Talk:Bella Hadid

Death threats and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

This information was reverted, with the following edit summary: " edit-warring against BLP". I don't agree with that. She is of Palestinian descent and her views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and related death threats are in no way a violation of BLP policy. If you disagree, please take it to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.

Hadid has supported the Palestinians and criticized Israel's policy towards Palestine for many years. In October 2023, she expressed concern about the humanitarian situation in Gaza during the Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip. She also condemned the Hamas-led attack on Israel. Hadid stated that she and her family have received death threats for their pro-Palestinian stance, saying: "I've been sent hundreds of death threats daily, my phone number has been leaked, and my family has felt to be in danger. But I can not be silenced any longer. Fear is not an option." In November 2023, Israeli music duo Ness & Stilla released the single "Harbu Darbu", calling for her death.

-- Tobby72 (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

References

If you disagree... That's not how BLP works, nor is it a sound approach for any disputed content in any contentious topic, let alone under three. Please stop edit-warring, and either try again to gain consensus or move on to something else. --Hipal (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Hadid's Palestinian activism is quite well-documented. I don't see why this shouldn't be included, although I maybe would rewrite this paragraph a bit differently. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 23:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how her well documented activism falls under WP:UNDUE. The previous discussion failed to reach a consensus so citing that as a reason to remove not only my latest edit but the entire section seems unjustified. - Ïvana (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, "Hadid has been a supporter of Palestine for many years That's supported by The Guardian, and should be the focus of anything we include. The rest are just reactions to her and attempts to benefit from Hadid's high level of recognition and interest." [1].

Those discussions ended when it appeared that editors didn't understand the basics of what references are appropriate for a BLP.

As I mentioned on Gigi's talk page, "It all comes down to what references we have available and relevant policies. For references: WP:RS, WP:IS, and WP:BLPRS. As to the POV issues: WP:NOT (especially NOTNEWS), WP:RECENTISM, WP:POV."

The Guardian piece doesn't give us much to work with, and doesn't rise above NOTNEWS and RECENTISM. Is there something better? --Hipal (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Those discussions ended when it appeared that editors didn't understand the basics of what references are appropriate for a BLP.

@Hipal, that's doesn't look like a fair assessment to me. The last discussion ended with Tobby72's question to you. Tobyby72 restarting the discussion again because the prior one stalled out due to the unanswered question doesn't seem problematic to me.

As for references, I see three or four useable ones in the list provided by Tobby72. Why not use those and how doesn't The Guardian apply? --Super Goku V (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. BLP (and the associated contentious topic) places high standards on editors. If editors cannot identify BLP-quality references, then it's unlikely we can make progress.

I see three or four useable Great! Identify the ones you think we can use, then let's see what we can do with them. --Hipal (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I am serious about my assessment. They wanted to know what sources you would accept and those that you would not. I thought you didn't see it because of the time difference, but that seems to have been incorrect.

The Guardian, The Independent, and The Times all seem to count easily. HuffPost and The Express Tribune would need some discussion to be potentially included. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

And I'm serious about my assessment.

Regarding the Guardian, I already wrote, without response, "The Guardian piece doesn't give us much to work with, and doesn't rise above NOTNEWS and RECENTISM. Is there something better?"

Re The Independent. It's a "Lifestyle" article, so we need to take care with giving it too much weight. It's churnalism, reporting on Bella's social media posts. The author provides almost no context beyond the penultimate paragraph. What do you think is usable from this reference?

Re: The Times. Archived copy found at https://archive.ph/lHphO . There's absolutely no context other than she's targeted in the song. --Hipal (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think The Guardian with HuffPost can cover most of the proposed sentence "Hadid has supported the Palestinians and criticized Israel's policy towards Palestine for many years" between the following sentences: Hadid and her sister, Gigi, who is also a supermodel, are vocal supporters of Palestinian rights whose social media posts reach tens of millions of followers & Bella Hadid and her sister, model Gigi Hadid, have embraced their heritage and advocated for the Palestinian cause. The "for many years" portion might need a better source, but that is the only problem I see. NOTNEWS and RECENTISM don't seem to apply and would like clarification as to how those apply.

The Independent covers the proposed "She also condemned the Hamas-led attack on Israel" just fine. Bella Hadid posted a written statement to her Instagram condemning the Hamas attacks and advocating for the innocent lives of Palestinians amid Israel airstrikes in Gaz & “Seeing the aftermath from the airstrikes in Gaza, I mourn with all the mothers who have lost children and the children who cry alone, all the lost fathers, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunties, friends that will never again walk this earth.” I don't see a problem with using this source for VERIFY.

The Independent could also cover the "for many years" part discussed above. In the past, Hadid has taken public stances, standing with the Free Palestine movement. In May 2021, she received public backlash for attending a Pro-Palestine march in New York City along with her sister Gigi and Dua Lipa, who was dating her brother Anwar at the time. She was the target of an ad placed by the World Values Network in the New York Times condemning her support of Palestine, saying: “Hamas calls for a second Holocaust. Condemn them now.” If you think that is too much weight to give, then we can try to find another source. If you have a suggestion for a source, I would welcome it.

There's absolutely no context other than she's targeted in the song. So that would cover the proposed sentence, "In November 2023, Israeli music duo Ness & Stilla released the single "Harbu Darbu", calling for her death."

This would leave just two of the proposed sentences as needing new sources to be included in the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

NOTNEWS and RECENTISM don't seem to apply Why not? You're aware that this article is under three different contentious topics, so we shouldn't be ignoring or looking for exceptions to policy. BLP sets very high standards for the quality of sources and adherence to content policy. BLP also places the burden on those seeking to include content. --Hipal (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Why not? Hipal, you are the one claiming that NOTNEWS and RECENTISM apply. Why do I need to explain why a policy that you are citing doesn't apply? Just pointing at policy is frustrating as it doesn't make your point clear other than that you are claiming that X applies. (It also doesn't help that this was also brough up in the prior discussion.)

If it helps, I will go over NOTNEWS and hope that you will explain how RECENTISM and BLP apply to prohibit the suggested paragraph or its sentences.

NOTNEWS criteria 1 involves original reporting, but none of the sources are claimed to be primary sources, so it doesn't apply. News reports is criteria 2, but this isn't routine coverage of a celebrity with this involving the person's activism and harassment towards her. Who's who is criteria 3 and cannot apply as this is the primary article about a person. Criteria 4 is Celebrity gossip and diary which notes that not all events in a notable person's life are notable. Between the death threats and a song calling for her death, I find it easy to say that this qualifies as both notable and something "which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest."

You're aware that this article is under three different contentious topics, so we shouldn't be ignoring or looking for exceptions to policy. Discussing how policy applies in this situation is not ignoring it. I have no idea what exceptions you are implying, but as far as I understand a policy either applies or it doesn't. As for the rest, there is a majority here that wants to include the content, the only issue is making it work with you as best as possible. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing NOTNEWS.

I'd consider that ROUTINE does fit this: Reporting on social media posts where there are minimal outcomes fits NOTNEWS's "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style."

However, it fits the WP:NOTDIARY better. We have entertainment reporting covering social media posts.

Celebrities are harassed. It's an unfortunate part of life in the limelight. People are harassed for taking political positions. That's unfortunate as well. Neither have weight in an encyclopedia article when the references are poor and there are minimal outcomes.

Regarding our previous discussion, I responded to you with something that applies here as well: As I said, "name-dropping". The band used the names to get attention, the press eats it up, but in the end it has no impact on Hadid's own life beyond influencing the amount and tone of the impulsive reactions (social media, soft news, etc) about her. --Hipal (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hipal: Having given this consideration, here is my overall conclusion: The song is considered notable enough, along with this article. The Times both verifies the sentence and is considered to be generally reliable. The proposed paragraph is for a single sentence, which is the bare minimum it could be and does not seem to be excessive. There are no issues with the mention of the sentence in other articles: Mia Khalifa and Dua Lipa; just this article is a problem. Those sentences use the following sources, Business Insider, Newsweek, and The Times of Israel, with other potential sources being The Independent (2024 article) and The Jerusalem Post. From what I see, there is coverage with quality sources regarding the song to permit the proposed sentence regarding the song. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusion. If Hipal is still unconvinced, I would suggest Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and/or Wikipedia:Requests for comment. --Tobby72 (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm unclear if my policy concerns are even being considered. That's no way to create the necessary consensus that a BLP requires. --Hipal (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Hipal, my understanding was that your reply on the 3rd was about the "Harbu Darbu" proposed line. Were you referring to just that line or to multiple sentences? --Super Goku V (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe I was clear with my comment of 16:44, 24 April 2024. --Hipal (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay then. Then what policy concerns did I not address? I explained how the song meets the notability requirements, which should cover NOTDIARY. The sentence involving the song doesn't fall under ROUTINE as it fails ROUTINE's definition. You complained about the source reporting on social media posts, so I gave you multiple other options for a source. It is clear that she was targeted in the song and we have sources that cover it.

As far as I can tell, here is where we are at with anything struck-out as needing more work:

Hadid has supported the Palestinians and criticized Israel's policy towards Palestine for many years. In October 2023, she expressed concern about the humanitarian situation in Gaza during the Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip. She also condemned the Hamas-led attack on Israel. Hadid stated that she and her family have received death threats for their pro-Palestinian stance, saying: "I've been sent hundreds of death threats daily, my phone number has been leaked, and my family has felt to be in danger. But I can not be silenced any longer. Fear is not an option." In November 2023, Israeli music duo Ness & Stilla released the single "Harbu Darbu", calling for her death.

That leaves two sentences still needing worked on as discussed at the beginning of the month. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I explained how the song meets... But that doesn't mean it is encyclopedic or due in this article about Hadid. --Hipal (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

If I got this right, your saying that a song which directly references Hadid and which has a standalone article with over two dozen sources might not be encyclopedic? Did I get that correct? --Super Goku V (talk) 06:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

No. I specifically wrote "in this article."

You argued that NOTDIARY and ROUTINE don't apply. I don't believe your arguments address the policy or my concerns. --Hipal (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Accidently omitted that I was referring to this article, but gotcha. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, an inclusion is definitely valid. I think both the politics and their reception should be included, and believe that an RfC or noticeboard are probably the most productive avenue here. Is someone opposed to that suggestion? FortunateSons (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@FortunateSons: I am supportive of an RfC to help clear things up. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Great, I will write one up soon. I don’t think the parallel one at Gigi’s article will be over soon, but I don’t think there is an issue with parallel RfCs in this case? FortunateSons (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Huh, didn't know about that RfC. For now, it might be best to hold off and let that one run its course. While there is no technical issues, there could still be complains to doing so. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, makes sense. I think I will hold off for now. FortunateSons (talk) 06:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@FortunateSons The RfC on the other article has concluded if there is still reason to proceed with an RfC here. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. That depends, are there still any objections to content that someone believes should be added? FortunateSons (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

That is a good question. Going back over the original proposal by Tobby72 with sentences stricken that are in the article in some form:

Hadid has supported the Palestinians and criticized Israel's policy towards Palestine for many years. In October 2023, she expressed concern about the humanitarian situation in Gaza during the Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip. She also condemned the Hamas-led attack on Israel. Hadid stated that she and her family have received death threats for their pro-Palestinian stance, saying: "I've been sent hundreds of death threats daily, my phone number has been leaked, and my family has felt to be in danger. But I can not be silenced any longer. Fear is not an option." In November 2023, Israeli music duo Ness & Stilla released the single "Harbu Darbu", calling for her death.

I know that from the above that there is objections to this by Hipal, so the main thing to me would be some form of In October 2023, she expressed concern about the humanitarian situation in Gaza during the Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip. It was sourced by Tobby72 with The Express Tribune, so we would need a new source or a discussion to use the The Express Tribune article. There are some recent sources that might work, BBC and Time, but I would prefer it to be clearer. I will see if I can do more digging on this. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I think a bit more information on the criticism/reactions she received is required, and the content added by @Starship.paint as well as reactions to past conduct. I think we can cut down the death threat quote, and let’s run activism + death threats + reactions/crit/adidas through the RfC? What do you think? FortunateSons (talk) 08:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@FortunateSons: - as you probably know the material I added has already been removed, I find it quite important that the government of a country has directed targeted Hadid, and likely that view on Hadid (being antisemitic) has led to the death threats. starship.paint (RUN) 11:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, we should include both the accusations of antisemitism and the death threats though as far as I know, RS generally don’t directly relate these two.

If you scroll up this page (and the one on her sister), you will find longer discussions on the topics. @Hipal has repeatedly reverted such inclusions, so I think an RfC would be the least wasteful way to include this, instead of taking up more editor time? FortunateSons (talk) 11:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I should note that the original threads have been archived here per the 2 thread/30 day rule. As for the Adidas situation, maybe we just need to find a source that references what the tweet said? (Worth an attempt.) --Super Goku V (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, that was already tried. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a plan to me. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Any chance of including her support for Palestinians? There seems to be a consensus for inclusion. Burrobert (talk) 07:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I think both her support and the reactions are RS-covered and DUE, but believe that an RfC would be quicker than continuing this discussion. :) FortunateSons (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The BBC article adds little. The coverage of her support isn't very good, but I'll point out once again[2][3] that the Guardian article should be used. Coverage of the reactions doesn't appear to be encyclopedic despite months of discussion. --Hipal (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Let’s wait for the other RfC to end, and then do this via RfC here. FortunateSons (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

An extremely poor RfC isn't likely to help, other than educate editors on how to make useful RfCs.

We already have related content, and better sources, for Bella. It seems like our time is better spent on this article. --Hipal (talk) 02:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Notwithstanding your comments about the RfC, being able to include all content the majority of participants in this discussions would consider due would indeed be productive. However, reading over this and the last discussion, I believe that a binding consensus for inclusion (for example: activism, reactions (positive, negative, threats), about one paragraph per section) would be a productive way to save editor time from a third discussion, allowing us to focus on how to include content instead of which content to include. FortunateSons (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Afaict there is no RfC being conducted here. If there is an RfC going on somewhere else then it would generally be irrelevant to what is decided here. But why would we need an RfC here when there seems to be a consensus to include a mention of Bella's support for Palestine in her bio? Burrobert (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I think we can definitely include her support and the reactions to it. If you want, you can make a suggestion on sourcing and text? FortunateSons (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's start with something uncontroversial:

• Hadid is a long-time supporter of Palestine and the Free Palestine movement.
• Bella and her sister Gigi donated $1 million to Palestinian aid agencies during the Israel-Hamas war.

Thank you.

The Independent does not verify that statement, though it gives an example that we already include in this article.

The PerthNow article makes an overgeneralization, saying "Hadid and her younger sister Bella ... have always been vocal in showing their support for the Palestinian cause."

The Guardian ref says, "Hadid and her sister, Gigi, who is also a supermodel, are vocal supporters of Palestinian rights whose social media posts reach tens of millions of followers."

Maybe drop The Independent, and add The Guardian?

Maybe add https://apnews.com/article/bella-hadid-dior-israel-hamas-war-fact-check-aabe93d8f40f0a5a226bd51af36b3343 ? --Hipal (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The news.com.au article was meant to support the first statement since it includes the clause "[Gigi], who has been a longtime advocate for the ‘Free Palestine’ movement alongside her sister Bella Hadid ...". Anyway, there seems to be enough sources to substantiate these two fairly uncontroversial statements. Burrobert (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

So we use the News.com.au ref instead of the PerthNow ref? I'm going ahead and adding something along this line. --Hipal (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Adidas advertising campaign

Basically, it looks like Adidas removed Hadid from their advertising campaign to cover for their ineptness. This seems squarely a case of WP:NOTNEWS. WP:CT/BLP and WP:CT/A-I apply. --Hipal (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• ... except we have an Israeli embassy commenting, accusing Hadid of antisemitism, and Hadid herself commenting, criticizing the campaign and disavowing antisemitism. This is a part of her life that shows her having to thread the needle due to her political views. starship.paint (RUN) 11:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand. Israeli embassy posts on social media are NOTNEWS.

This is a part of her life that shows her having to thread the needle due to her political views. Says what BLP-quality source? --Hipal (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

What parts of NOTNEWS, CT/BLP, and CT/A-I are you citing? NOTNEWS has four different criteria which don't seem to be an issue, plus we are not using the direct tweet, but an article. CT/BLP and CT/A-I don't apply in the way that you are using them to my perspective. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I said that CT/BLP and CT/A-I apply. Do you disagree?

NOTNEWS: "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia". All of #2 and #4.

I think it important to repeat once again, "This looks like a case of name-dropping a celeb/model (Hadid) in the context of the Israel-Hamas War. Hence my concern that it's WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. WP:RECENTISM too." --Hipal (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Hipal: - it seems that you are applying NOTNEWS and UNDUE in a subjective manner. "Israeli embassy posts on social media" are not necessarily NOTNEWS and UNDUE. The incident has had a tangible impact on Hadid. She was pulled from an advertising campaign by an employer, who apologized to her. She was directly criticized by a country's government, and she herself also apologized for the incident. There are plenty of BLP-quality sources covering this internationally. (1) New York Times, (2) Agence France-Presse, (3) NBC, (4) Financial Times, (5) Time, (6) Sky News UK, (7) BBC, (8) CBS, (9) Bloomberg, (10) Daily Telegraph, (11) Hollywood Reporter, (12) Guardian, (13) Washington Post, (14) USA Today (15) Haaretz. starship.paint (RUN) 13:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Pick out a couple of refs that you think are the best of what's available, and we can look at them in detail as a start, and compare them to the poorer ones to determine what might be something other than NOTNEWS. (It appears some are inaccessible to me, but let's see what you'd prefer to start with.)

Yes, social media posts generally are NOTNEWS, as are public relations campaigns.

She was directly criticized by a country's government As part of a wartime public relations campaign (some would say "propaganda campaign".)

Hadid gets pulled from an ad campaign, but we have absolutely no details on what the terms were before, nor what was changed. For all we know, this has absolutely no impact on her beyond the public relations mess.

she herself also apologized for the incident "Apologized"? Can you identify the ref that says that? --Hipal (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

My view is that this should be pretty straightforward. No need for editors to pick favorite sources for consideration, no need for unspecified decision procedures based on interpretations of NOTNEWS etc. It doesn't strike me as significantly different from adding content about a band's new album or an actor's part in a movie. It is career related. The Adidas campaign presumably qualifies for a mention as part of her career and the reaction to the campaign just alters the due weight evaluation. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

You think it significant. Let's wait a year and then look for any evidence, if no one is going to try now. --Hipal (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say I think it's significant. No one should care whether I think it's significant. Significance is a function of coverage in RS, not my opinion. It's part of her career history and it's covered by plenty of reliable sources. There is nothing complicated about it. It's just a little bit of information relevant to this encyclopedia article. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hipal, attempting to apply these policies as you are doing here varies widely from what is the normal/standard application on en.wiki. The content is clearly due, as are many other engagements of BLPs with the I/P area. FortunateSons (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Being dismissive of policies gets us nowhere at best, and can be seen as disruptive. --Hipal (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Then it’s a good thing that the three experienced editors (+ me) who disagree with your assessment are not dismissing policy, but instead applying it properly. FortunateSons (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

That's irrelevant, as anyone working in a BLP article should know. Sanctions apply. --Hipal (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Sanctions apply to the actual policy, not what you imagine it to be. I would strongly encourage you to listen to what your fellow editors are telling you. FortunateSons (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)