Wikipedia

Talk:Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell/Archive 3

< Talk:Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell
Latest comment: 7 months ago by Vegan416 in topic Opinion piece as source for facts, and correcting factual error
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

The meaning of the slogan "Free Palestine" that Bushnell shouted when he died

Latest comment: 7 months ago12 comments4 people in discussion

@Parabolist

  1. I see that you reverted my deleting of the link that was made from the quote "Free Palestine" by Bushnell to the wikipedia article Israeli-occupied territories. Your justification was "If someone says "Free Palestine" about the Israeli-occupied Palestinian lands, it makes sense to link to our article about the occupation. No one on the talk page has agreed with you about your theory. The burden lies with you".
  2. I must ask you to self revert what you did, since you are wrong on every aspect of your justification, as I'll show now.
  3. First of all you are wrong in the technical level about the question of burden. The link which you restored is "disputed content". It is so because I dispute it. And WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN are very clear on this: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content", and also "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". That is, the burden lies with you and not with me.
  4. Second, you are also wrong on the factual level. You say "If someone says "Free Palestine" about the Israeli-occupied Palestinian lands, it makes sense to link to our article about the occupation". But this is exactly the unproved assumption I'm talking about. You assume that Bushnell said the words "Free Palestine" specifically on the Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza, but you have no proof of that. The slogan "Free Palestine" means different things in the mouth of different people. Some people indeed mean by this only "Free the West Bank and Gaza", and support a two state solution, while others mean by this "Free all Palestine", and support the dismantling of Israel and replacing it with a Palestinian state. And there also more variants in between this two options. See here Palestinian liberation (disambiguation). So if you want to link to a page that speaks specifically about the Israeli occupation the West Bank and Gaza, you need to prove that Bushnell spoke specifically about "Free the West Bank and Gaza" and not about "Free all Palestine".
  5. You are also wrong when you say that no one in the Talk page agreed with me. You are confusing here two different issues. It is true that there is a still unresolved dispute about whether to include Bushnell's quote "It has no right to exist" in the article based on arguments of DUENESS. However everybody agreed with me that this quote is authentic and Bushnell really said that a few weeks before his suicide. Even you agreed with that! And even if you don't think that it is conclusive evidence that Bushnell meant "Free all Palestine", even you would have to admit that it certainly points in that direction. Especially when you add to it his justification of the mass murder of civilians on October 7 (which he called settlers, despite the fact they didn't live in the occupied territories). Now, I agree that this evidence might not be enough to justify writing in the wikipedia voice inside the article that Bushnell meant "Free all Palestine". But it is definitely enough to shift the burden to prove otherwise on you, if you want the article to say or imply (by adding the current link) that all Bushnell's wished for is just "Free West Bank and Gaza" and not "Free all Palestine". (Additional edit: In fact, as I proved in the previous points, the burden of proof in this case is on you anyway, even without this evidence of mine).
  6. I wanted to suggest as a compromise that you link instead to this page Palestinian liberation (disambiguation), which includes all (or most) of the interpretations of this ambiguous slogan. But it seems that Wikipedia frowns on linking to disambiguation pages so I don't know if that's a good idea either. What do you think?

Vegan416 (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but I can’t read all that for a WP link. There’s already a POV tag at the destruction article and the disambiguation article is unsourced. Even the “maximalist” interpretation is in itself maximalist; disestablishing of Israel is not necessarily “destruction” of it. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss
I have no idea what you are talking about. What WP link? What is the "destruction" article? What does it matter to my argument here if disestablishing of Israel is not necessarily “destruction” of it? What does it matter to my argument here if there is POV tag to the disambiguation article? Vegan416 (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss
Anyway if my comments were too long for you, let's break them up step by step. Let's start with this question: Do you agree that putting this link (from Bushnell's "Free Palestine" quote in the article to the page Israeli-occupied territories) implies that Bushnell meant by this slogan only "Free the West Bank and Gaza" and not "Free all Palestine"? Vegan416 (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but these walls of text aren't convincing. If a reader who is somehow unaware of the politics of the area reads this page, and they see "Free Palestine", they might wonder "Why would he say that? Is it not free?" And so it is piped to our page on the occupation of Palestine, the thing that makes Palestine not free. Your elaborate theory that someone it means anything else is not gaining traction and is getting increasingly tendentious. This link has been in the page for weeks now, so your removal of it is the B in WP:BRD. You can't just remove everything that doesn't agree with your POV and then claim the onus is everyone else to justify it to you, the outlier. This is not how consensus works. Parabolist (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
@Parabolist
  1. Thanks for the example you pointed to, because it can be used to explain my point: If a reader who is somehow unaware of the politics of the area reads this page, and they see "Free Palestine", they might wonder "What exactly is this Palestine he wants to be free?" And so he gets piped to the page on the Israeli-occupied territories, and then this reader will understand that Bushnell just wanted to free the West Bank and Gaza... But you don't have any proof that this is what Bushnell actually meant, and I have given you ample evidence that in fact it is very unlikely that this is what Bushnell meant.
  2. I don't understand your reference to my being the B in WP:BRD. You make it sound as if being Bold in wikipedia is bad thing whereas it is one of the mottos of wikipedia, and the BRP method is described positively there.
Vegan416 (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The idea that "Free Palestine" has nothing to do with the occupation of Palestinian land is just simply ridiculous. And yes, your edits are bold, they are reverted, and now it's on you to find consensus. Parabolist (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@Parabolist
But I didn't say that "Free Palestine" has nothing to do with the occupation of Palestinian land. Rather I said that in this case it is likely to have yet another layer. Perhaps you will understand this better if I gave an analogous hypothetical example from the other direction:
Suppose a Christian self-immolates in front of a mosque in Washington DC while shouting "Free America from Jihadism". We know that the word "Jihadism" can have different meanings in different mouths. Some people use it to refer only to groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda, in which case an anti-Jihadist sentiment can be considered reasonable and benign. On the other hand there are many Islamophobes who use this word as a synonym for Islam, and for all Muslims. Now let's assume that while we don't have 100% conclusive proof that this self-immolator actually meant "Free America from Islam", there are nonetheless very strong indications from what he said in the recent past on social media that this was indeed his meaning, and he wasn't referring only to ISIS and Al-Qaeda supporters. And also let's further assume that this guy had become a sort of a hero for many Islamohobes.
And now think about a situation that a certain Mr. P., who is an editor in Wikipedia, insists that the article on this guy doesn't mention at all his more Islamphobic sounding social media statements on subjective grounds of UNDUENESS, while on the same time insisting that the word "Jihadism" in the quote of his last words would link to the page Jihadism which talks mainly about groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Wouldn't it look to you as if this Mr. P. is trying to whitewash the probable Islamophobia of this self-immolator? Vegan416 (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I'd ask you to strike this wildly inappropriate hypothetical where I'm a racist, but I think it's fairly illuminating as to your POV towards the subject of this article, and the edits you're attempting to ram through about him. Good luck on finding consensus for any edit with that POV, you'll need it. Parabolist (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@Parabolist
The fact that you think this analogy paints you as racist illuminates your conceptual confusions. While Islamophobia is a bad thing, it is definitely not racism, because Islam is not a race or an ethnic group. Islam is a religion, i.e. a belief-system/ideology/culture. In the same way Zionism is a belief-system/ideology/culture. So making an analogy between Islamophobia and anti-Zionism is quite appropriate and fitting. Vegan416 (talk) 05:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the phrase "Free Palestine" should not link to Israeli-occupied territories. If I click a link labeled "Free Palestine", I am going to assume that it will link to an article about the phrase "Free Palestine" or maybe even to a group or individual that popularized the phrase. I would not expect it to a link to an article about Israel's occupied territories. Linking like this goes against MOS:EASTEREGG and WP:EASTEREGG. GranCavallo (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
This I find more reasonable. We could link Palestinian freedom of movement, maybe? The phrase doesn't have direct organizational history, that I know of, though. Parabolist (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Opinion articles on the suicide of Bushnell and the reactions to it

Latest comment: 7 months ago13 comments3 people in discussion

@Makeandtoss

I saw that you deleted my paragraph describing shortly several opinion articles criticizing the praise of Bushnell's suicide. You gave this justification: "opinion pieces are not RS; opinion pieces are written by individuals and not "published" by websites".

You are factually wrong here in two ways. First of all the websites I gave are not website operated by private individuals but rather by well-known, important and influential media organizations. These are definitely part of the public discourse about events like the one covered in this article. If you think that I should also specify the names of the individuals who wrote the opinion pieces for these organizations I don't object to that, and I'll do that.

Second, according to Wikipedia policy the specific media organizations the I chose are in fact reliable sources for opinions, as long as they are attributed to these organizations, and described as opinions and not facts. See for example here for The Atlantic and National Review Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources:

"Opinion pieces, including all articles in the "Ideas" column (theatlantic.com/ideas/), are governed by WP:RSOPINION."

"The [National Review] publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline".

The Forward is also considered a mainstream journal Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 182

In short, since your revert was based on wrong information I reverted your revert.

If you still disagree we can discuss it further here. Vegan416 (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I think inclusion of these two specific articles is WP:UNDUE as why are they worthy of inclusion compared to other opinion pieces? Also even if we do decide to include, National Review should also be described as "conservative" within the article so reader understands bias. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
@LegalSmeagolian @Makeandtoss
But other opinions were already included in the article. Why the opinions published by influential media organizations should have less weight in your opinions than the opinions of people like Aya Hijazi and Jill Stein wo are mentioned in the article? Also if we must put the adjective "conservative" before the National Review to show its bias then why not put the adjective "pro Hamas" before Al Jazzera (that is also mentioned in the article in the "Media Coverage" section) to show its bias? Vegan416 (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Hijazi and Stein are both sourced in a non-opinion news article, so this is not analogous. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss
  1. So if I find a non-opinion news article mentioning opinions similar to the ones in the opinions articles I brought you would not object to it?
  2. I see that many wikipedia articles, even on contentious topics, contain quotes and summaries of opinion pieces as part of describing the public discourse about current events. If you think that this is giving undue weight to some opinions you are welcome to balance it with other opinion pieces. This seem to be the acceptable way to deal with it rather then forbidding all opinion pieces.
Vegan416 (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
1. Yes.
2. If we keep doing that the article will be too long and not encyclopedic. It is clear that there are mixed opinions on the self-immolation - we do not need to include every (or any) opinion piece from every pundit/outlet when we have news sources that say the same thing. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
@LegalSmeagolian
  1. Fine. I'll do that. But regardless of this circumvention in this case, I wish to defend the use of opinion article in general.
  2. The WP:RSOpinion policy states explicitly that the use of opinion pieces is acceptable when attributed properly. Furthermore as I already said there are many wikipedia articles that manage to present a balanced survey of opinion pieces without becoming too long. If you haven't seen them I can show you examples.
  3. The secret for achieving this is of course not to include "every opinion piece from every pundit/outlet", but rather to choose a representing sample of opinions that cover the spectrum of opinions on the topic from side to side. In most cases it will require no more than 5 opinions pieces. In extremely complicated cases maybe 6 or 7. This can be easily done without making the article too long and "not encyclopedic".
  4. This coverage of opinions is particularly important in this article where the public reactions and public discourse about this suicide are in fact the only justifications for the existence of this article to begin with. Some topics have encyclopedic notability even if there is no public discourse about them. But this is clearly not the case here. I'm sure you understand what I mean, and if not I can expand on this as well...
Vegan416 (talk) 04:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
@LegalSmeagolian@Makeandtoss
Done as agreed. Vegan416 (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@Vegan416: Please self-revert and seek consensus here on the talk page before reinstating contentious material per WP:BURDEN.
I clearly said opinion pieces are written by individuals and did not say anything about website ownership, so this is factually correct per WP:RSOPINION: "clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author."
WP:RSOPINION is valid in this case, but so is WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't believe that edit is in violation of the WP:1RR however I already reverted it. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I didn't say it was a violation of 1RR, I clearly said the burden is on you to demonstrate verifiability for contentious material. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss
You are confusing LegalSmeagolian with me. But in any case when we are talking about opinions there is no question of "verifiability". this term is only relevant for facts. Vegan416 (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't think saying "self revert" is really necessary as this is a content issue so a self revert isn't/wasn't necessary. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request Regarding "another protestor set herself on fire"

Latest comment: 7 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Many news sources have used the "he" pronoun when describing the protestor who set himself on fire in December. The podcast cited does use casually use female pronouns, but presents no evidence of how this new gendering has become known information. I propose that the line should be changed to "another protester self-immolated" to remove seemingly unfounded speculation regarding the protester's preferred pronoun. Uchiha Itachi 25 (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

In this Al Jazeera podcast at 9 minute which is cited in the relevant section, the host made it clear that protestor in Atlanta was a woman. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
But how do the Al Jazeerah podcast knows what were the preffered pronouns of this person? Maybe they just assumed the gender based on external appearance? Vegan416 (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
The gender of this protestor was reported by other sources like ABC News, Japan Times, WaPo, CBC, VoA etc. Unless there is an opposing claim of the gender, there is no reason to obscure this reported fact. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 11:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment in revert about the ADL

Latest comment: 7 months ago32 comments5 people in discussion

@Sameboat

Hi, I saw you deleted a reference to the ADL in this article. Since there are other sources there for the same paragraph, then I don't object to this reference deletion per se, as long as the content remains. But I was a bit confused about your justification - "Anti-Defamation League is almost certainly not one for appropriating Free Palestine movement with Nazism". Can you clarify what you mean by this? Vegan416 (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Bad phrasing of mine, but what I really meant was ADL leader Jonathan Greenblatt's weaponization of antisemitism, which includes conflation of anti-zionism and antisemitism, and very recently comparing Palestinian keffiyeh with Nazi swastika on MSNBC. If ADL isn't straight up deprecated, it should be at least not cited for anything related to Jews, Israel or Palestine. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 09:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@Sameboat
I don't know anything about this swastika-keffiyeh story, but what the problem with saying that anti-Zionism is a type of antisemitism? This is a very mainstream view held by most people in the US and UK. Vegan416 (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
We can safely say such conflation is indeed upheld by the governments and lawmakers across the US, the UK and Germany, but this is a whole different story on how such conflation is accepted both publicly and academically. Many Jews are not buying this conflation either. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@Sameboat
In democratic states like US, UK and Germany the the governments and lawmakers are representing the public opinion. And as this is not a scientific question, but rather a political question, the Academy doesn't have any special status regarding it. Vegan416 (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@Sameboat
In any case I STRONGLY OBJECT your suggestion that ADL should not be cited for anything related to Jews, Israel or Palestine. By your logic we should also never cite Al Jazeerah as well for anything related to Jews, Israel or Palestine, as it is owned by the Qatari government which is pro-Hamas, and Al Jazeerah itself had made numerous comparisons between Israel had Nazism... Vegan416 (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I am not going argue with you about this "Al Jazeera supporting Hamas". There are more people here more qualified than me to argue about ADL's disqualification as a reliable source, but the comparison between keffiyeh and Nazi swastika is a huge red flag. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@Sameboat
Well I definitely don't accept this view. ADL is appearing in this official Wikipedia list as a reliable source, and so I will continue to use ADL as reliable source on any subject when necessary, including in this article. Vegan416 (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I didn't know that it's treated as "reliable" but this sentence properly addresses my issue with ADL: "Some editors consider the ADL a biased source for Israel/Palestine related topics that should be used with caution, if at all". ADL is not a good-faith actor on topics about Israel/Palestine/antisemitism. I stand by my point: if there are better source, ADL should be avoided as much as possible. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@Sameboat
"Some editors" think so. I am not one of them. And I have no obligation to obey them. So I will continue to use the ADL as a reference. Vegan416 (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Cool, and others can remove them. nableezy - 15:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@Nableezy
If others will remove them it will end in an RfC Vegan416 (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Cool story. nableezy - 16:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@Nableezy
I don't know what story you are talking about. But this in fact will end in two RfCs. One about ADL and one about Al Jazeerah... Vegan416 (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
You are free to do whatever you like. You are not free to say things like but what the problem with saying that anti-Zionism is a type of antisemitism? This is a very mainstream view held by most people in the US and UK and expect people to just accept your position. I also don’t think the ADL is an appropriate source for claims on Palestinian nationalism or anti-Zionism or any of the other topics being discussed here. They are partisan and non-expert, and they have made a series of outlandish claims. If you want to push for such a source you can try doing that. And I can raise all the things that make it a garbage source for this topic. nableezy - 16:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@Nableezy
  1. First of all, I can explain why I (and many and probably most people in the west) think that anti-Zionism is a type of antisemitism. It's because anti-Zionist say that unlike all other nations the Jews don't have the right of self-determination in their homeland.
  2. But even if for some reason you don't accept this argument that's really irrelevant to the discussion about the reliability of the ADL as information source. The fact that you don't like the politics of some information source is not a good enough reason to declare it unreliable. Similarly the fact that it is partisan doesn't not necessary make it unreliable. I don't like the politics of Al Jazeera and it is definitely no less partisan in this context than the ADL, yet I'm not going around deleting all the references to Al Jazeera from this or other articles.
  3. The only thing that will convince me not to rely on ADL is if you can show that they made a significant number of errors in their reports, much more than other sources that are considered reliable. If you think you can do that you are welcome to try.
Vegan416 (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  1. No, you cant. See WP:NOTFORUM. I dont care what you think or feel, and our policies say I should not be burdened with that knowledge.
  2. The fact that they have no expertise in the Arab-Israeli conflict is what makes them a poor source for this topic. Al-Jazeera is a news organization, with standards that reflect normal news organizations, just like Times of Israel or Haaretz or Ynet or whatever Israeli sources we use.
  3. Once more, I dont care about convincing you, as I dont really place too much concern on your thoughts and feelings. The source was removed from this article, and rightfully so. Restoring it will require a consensus for it.
Finally, you dont have to ping me, Im clearly watching this page. nableezy - 18:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  1. Actually I can, and I just did :-) Of course you are free to close your eyes to the truth...
  2. I think that the ADL as knowledgeable about the Arab-Israeli conflict as any of the other organizations you mentioned. But my personal opinion or your personal opinion do not matter. The only thing that matter is that the official policy of Wikipedia regards the ADL as reliable source. Look at this page Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. There is indeed a caveat that some editors think otherwise in the context of Israeli-Arab. But the opinion of "some editors" is not the policy of Wikipedia. As I said, there is a similar caveat in that page with regard to Al Jazeera, and yet I don't go around deleting references to it.
  3. So the fact is that according to "our policies" (to use your words) I can use the ADL in this context.
  4. As I already said to @Sameboat in the beginning, in this particular case I don't need the ADL source so I wouldn't bother to restore it. But I will not hesitate to use the ADL as source in the future if I will need it.
Vegan416 (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
If you refuse to stop to violating WP:NOTFORUM Ill be asking that you be made to stop. And RSP is not "official policy", and its reliability in terms of hate speech in the US has nothing to do with its unreliability for the topic. And as I already said to you, you are free to edit how you wish, and any other editor is free to revert you. Toodles. nableezy - 19:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  1. LOL. Please calm down your empty threats and stop behaving like a bully. It was not me who raised the issue of AntiZionism=Antisemitism in this context. It was Sameboat who tried to use this issue as an argument against using ADL as reference. You cannot use an issue as an argument against using a source in an article, and then threaten the person who tried to counter this argument (to show why the source can be used in the article) that he is violating WP:NOTFORUM policy. This is bullying tactics.
  2. As I said before - I am free to edit as I wish, and any other editor is free to revert me, but eventually some final decision have to be made. And if an agreement will not be reached in this group then we will have to ask for the decision of the wider Wikipedia community via an RfC.
Vegan416 (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:ONUS requires consensus to include disputed material (here of disputed relevance) - it's that simple. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@Iskandar323
And the way to achieve a truly community wide consensus is via RfC... Vegan416 (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
No. That's a process to resolve deadlocks. There is no deadlock here. No one agrees with you on including this content. It is already clear. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@Iskandar323
No. It seems we are in a deadlock. And it doesn't matter how many people are on each side. I still have a right to submit an RfC if no agreement is reached within a reasonable time. In any case I have already shown that regarding the issue of ADL there is no consensus in Wikipedia that it should not be used in the Israel-Arab context. Vegan416 (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Theres also no consensus that it should. nableezy - 20:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@Nableezy
Which means we are in a deadlock. Which is why an RfC on this issue will probably have to be made eventually. QED. BTW your phrasing of your last sentence in the other thread, made me think of a joke, but since you don't seem to have a sense of humor I'll pass on it. Good night for now. Vegan416 (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Theres nothing empty here, if you continue to make me read your personal opinions on anti-zionism Ill be asking you be made to stop. The end. nableezy - 20:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Stop whining and using bullying tactics. Nobody is forcing you to read anything. Vegan416 (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Me asking you to comply by WP policy is neither whining nor bullying. Kindly stop disrupting the purpose of this talk page, which is to discuss the content of the self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell. Thanks. nableezy - 20:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@NableezyContrary to Iskandar323's presumptuous assumption, I agree with Vegan416 that the ADL reference should stay in this article. Uchiha Itachi 25 (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
@Uchiha Itachi 25
Thanks. Actually I don't mind the deletion of this specific reference since it was superfluous. But I do reserve the right to maybe use this source to substantiate other claims in this article in the future. Vegan416 (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, you may not participate in this discussion as you do not have extended confirmed permissions per WP:ARBECR. nableezy - 23:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

RfC on infobox image

Latest comment: 7 months ago51 comments24 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus was reached for option D, showing Bushnell on fire. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 08:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Which image should be used for the infobox? Note that the images are not shown here due to free use restrictions preventing most of them being used on talk pages.

A: No image
B: A profile picture of Bushnell (example)
C: An image of the embassy (example)
D: An image of Bushnell on fire (example)
E: An image of Bushnell dousing himself with a flammable liquid (example)
F: An image of Bushnell approaching the embassy (example)

09:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey

  • B weakly, otherwise C or A equally. Four guidelines are relevant to this; MOS:LEADIMAGE, MOS:SHOCK, MOS:OMIMG, and WP:IMGCONTENT. LEADIMAGE says that we should follow high quality sources to determine which, if any, image we include in the lede. Reviewing sources, I find that most sources do not depict Bushnell's self-immolation:
  1. ABC shows the embassy
  2. Al Jazeera shows the video, but excludes the period where he is on fire
  3. AP News includes an image of a vigil
  4. Axios shows a police car outside of the embassy
  5. The BBC shows an image of a vigil outside the embassy
  6. Bloomberg shows a stock image
  7. CNN shows Bushnell's linkedin profile picture; they explicitly decline to show any content from the video
  8. The Telegraph shows a profile picture of Bushnell and a still from the video where Bushnell is walking towards the embassy
  9. DW shows an image of a police car outside the embassy
I could continue working down WP:RSP, but I don't think the result will change; the reliable sources that we are required to follow are split between A, B, and C, with what appears to be a slight preference for B, and clearly reject D and E.
In addition, SHOCK warns us against using D in the lede, and to a lesser extent E; it tells us that Lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred.
Finally, OMIMG and IMGCONTENT warn against using D anywhere in the article; they tell us that horrifying images should be included only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. E is an equally suitable and informative alternative, depicting aspects of the self-immolation, but with far less shock value, and so per our policies would be preferred - and F, while depicting the moments before the self-immolation rather than aspects of it, is in my opinion still equally informative and thus in turn would be preferred to E. BilledMammal (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
After checking the article history, as far as I can tell, you, BilledMammal, are the only editor who attempt to remove the self-immolation image from the article without consensus. If you truly respect consensus, the version with the self-immolation image, either in the infobox or event section, should be restored first before we actually have a consensus. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 11:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
BilledMammal even replied to a comment respecting the fact that image removal is against consensus, where @Ad Orientem stated:
"I am dubious but can see that I'm also clearly in the minority here so I will defer to CONSENSUS pending anyone else chiming in on the matter. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)"
Despite this BilledMammal removed the image anyway - so I am confused how this deserves a RFC. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
The RFC is fine, the edit warring against consensus less fine. nableezy - 22:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Also if you feel that I am potentially violating contentious topic policies which warrants a notice in my user talk page, I would advice you to read the same instructions carefully as well. You have been engaging in an edit war regarding the same image for more than once.[1][2] -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 11:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
C would do nothing to enhance encyclopedic value. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • B and I have no objection to D except MOS/Images gives us: ″a potentially offensive image—one that would be considered vulgar, horrifying, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers[nb 1]—should be included only if it is treated in an encyclopedic manner, i.e. only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate.″ and on that basis I don't think an image of him actually on fire is required Lukewarmbeer (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    It is informative as it shows the reader what the event looked like. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • D - because this isn’t a biography of Bushnell, this is an article on the self immolation of Bushnell and the image used should be of the self immolation of Bushnell. I’ve also restored the status quo to prior to BilledMammals edit warring it out with the overwhelming consensus prior to the opening of this RFC supporting the use of the image of him at the start of setting himself on fire. Also, a number of sources do indeed use the image of Bushnell on fire, see for example New Yorker. But a news organization running or not running this photo has nothing to do with WEIGHT, news organizations have their own standards for image usage, and they may well be censored where Wikipedia is not. This image depicts the subject of the article, an image of a smiling Bushnell does not, nor does an image of what would appear to be some random gate. This is an article on a self-immolation, if a photo of the self-immolation is available that is very obviously the most appropriate lead image to use. And the claim that this image is supposedly horrifying is absurd, made without any basis at all. Just asserted as though it was fact when it is not. nableezy - 12:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    Just a notice that user:BilledMammal brought me to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, accusing me violation of 1RR, when BilledMammal is the one who has violated 1RR repeatedly. I am not going to file a retaliatory complaint, but the 1RR accusations are unfounded at all. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 12:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    The New Yorker article is an opinion article. I haven't been able to find any WP:HQRS that uses the image, and even if they exist they will be in such a minority as to have no impact on which image MOS:LEADIMAGE tells us to use. As for horrifying, how else would you describe an image of a person burning to death? BilledMammal (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    Educational. And Ynet also uses this image. Also, do I have this right, that you argue to include and then restore this image of a bloodied baby and then say this image is "horrifying"? You support the usage of an actual shocking image where it is non-representative of the subject it is portraying and demand the removal of an image that actually does represent the subject it is portraying? nableezy - 14:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    I do not see User:BilledMammal taking people to AE in regards to 9/11's infobox displaying the moment of impact, nor about any of the much more "horrifying" pages of sexual acts that can be found on this site. The infobox image does not show him with serious burns, and is low resolution. I have a hard time taking this users actions in good faith. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    You can argue whether "horrifying" is accurate, but it's an image of a man burning to death. I think that's plainly the kind of shocking image that MOS:SHOCK talks about. But of course that needs to be weighed up with whether or not there are other relevant images to use. Endwise (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    See for example Thích Quảng Đức, we include actual images of people burning to death when that is the subject of the article. But that is not this image, this is showing him at the start of the act, it is not his skin peeling off, it is not anything somebody would not expect in an article on a man burning to death. nableezy - 13:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    In that article the burning image is not in the lead. I think we all agree here that an image of him on fire should appear somewhere. I guess you have a point about this image being "the start of the act" though. Endwise (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    Because its a biography. This is an article on the event itself, and where the event is covered in that article there are multiple images, both considerably more graphic. nableezy - 13:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose B, slightly prefer D but okay with A. An image of Bushnell smiling is rather irrelevant to the article, IMO. He's not notable as a person beyond the self-immolation, and the self-immolation is what the article is actually about; see MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Option D is undeniably the most relevant to the article, but it's also true that an image of a person burning to death is rather shocking, so I have sympathies with people who do not want in the lead per MOS:SHOCK. But if you're going to replace it with it something it better be centrally relevant to the actual topic of the article, and I'm not entirely sure if anything else is. Endwise (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • D, and oppose all others and agree with Nableezy. The subject of the article is literally a man burning to death, MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. We are WP:NOTCENSORED and the image is crucial for readers' understanding what self-immolation (which is not common) of this man really is. Whether it is horrifying is subjective. Also, the man wanted us to see this, so we are not violating his privacy. starship.paint (RUN) 13:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • D, and oppose all others, as per Nableezy. It’s an article ABOUT THE SELF-IMMOLATION of Aaron Bushnell, all other options simply DO NOT ILLUSTRATE the subject of the article. Period! By the way, it is interesting to notice that someone tried to speedily delete the image while this RfC was open… RodRabelo7 (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • D, and strongly oppose all others. The article is in fact about the self-immolation, so the most relevant image should be of the self-immolation. I do not believe that MOS:SHOCK or MOS:OMIMG should apply here, because Wikipedia is not censored. As was mentioned in a different discussion about this topic further up the page, it was pointed out that the page List of political self-immolations includes a photo of the self-immolation of Thích Quảng Đức. GranCavallo (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option D: As I mentioned previously, this article is about the self-immolation, not a biography of him. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 15:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I'd like to be able to read this article -- or others like it -- without having to look at the image, or without having the image up on my computer screen while I'm reading the article. I think the image should be in the article, but it should either be behind a blur filter (click on it to unblur), or in a collapsed box (not preferable, blur is better), or somewhere "down below" in the body. But not unblurred as the lead image. (I'd be fine with it as the lead image behind a blur.) If it's not the lead image, then the profile picture is fine. (It doesn't have to be a biography to have a picture, it's fine to have a picture of the main participant in an article about an event.) I felt the same way about Murder of George Floyd and other similar articles. "NOTCENSORED" doesn't mean prominently display whatever grotesque image of people dying we may have. It doesn't mean prominently display pictures of death in article about death. It just means don't omit it entirely, or don't omit it simply because it's gruesome. But there is a big gap between "lead image" and "no image." So as a vote, it's "D" if it's blurred/hidden somehow, otherwise "B". Levivich (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
     N WP:CENSORED RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    As far as I concern, English Wikipedia does not provide any mean to blur an image with browser processing effect in the article which could affect all users because of the not censored policy. Besides, the current image is already downscaled and doesn't show any visible burn injuries or blood, so I don't find any rationale to blur the image in the first place. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    Wow that last sentence, just wow. It shows a person burning to death, but I guess for some people that's better than a "visible burn injury." Levivich (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
    It shows him on fire, and yes there is an obvious result to that, though the Atlanta self-immolator I think is still alive, but I dont think this shows him burning to death. But really, what other image would be suitable for an article whose subject is a person burning themselves to death? It isnt that the image that is disturbing, its the very topic, and the image, if it is to, as MOS:IMAGEREL says, Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, would naturally follow. nableezy - 15:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
    Also if you are really concerned about grotesque images being shown in the article, I believe Thích Quảng Đức would give you more trouble because not one, but two, high quality self-immolation image thumbnails are used in that article. My point is, not being able to blur or hide the "grotesque" image by default is not a fair point to contest the inclusion of an image. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • A. MOS:SHOCK is intended to cover this case, and counsels discretion. Regulov (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Strongly support D, and strongly oppose all others sans @Levivich's suggestion to blur which I understand but am neutral about. MOS:SHOCK should be considered in some instances, but if a user/reader is clicking a link with the words "self-immolation of X" in the article title, I think it is fair that they should expect something graphic (which I don't even find this image to be, as it is low resolution and not after he has been entirely engulfed) in the article's page. This is an instance where the infobox image depicts the event in question, and also the fact that it was livestreamed is part of why it is notable, therefore a screencap of the stream is appropriate. Also reiterate @nableezy's critique of this entire RFC. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • D, opposing the other options. This article is about the self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell, and therefore depicting said event is appropriate. MOS:SHOCK states that images should be picked if they "accurately represents the topic without shock value". Since the topic is the self-immolation of a person, showing the person smiling instead (as in one of the suggest alternative images) isn't appropriate. Cortador (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • C or A The image of someone setting themselves on fire is gratuitous and IMO does not add substantively to the encyclopedic quality of the article in a way that justifies its use contra MOS:SHOCK. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Strongly support D and oppose all others. The topic is "Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell," so the self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell is what should be shown. Opposed to blurring the image per WP:NOTCENSORED. Luke10.27 (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
  • D because the photo shows the action that is the article's subject, and per Sameboat: the current image is already downscaled and doesn't show any visible burn injuries or blood. SWinxy (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
  • C or A adding the controversial image would be good for shock value, but not for encyclopedic substance. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
  • D. There is nothing wrong with the current image apart from copyright issues. It is no more graphic than say a stunt actor setting themselves on fire. Compare for example the lead image on stunt. I will add however that if his family should object then perhaps there is reason to remove it. KetchupSalt (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
  • D - per Sameboat's "the current image is already downscaled and doesn't show any visible burn injuries or blood", as well as KetchupSalt's "It is no more graphic than say a stunt actor setting themselves on fire. Compare for example the lead image on stunt." In my opinion, the image is only as disturbing as the subject matter of the article. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  • D - the image depicts the topic, the self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell. The other options do not "increase readers understanding of the article's subject matter" (WP:GRATUITOUS). JimRenge (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support for D, oppose all others, page is called "Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell" so image should show "Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell", and not random other scenes. Simple as that. Also oppose blurring or similar - image is already very low res and should be upscaled ideally, but thats not possible unfortunaly. --TheImaCow (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option Wikipedia is not a democracy and Wikipedia is not censored, i.e. the picture of Bushnell on fire in the infobox, which is the scope of the article, as it currently is. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

This looks good to be closed as it seems consensus has been reached. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 12:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Opinion piece as source for facts, and correcting factual error

Latest comment: 7 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion

The article currently contains this sentence:

"In an Al Jazeera column, Belén Fernández criticized The New York Times, which failed to mention Bushnell's motive in the title of their report, and Time, which implied that Bushnell might be mentally ill without elaborating on the "mentally disturbing" political reality, namely US backing for Israel in the Gaza conflict."

There are two points to make about this: First, the column in Al Jazeera is an opinion column (it is clearly marked as such in the site). Yet it is used here to establish two factual claims: That the NYT didn't mention Bushnell's motive in the title, and that the TIme implied that Bushnell might be mentally ill. Searching through the policy pages I didn't find any such prohibition on using opinion pieces to establish facts (so long as the facts are attributed, and the publication is reliable). Do you agree? I personally have absolutely no problem with that, but I'd like to hear other opinions.

In contrast, the second point is problematic in my view. And it is that the second "fact" mentioned by Belén Fernández seem to be incorrect. The Time in fact did not imply that Bushnell might be mentally ill. If you look at the "proof" she gives it is this: "At the bottom of the Time article, readers are charitably given the following instructions: If you or someone you know may be experiencing a mental-health crisis or contemplating suicide, call or text 988 – which naturally implies that Bushnell was simply the victim of a mental-health crisis". But his seems baseless. These instructions at the bottom are today a standard announcement that any self respecting publication publishes in any report about suicide, for the obvious and justified fear that such reports might rigger suicidal people to commit suicide. It's quite farfetched to present this as "The Time implied that Bushnell might be mentally ill".

Therefore I suggest to change the sentence into: ""In an Al Jazeera column, Belén Fernández criticized The New York Times for failing to mention Bushnell's motive in the title of their report."

@LegalSmeagolian@Sameboat @Parabolist @Iskandar323@Makeandtoss Vegan416 (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Does it matter that it seems baseless? Wikipedia is full of inferences that seem baseless to me. Having an opinion that something implied something is just an opinion isn't it? The sentence could be rewritten to make it clearer that these are her opinions rather than what it seems to do now, present it as if the opinions are correct. The way I read the Time claim is that it is just a device, a setup for her punchline - "At the end of the day, anyone who is not experiencing a serious “mental-health crisis” over the genocide going down in Gaza with full US backing can be safely filed under the category of psychologically disturbed", which I assume is her main point. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
You mean something like that?
"In an Al Jazeera column, Belén Fernández criticized The New York Times, which failed to mention Bushnell's motive in the title of their report, and Time, for not elaborating on what in her opinion is the "mentally disturbing" political reality of US backing Israel in the Gaza conflict." Vegan416 (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
When we say things like "which failed", I hear wiki-voice, not the columnist's voice. Anyway, if it were up to me, I would probably get rid of her examples and replace them with her summary, something along the lines of "In an Al Jazeera column, Belén Fernández wrote that "the US political-media establishment appears to be doing its best to not only decontextualise but also posthumously discredit" Bushnell. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Since it appears in the section about media coverage I think I'll go with this:
"In an Al Jazeera column, Belén Fernández criticized The New York Times, for not mentioning Bushnell's motive in the title of their report, and Time, for not elaborating on what in her opinion is the "mentally disturbing" political reality of US backing Israel in the Gaza conflict." Vegan416 (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Self-immolation_of_Aaron_Bushnell/Archive_3&oldid=1255619245"