Talk:Murder of Aya Maasarwe

Title - death / killing / murder

Article was moved from murder to death. Death is inadequate and is often a non-violent death (e.g. natural causes). That we call an event a killing or murder does not imply guilt of a 3rd party (unless they are asserting self defense which is not the case here AFAIK).Icewhiz (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Death of Osama bin Laden? Reliable sources are saying she was murdered so we can report that, but Maasarwe's death is a broader topic than her murder, which is why we call these articles Death of. So the legality of calling it a murder here is actually a red herring. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that comparison works here, and it isn't a red herring because articles don't stay at "death" but tend to wind up at "murder" if there is a successful conviction. We don't use "Murder" when there are ongoing legal proceedings as to murder charges, and prejudging the findings of current criminal trials is a bad idea for many reasons. This is universal on Wikipedia - e.g. Murder of Jo Cox sat at "Death of Jo Cox" until immediately following the end of her killer's trial, and Murder of Jill Meagher sat at "Death of Jill Meagher" until someone belatedly realised last year that the name should be updated following the killer's conviction. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Bin-Laden is complex (heck - one could even argue for "execution of"). Most criminal homicides (which this appears to be) on Wikipedia are either "killing of" or "murder of". It can be murder prior to conviction (or without one) - but it depends on circumstances (obviously if a defendant asserts self defense - then no). Icewhiz (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The articles become "murder of" if there is a successful conviction. It can't be murder prior to conviction because the court hasn't reached that conclusion, so it's prejudging the legal proceedings - any defendant's plea or circumstances (unless it is a guilty plea!) has no bearing on that. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I would say the article remains being Death of regardless of any conviction, since this is about more than the murder. There's also the Death of Adolf Hitler, Death of Benito Mussolini, Death of Michael Jackson and Death of Muammar Gaddafi, even though they were not natural deaths. Murder of Jo Cox should most likely also be Death of, and also with Murder of Jill Meagher. Even though there hasn't be a conviction, the sources are describing this death as a murder so we should be reflecting that in the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're comparing it to people who weren't murdered and who died in ambiguous circumstances, when as I just pointed out, Wikipedia has a clear international precedent for dealing with these specific cases. Wikipedia has erred on the side of caution in just about every other case I can think of because the average Wikipedian doesn't have a good grasp of laws around reporting on criminal trials and is unlikely to be as careful about avoiding screwing up as media outlets that can run their stories past lawyers. We've already seen in recent cases that Australian judges have been taking a specific interest in Wikipedia editors publishing things they shouldn't without comprehension of either the legal risks for themselves or the risk of derailing attempts to get justice for victims of crime. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Because they are titled with death, and not killing or suicide. The newspapers are saying she was murdered, so we can say that these sources are saying she was murdered. Because of the legal ambiguities we can't say she was murdered as if it were from our own research, it would have to be clear it is something said by a reliable source. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The presumption of innocence is a well-established legal principle. I suggest that any source that describes the death as "murder" in the absence of a conviction is self-evidently not reliable (at least in its use of that word). Mitch Ames (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

That's the Nine-Fairfax newspapers, the News Corp newspapers, and the major commercial networks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I have moved it back.If you want a new title lets have a proper move discussion --Shrike (talk) 08:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Murder -> Death was supported 3-1 with multiple reasons. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

In fact - more than one objected. I'll note that Australian sub judice concerns are of little concern to Wikipedia. Icewhiz (talk) 08:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

There are proper policy WP:RM#CM.Please initiate discussion accordingly --Shrike (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:BOLD is the relevant policy here and it's now 4-1 with only one person objecting. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

We've got myself, Mitch, WWGB supporting "Death" and Onetwothreeip and I think Icewhiz supporting "Murder" (I'm not sure about Shrike because I've been out all day and I'm not sure what move he was objecting to.) Either way that wasn't a consensus for a sudden move. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Considering @Shrike: moved it back to Murder, he supports murder. What was "sudden" her is the move from murder to death on 07:28, 19 January 2019. @The Drover's Wife: - you are move warring, I suggest you self revert. I am willing to compromise to "killing of". "Death of" is wholly inappropriate and disrespectful to the victim here.Icewhiz (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no particular objection to killing - it's a bit less often used, but that's not important (and WWGB's already stated his approval below). The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I object to killing, the article and the subject is far more than the killing itself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

You were arguing for using "death" on that exact basis twelve hours ago, and you were the one who moved the article to the present title. I disagreed with you about it necessarily staying at that title in the long-term, and now you seem to have flipped sides and are arguing against your own move, but citing exactly the same logic that you were using for that move twelve hours ago. This seems like an odd thing to do. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. This article is about the death, which is broader than either murder or killing. The article should be at Death of Aiia Maasarwe for the reasons I expressed earlier today. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Murder is determined by the courts, not by Wikipedia editors. All we have now is Death, Killing or Homicide.WWGB (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the current "move-warring" (most recent) I think that we should err on the side of caution, and that WP:BLPCRIME (BLP policy) should take precedence over WP:RM#CM (a process), at least in the short term. Yes let's have a proper discussion, but leave the page at "Killing..." - even though it was not the original title - while that discussion takes place. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Arrest

The Aussie media now reports that an arrest has been made,link also that she was raped.

"Death of Aiia Maasarwe" is obviously far too weak, I suggest "murder" or "killing" instead, Huldra (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles are not titled on the basis of emotion. Although I'm surprised someone can seriously say "death" is "far too weak". Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, I am surprised that people can argue that it has to be "Death of" until someone is convicted of the crime. Under that "rule", Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, or Assassination of Olof Palme should be changed (nobody has been convicted of their crimes), She was murdered, (whoever murdered her) there is no indication that she dies a "natural' death, Huldra (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

We can get away with calling something "murder" when no-one has been accused arrested or charged, because we are not suggesting that any specific person is guilty of a crime. However when someone has been charged, BLP policies become relevant, because if we refer to "murder" we are implying that a specific person has committed a crime - which is contrary to the principal of the presumption of innocence.

She was murdered, (whoever murdered her) there is no indication that she dies a "natural' death, – There is no guarantee that whoever killed her committed murder. Even if a specific person were found to have killed her (and that has not happened), depending on the circumstances, it could (for example) be manslaughter or not guilty by way of insanity. We must not presume guilt of a specific crime until someone is convicted in a court of law. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

There a lots of deaths with are reported as murder, even when the perpetuators are never caught, say Murders of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran. Are you going to move that to Deaths of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran, or, if not: why the double standards? Huldra (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

If a named person was arrested and charged with the crime, then I would move the article from "Murder..." to "Death...", for the reasons that I explained above. The reason for the "double standard" is that BLP applies to specific, named people. If no-one has been arrested or charged WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply, but if someone has been arrested and charged it does. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:BLPCRIME which says we cannot call it a murder, when the police and the overwhelming number of WP:RS calls it that. Also: your interpretation is very counter−intuitive: you are "weakening" the case for dead, *if* someone is arrested for their killing/murder? I think that is interpreting WP:BLPCRIME too far. Huldra (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:BLPCRIME which says we cannot call it a murder – I disagree, in particular, BLPCRIME says (with my emphasis here):

"editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."

I assert that calling it a murder suggests that the person charged has committed a crime (murder), which BLPCRIME says we ought not do.

your interpretation is very counter−intuitive: you are "weakening" the case for dead, – The dead are not covered by BLP, the living person who has been charged with a crime is. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 20 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Killing of Aiia Maasarwe. Consensus is against the original proposal, but there is enough of a consensus to move to the alternative proposal. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 11:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Death of Aiia Maasarwe → Murder of Aiia Maasarwe – All sources say she was killed/murdered. Even if no-one is convicted of her murder yet: no-one says she died a "natural" death. Huldra (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Murder widely supported by RSes. Not a BLPCRIME issue as asserting the factual murder (homicide) of the victim does not assert the guilt of any particular BLP. Killing of Aiia Maasarwe also better than "Death of". "Death of" is misleading and disrespectful to the victim.Icewhiz (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Death of Aiia Maasarwe → Murder of Aiia Maasarwe until the perpetrator(s) is/are convicted. Support Death of Aiia Maasarwe → Killing of Aiia Maasarwe since there is no doubt that she was killed.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Murder can only be determined by a court finding of guilt, or by a confession. The current page title should therefore be considered a placeholder until either of these two outcomes occur. Reliable sources have not called the death a murder since an arrest was made. They instead use expressions like "accused murderer" or "alleged murder". I have no problem with Killing of Aiia Maasarwe, but that is not the option in this discussion, so I don't see how that can be implemented without a further requested move. The Jill Meagher case is a parallel: the article lived at Death of Jill Meagher until her murderer was found guilty, whereupon the article was moved to Murder of Jill Meagher. WWGB (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  RMs can close to different titles than proposed - e.g. see Talk:Antisemitism in Christianity#Requested move 8 January 2019, WP:NOTBURO. If we have consensus for Killing of, there is no need to run this again in a week.Icewhiz (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose @WWGB makes valid points. @Huldra can propose a page move with the current proposal after a court case commences and convicts. Until then the current name is ok.Resnjari (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

... if the court convicts. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree. That's why for now the current pagename works. In future after the whole case goes to court and depending on the outcome, other changes for the name of the article might be needed.Resnjari (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support Murder or Killing as it was not death by natural causes and most of the sources describe it in such way --Shrike (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose "Murder" because that implies that a specific person - who has not been convicted - committed that crime. WP:BLPCRIME says we should not include material (which I take to include the article title) that suggests the person has committed a crime unless there is a conviction. The person charged is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose "Murder of," no objection to "Killing of." Same view as Roman Spinner - Maasarwe was certainly killed, but "murder" prejudges the court case which is something to be avoided per BLPCRIME. This article is not a news source; we can await the court outcome and consider if a further rename is needed then. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• 'Support As page creator. A lot of the supporting rationale for the original undiscused move from "murder" to "death" seems to be based on the falsehood that to say Maasarwe was murdered automatically means we are casting prejudicial aspersion about the guilt of an individual. I don't agree with this. We are saying Maasarwe was murdered, which is an indisputable fact, but not saying whether any particular person is guilty of a criminal offence or not. The article makes clear that the accused has only been charged (and not convicted). Reliable sources such as The Age, and the ABC have used the word murder. We should follow their lead, not set our own unique standards. AusLondonder (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Maasarwe was murdered and we ought to reflect that in the article, but that is not the matter of titling the article. The article should continue to be "Death of" since the article and topic is about far more than the murder or killing. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Eurydice Dixon comparison

If the death of Aiia is sufficiently notable and even of "mid importance" in the Australia project it is a bit hard to see why a similar article about Eurydice Dixon who was murdered in very similar circumstances in Melbourne last year was rejected as insufficently notable. Reporting of Aiia's death continually refers to Eurydice's death for excellent reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.85.114 (talk) 10:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

For the claims of Maasarwe's murder attracting "international" coverage, all but two of the sources in her article so far are Australian. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 22:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Murder of Eurydice Dixon. I see it was just recently created. ghouston (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to add:

• Aiia Maasarwe: 20-year old Melbourne man charged over Bundoora killing, Helen Davidson, The Guardian
• Man arrested over killing of Israeli student Aiia Maasarwe in Melbourne, 18 January, The Telegraph
• Aiia Maasarwe: Arrest over killing of Israeli student in Melbourne, 18 January, BBC

• Aiia Maarsarwe: Arrest made in connection with killing of Israeli student in Melbourne, Joshua Berlinger, January 19, 2019 CNN

Huldra (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

BLP vio

Asserting that an Israeli citizen (WP:BDP) and her family (BLPs) are Palestinians is a BLP vio, as this potentially implies allegience to a group in conflict with the state they are citizens of (a charge that is potentially quite dangerous). This is particularly egrigious when based on an opinion piece claiming mainstream coverage of her Arab-Israeli identity is "wrong". As clearly evident in MSM coverage - e.g. BBC, or WaPo - Israeli-Arab is being used. Finally I would to stress that this BLP family lives in Israel and that identification here has real world consequences for ths family - consequences that may put real life people in danger.Icewhiz (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I think we should follow sources.The proper description for her is per our article and the sources --Shrike (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Rubbish. All the Palestinian I know with Israeli citizenship are not hiding that they are Palestinian...I can find sources which say that an ever increasing percentage of them primarily identify as such.

Also:

• Aya Maasarwe: Accused to appear in court as family prepare for release of body, 9news.com.au: "Ms Maasarwe, a Palestinian Arab of Israeli citizenship"
• Aiia Maasarwe's family prepares to return her body from Melbourne to Israel, abc.net.au: "Family of Ms Maasarwe in Baqa al-Gharbiyye [..] is a locality largely populated by Arab-Israelis who identify as Palestinian citizens of Israel."

Even "Honestreporting" (!!!) report that "The family has contacted media organisations asking for the spelling of the name to be changed to Aya, instead of Aiia – which police had been using based on her passport information – to reflect their wish for her to be identified as Palestinian."

We are spitting on her family when we mock their wishes, Huldra (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:ETHNICITY in "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, " --Shrike (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Israel is not among "most modern-day cases", hadn't you noticed? Huldra (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

No I hadn't. We follow Wikipedia policies--Shrike (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Not all countries have three ARB cases in their history. I see you have now removed Palestinian completely from the article. Please reintroduce it, or I will take the two of you to AE, for disruptive editing, Huldra (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Most sources are using Israeli Arab. While some Israeli-Arabs may be willing to risk using labels that may be dangerous - we should not make the decision for them based on an editor asserting something about the people they know. These labels are dangerous in areas of conflict - Japanese in WWII US, Serb/Croat/Bosnian/Albanian in former Yugoslavia in the 90s. Icewhiz (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

IT IS THE FAMILY WISH: "The family has contacted media organisations asking for the spelling of the name to be changed to Aya, instead of Aiia - which police had been using based on her passport information - to reflect their wish for her to be identified as Palestinian." And you are spitting on them. Shame, shame, on you, Huldra (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I have added what you requested while following our guidelines --Shrike (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

You have NOT followed her families wish, and there is NO fixed rule that a minority as to be identified with their nationality, quite contrary: look at how say, how native Americans are identified. Huldra (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no such policy to follow the family wishes.Also why previously you deleted [1] "Israel" you understand such edits are WP:TE --Shrike (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC) ?

• Killing of Mollie Tibbetts is not dissimilar. There is a secion on the familly's wishes, which we have no obligaiton to comply with.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Nice try. I deleted "Israel" as that was not in the Haaretz source (check for yourself), This isn't about my editing, but about yours, Huldra (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Can somebody give the specific reason this article cannot say that Aya was a Palestinian, per the Guardian? Given her family's preference, the laughable claim that calling her a Palestinian is a BLP violation is just that, but can somebody explain why it is being removed? nableezy - 23:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

If everything about the crime was the same, but Aya was Jewish, and not Palestinian: what are the chances of her being Jewish being mentioned in the first sentence? I would say the changes of that would be about 100%, Huldra (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Fact check. The ones I checked lede with "an Israeli" Jewish comes in further down the page: Killing of Alexander Levlovich, Killing of Esther Ohana, Murder of Eliyahu Asheri. These were all killed in Israel. But if some do have "Jewish" in the lede, it should be discussed on the relevant talk pages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, what is the a reason we cannot call this person a Palestinian per the Guardian, and now per the SBS: "Ms Maasarwe, an Arab Palestinian woman with Israeli citizenship", Buzzfeed (even correcting their article to reflect it): Aya Maasarwe was a Palestinian citizen of Israel, The National (UAE): A Palestinian exchange student ... Her family asked the media to spell her name Aya, to reflect that she was a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship, rather than the Aiia that appeared on her passport. Why exactly do yall care if this person, whose family explicitly identifies as Palestinian, is called a Palestinian? nableezy - 00:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• Page states: "Maasarwe was born in Baqa al-Gharbiyye, Israel, to a Muslim Israeli Arab family.[2][6] Her family identify as Palestinian.[7]" Accurate, sourced, and in the usual "Background" section where we put info on ethnic backgorund, birthplace.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be answering a question that nobody has asked. No matter, Ill restore Palestinian citizen of Israel citing these sources. nableezy - 00:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Most mainstream reporting is using Israeli or Israeli Arab. A minority of sources (including a newspaper in Abu Dhabi you've cited above) - use Palestinian.Icewhiz (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Since when does a newspaper being in Abu Dhabi mean it isnt mainstream? Are we only allowed to use newspapers written by Europeans, Americans or other white people? Im sorry, I dont understand the distinction here. But if I need articles written by only western sources here, these from Australia should be fine shouldnt they? 9 News, ABC. Again, why do you all care so much that this person not be called Palestinian? Why does it matter to you? nableezy - 16:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Context: "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen... Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." Maasarwe is notable as a woman killed while walking home at night. She is notable as a victim of violence against women. Articles note that she was a visiting foreign student, but he ethnicity is NOT "relevant to the subject's notability." The murder was not related to her ethnic status, or even to her foreignness. Page should revert to status before Nableezy's recent change. With "an Israeli" in lede, and ethnic details given in Background, as per WP:MOSBIO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we should refuse her the identity that she seems to have chosen and force on her one that at least her family rejects. Anyway, I dont see how her citizenship has anything at all to do with the context for activities that made her notable. nableezy - 16:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• It's really irrelevant what the family wishes, this is an encyclopedia, we should try to report on facts, and in this case the fact is that she was an Israeli and that is what we should report. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Its likewise a fact she was a Palestinian. A fact with now several reliable sources. I still dont understand why any of you care that this person is identified as a Palestinian. Why does it bother you? nableezy - 16:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me, it's just not facts. She was born in Israel and was an Israeli citizen and had an Israeli passport. That her family wants her to be called Palestinian can be noted but certainly in the lead she should be called what she was, an Israeli citizen. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

What the fuck does its just not facts mean? It is a fact when reliable sources say it is a fact. Reliable sources say as a fact that she was a Palestinian. nableezy - 18:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: multiple reliable sources explicitly call her a Palestinian. The MOS does not support your edit, her being an Israeli citizen is no more relevant than her being a Palestinian Arab. Please explain your removal of well-sourced material. Compare for example the edits here and this. But nah, we cant have a Palestinian called a Palestinian. That is a disgraceful act in an encyclopedia, pretending that such a thing exists. nableezy - 18:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• You ought not have put the ethnicity into the lede during a discussion in which you had not gained consensus.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

You mean insert what reliable sources say about the subject? How is that an answer for your removal of well sourced material? nableezy - 18:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The rules - see my comment [Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Context]] above - about what belongs in the lede are clear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Which rule? What does her nationality have to do with her notability? What exactly allows you to remove what several reliable sources say? nableezy - 19:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

RfM?

Move article from Killing of Aiia Maasarwe to Killing of Aya Maasarwe, in view of her families wishes (See 'More peace, more safety': Aya Maasarwe to return home with family), can we just do this, or do we need a full RfM? Huldra (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Shrike, for moving the article, Huldra (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Description of Aya nationality

What description should in the article in the lead.

1. Describing her as Israeli
2. Describing her as Palestinian-Israeli via pipe link to Arab citizen of Israel
3. As a Palestinian citizen of Israel

Shrike (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Israeli, the lead should be what is factual without any editorializing. She was an Israeli citizen, holding an Israeli passport, and that is what should be reported, anything else can go further down if necessary. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• Israeli The WP:ETHNICITY is quite clear "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen" and many WP:RS describe hew as such anyhow for example BBC NYTIMES.Yes most of the sources do mention that her family identify as Palestinian but not in the title and we should do it in Background section as the WP:ETHNICITY requires "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead" --Shrike (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• First choice, Palestinian citizen of Israel, second Palestinian-Israeli. Since her family's wishes on the matter have been made clear, that she was not simply an Israeli and she was emphatically a Palestinian, reliable sources have reflected that. Among them, SBS, 9 News, Buzzfeed and the Guardian CNN News.com.au. Nothing about her citizenship has anything to do with the activities that made the person notable, making that argument wholly off-base. Now this may be impolite to say, but the number of users with a history of extremely Zionist and anti-Palestinian editing who insist on denying this woman her own damn identity is incredibly disheartening. nableezy - 18:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• Your comment violates Wikipedia policies. I suggest you retract. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Nah. If anybody would like evidence of the above Id be glad to provide it. Including when you called me a terrorist who endorses terror. nableezy - 19:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

And I got blocked for it (and that could be because at that time you had a Hezbollah userbox, don't try to hide that from your explanation), and I got blocked explicitly for calling you anti-Israel, and here you are calling me anti-Palestinian. That is a violation, and ABF, which is not in accordance of Wiki policies. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

No, what I am saying is that you, and for that matter Shrike, E.M.Gregory and Icewhiz, all have a history of editing on one end of a POV spectrum. Extremely pro-Zionist and anti-Palestinian. There are numerous examples of such editing. And it concerns me that you all have decided that this Palestinian exchange student who was raped and murdered must not be called a Palestinian. Why? Why do any of you give half a shit? I still dont get it, why do users who have never shown any interest in anything about the Palestinians besides their being "terrorists", why do you all insist that this one cannot be a Palestinian? Legit, I have no understanding of this. I cant fathom spending my time arguing over whether or not a Jewish Israeli exchange student who was killed in Brazil should be called Jewish or Israeli or anything else. I dont understand why this is an article any of you are even editing. Now of course I cant say you shouldnt be, but why do a collection of users who primarily edit about Israel even care what this one person is called? nableezy - 19:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• Israeli. Per WP:ETHNICITY, balance of coverage in WP:RSes, and grave BLP concerns. Her ethnic background is also unrelated to the circumstances of her murder (in Australia). A large number of RSes do not use Palestinian, including: Washington Post, YNET, BBC, news.com.au, JPost, CNN, Telegraph, USA Today, ABC.au, Times of Israel, Fox, Sky, New York Times. An op-ed, by Jennine Khalik in The Guardian (who states in the same op-ed she and her family are Palestinian) complaining on the media coverage (and claiming Palestinian is appropriate) actually makes the opposite case for us: "It was also a reminder of how news reports can erase Palestinians so easily, with multiple Australian media outlets describing 21-year-old Maasarwe as Israeli or Arab-Israeli,... Several Australian media outlets showed that by using Israel’s official terminologies ... "[2] - so Khalik wrote an op-ed to complain how most outlets covered this - without Palestinian. To this we have WP:BLP concerns - Maasarwe is covered by WP:BDP and we don't known how all of her family relates (we do know of some). In most of the world, being Palestinian, Israeli, or any other ethnicity is of little concern - beyond a regular bio detail. In Israel - a state that per the Palestinian leadership: Israel has chosen to make it a year of a new war of genocide perpetrated against the Palestinian people (Mahmoud Abbas, September 2014, TOIAJ) - identification as Palestinian (a choice that some, but far from all, Israeli-Arabs make) - is a rather serious political statement. We should be exceedingly careful with this label. Icewhiz (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• Palestinian citizen of Israel, since this is a neutral and true description. Simply describing her as Israeli, with a link to Israelis, is a distortion of the complex reality of the situation, and risks misleading casual readers. No-one is suggesting that her Israeli citizenship not be mentioned; similarly, her Palestinian ethnicity deserves recognition in the lead. RolandR (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Um, Icewhiz, what exactly are the grave BLP concerns? Calling a Palestinian a Palestinian when they want to be called a Palestinian is a BLP violation? The NYTimes cite you use says the following: At the vigil, many people wore black at the organizers’ request, and they remained largely silent to respect the wishes of Ms. Maasarwe’s family. They are from Baqa al-Gharbiyye, a predominantly Arab city in the north of Israel, and identify as Palestinian. As far as CNN, and thanks for having me look, they also call her Palestinian. So too does News.com.au. nableezy - 19:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)