems to be on his way out. What is going on? Is it just a coincidence?

Richmondian (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer: Off2riorob has done some cleanup on another article I'm working on, which is appreciated

(after 2 e/c)(Black Kite and I are on the same course here, it would seem.) Coincidental? Not hardly! In each case, the concerns are largely based upon BLP issues, so it is not surprising that the same editors are involved. As for how long the details have been there, well, we were just careless, I guess. Now we are paying better attention. I am not sure who the BLP expert is who has assessed the details under dicussion and said that they were not an issue. It wasn't Off2riorob's view, as his preceding comments are clearly opposed to their inclusion. The article version he read, if I understand the time stamps correctly, was this one, without the detailed description of the victim. If you meant Alison, I can't see that she has remarked much on anything except forcefully about names. I doubt she read the rest, though I might be wrong. Her views would be useful. She is experienced and sensible. Bielle (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And, as to the lack of changes other than content removal? Looks awfully coincidental when those wanting to delete the entire article come and delete content from the article. Richmondian (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll make you a deal. You tell us who the BLP expert is who has no issue with the details, as Black Kite and I have both asked, to give credence to your claims, and I will speak more on who is doing what on the article, and why. And, as I said above, it's not "coincidental" at all, but emminently logical and connected. Bielle (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can't explain your lack of contributions (other than deleting content) without making "a deal" this isn't going anywhere. Richmondian (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of moving away from games, I have asked Alison for her view. Bielle (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the first sentence is fine and essentially repeats the basic context of who she is, but the second and third sentences are superfluous. That she's churchgoing, struggled to fit in, and/or has some poor friends, would seem to be irrelevant to the crime. If evidence emerged that she was targeted because of one or more of those things, then I could see including it, but currently the text does not indicate that. This is an article about the crime, and so should focus on things that reliable sources have discussed as important factors in the crime. The article should not be an excuse to simply dig through the life of the victim for whatever details we can find. Newspapers sometimes like to do that, but we should resist that temptation. If the details aren't important to understanding the crime in some way, then we should respect her privacy and not include them. Dragons flight (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither her year nor her course level, both of which are in the above-referenced "first sentence" of the details that have been removed, are pertinent to the crime, in my view. The age and her school, also in that first sentence, are pertinent as they give the locale and the additional legal concern that the victim is a minor. These two facts are currently in the lede. Bielle (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

as of yet, you've only stripped content, talked about stripping content and campaigned for deletion. what is the point, bielle? Richmondian (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

To be explicit, yes I support including both of those things. Since it was a crime at a school against a student, I think they contribute relevant context in a way the other details suggested generally do not. Dragons flight (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

For me, the point has always been BLP concerns. I do believe strongly that all we need to anchor the article are the facts already in the lede: she is a student at the school where the crime occurred, and she is 16. Dragon's Flight and I differ on two specifics I think are unnecessary because they create a more identifiable profile of the victim than is consistent with a strict interpretation of WP's privacy policy, without adding to the profile of the crime that is the article's subject. The differences are not insurmountable, however. Others will doubtless be along to help shape this. Bielle (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Bielle that her being an honor student, I think that is what he means, is too identifying and basically irrelevant. That she is a sophomore, I am fully unsure about whether that should be included. Ericsean (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

addition

Thanks Dragons Flight.

I noticed this in one of the refs "More than 60 people, many of them teens supporting the defendants, watched the latest court appearance".

Richmondian (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Repeated use of "allegedly", "reportedly", etc

The article begins with an apparent attempt to question whether a crime was committed at all: "a 16-year-old female student of Richmond High School was allegedly raped..." This language is problematic for two reasons. First, innumerable reliable sources have reported that the victim was raped, and that the only fact that might even conceivably be in dispute is the identities of the perpetrators -- for example, this article begins with "A Richmond High School student recovering from a gang rape..." For Misplaced Pages editors to insert the terms "allegedly", etc, in front of statements that many highly reliable sources have reported as unequivocal facts is original research. Furthermore, as original research goes, this is some of the worst misogynistic drivel that I've seen. Do we seriously entertain the possibility that a sixteen year old girl would consent to sexual intercourse with 10 men, in public, would subsequently be found unconscious and airlifted to a hospital, then would falsely claim to have been raped? This is nowhere close to a "he said/she said" case: the circumstances surrounding this incident suggest, to a near certainty, that a crime was indeed committed. For Misplaced Pages to countenance the prospect of a false allegation, expressly refuted by reliable sources, and in this particular situation, is to portray women as pond scum. Nor, contrary to repeatedly promoted myths, does WP:BLP require original research here: Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources clearly states that we should provide the reader with facts as reported by reliable sources, without adding our own OR gloss, without making unscrupulous defense lawyers arguments for them. If many RS report that the victim was raped, then so should we -- anything less is a BLP violation with respect to the victim of this crime. Andrea105 (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

There is merit to your argument concerning "allegedly raped." What do others think? Is there a problem with just describing the rape as a rape and saving the "alleged" for descriptions of the suspects? ~YellowFives 11:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Although we generally use "alleged" pre-trial, I don't think there's any reason to have it in the lede here as it's pretty clear a rape was involved. Well it's clear now - in fact, the "alleged" was in the lede from when the article was created and there weren't many reliable sources. It was merely never removed, which makes Andrea105's claims that this is "misongynistic drivel" and "portraying women as pond scum" so ridiculously bad-faith they're almost laughable. Meanwhile, with a trial upcoming, perhaps "alleged" still needs to be used for sentences like "The victim refused, then some of the attackers placed her on a nearby cement bench and continuously for 2½ hours raped her, at times with a foreign object, and beat her" which is sourced only to a newspaper report which doesn't really say that. Black Kite 12:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Your claim that

the "alleged" was in the lede from when the article was created and there weren't many reliable sources. It was merely never removed

is blatantly incorrect. See -- this was at a time when the article included many reliable sources such as the San Francisco Chronicle, CNN, and ABC News, which either treated the attack as a proven fact , or, at the worst, prefaced by "police say..." At no time did any of these sources use language equivalent to "alleged" or "reported" to suggest an allegation of rape whose truthfulness was in dispute. Andrea105 (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think an article can portray women poorly (or other colorful descriptors) without editors deliberate planning to do so. ~YellowFives 12:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

My point exactly. Black Kite 13:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

robbery section

The "robbery" info is cited already in the article, here . See the highlighted part?

It is probably in other references as well.

So why are Black Kite and Off2riorob obsessed with removing it? If you want other citations, here are a boatload.

Funny thing is these "editors" have contributed zilch to this article, limiting their "contributions" to reversions. Sad, very sad.

Richmondian (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If she was robbed and you have strong citations then first add it to the body of the article, eg, what was robbed? and then when you have a decent strongly cited acceptable addition to the body of the article then you can add it to the infobox, if the robbery details are not in the body of the article then if is wrong to add it to the infobox. Off2riorob (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and research/write this material Rob. The situation now is that we have a reference, actually many, that say she was robbed, yet you keep removing the word "robbery", then accuse me and another editor of adding unreferenced information. Please explain your conduct. Richmondian (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the ibox should only contain material mentioned elsewhere in the article, so the robbery should be referred to elsewhere, with its reference. If no one is prepared to detail the robbery allegations in the body of the article, it should not be in the ibox. – ukexpat (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the "robbery" claim, with a source. Infoboxes can be used convey, well, information, even if not repeated in the body of an article. See caesium for an example of this. Andrea105 (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree, the robbery accusation is in the infobox without any comment relating to it in the body of the article, this is very bad practice..what was stolen? what is this robbery all about? Off2riorob (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't like informative infoboxes? Then there are quite a few articles in Category:Chemical elements to keep you busy. Don't worry, you'll be blocked before you run out of infoboxes to eviscerate :) Andrea105 (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK these statements about what an infobox "should" be are not in some infobox policy. The information is cited, relevant, and adds to the article. I have to wonder some editors have so much time to discuss but so little to enhance the copy.

In any case this is a classic shifting reasoning saga. The first two reverts were because there was no citation now it is on to some infobox claim. Hard to sustain good faith when this happens. Richmondian (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Two of the suspects were actually charged with robbery in addition to rape . It should be totally uncontroversial that she was robbed. It belongs in the infobox. I'd say it should also be expanded upon in the article, but inclusion in the infobox is not contingent on that. Dragons flight (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I keep getting reverted

I just want to add that the teen girl was white and the men who raped her were mostly Hispanic and black. I get reverted for reasons like 'race doesn't matter' and 'its opinion of reporter'. How about the Duke Lacrosse rape article? Race is mentioned everywhere in the article. Why have this double standard? I used a reference from Los Angeles Times newspaper, a respected source of information to state the races of the attackers and the victim. Lets not be biased, since whats good for the goose is good for the gander. If its acceptable to mention race all over the Duke Lacrosse article why is it not ok to do so here? Political Correctness has no business in Misplaced Pages, just referenced facts. Can I get consensus please? Cheers. Meishern (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I made my initial comments here. Skin colour (race, ethnicity) only belongs in an article about a crime if it is a referenced factor in that crime. Otherwise, it is unnecessary detail which may be used to identify minors and/or victims and to suggest that the matter is significant when there is no evidence to support the suggestion. Bielle (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd add to the above that the LA times column is specifically about why she didn't feel that race was a factor, and therefore something that she deliberately didn't mention in her previous column. From the article: "But I didn't mention race in my column because I don't believe that explains the attack. None of the teenagers mentioned race until I pressed them on it; several even thought the victim was Latina." I'm uncomfortable with using an article about why race shouldn't be mentioned as a source on the race of the people involved. Technically it mentions race, but doing so seems to drop the context, which seems relevant in this situation. - Bilby (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Meishern, sadly, it's the wikipedia politically-correct police out in force. If you have cited info about the race of the victim it is absolutely OK to include it. This article has been gradually stripped of more and more details by these crusaders. There is no wikipedia policy that says race is not relevant and of course if its in the Duke rape article, that's good precedent. The Duke rape never even occurred, after all.. So go to it, my friend. Bilby, please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT

Richmondian (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that this version is an adaquate summary of the racial component of the story. The race question here doesn't drive the story, and so any more than a brief mention is giving undue weight to a side issue. While I understand that some folks would like this article to be larger and go into all the various details, until there are trials and verdicts there is not much more that is appropriate to include in a general reference encyclopedia (imo). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

@Rocksanddirt, The race seem to only drive the story when the perpetrators are of a particular racial group. For example, in the Duke Lacrosse article the race was instantly listed without, as you phrased it, waiting for 'trials and verdicts' and something about general reference encyclopedia. Race didn't drive the Duke story either, it was an alleged gang-rape. Groups of drunk kids have raped for thousands of years and unfortunately will rape for much longer. Yet in this article, girls of the same race as the alleged were present the whole time, and the gang of boys did not touch or insult them. Instead they chose a girl of a different race. In my view it is PC POV that is driving the redaction of races in certain instances while freely listing them in others. I can go into a long list of articles similar to this one that unfortunately are not allowed to state the NPOV facts and give the reader the option to form their own opinion. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty remains that the source is being misrepresented - the source is explaining why mentioning race is irrelevant and a mistake, leading to people fixating on the wrong issue. To then use that source as justification for including race is a misrepresentation of the material. - Bilby (talk) 06:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's what it says. I don't see the part where the source says "race is irrelevant" or "the wrong issue"

In the Richmond gang rape case, I was surprised that so many readers made race the subtext. And they took me to task for not mentioning the race of the victim or her attackers.

"The discomfort you folks feel in acknowledging racial attacks on whites prevents you from writing the facts," one reader's e-mail said.

I admit to feeling "discomfort" as I tried to get a grip on the racial dimensions of the assault. The victim was white; her attackers were described to me by students as mostly Latino, with one black and one white.

According to this source, the LA Times, many people see race as important in the case. And, the victim was white, the attackers were mostly not white. Don't know if you are familiar with the school, it has less than 10 white students total. Richmondian (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That's very much cherry picking. The article continues, in the next paragraph:

"But I didn't mention race in my column because I don't believe that explains the attack. None of the teenagers mentioned race until I pressed them on it; several even thought the victim was Latina. ... I left out race because it's too easy to fixate on that, to settle on a "those people" explanation that lets everyone else off the hook."

The author is very clear: race was not relevant, as far as she could tell, and she is explaining that she deliberately didn't raise the race of those involved before because it leads people to look for the wrong reasons. If you want to mention race, you'll need to find and article that isn't saying that race was irrelevant and shouldn't be made an issue of. Using Banks' article to support mentioning race in the article is misrepresenting what she is saying. - Bilby (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Bilby, what the reporter did was a trick. She mentioned the race (since her readers mocked her for not doing so) in a politically correct way. It would be the same as if she wrote 'a group of Caucasian males gathered in front of a residence and subsequently the African American occupant was raped. But I originally didnt report the race because it doesnt explain the underlying causes of the attack.' Yep race was not relevant in my example too I guess? Meishern (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, the bottom line is that I added the races and was reverted and asked for a valid reference from a reputed source. It took me hours, but I found one from LA Times. If I bothered to look again, I can find another source from just as reputable paper. But is there really a point, since it will be reverted too due to some bizarre interpretation of the article? As I said below, I wont edit this article, and my above posts explain why. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(after e/c) We are required to go with the source's conclusions and not with our interpretation of them. The source concludes race was not an issue; we report that (or not), but we don't take a part of the story and use that "cherry picked" part to draw the opposite conclusion. As for your example, unless it says otherwise, we know that only that a group of Caucasian males were present outside and an African American was raped, nothing more. Bielle (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure we are *required* to go with source's conclusion since thats POV. We should state the facts listed by the source upon which their conclusion was based. We can also add the source's analysis of those facts. I am writing articles related to the Holocaust and a quote from a Nazi murderer may be "Yes I gassed 20,000 Jews and they all deserved it because they are inferior." What I do is, I take the fact that he gassed 20,000 human beings, and ignore his opinion unless I use his quote directly. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The comparison really doesn't work too well, I'm afraid. If nothing else, the whole article being discusses is an opinion column anyway, so I'm not sure it is reliable to begin with, and even if it was we're just picking and choosing opinions. But I stand by the earlier point: the article specifically discusses why mentioning race is irrelevant and a mistake. Thus using it to include a cherry picked point which is directly counter to the argument in the article is misrepresenting the source. If race is relevant then there should be a better source available. - Bilby (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Since we are just having an intellectual debate here. I thought and wrote a lot of different responses and erased them all. I think I explained my logic clearly in the above statements. "Cherry picking" implies taking one fact while ignoring another fact. In LA Times, I accept the fact she stated regarding race but ignore her analysis as to how i should interpret that fact. I got my own brain and don't need her to think for me. Encyclopedia should list cold hard facts and allow the readers to think for themselves as well as list a variety of different opinions from reputed sources to allow the readers to analyze those views and think for themselves. Thats the whole point of NPOV. So first list the races, then give her opinion why that's not relevant, then put an opposing opinion from another reputed source as to why it is relevant. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like we're not going to make a lot of progress. Just to be clear, then. a) The source you are using is an opinion column, which is not generally regarded as reliable for statements of fact, such as race. And b) other than the pure irony of using a source explaining why race is not an issue and should not be covered in order to add the race to the article, using it this way fails to properly represent the source, because you're cherry picking out of it the very claim that the author wants to speak against while ignoring what the author is actually saying. All you have to do is find a genuinely reliable source that covers race and which can be fairly represented in the article. - Bilby (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I enjoy discussions like this. Keeps the brain working and I get to learn a different point of view. You are correct. It boiled down to a different source, and I wish the best to the editor who wants to search for it. After I polishing some grammar, the article right now looks ok and seems stable. Have fun, I enjoyed this exchange! Meishern (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I just re-read the article and I take back some of the things I wrote, since its quite different than from a couple of months back. For now I am content with the current version. Especially the introduction. I will quickly do some very minor grammar edits on the Details section since the language sounds awkward, but will not change any meaning or add anything else. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• We don't seem to be making a lot of progress on the source side of things, so I've raised it at RS/N, as I've found that's good for getting neutral commentary about the use of sources. Anyway, you may wish to chime in there. - Bilby (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Changes to the Lede

Recently, race has crept into the lede. This, just by being placed where it is, suggests that race is an issue in this crime. Yet, in spite of much talk (see sections above), there is no WP:RS claiming this to be true: quite the contrary, in fact. As race is not an issue, its only other use here must be as an identifier, and we don't want any more identifiers of the victim who is a minor.

I propose changing the opening sentence as follows:

The 2009 Richmond High School gang rape occurred on Saturday, October 24, 2009, in Richmond, a city on the northeast side of the San Francisco Bay in California, U.S., when a 16-year-old white female student of Richmond High School was raped repeatedly by a group of young males of different races in a courtyard on the school campus while a homecoming dance was being held in the gymnasium.

Comments are solicited. Bielle (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• I support that edit, strongly. Race was not an issue in this case . Off2riorob (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: Rob has attempted to destroy this article from the get-go. His "views" should be taken with a grain of salt.  ::Richmondian (talk)

• Oppose Edit: If it walks like a duck an quacks its a duck. We don't live in a vacuum or cartoon land. Race must be stated since the victim of a different race was picked out of a group of girls of the same as race as the alleged rapists. Meishern (talk) 05:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support per my earlier comments on the source, and lack of evidence that race was an issue. - Bilby (talk) 05:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• It adds to the lead and is completely appropriate. And, thanks to the earlier citation from LA times it is obvious that a huge # of people recognize the racial dimension of this crime. We don't need a reliable source stating an OPINION about whether its important, since the Times link specifically mentions a large number of people writing to the journalist about it. Also, as you may have noticed, "reliable sources" are typically sprayed with some sort of PC-brand disinfectant. UK-based editors, if you aren't familiar with American race-relations, I'd ask that you kindly step away from this article.

The implication that this "identifies" a minor victim is laughable and reeks of WP:BS and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT Richmondian (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

@Richmondian, You have an interesting point which I didn't notice before. The people who are the most vocal against the exclusion of race in the article don't live in USA and aren't even immigrants inside the USA. It is interesting why these editors are so keen on this article since I doubt they fully understand the overall situation. I will not argue about Big Ben with a Brit or about a Kangaroo toe infection with an Aussie but there seem to be many experts from 10,000 miles away who feel competent enough to grasp the race relations within USA. People who never even saw a Latino or an African-American except on TV, and who don’t know LA Times from LA Wave feel they perhaps watched enough MTV, CSI or Monk to clearly understand the dynamics behind the event that occurred. I now understand why the quote from one of top newspapers in USA was dismissed so easily. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but excluding people from a debate on Misplaced Pages based on where there live really isn't the right approach, and never is. It could well be argued that anyone who lives in the area has a COI and should step away - but that wouldn't be any more viable. The advantage of being from the region is that you bring local knowledge, but also risk having a POV of your own. The advantage of being from outside is that you are generally more neutral, but lack knowledge of the local context. - Bilby (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Who said exclude? But if you don't understand the context, it probably doesn't make sense to come and edit. And if you've campaigned agressively to ge this article deleted, well, I am going to look at your content-stripping edits very warily. I really don't know much about race relations in the UK or toe fungus in Kangaroos, so I am not going to go to those articles unless they need some basic cleanup/formatting. And to say that a local has a Conflict Of Interest is just insulting. I do not stand to profit off this article or its contents. Richmondian (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right - I should have said POV rather than COI. A local may have a clear POV that may not be present in someone from outside. This doesn't mean that they definitely do, nor that they write based on that. Nor does it mean that someone who isn't local doesn't have one too. But I'd argue that not being too closely related to topics is a plus in terms of neutrality, so generally it seems good to have people from outside get involved in articles, especially given that local knowledge isn't verifiable, so while it can inform debate, we have to turn to the sources in the end. - Bilby (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I support the proposed edit. Most newspapers articles regarding this matter don't mention race due to editorial decisions by reporters and editors that it was irrelevant. Exercising our editorial discretion we should probably come to the same conclusion for the same reason. The possible racial subtleties are interesting and probably should be in the movie, but don't belong here where the issue is witnesses who did nothing effective to save the victim, not the race of the victim and her attackers. It's a matter of keeping our eye on the ball: people watched without doing anything. Fred Talk 18:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That is against all known wikipedia policy, Fred. Richmondian (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is against policy to model our article on peer-reviewed sources. We can identify the ethnicity of the defendants, but you can't find a reliable source that contains evidence that the incident was racially motivated. We can imagine such feelings but there is no source for them. If there is a fact of that nature it consists of a report of the assumption some people made. Fred Talk 20:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Absolutely support the edit. The opinion column is a fine source for the author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. The fact that the column mentioning race only does so to discuss that race was specifically not brought up in the original news article clinches it for me.--Cúchullain /c 21:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The article states a fact, plain n simple, that is confirmed in other reliable sources, sfgate.com for one. Richmondian (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The opinion column states some facts, but it doesn't matter as it's an opinion column, not a news article. Especially considering that the opinion stated therein is that said facts aren't particularly relevant.

This sfgate article, it that's what you're talking about, mentions the race(s) of the suspects, it does not mention the race of the victim. It only mentions the suspects' race at all three sections into the piece, in a bit about one suspects' relatives claiming the prosecutors have racial motives, as he's the only black suspect to be arrested. The article gives no particular credence to this, and makes no indication whatsoever that race was a factor in the crime.

Bottom line is, the sources don't make race an issue in the story. This Misplaced Pages article does. That's the opposite of what should be done.--Cúchullain /c 17:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support - for the removal of the POV content that this crime was racially motivated. Off2riorob (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This edit by Dlabtot reflects the consensus here and at RS/N. Dlabtot's summary declares the WP:RS concern that the source quoted is not reliable in respect of the race of the people involved. Aside from this aspect, there is clear consensus that there is currently no reliable source, as WP defines such, for the claim that race was a factor in the crime. To mention it at all, and especially to mention it in the lede, would be to make an indirect claim that it was significant. This is not a conclusion about whether or not the claim is true, just that it is not verifiable. Bielle (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, D1abtot, whoever that is, is mistaken. The sources are entirely reliable: LA Times, SF Chronicle, and others, in pieces about this subject specifically. Anyway, "reliable sources" is not a policy about whether something is significant enough to be in the lead. Richmondian (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Richmondian, there is almost no support, here or at WP:RS/N for your point of view. Please cease inserting racial designations in the face of the clear consensus to omit them. Bielle (talk) 04:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Bielle, please stop edit-warring now. The article was quite peaceful before this remove-the-races campaign began. The race of the attackers is well-cited and in many, many sources. The victim's race is not mentioned as widely. I know there are some editors here that will stop at nothing to destroy this article for unknown reasons. Race is actually one of the biggest issues in this story. It may be hard for outsiders to see, but it has been discussed in the community extensively. BTW the victim and her two friends who were seen on cnn, have left the school and the area. You are doing no one any good by trying to cover up the racial aspect of the attack, and may even be part of the problem. Richmondian (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In order to stop edit warring, I'd have to have started. I haven't made a single change since May 22 . This is tedious. I have requested assistance here. Bielle (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to copy most of a post I made in another discussion as I think it's relevant here

"Regarding sources - Not everything published in a reliable source is itself a reliable source - reliable sources don't operate on the osmotic principle, reliability doesn't leach into everything they publish. Things like op-ed pieces, gossip columns, blog posts from commentators etc generally fall outside the reliable sources envelope, even if the publication is otherwise considered a relable source."

Now - can someone give the links to of the sources being used to support the inclusion of the racial content below. I'll then evaluate them and give my comments. Exxolon (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The primary article, which is what most of this was about, is:

• Sandy Banks, (November 07, 2009) "Finding a deeper lesson in high school gang rape", LA Times

Subsequently two others have been raised:

• Kevin Fagan, (October 30, 2009) "Bulletproof vests for rape suspects in court", San Francisco Chronicle
• Daisy Hernandez (November 2, 2009) "Richmond Gang Rape Raises Race Issue" Color Lines (based in part on a video from CNN)

The first of these mentions the race of the attackers who had been arrested at that point, but not the victim. The second mentions the race of one of the attackers. The second has only been used to support the claim that race is an issue, rather than to source the race of those involved. - Bilby (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Evaluation

The LA Times is a reliable source, but the article cited is an opinion column, not a news article. SFGate is a reliable source and the article is a news article and the races of the defendants are a part of the article. (It actually identifies all of their races contrary to your statement "<name> is the only black suspect named in the case. <name> is white, and the other suspects are Latino." but not the race of the victim. I'm unsure on the reliability of Colorlines. The author is the Managing Editor so it's also unclear whether this is a news article or an opinion column.

When dealing with real people we have to apply WP:BLP very carefully. The first source fails as it's an opinion column. The second mentions the races of the defendants and includes comments by a defendants relatives expressing apprehension about the fairness of any legal process due to his race but not the race of the victim. The third needs further evaluation.

As it stands in my opinion we are not currently justified in including this information in the lead (British English)/ lede section. As the trial progresses if a racial dimension is brought into the trial and reported on in reliable sources in proper news reports we can then include that information in a neutral fashion. We must remember our actions here can have real world effects and be conversative, especially when it comes to real people and legal processes. Exxolon (talk) 11:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a major point, but just to clarify - by "the second mentions the race of one of the attackers" I meant the second of the two alternative articles, specifically the Color Lines one. I just phrased it badly. :) - Bilby (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It's abundantly clear that there is no consensus to include the information in the lede, least of all attributed to an opinion column. The information can be found, but there is absolutely no indication that it's important.--Cúchullain /c 13:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there is a clear consensus, lets remove it. DoneOff2riorob (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

off2riorob has tried to damage this article in the past -- see above. his comments should be taken with a grain of salt Richmondian (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Exxolon, for weighing in. Whether the fact taken from the LA Times Op-ed is accurate has never been in doubt; the claim has been that the main theme of that particular Op-ed piece was not being represented faithfully, which is not the domain of WP:RS) And, WP:RS touches specifically on Op-ed pieces in top-tier publications. "These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author." So I think the RS issue is clear enough. I do not see a BLP issue in mentioning the race of someone who is not even named. Richmondian (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The final comment from the Reliable Source noticeboard:

If a reliable secondary source, and this includes staff editorials, discussed or debated race as an issue, then it is appropriate to mention race in the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmondian (talk • contribs)

A more representative comment from the same noticeboard

One source does make the observation, in the context of saying the information is unimportant and irrelevant. It is a clear example of a misuse of a source. And no, it is not a political bias to say that an opinion column, even one from a well-known newspaper is not a suitable source for information about a living person, most especially when the column makes the opposite point ("I don't believe that explains the attack") from the one you want it to ("race IS an issue"- above) --Slp1 (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC) added here by Bielle (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem Bielle, is that WP:RS noticeboard is a place to discuss reliable sources, not whether something is given undue weight. Richmondian (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is that a problem particularly? I'd imagine that editors commenting on that noticeboard, knowing the context, are entitled to comment on undue weight as well as the inherent reliability of the source. Different sources will be reliable for different purposes. I don't currently see a consensus in that discussion or in this one to make the changes you wish to make. Do you have something to change people's minds on this? If not, maybe we are done here. --John (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that a reliable sources noticeboard loses any legitmacy when the editors there can't make a simple call about reliability or not, and don't even seem to realize that they are on the reliable sources noticeboard. If they had simply chose between "yes, reliable, per <sommething>", or "unreliable, per <somethingelse>" then the board has merit. If they go off on tangents there's no use seeking an opinion there. We might as well stay here if we want tangents. In any case, I believe the matter was settled, concisely, by Squidfryerchef: SOURCE IS RELIABLE Done. Richmondian (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Why does the reliable sources noticeboard lose credibility when editors (who're volunteers like you and me) judge a situation where you give them the context in relation to that context? I disagree. These matters are seldom clear-cut and context is everything in sourcing. The matter was not settled by Squidfryerchef's comment; as this editor gave no rationale and many of those who disagreed with you (both there and here) did give rationales, I'd say the consensus is still clearly running against including the racial information you wish to add. --John (talk) 05:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

John, thank you for levelheadedness. First of all, this is not something I'd like to add to the article. It was something that was in the lede that some editors wanted to remove.

The whole point of the noticeboards is to seek opinions of those who have studied a police in depth. That is all. It isn't about seeking out pontificators that send discussion off in tangents. If there are multiple issues, such as BLP, NPOV, etc, we can go to multiple noticeboards. But for now the noticeboard is adding zero. I don't think people at the board have even read the policy they are commenting on, as it specifically spells out how Op-Eds should be treated. Here's my reading

Source is reliable, per RS, due to being LA Times, SF Chron, and the RS portion on Op-eds.

BLP is not an issue. Mentioning a victim's race, which is mentioned in the LA Times, does not identify the victim. I challenge anyone here to find the victim's name.

NPOV is not an issue, a simple "white" or "multicultural" qualifier is neutral and not undue weight. The examples on the NPOV page seem to relate to egregious POV-pushing, not simple descriptive terms. But, historically NPOV has been interpreted broadly so this one falls into an area that could be debated endlessly. Richmondian (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, I suggest you review WP:CONSENSUS, one of our core policies. Dlabtot (talk) 05:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is clearly against including the material. The op-ed piece was being used to imply that race was a factor in the crime, when that is the opposite of what the piece said. The actual news articles also do not imply that race was a factor. Seriously, it's time to move on.--Cúchullain /c 13:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning race and saying that the attack was racially motivated are two very different things. If we have reliable sources documenting this information why would choose to exclude it? - Schrandit (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the reliable sources don't, this whole sub-conversation is irrelevant. Dlabtot (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? We have half a dozen reliable sources describing the races of the involved parties. - Schrandit (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please list these alleged 6 sources? tia Dlabtot (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Two very different things yes, but qwe don't report Johnny was a Hispanic unless it is relevant to the story, which the citations don't assert it is. Off2riorob (talk) 07:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Do the citations assert that the purpetrator's age is relevant to the story? - Schrandit (talk) 07:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say they do yes, perhaps not the exact age but the fact that they are school children or minors. Off2riorob (talk) 07:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you see my point. Perhaps it would be necessary to include that the victim was a minor but not to say that she was 15, or to list the ages of the suspects that have been rounded up so far. We also include other non-essential information that we have reliable sources for (the type of liquor being consumed, the fact that she was a student at the school, etc.)

We also do knowledge race later on in the article noting that the government's outreach efforts have been aimed at black-churches.

We should put the race of the suspects in context (that the state did not pursue hate crimes charges) but if we have the information from reliable sources our censorship would be remiss. - Schrandit (talk) 07:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see your point, the assertion in the lede had the effect that the rape was racially motivated, that it was racially aggravated, this is unsupported in the citations. Keeping such misleading detail and original research out of an article is not censorship. Off2riorob (talk) 07:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Where did say that the rape was racially motivated? - Schrandit (talk) 07:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree Schrandit. The diff says nothing about the rape being "racially motivated" or "racially aggravated". Does including age in the lead mean the attack was age motivated or aggravated? Does including the date or time mean it was time-date motivated? I don't know why anyone would read it that way. I believe wikipedia's policy is to state the simple facts, let the reader to any interpretation he desires. And you raise an excellent point. If we indicate that outreach efforts have been directed to black churches, does that not imply that the attackers were largely black?

Richmondian (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

PS Keep in mind Rob's original purpose on this page: deleting the article, and, to that end, ensuring it is be as low quality as possible so that it ultimately be deleted.

When this article was written originally it was like a children's comic, the name of the raped girl was inserted and the alleged rapists, it was awful and imo had real life problems, quality experienced editors improved it and now I don't care if it stays or goes, at least it is not so bad as it was then.Off2riorob (talk)

I can see an argument for not including it in the lead as it isn't particularly important but why should this go in the body, where we insinuate it anyway? - Schrandit (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean "why should", or "why shouldn't"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmondian (talk • contribs) 08:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Bingo, I meant "why shouldn't". - Schrandit (talk) 08:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The same case keeps it out of the article as keeps it out of the lede. Where do we insinuate that race was a mitigating factor in the crime? Off2riorob (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And what case is that? - Schrandit (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the one outlined in this thread. 08:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have looked through most of that and it is still not clear to me. - Schrandit (talk) 09:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding the races to the intro implies that it is a factor in the crime, or at least in the story. This implication is not stated directly in any of the sources; in fact the sources say exactly the opposite. This is just cherry-picking information from various sources and arranging it to imply a conclusion not made in any source, which is really bad juju.--Cúchullain /c 14:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

How does adding the races into the article imply that race was a factor in the crime? - Schrandit (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If race is not relevant, it shouldn't be mentioned, certainly not in the lede - even if it were mentioned in reliable sources, which it is not. For example, the article on Thomas Jefferson - a white slave owner - does not mention his race. Dlabtot (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

A hint of race?

I'm not an American, and hadn't even thought of race being an issue here until I got to almost the end of the article, where it speaks of "predominately African-American churches". It seems to be the only mention of race in the article, but it's there. It says to me that race IS an issue in this crime, but everyone is tip-toeing around it in writing the article.

When people deliberately conceal aspects of an event, even for politically correct reasons, it actually leads to worse situations. Readers will make their own assumptions. I'm trying to work out what the "African-American" connection is, and trying to be objective about it.

Exactly what is the article hiding? HiLo48 (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

We are not hiding anything at all, we have reported what is in reliable citations and not asserted anything that isn't. Off2riorob (talk) 08:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll admit to not having read all the sources (nobody should have to), but that mention of African-American churches would not have been made in isolation. It would have been in the context of either or both the victim or the accused being African-American. You'll be hard pressed trying to convince me that the only mention of "African-American" in all the sources was in a mention of those churches. Or perhaps there is some "general knowledge" about this school of which I, as an outsider, have no "knowledge." HiLo48 (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have read many of the sources, we have, from reliable sources, the race of the victem and all of the suspects.

I agree 100% the hiding it and hinting about it in the article makes things appear far worse than they actually are, most of the suspects are actually Latino and at least 1 is white. - Schrandit (talk) 09:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That mention is not related to the rape, but to the response made by those churches and the city to the issue of violence raised by the rape. The "African-American" aspect covered there isn't otherwise connected. - Bilby (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Then why only African-American churches? It still seems odd. HiLo48 (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The government specifically targeted that community in response to the rape. It is directly tied to it. - Schrandit (talk) 09:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Without anything drawing a connection, I can only assume that those churches happened to get together to get behind this particular program. It is interesting, but it could relate to those churches deciding to band together, or that those churches are the most common in the area, or just happenstance. At any rate, it seems to be a separate concern. - Bilby (talk) 09:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The article specifically says government officials sought them out after the rape. - Schrandit (talk) 09:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Schrandit, I'm afraid that this is a red herring as far as your current concern goes. You'll need something drawing a direct connection between the churches and the race of the attackers to use this approach. - Bilby (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. There is absolutely no indication that the police were working with black churches in particular because of anything to do with the crime. Rather, in the wake of the rape they were making an effort to reduce violence, and that effort happened to involve talking to black churches. This is another example of drawing a conclusion that's just not there.--Cúchullain /c 14:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The article more than implies that they do. Again, hiding and hinting about these things make them appear much worse than they are. No one is implying that age was a factor in this rape but we have realiable sources for the ages so we included that information. Why not the same here? - Schrandit (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Since there is no 'hiding' or 'hinting' going on, your comments don't make much sense to me. Dlabtot (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. No one is hinting anything by including simple facts, no one is violating the "biography of living persons" policy by including these facts. The alleged attackers were multicultural, mostly Latino, non-students. One black student and one white student were arrested. The black student's family claims he was arrested to make the group more multicultural. The victim was white. Why do people want to hide this stuff? It was been reported in multiple reliable sources. The consensus of late seems to include this information. Schrandit, Richmondian, SquidFryeChef, Meishern. Richmondian (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Richmondian. I now know a little more. But other readers won't. My concern with the article is still reflected in my title for this section of Talk. There is a hint of race - African-American churches. In a country that has had serious racial issues in the past, that's a dangerous thing. It's weird just sitting there, being the ONLY mention of race in the article. Some editors are saying it has nothing to do with the rape. If so, why is it there? If it does have something to do with the rape, the article needs to say why. Otherwise, people WILL speculate. And if they can be well sourced, facts such as those you have just presented should also be there. HiLo48 (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a straightforward mention of 'predominantly African-American' churches in the article, based on what was published in reliable sources. To call this a 'hint of race' involves inventing a new definition for the word 'hint'. Dlabtot (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

But WHY do the sources mention the churches? What do they have to do with the rape? HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As you will see if you bother to read the WSJ article that is the single source for this mention, the 'Ground Zero' program was instituted in response to the high crime rate in Richmond, and this was the most high-profile crime in Richmond in the year prior to its founding. It is a rather tenuous connection and in my opinion doesn't really add anything of value to this article. It certainly does not in any way indicate that race was a factor in this crime. Dlabtot (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It is conceivable that Marcelles James Peter's family's accusations of racism against the prosecutors could be added to the 'Arrests' section, although I would argue that it would give undue weight to what appear to be unfounded accusations. However, that is the only mention of race that appears in reliable sources reporting about this incident, other than the 'Ground Zero' article in WSJ, which is already included. Dlabtot (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

HiLo48, you said "In a country that has had serious racial issues in the past, that's a dangerous thing." Which implies that we should remove all reference to race. This runs counter to wikipedia's aims. We chronicle the facts, within some limits (WP:BLP for instance). If there is a problem with the article, it is that we only mention the African American churches, which misrepresents the reality of the case. Richmondian (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and that's exactly what I meant by being careful. Having learnt more about it here, I agree with Richmondian that the link between the rape and the action the the African-American churches is tenuous. There is certainly no direct link. Would it do any harm to remove that mention? HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't think so. I would have done so myself, after reading the source, except I was afraid that doing so might escalate the ongoing dispute. Dlabtot (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems like the best thing to do is stop filtering race in the beginning. Simple solution which doesn't lead to obliterating information throughout the article. Richmondian (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to say. 'filtering race'? What does that mean? Dlabtot (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

State race wherever it is relevant to the story. Don't pick and choose, and says "it's only ok to mention it when talking about African Americans". People can them come here to get the whole story, and people won't walk away thinking that the attackers or the victim were African Americans. Richmondian (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that if it were relevant, and cited to reliable sources, it should be mentioned. However, neither of those qualifiers apply in this instance. Can you point to a reliable source that mentions the race of the victim? Dlabtot (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are multiple reliable sources for this info. Please see above. Richmondian (talk) 05:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the url of the alleged reliable source or sources that discuss the race of the victim? If you don't want to engage in an honest dialogue, don't provide the url(s). Dlabtot (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

We need two things: a reliable source providing the race of the the attackers and the victim, and a reliable source drawing a connection between the race and the rape. The best we have is a reliable source covering the race of the attackers, (SF Chronicle) but that is not in relation to the rape itself, but an accusation made by the father of one of the accused. There just isn't a reliable source that we've found connecting race to the rape itself. If it is relevant, maybe the connection will emerge during the court cases? - Bilby (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The race information from that link is not a quote from the father, it is unquoted and says: Peter's family accused prosecutors of having racial motives. Peter is the only black suspect named in the case. Smith is white, and the other suspects are Latino. This is enough for me to indicate it is worthy of inclusion. We do after all include that the girl drank brandy. I don't hear anyone griping about brandy being an irrelevant detail. The victim's race is also in a reliable source, as discussed in detail above. Richmondian (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that you can't provide a url for a reliable source that discusses the race of the victim. Thank you for making that crystal clear. Dlabtot (talk) 06:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you were willing to say exactly what source you were talking about, it would allow us to examine whether it actually supports what you are saying or not. So far it appears that is a discussion in which you are not willing to engage.

I encourage you to identify the source so that we can move the discussion forward. Dlabtot (talk) 08:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

There are more than a few, here is the first one off google - http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/07/local/me-banks7 - Schrandit (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Your assertion that there are others is noted. What are their urls? Dlabtot (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the one that most of the discussion above is about - it isn't sufficiently reliable, though, and specifically argues that there isn't a connection between race and the attack. - Bilby (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, as an Op-ed from the LA times, it is reliable. Per WP:RS:

A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources

The existence of the Op-ed alone indicates there is a connection. That's why she wrote the piece. I don't know who here is from America but I can tell you the media here bends over backwards to conceal race in most cases. That concealment doesn't mean the details aren't relevant to an article.

Richmondian (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

More cherry picking. The full quote from WP:RS is: "Some sources may be considered reliable for 'statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author." It is abundantly obvious that the opinion column can't be used how you want to use it. It needs to stay out, unless you want to use it to source the author's opinion that race is insignificant to the story.--Cúchullain /c 19:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

From the opinion piece:

But I didn't mention race in my column because I don't believe that explains the attack. None of the teenagers mentioned race until I pressed them on it; several even thought the victim was Latina.

Even the girl who summoned police that night couldn't answer when the 911 dispatcher asked, "Is she black or white?" She'd heard only that the victim was naked, "probably intoxicated," and young, "like a ninth-grader."

It would be allowable under WP:RS to cite this as Sandy Banks' opinion that race was irrelevant - but that wouldn't make much sense in the context of an encyclopedia article, would it? We certainly don't want to include in the article all the things that are not relevant. Dlabtot (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The races of the attackers are described in SF Chron, not in an Op-Ed -- so those are not even under RS discussion. Can you stop removing them every time an editor inserts them?

As SquidFryeChef pointed out, it is allowable under RS to include the victims race as well. It is a verifiable fact that the victim was white and that many people wrote into Banks to talk about it. This is not an opinion of Banks. If you wanted, I suppose we could have a "response" section where we mention that Banks did not believe race precipitated the attack.

I don't see why people are so obsessed with keeping race of attackers but don't mind other details, such as the brandy. Misplaced Pages has no special regulations regarding race that I know of, but I see no one demanding that the brandy details be removed. I believe I smell the distinct stench of political correctness wafting through this talk page. Blech. Richmondian (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It is conceivable that Marcelles James Peter's family's accusations of racism against the prosecutors could be added to the 'Arrests' section, although I would argue that it would give undue weight to what appear to be unfounded accusations. But to mention this irrelevant information in the lede would be a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:UNDUE - as has been explained to you ad nauseum. You are trying to insert race where it is irrelevant - according to the very source you have touted. Dlabtot (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read the source, Dlabtot. The information is not from anyone's father. The father claims that race was an issue, but the father is not the one describing the races of those arrested. And such, it is from a reliable source. Please stop claiming otherwise and stop reverting those who add it. To do so is edit-warring. Richmondian (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You haven't addressed my point, which is that according to the sources, race is irrelevant here, therefore it does not belong in the lede. Rather, you are just repeating yourself. And since I didn't claim that it's not a reliable source, saying that I did seems fairly disruptive to me. A I strongly suggest that you review WP:CONSENSUS if you haven't done so already, and while you are at it, I suggest you review WP:EDITWAR and especially WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Dlabtot (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree that this whole thing seems to be going in massive circles. The issue has been discussed at length at the RSN and here, and the overwhelming consensus has been that mentions of race were inappropriate per multiple WP policies. Have any new sources emerged since then? If not, this whole discussion appears to to be to be a classic example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:DISRUPT. --Slp1 (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What the board did NOT say is that the sources are unreliable. And that's all the board was useful for. In fact, the final comment, which no one disputed there, was that they were in fact reliable, including the "op ed" piece. Ergo, reliable sources. DONE. PLEASE DO NOT BRING THIS UP AGAIN.

Onto others

UNDUE weight: the journalist said, clearly, that many had written her about race. And its all over internet boards, myspace, youtube, and various sources which don't meet RS for factual content....but do give a sense of the size of the community that believes its important. In that case, the view that race is relevant to the case is held by a significant group.

I don't think its the be-all end-all issue in this article, but am wary of removing content when it adds value, especially when the content amounts to just a couple of words (e.g. "white" "multicultural" "latino") etc. and when the stench of politically correctness is strongest.

I'd actually like much -more- content in here but it has been stripped out with dubious claims and threats of blocks.

What wikipedia probably needs is some sort of policy arbitration committee, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. Richmondian (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it appears that you have not accepted or understood that there is no YES/NO differentiation between what is and what is not a reliable source. Very few sources are considered good sources for absolutely everything. The BBC, for example, is usually a highly reliable source, but for medical and science articles (for example) the BBC isn't generally considered a reliable source. Similarly, an opinion column may be a reliable source for the opinion of A, but it is not a reliable source for Fact B. This has been clearly spelled out by multiple editors at RSN This is a policy matter per WP:BLP and WP:V. You are of course welcome to try to change the policies on the talkpage of the policy if you think that these need changing, but as you say, this is unlikely to happen in the short-term.

What is "all over the boards" is irrelevant, like it or not, to WP. There are multiple boards that argue that the earth is flat, that no astronauts landed on the moon, or who finger people for killing JFK. WP does not care about these factoids, until and unless reliable secondary sources make the point. No reliable secondary sources make the point that race is an issue here, as far as I can see. Can you provide any sources to contradict this? If not, it is an issue that is best shelved.--Slp1 (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"In fact, the final comment, which no one disputed there... " Do you actually believe that whoever gets in the last word has 'won' the discussion? And that every differing opinion needs to be disputed? You seem to have ignored my repeated requests to review our consensus policy. Dlabtot (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like the LA Times here is the SF Gate - Peter is the only black suspect named in the case. Smith is white, and the other suspects are Latino. - Schrandit (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup, thanks Schrandit. Perfect source for info on the attackers. I hope the others won't plead WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Richmondian (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

For a quick summary:

• on the WP:RS board, the last comment, undisputed, said our source was reliable. There was no consensus prior to that about our source being unreliable. Just a lot of talk about this n that.
• Schrandit, Richmondian, SquidFryeChef, Meishern, 415Playa and others disagree with Dlatbot's supposed 'consensus' to keep this cited, relevant information out of the article.
• The current article mentions only African Americans, which is misleading when coupled with the efforts to remove race elsewhere in the article. A reader from Australia was very confused by this.
• WP:BLP is not an issue here. The BLP review board said as much. Dlatbot, please stop bringing up these arguments over and over again. Saying "the white victim" does not reveal anyone's identity, which is minimal for being a BLP issue.
• Now that we know the viewpoint exists, thanks to our sources, what is all over the internet is a perfectly relevant sanity check. And, as we've all undoubtedly seen, the view that race is relevant is widespread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmondian (talk • contribs)

This is getting nowhere, I'm afraid, because we keep going over the same issues. To repeat what was said before, we need two things:

1. A reliable source that provides the race of all the parties
2. A reliable source that argues that race was a factor in the rape

What we have is one non-reliable source that provides the race of all parties at that point in time, (the LA Times op-ed), but specifically argues that race was not a factor, and one reliable source that provides the race of the accused only, (the SF Chronicle), but which does not draw a connection between race and the rape, only noting that the family of one of the accused argued that their son/nephew was arrested because of his race. Neither meets the second condition, and only one partially meets the first.

We need to find a reliable source, or multiple reliable sources, that meet both conditions, and then show that we aren't running into problems with undue weight. The best bet, from my perspective, is to let this sit and see if race is shown to be a factor as things develop, as so far we don't seem to have anything reliable that makes the connection. - Bilby (talk) 05:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I would only need a source that says that race was a factor in the rape if I wanted the article to say that race was a factor in the rape. - Schrandit (talk) 05:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

But you are by raising it. That's the problem. The vast majority of the reliable sources don't seem to mention race, and we don't have any reliable source that mentions race in relation to the rape itself, and only one that mentions it in relation to the arrests. Adding it in suggests that we find it relevant when the reliable sources didn't, and that's not our role. If it becomes relevant – if reliable sources identify race in relation to the rape – then we add it with due weight. It's being very, very careful, but then this is clearly a sensitive topic, and care seems warranted. - Bilby (talk) 06:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Woah woah woah, hold the phone my friend, how have I claimed that race was a factor in the rape? - Schrandit (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't word that correctly? My point was that adding it makes it seem relevant, whether or not it was - not that you've argued that race was a factor. - Bilby (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Was the type of liquor she consumed a factor in the rape? - Schrandit (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've adressed this below. - Bilby (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No Bilby, Schrandit has the right read on this.

• We do not need it all mentioned in one source. Articles use information from multiple sources.
• Our LA Times source is reliable. That was the last conclusion on the WP:RS noticeboard.
• We don't need an article saying that race was the --reason-- was for the attack to include race. It's like the brandy, no one is saying brandy is the reason (though it may have been), we don't just say "drinking alcohol" because brandy provides richness to the article. We can likewise describe the participants. Or are you saying that we need to strip out the information about the brandy too? Richmondian (talk) 06:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This is where we keep running into a problem. Even if the LA Times article was reliable - and the last word does not, as Dlabtot made clear, equate to a final decision - it specifically argues that the race was not relevant. As to your second point, saying "X was drinking brandy when she was raped" doesn't lead anyone to think that the brandy was relevant, but they might think that the drinking was. Saying "X, a white girl, was raped by ..." does make it relevant. They're not equivalent in the way you seem to think they are. I'm not sure where we go from here: you clearly aren't convinced by any of the arguments above, and those disagreeing are clearly not convinced by your stance, either. It feels like a stalemate to me. My reading of the argument is that consensus is against including it, but then I'm also biased - perhaps we should just go to an RFC if nothing else is working? - Bilby (talk) 06:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like the LA Times article surely the SF Gate article must appease your RS concerns. - Schrandit (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I stuffed up and called it the SF Chronicle, not the SF Gate above. Otherwise those comments hold. - Bilby (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The sfgate.com is the San Francisco Chronicle.--Cúchullain /c 13:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't as confused as I thought. Too much marking over the last couple of weeks, I guess. :) In that case I'll just point to my earlier comments. - Bilby (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Bilby is probably right about there not being enough solid material linking the rape to race. Hence I return to my original query which was about the only mention of race in the article - the African-American churches. If we cannot link race to the rape, we certainly cannot link African-American churches to it. If they participated in a program to reduce crime in the area after the rape, that is wonderful, but it should not be in the article, because they had nothing to do with the rape. HiLo48 (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any particular reason to add the churches. Others may feel differently, though. Perhaps we should try and separate out these threads? - Bilby (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, the information about the Churches is already in the article, so I suppose this would be a discussion as to whether or not to remove it. - Schrandit (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

To be fair we currently deal with the black churches bit just how the article deals with it. It's already in a bit of a vacuum in the source; the article makes no real issue of race until it says that in the wake of the crime police made an effort to curb violence, and this included trying to work with black churches. It doesn't make any conclusions about it, so we certainly shouldn't either, even if we decide to keep the information.--Cúchullain /c 13:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Including race in the article

If I may, as I read things the two of you are both Australians. I don't know a terrible lot about Australia but in America our people are heavily divided into easily recognizable racial groups. Because of this, most reports of crimes will include a description of the perpetrator's and often of the victim's race because it makes them easier to identify. This does not imply that the crime being discussed has racial motivations, such a thing is rare and would be explicitly mentioned in the story.

Paging through a few articles on Wiki I came across ones like this, this and this or this list of executed persons. All include race though there is no indication that race was a motivation in their crimes. Again, I don't know how the mentioning of race in the reporting of the crime goes in Australia but in America it is very standard and does not indicate, or even particularly hint at, a racial motivation for the crime.

I'm going to try to patch up a few things in the article and, where appropriate, note as much of the background of the individuals at play as we have from reliable sources. Let me know what you think. - Schrandit (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem has not been whether or not we can add more information, but what information we should add. - Bilby (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

We ought add in as much information about the persons as we can realistically verify. Just so you aussies don't get the wrong idea, we don't just mention race when it comes to bad things that happen - take this fine fellow - he was a black Indian. Is it necessary to include that in the article? Probably not, but it is included in the sources so we might as well inform the reader as best we can. - Schrandit (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

We add material based on due weight, not based on how much we can find, and with living people there are other considerations. We aussies are also well aware about issues to do with race - race relations aren't issues that are unique to the US. Perhaps, though, I can ask a counter question: if race is so important that it must be included, why do virtually none of the reliable sources covering the rape raise it? - Bilby (talk) 10:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Because most of them were written before the identity of the suspects was known. - Schrandit (talk) 10:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that is not true. If you look above, you will see a lengthy discussion of a piece in the LA Times were the columnist says the races were known, but not included in the coverage because they are not relevant. Dlabtot (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If I may also include a question - how does the idea that the victim was drinking Brandy do with your notions of weight? - Schrandit (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the articles post the arrest don't mention race either. It's just not being covered - out of hundreds of articles, we have one reliable source that covers race at all, and none have yet turned up which cover race in direct relation to the rape. And if you see brandy and race as being comparable, then I don't have a problem with removing brandy from the article, although that may be a tad pointy. - Bilby (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I never said Brandy and race are comparable I'm just having a bit of hard time feeling out how you see WP:weight. If you'd really like to me go out and look for more sources I will if that'll let my last edit stand. - Schrandit (talk) 11:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If we can dig up an article covering race in relation to the rape I'll definitely consider it, but we'll need to open it for discussion. I still think this may emerge, if it proves to be an issue, during the court cases. - Bilby (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, hold the phone. Why would it have to be in relation to be sufficient for the edit I proposed? - Schrandit (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Schrandit's little lecture notwithstanding, I'm American and I think the races ought to be left out. Regardless of what he thinks the "American standard" for such things is, the Misplaced Pages standard is that we only reproduce the material and conclusions in the sources, and in this case the *American* sources do not make an issue of race. Thus neither should we.--Cúchullain /c 13:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This material is supported by multiple reliable sources. - Schrandit (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Great. Perhaps you can list new ones you've found here so we can discuss them.--Slp1 (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

- Schrandit (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No dice, that's the same article as this one (SF Chronicle), which has been discussed repeatedly.--Cúchullain /c 14:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

And what was the objection to this particular Pulitzer prize winning paper? - Schrandit (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If you'll read the article, or the discussions about it above, it only mentions the race of the suspects, not the victim, and does so only in passing. The mention occurs only in a brief section on allegations from one suspect's family that the prosecutors had racial motives in arresting him. The article gives no particular credence to this, and does not suggest that race was a factor in the crime or in the story.--Cúchullain /c 14:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Perhaps we can save some kilobytes by asking you to check the extensive discussions above, including responses made to you when you suggested this same source before..--Slp1 (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

And why would the article need to suggest the race was a factor in the crime? - Schrandit (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Because we don't do original research and synthesis on WP. If race isn't part of the story in RSs, it isn't part of the story we tell here. --Slp1 (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see why that's so hard to grasp. We're just going around and around in circles now. I think we will all benefit from stepping back for a bit. --Cúchullain /c 14:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like. Perhaps a new direction might help. Please take a peek at my edit to the page and let me know if you find it objectionable. - Schrandit (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, lemme make sure I follow, we're now done with WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP and are now claiming that stating race is WP:SYNT? Richmondian (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, not "done" with any of core policies/guidelines you mention, all of which are relevant and remain in effect here. And I pointed out the WP:SYNT problem on the RSN days ago.. I guess you missed it.

Cuchullain has it right. Let's take a break unless some new argument or evidence emerges. --Slp1 (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the proposal being advanced here and the discussion held at RSN are different. RSN discussed whether race was a factor in the crime, but this edit made no such allegations. Do me a favor, give it glance and let me know if think anything was objectionable about it. - Schrandit (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No, RSN discussed whether the race of the victim and the alleged assailants should be included in the article. The discussion, based on the sources given, and which have not changed, was clearly against it. Your edit goes contrary to that, and in fact adds unverifiable information about the race of the victim and details of the assault that are not in the citation given. You also added the name of one of the accused, also contrary to discussion above. So yes, I agree with with Bilby, that per multiple policies including consensus, BLP, V etc, your edit was not an improvement to the article. --Slp1 (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the RS board is just a discussion board, not an authority, but in particular on claims that go beyond RS to "synth". Maybe take it to the synth noticeboard? But I'm pretty sure since the info is in reliable sources about the crime, there's no synthesis here. In any case, the final verdict on the RS board was that the source for the victim's race was reliable. And I still haven't seen a good reason why details about beverages are ok, but not races. Please remember that wikipedia is not censored, lest the putrid stench of political correctness make us all sick to our stomachs. Richmondian (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Like any similar board WP:RSN is there to open up discussion to a wider audience and try to find a broader consensus. It is abundantly clear that there is no consensus to include the race information with the sources we have. At this point you're just repeating yourself. It's high time for a break.--Cúchullain /c 16:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC

Well, I'm going to repeat myself. Why does the article have one single mention of race, the African-American churches? After reading all the material above, I still don't know. The article certainly doesn't tell me. It hints to me the the offenders were African Americans. Is that what we want the article to do? HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

HiLo, you've hit on a key point. Concealing race in one part makes for a very misleading article. I believe we should just state the facts, it enhances the articles and doesn't leave any gaping holes in the story. Others disagree and believe we should hide certain things. And I can promise you, removing the portion about African American churches will not make people understand the story any better. They will --always-- wonder what the race of the attackers and victim were. It's a multiracial community after all.

BTW African American churches are some of the most powerful non-governmental organizations in the community. Also, give a church a few bucks and the pastor might encourage his flock to vote for you. They've nearly all withdrawn from the effort. Richmondian (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

PS I just read about the Ashfield gang rapes and Sydney gang rapes. Awful stuff. Seems people in Australia were at first very angry that government officials broke with the official PC policies and released the ethnicities of the rapists.

Yes. Quite true for some. On the other hand, some popular radio shock jocks showed no inhibitions at all in condemning certain religious and ethnic groups, for a lot more sins than they had ever heard of. The problem with crimes like this is that they may, or may not, be racially motivated. If race is involved, it should not be kept secret. If it's not, let's find someone wise saying so. and report it in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

If race is not a factor, then it does not need to be mentioned, full stop. That's the default position, and the current consensus. If we later discover reliable sources that confirm it is a factor, then we can review the consensus. Until then, let's all just go about our business of making an encyclopedia, not a supermarket tabloid. Bielle (talk) 06:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Since when was that the default position? Was the type of alcohol used a factor in this rape? Was race a factor in this case(you know, the one linked to in the lead)? I'm with HiLo, hinting at things like this rather than just reporting what the sources say makes them seem much worse than they are. - Schrandit (talk) 09:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

But race IS mentioned. Just a little bit. Dangerous. HiLo48 (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

1. The African-American accused's aunt saw racism in her nephew's arrest:

   He is the one they've arrested who is black, and if they give my nephew a life sentence, I will sue Richmond. There is no way in hell I will see my nephew blamed in this because he is black

   Friends of the Caucasian accused posted messages on his myspace page, now unavailable, demanding his be release from jail, using profanity, all caps and slang, and attacking any "snitches". Both male and female posters expressed the sentiment, with a female declaring "F*** the system f*** the snitchz.free ---- fast.imy." and a male saying

   FREEE MAH NIGGA ---- FAYYYSSTTTT F*** DA SYSTEM F*** DEM SNITCHES

2. ^ Banks, Sandy (November 07, 2009). "Finding a deeper lesson in high school gang rape". LA Times. p. 2. Retrieved May 22, 2010. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Crime-related articles
• Low-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Start-Class school articles
• Low-importance school articles
• Start-Class California articles
• Low-importance California articles
• Start-Class San Francisco Bay Area articles
• Unknown-importance San Francisco Bay Area articles
• San Francisco Bay Area task force articles
• WikiProject California articles