Talk:Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell

Protection applied

This article is now under extended confirmed protection. Editors who are not extended confirmed can follow the procedures at WP:EDITREQ to suggest edits to this article. Chetsford (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Atlanta self-immolation

The Atlanta event should be mentioned as well. Does anyone know the name of that person? Onceinawhile (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be an article on the Atlanta self-immolation. AlexandraAVX (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I found one from CNN

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/01/us/israeli-consulate-atlanta-fire-protest/index.html Κυπρομέδουσα (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Another, from the NY Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/30/world/middleeast/protester-fire-israeli-consulate-atlanta.html

I guess the Aaron Bushnell immolation is more known since it was livestreamed and therefore there is video of it. 185.210.18.16 (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason for an article to be written on the Washington event, but not on the Atlanta one? C.eddy.garcia (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Adding a picture of the person

I think his picture should be added to the page, so people could at least know how he looks like: https://theibtaurisblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/aaron-bushnell-self.jpg LUIGIoo100 (talk) 09:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

LUIGIoo100, I'd wait for the USAF to publish an image of him. That could be used to show what he looks like. — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 15:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The picture that was added does not look like a USAF photo....wrong uniform. It looks green screened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeb4789 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Misspelling

If I will be allowed editing privileges, I will make sure things like "first time a US active service etc.etc. immolated themself (sic)" are not written. The correct word was 'themselves.' Luxporphyra (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Luxporphyra, "themself" is correct, see Singular they § Inflected forms and derivative pronouns. And you're always free to file a edit request. Thanks, Queen of Hearts talk
she/they
stalk 16:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I must cordially disagree. While it may seem like 'themself' would be correct, because 'self' is singular, 'themselves' can mean either singular or plural, and is the most widely-used and acceptable English word in that case. Grammarians have acceptably taught that 'themself' is always wrong. It does not roll off the tongue well, and it is not the correct usage. The usage of the language determines the word, not some arbitrary definition nobody goes by. I have never in my life once seen 'themself' preferred over 'themselves.' Luxporphyra (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

As you said, the usage determines what is correct. As you can see usage of "themself" has never been higher in living memory. "themself" is increasingly common and your empirical observation that it is not does not determine what is correct. Hacksid1 (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The sole fact of this is evidence of contrivance! Luxporphyra (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

According to Al Jazeera, this anonymous protestor was a female,[1] so hopefully we can put this debate to rest. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 08:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

An additional misspelling towards the end of the article, where Israel is misspelled

Request for Assistance: Comparison with Mehrdad Imen

Hello, fellow editors. I am reaching out for assistance with the draft article on the self-immolation of Mehrdad Imen, which can be found here: Draft:Self-immolation of Mehrdad Imen. My experience in wikipediting is somewhat limited, and I believe this article could greatly benefit from the expertise and insights of more seasoned editors. Once published, this draft could serve as a valuable reference or comparative case in the article on Airman Bushnell. Your support and contributions would be immensely appreciated in bringing this significant historical event to light on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:3400:3963:D517:5ADC:C18D:58D9 (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Adds important historical context. Maybe even a mention to the Vietnamese and the philosophy behind self-immolation within a Buddhist framework. 2600:1012:B183:12A3:24A0:98CF:C2C8:CD81 (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Vietnamese monk - Thich Quang Duc

2600:1012:B183:12A3:24A0:98CF:C2C8:CD81 (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2024

The source listed for the incident in December, the first self-immolition of a protestor in Atlanta (1) is inadequate. The source is about Aaron's act and only mentions the earlier incident in passing. There are a number of articles that reported on the December incident concurrently.

May I suggest adding one of the following AP News: https://apnews.com/article/israeli-consulate-self-immolation-atlanta-protester-8f17dd72592f86797a45cda9b60605a5 Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/protester-self-immolates-outside-israeli-consulate-atlanta-2023-12-01/ NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/30/world/middleeast/protester-fire-israeli-consulate-atlanta.html Jdftba (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... Queen of Hearts talk
she/they
stalk 18:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

But this is the article on Bushnell's act, so the source should be about that. That the source relates it to the Atlanta act as well is why we do. I dont think we should be using sources not related to this article per WP:SYNTH. nableezy - 18:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I forgot to do this either way. I'll let more ppl opine. Queen of Hearts talk
she/they
stalk 18:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

He was not protesting the "Israel-Hamas war"

The current article reads: "himself as an act of protest against the Israel–Hamas war." Aaron Bushnell's final words, the words that he screamed as he was literally burning to death, were "Free Palestine." This is disrespectful to his memory to say he protested the "Israel-Hamas war." Putting aside that he himself called it a genocide, not a war or conflict, the phrasing of this article obfuscates what he opposes about the situation of current events. From this article, one would ask was he protesting Israel? Hamas? The general saddening reality of war?

Please clarify what he was protesting by specifying what he was protesting. Replace "the Israel-Hamas war" with "the Israeli military occupation of Palestine" or "Palestinian subjugation under Israel." 173.66.191.93 (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This was changed to protesting US support for Israel in the war, which I think is fair. nableezy - 18:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Doesn’t it make more sense to say he was protesting in support of Palestine, or against the subjugation of Palestinians by Israel, or something similar that doesn’t center the United States? He only tangentially mentions the United States when he says he won’t be complicit as a member of the military (from what I see). Most sources just say what he literally did (self-immolate near the embassy), but The Daily Beast calls it "a protest against the “genocide” in Gaza." (punctuation theirs). Zanahary (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Id be fine with that too. nableezy - 20:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Per the description from the Daily Beast, I changed it to to protest what he called the "genocide" being committed by Israel in the Israel-Hamas war nableezy - 20:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Thumbs up Zanahary (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Please do not use the sentence "…what he called the genocide…", it puts an inference on the words that lack objectivity. The page has been updated by another user to a simple statement of his actual words, which is how it should read to maintain a non-biased and objective phrasing of the page in question. 2A0E:1D47:9087:3C00:5D4C:449D:70B0:1EB1 (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I didnt write with an inference it wasnt true, but Im happy with the rephrasing as well. nableezy - 01:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Can someone please update this sentence under the "Event" section as well?

"On February 25, 2024, at approximately 12:58 p.m. local time, Bushnell approached the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C., intending to immolate himself as an act of protest against the Israel–Hamas war." 173.66.191.93 (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Because there is not consensus (across reliable sources, but more importantly not on Wikipedia) that the current situation in Gaza and/or West Bank should be called a genocide, we can’t just have it there in wikivoice. The Daily Beast uses the "what he called…" verbiage. Zanahary (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Death confirmed by public incident report from MPD

Aaron Bushnell's death has been confirmed by a Public Incident Report obtained by Newsweek. Propose to replace "The hospital has not given an update on his condition; however, an independent journalist reported that he had died." be changed to "The hospital has not given an update on his condition; however, a public incident report from the Metropolitan Police Deptartment obtained by Newsweek indicates that Bushnell died in the evening of February 25th, 2024". [EDIT: changed typo from "Bushwell" to "Bushnell"] Sophietlav (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I modified this citing the Washington Post for the Metro police's confirmation. nableezy - 18:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't see that article. Want to also flag the Embassy of Israel, Washington, D.C. page- happy to copy your edit + the WaPo source over (and credit you) if you would like. Sophietlav (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

anytime you copy from one article to another all you need to do is include in the edit summary that the material includes content from blah page, see that article's history for attribution. See WP:CWW. nableezy - 19:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

DYK

Hey HadesTTW, the page seems to be eligible for a WP:DYK if you're willing. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I created Template:Did you know nominations/Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 21:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome and good wishes for the DYK. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 13:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that shortly after Aaron Bushnell collapsed to the ground, having self-immolated to protest the Israel–Hamas war, a police officer pointed a gun at him and shouted "get on the ground"? Source: https://www.newsweek.com/who-aaron-bushnell-us-airman-fire-israeli-embassy-washington-dc-palestine-1873212
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: Thank you to @Mhhossein for the idea of a DYK. I'm not sure if this blurb is too long, but I think the hook of a police officer pointing a gun and yelling at a man on fire to get on the ground is interesting enough.

Created by HadesTTW (talk), Sameboat (talk), Leaky.Solar (talk) and Cdjp1 (talk). Nominated by HadesTTW (talk) at 21:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Comment: This looks good to me in terms of sourcing. Length and age are good, no copyvio. The fact is indeed very interesting, I was shocked when I read it. Two notes: 1. I’m not sure if this article meets stability requirements yet (hopefully it will soon), and 2. how about changing it so it says he self-immolated, and then you can link the article for self-immolation? Or just leaving the wording and linking self-immolation. Maybe some readers won’t know the term. Zanahary (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Hey @Zanahary:, it has been linked but it appears @HadesTTW: forgot to notify. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  I’ll leave it to another editor to confirm stability. I don’t know the standard. Zanahary (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• ALT1 for consideration: ... that U.S. Air Force serviceman Aaron Bushnell said that his action of setting himself on fire was less extreme than "what people have been experiencing in Palestine at the hands of their colonizers"? Source: Time and Politico starship.paint (RUN) 00:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think alt0 is way more interesting. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry to be "that guy" but I'm rather uncomfortable with ALT0. I don't think a suicide is a proper topic for a "trivia" type DYK hook. I'm not suggesting editors are doing anything wrong here, but it strikes me as (unintentionally) callous. Why call out the response like this? A self-immolation is obviously a shocking thing. Do you really want to judge a person's response in the moment? Pointing a gun and saying get on the ground is what law enforcement is trained to do.

It also distracts from the man's death, as well as the point of the act, which was a political and humanitarian statement. Why trivialize it by pointing out something stupid that someone did in the chaos of such a shocking moment?

It wasn't a "police officer" by the way, even according to the Newsweek source, and Newsweek is yellow at RSP because it's a tabloid. It was a secret service officer (secret service are not police). If you look at serious journalism, you'll notice they aren't making a big deal about this aspect of this incident.

Bottom line, this topic is not really a topic about which I think we should be looking for "interesting hooks." "Did you know that... a U.S. Air Force serviceman set himself on fire in front of the Israeli embassy to protest the Gaza War?" is interesting enough, as is ALT1 below, without getting into armchair criticism of responders' responses. Levivich (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Newsweek is said by RSP to judge on a case-by-case basis. In this case, they're simply transcribing the primary source, which you can also find in other places such as YouTube, (this one's published by the Middle East Eye, which, although biased, does not seem to be considered by RSN to be unreliable to the point where they'd fake a video's audio), so I don't think RS concerns apply here. If there are concerns about "a police officer", just replace it with "a law enforcement officer".

I also don't see how adding the additional interest would distract from and trivialize the rationale of the act, which occupies almost 2/3 of the hook.

Anyways, to evaluate stability. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Levivich's proposal for "Did you know that... a U.S. Air Force serviceman set himself on fire in front of the Israeli embassy to protest the Gaza War?" is an effective DYK hook (this is my first DYK post so bear with me). It's simpler and more factually accurate. Bushnell was still one his feet when the officer started yelling. RS say only that he is pointing his gun at Bushnell after he collapses. Why would he yell "Get on the ground" to someone who had collapsed? When press has discussed this aspect, the officer's actions have generally received a negative reaction. There is no strong confirmation what his official role was. I don't know if that matters for the the hook. Ben Azura (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• ALT1 seems best so far to me, in accurately reflecting the protest. His statements went beyond the war, and the entry reflects that, so it shouldn’t be reframed for DYK purposes. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• @Levivich I understand your concerns that using a strange factoid in an extremely serious event might be disrespectful. However I disagree with the notion that the officer involved shouldn't be judged and that his training explains his actions- even if you wave it away as a rational response to the situation, it still is an absurd thing to read about on paper and highlights the militarism of the American police. I'm fine with ALT1 but I do acknowledge it's a bit less interesting/catchy than the shocking fact of ALT0, and I won't be opposed to either although I prefer my original blurb. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 00:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  If we use ALT1, at least change the link from "his action of setting himself on fire" to "his action of setting himself on fire". Levivich's proposed hook allows the link a U.S. Air Force serviceman set himself on fire and that is catchy enough. Ben Azura (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree. That makes the link feel like it'd go to the generic article about self-immolation. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  I agree it's an absurd thing to read about and it highlights the militarism of US police, but I think that is a negative because it takes the focus away from the topic of the article (the self-immolation, the Gaza war) and puts it on something else (stupid thing an embassy guard does, absurd militarism of US law enforcement). Often, a hook that focuses on some strange factoid can be effective, but in the case of an article about a suicide, I just don't love the idea of taking the focus off the suicide (and the international political issue) and putting it onto some other domestic political issue. It feels like Wikipedia would be using his suicide as a vehicle to score points against US law enforcement. Of course I'm not suggesting that's your or anybody's intent, just that I fear that'll be the unintended effect when it's read amongst other DYK hooks. Levivich (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Largely in agreement with Levivich, the detail shouldnt be the hook over the main subject of the article. nableezy - 16:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
• In what world is someone literally killing themselves to protest a war less interesting than the idiocy of an American policeman? I've struck ALT0. Article seems to have calmed down significantly in the last week, so I could approve ALT1, but I'd like to see some strong rationales as to what WP:NEWSWEEK's doing in a article about a recently deceased individual. (WP:UPSD also whinges about Middle East Eye, but I see nothing about it at WP:RSP.)--Launchballer 05:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Most claims cited to Newsweek are re-reporting from other sources, half of which describe the video I linked above. Two other cites of it re-report social media and Bernie reactions. The final one fact checks the officers' occupation, which can be removed if needed. I think it's fine. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I guess because none of those are particularly contentious, I think this is okay. Good to go.--Launchballer 00:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

gasoline

Twice the article claims that the accelerant used was gasoline, but the three sources provided do not make that claim. Everything I've read about this only states that Bushnell used "accelerant". I do not doubt gasoline was used, but when searching for his name and the word gasoline returns stories that mention the self-immolation in front of the Israeli embassy in Atlanta. Which source states that gasoline was used? Daddyelectrolux (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The claim's from this BBC article. — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 00:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The word "gasoline" does not appear in that article either. I have tried to find a source for this claim and all i can find is the claim he used "accelerant". Daddyelectrolux (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

"Police said the demonstrator used petrol, and a Palestinian flag was found at the scene on that occasion." — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 00:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

That was in Atlanta. Ben Azura (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Please replace the sentence He poured gasoline over himself [...] with He poured an accelerant over himself [...] Daddyelectrolux (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

 Already done Modified already. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Volunteering

Serve The People Akron, a mutual aid organization in Ohio, just posted a statement about Bushnell being a member of their organization, and included an image of him volunteering at a food distribution.[2] They state in the comments that Bushnell had moved from Texas to Ohio in 2023. Would suggest adding in the background section.

Awhalen0601 (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request for "See Also" section - for clarity

In the "See Also" section, the last bullet point mentions Malachi Ritscher:

• Malachi Ritscher protested the Iraq War

I suggest changing it to a more complete sentence that matches with the other 3 bullet points:

• Malachi Ritscher, an American musician that self-immolated in 2006 to protest the Iraq War.

Nocreditnoproblem (talk) 03:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this change, would make it more consistent with the section. Flubberpuff (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Unclear / misleading wording as regards to mental state

Paragraph 2 of the Aftermath section has wording that is unclear and potentially misleading as to the mental state of Bushnell in preparation for his act. The cited source describes reports of mental distress at the Israel Embassy in the hours leading up to the act, but the wording in this article is unclear as to the timeframe of this distress, potentially misleading the reader to believe the mental distress was documented well before his arrival at the embassy. TheJackMcConnell (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Picture of Self-Immolation?

I wanted to ask how necessary it is to include the photo of Bushnell on fire. I think it is quite graphic/disturbing and might be inappropriate. But I also understand if others disagree. Thoughts? Flubberpuff (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Considering Thích Quảng Đức's article contains multiple images of his self-immolation, I feel having this image here is appropriate. The act of self-immolation is distressing in the first place. CaptFredricks (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a wp:Otherstuff argument. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

That is called a precedent. RodRabelo7 (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

in review of WP:NOTCENSORED MOS:OMIMG and WP:IMGCONTENT i would lean towards it being included. Pdubs.94 (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:GRATUITOUS I think another photo of Bushnell should work just as well. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

If the article were titled "Aaron Bushnell" I would agree, but since the article is specifically about his self-immolation, I believe the current image is appropriate. Since the article is about his self-immolation, that is what the image should depict. Luke10.27 (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

After looking at WP:NOTCENSORED MOS:OMIMG and WP:IMGCONTENT, I am also inclined to leave the photo in. I agree with another editor that because the article is specifically about the self-immolation and not the individual, that the image does not fall under WP:GRATUITOUS. YordleSquire (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2024 (3)

In the Reactions section, Patrick S. Ryder's quote is taken out of context and is badly mis-characterized.

Change this: Pentagon Press Secretary Patrick S. Ryder responded to Bushnell's death by stating, "Our support for Israel's inherent right to defend itself is ironclad".[23]

To This: Pentagon Press Secretary Patrick S. Ryder responded to Bushnell's death by stating, "...while our support for Israel's inherent right to defend itself is ironclad, we've also continued to actively communicate our expectations that Israel take civilian safety and humanitarian assistance into account into their operations.".[23]

Also your source is expired, but here is another source with the full commentary: https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3687510/pentagon-press-secretary-air-force-maj-gen-pat-ryder-holds-a-press-briefing/ Flom54321 (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I have partly fulfilled this request. I have included the fuller quote. However I have not replaced the source. While I'm fine with including the primary source as an additional one, it doesn't seem that important so I didn't bother. What isn't acceptable is to use it as the only source. If no secondary source has felt it worth mentioning whatever quote we want to include, then it's undue weight to include it from a primary source. Fortunately the Al Jazeera source still works for me and it does include the fuller quote so it didn't matter. It would be ideal to replace the "live update" source with a better one though although again this would need to be a reliable secondary source and not a primary one. Nil Einne (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I understand you cannot respond to my comment, but if you do find a better secondary source, to replace the Al Jazeera live one, feel free to make a new request, or reactive this edit request which the source. Likewise, since I'm not opposed to adding the primary source, if you really want it to be included, please reactive this request or make a new one, and include a properly formatted reference and I'll add it as an additional source. Although please ping me if you want me to evaluate any request, as I might not be check out this talk page in the future. Nil Einne (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2024 (4)

the following passage of text is incorrect: "Outside the gates of the embassy, Bushnell placed his camera down and positioned himself in front of the gates. He poured gasoline over himself and exclaimed "Free Palestine!""

he does not state free palestine while pouring fuel on himself. he only says this once he's already on fire.

can this be corrected please? Pdubs.94 (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the claim as both the BBC ref and the Time ref agree with you he only said it after setting himself on fire. Incidentally while doing this I found out the BBC ref seems fairly useless for this section, not actually verifying anything we mention so removed it. The Time ref supports some of it, however it doesn't mention him setting down his camera etc AFAICT, so we need a reliable secondary source for that. I'd also not the Time ref doesn't really support security officer, it says unidentified law enforcement or security officers. I don't know if there are other refs which says these are security officers so I've also left that part but another thing which needs a better ref. And yeah, I understand that you personally cannot respond to these comments except to make a new edit request as I assume you're not EC, I'm leaving this comment for the benefit of other editors who cannot. Nil Einne (talk) 12:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2024 (4)

In this quote: "...as an act of protest against the Israel–Hamas war", the description of the intention of his protest is not of his own words, which makes it both inaccurate and misleading. Wikipedia should not be inserting sectarian politics into his intentions.

Change this: "...intending to immolate himself as an act of protest against the Israel–Hamas war."

to This: "...intending to immolate himself as an act of protest against what he described as a "genocide of the Palestinian people." Flom54321 (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not entirely convinced about the mischaracterization. The fact that Ryder put so much focus on Israel's interests before finally (halfheartedly) addressing Bushnell's assertion (journalist's question) that the American weapons are killing many innocent lives perfectly reflects the priority the US is placing. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 11:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: I've removed that phrase entirely, since his intention is already mentioned the paragraph above, and the sentence below. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Infobox image

Why has the infobox image been changed to a picture of the embassy gate? The article is about the immolation, so it makes most sense for the immolation image to be in the infobox. GranCavallo (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. The immolation photo should be the lede. The primary photo for the Self-immolation article is of Thích Quảng Đức, so I don't think this is an instance of MOS:SHOCKVALUE. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia isn't censored, and although the picture is shocking and traumatic, it is the best representation of the subject. A similar conclusion was reached for the image for the murder of George Floyd. TheXuitts (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Infobox deaths

The current value "1 (Bushnell)" is somewhat obtuse - should it just read Bushnell or Aaron Bushnell, like the infobox for Wynn Bruce? 202.89.148.53 (talk) 05:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2024 (5)

Under the Events heading, where it says "But compared to what people have been experiencing in Palestine at their hands of their colonizers—it's not extreme at all.", "at their hands" should be "at the hands. A small change. You can reference the New York Times article where they quote him there too, it should be reference 2.

Also the officer in the all black uniform who pointed the gun at Bushnell is a Secret Service agent. They are stationed at a lot of diplomatic missions in D.C. Editing the article to reflect that would provide more detailed, accurate information. You can corroborate that with this page I believe: https://www.secretservice.gov/protection/places Smahdeey (talk) 11:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I have fixed "at the hands", but I would like a reliable source to identify the one who pointed the gun at Bushnell. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 11:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

See also

I have no problem with List of political self-immolations, but I wonder what is the point of also listing the four (all US) named people here too? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

No point, removed as it suggests a POV and each of these acts is unique and driven by different factors. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Veracity of Bushnell's uniform photo

The current photo does not look right to me. It seems AI-generated. The USAF does not have a tan uniform that I'm aware of. The individual awards seem to blur and mix together and do resemble anything that I'm familiar with. The unit award (or qualification?) looks like three ribbons with a device tacked together? The collar devices seem wrong too, pretty sure at least one of them should say "US".

Disclaimer: I was Army, not Air Force. But this doesn't smell right. Tiuxo (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

You might be correct. The uniform does look like being photoshopped artificially from Bushnell's photo in a more casual shirt. (Source photo at 0:56 of the video by France24) -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 13:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Image will surely be soon deleted, and there is a topic about its uploader here, on Commons. RodRabelo7 (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Responding law enforcement not portrayed accurately.

Per the Washington Post - a cited resource - "Responding officers put out the fire before D.C. firefighters arrived." In fairness, this should be inserted along with "...a police officer pointed a gun at him" in the first paragraph. 5201blue (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2024

He was not protesting the Israel-Hamas war. He was protesting Israel's genocide of Palestinians, USA complicity, and "Ruling Class" control and depravity. 204.101.10.84 (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Please see the FAQ above. — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 15:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Undue weight?

Do we really need to quote the full statement made by the Pentagon Press Secretary? RodRabelo7 (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I do not think we do, I am sure a reliable source has summarized his comments by now. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposal with three options: to shorten Pentagon block quote to the following:

Option A keep as is.

Option B keep quote but shorten it to the following:

Pentagon Press Secretary Patrick S. Ryder remarked in a statement that,

"We have been focusing on the four key areas of the Secretary set out from the onset that's protecting US forces and citizens in the region... We've also continued to actively communicate our expectations that Israel take civilian safety and humanitarian assistance into account into their operations. You see that incorporated into every conversation the Secretary has with his counterpart in Israel as well as other US officials and we expect them to continue to adhere to the law of armed conflict and international humanitarian law and we'll continue to do that."

Option C remove statement by DoD.

LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I am using the full quote in order to correctly characterize the Pentagon's priority for Israel's interests than Gaza civilian's lives. If Ryder opened the response with "adhere to the law of armed conflict(...)" I would have preferred a shorter version. But his response barely addressed the question asked by the female journalist in the press conference nor Bushnell's motives for self-immolation. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Sameboat, I am in the same boat - I do not think his answer really touches upon the question at all and is really just a rehash of the standard US line. Do you think it merits inclusion in the article? It's fine to differ on opinion in this regard. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I mean it. If this is the closest response from the Biden administration to address Bushnell's refusal to be complicit in genocide, we present it with minimal alteration. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Including a statement from the DoD or US government is a standard practice. It would be better if the statement was more directly about Bushnell instead of reiterating support and qualifications in a general sense. Ben Azura (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm opposed to including the full statement especially based on current sourcing The Al Jazeera source does not include the full statement, and is a live news thing so really should be replaced as I remarked above. Forbes is just a video and the nature of video news reports means you may sometimes include the full part of something talking. And then we have the primary source which doesn't go anyway to establishing any WP:WEIGHT for the entire transcript. IMO if we want to include this, we at least require a reliable written secondary source which includes the full statement and I mean as part of a news report or something rather than just a transcript on some portion of their site. Nil Einne (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Ironclad statement source?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This has been discussed several times and the source is right in the Reaction section of the article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Was attempting to find a source that states the last sentence on the first paragraph "In reaction to the incident, the Pentagon responded in a press conference that "our support for Israel's inherent right to defend itself is ironclad".". I am unable to find a source the verify the "in reaction to this incident" portion of the sentence. The source I found with this states that it's referring to comments the president made. Were the presidents or the secretaries comments in response to the self-immolation? I'm unsure if there's a good source for this statement at this moment as I see none listed for it and had to look up for myself.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3687510/ NoneStar (talk) 16:30, 27 February 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.

Sources for Twitch username

I noticed that the existing source given for Aaron using the Twitch username "LillyAnarKitty", from Mediaite, makes no mention of a Twitch username in the text as far as I can tell, either in the current or archived version. This was concerning me since it has led to some amount of online speculation around Aaron's gender identity, this being a very stereotypical transfeminine leftist online username, so I thought it was important to ensure it was true.

While looking in to this, I found two sources that mention it; one from CrimethInc, the anarchist group that claims to have received a sort of manifesto/suicide note, and one from the Western Journal, a right wing outlet which has received criticism for its accuracy in the past. I am not sure whether the former constitutes a primary source, hence my adding of the latter. Additionally, should we keep the Mediaite reference, which as far as I can tell doesn't contain any otherwise uncited claims?

Thanks for any feedback/advice people may have on these - also, you are encouraged to edit my citations, I am not at all confident I did them correctly, since I'm not very experienced with making citations. Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 16:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2024 (2)

Change the last sentence of the introduction to quote indirectly rather than directly, from "our support" to "[their] support".

Change to: In reaction to the incident, the Pentagon responded in a press conference that "[their] support for Israel's inherent right to defend itself is ironclad". Fast Umbrella (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done , but I just moved it out of the quote. No need to use square brackets when avoidable. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 04:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Twitch profile picture

The profile picture for LillyAnarKitty, the Twitch account from which Aaron Bushnell streamed their self-immolation, was an Anarchy is Order symbol (https://www.dailydot.com/debug/aaron-bushnell-facebook-post). This should be added as further context next to the mention of the Palestine banner. AethyrX (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the Daily Dot would be a considerably reliable source for this topic (see WP:DAILYDOT), and upon looking up possible articles for this topic I couldn't find anything what would be considered reliable enough for encyclopedic purposes. If there's a more reliable source that mentions the profile picture, it can probably be added. B3251 (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned the DailyDot as a supplementary source, the CrimeThinc article used for the Palestine banner already mentions the profile picture. AethyrX (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Undue tag on International Reactions section

@Ben Azura mind explaining your reasoning in adding the undue tag? Unless there are other international groups that have since reacted and are being ignored, I think briefly including the statements of Palestinian belligerents is not really undue. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Is it being reported by mainstream news sources? I wasn't able to find any. There is ongoing debate all over the encyclopedia about how statements made by Hamas and similar groups should be added to articles. I would not include statements from these groups in any article unless reported by at least one mainstream source. Ben Azura (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Good points - I found this MSNBC source where they mention that Hamas described him as "the heroic pilot" - so the Hamas statement has been at least refenced by one reliable source. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why they shouldn't be, considering how Hamas and the PFLP are two of the groups fighting in the current war. Undue would be some random commentators living in Brazil or Australia, not belligerents in the very center of the conflict. If you feel like it only covers one side of the conflict then perhaps Israeli reactions can be added. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 20:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It's an international response, and perhaps the most prevalent one. It deserves mention. Dmarquard (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Apparent mockery by the Israeli security service

I was wondering why the viral video "that seemed to show Israeli security service Mossad mocking the airman" [3] is not covered here. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

From the article: "The Israeli secret service agency, Mossad, did not publish a social media post celebrating the U.S. airman Aaron Bushnell setting himself on fire outside the U.S. embassy. The post came from a bogus Mossad account which has published misleading and bogus content throughout the conflict between Israel and Hamas." LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

"The posts quoted on social media were not from Mossad." From the article. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 20:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

ironclad quote source

"our support for Israel's inherent right to defend itself is ironclad" can we get a source for that? 2604:2D80:B509:2A00:6D04:9D8D:506A:1D4A (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a portion of what was quoted by Pentagon Press Secratary Patrick S. Ryder in response to the incident. You can find the rest of what he said here. B3251 (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Citation added. DoctorMatt (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

As long as it's cited later in the article (which it is), there's no need to cite it in the lead. B3251 (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Cornell West?

I am not experienced enough as an editor to directly contribute to the page, but I found Cornell West expressing approval of the protest over Twitter, which might contribute to the Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell#Within the United States section of the page.

Ecco2kstan (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

added. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I thought this was possibly undue but found

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/cornel-west-praises-aaron-bushnell/ar-BB1iZ4YR

Will add the source if there isn't a secondary source already for it YordleSquire (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

DOD response

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/913841/pentagon-press-secretary-holds-briefing Video here is the quote that’s currently in the article I believe (otherwise it’s from another day) I’m on mobile otherwise I’d migrate it. Victor Grigas (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no issue or dispute about what was said by DoD the issue is the weight of the inclusion. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I’m not commenting about that, I’m just pointing to the media in case anyone wants to include it. Victor Grigas (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Mention of Dead Man's Link video

Possibly redundant, but may be worth noting somewhere (1st paragraph of Event, maybe?) that Bushnell sent a dead man's contingency linking to an archive of the livestream to at least two anarchist outlets. If nothing else, these could probably be used as extra sources? Arisenby (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

one is going to have a hard time getting those to be considered generally reliable. maybe The Intercept will do a deep dive at some point. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2024

You have completely misquoted Patrick S. Ryder yet again. Defense.gov has released an official transcript here:

https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3687510/pentagon-press-secretary-air-force-maj-gen-pat-ryder-holds-a-press-briefing/

Change this: "From the Department of Defense's standpoint, since Hamas's brutal attacks on October 7, we have been focusing on the four key areas of the Secretary set out from the onset that's protecting US forces and citizens in the region.

   Supporting Israel's inherent right to defend itself from terrorist attacks, working closely with Israel to support and secure the release of hostages from Hamas and ensuring the crisis the conflict between Hamas and Israel doesn't escalate into a broader regional and so those objectives are what continue to inform our approach to the situation in the Middle East and as we've talked about before while our support for Israel's inherent right to defend itself as ironclad.

   We've also continued to actively communicate our expectations that Israel take civilian safety and humanitarian assistance into account into their operations. You see that incorporated into every conversation the Secretary has with his counterpart in Israel as well as other US officials and we expect them to continue to adhere to the law of armed conflict and international humanitarian law and we'll continue to do that."

To this: "...from a Department of Defense standpoint, since Hamas's brutal attacks on October 7th, we've been focused on the four key areas that the Secretary set out from the onset. That's protecting U.S. forces and citizens in the region, supporting Israel's inherent right to defend itself from terrorist attacks, working closely with Israel to support and secure the release of hostages from Hamas, and ensuring that the crisis - the conflict between Hamas and Israel doesn't escalate into a broader regional conflict.

And so those objectives are what continue to inform our approach to the situation in the Middle East, and as we've talked about before, while our support for Israel's inherent right to defend itself is ironclad, we've also continued to actively communicate our expectations that Israel take civilian safety and humanitarian assistance into account into their operations. You see that incorporated into every conversation the Secretary has with his counterpart in Israel, as well as other U.S. officials. And we expect them to continue to adhere to the law of armed conflict and international humanitarian law. We'll continue to do that."

This is from the official transcript from Defense.gov I linked above.

Even from the raw video footage it is clear how he phrased his sentences. Get it right. Stop misrepresenting the quote. We know you are doing it purposefully. 172.79.73.124 (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2024 (2)

You finally fixed the mis-quote from Patrick S. Ryder in the Reactions section, but now you have added this same deliberate misquote into the introduction.

Change this: In reaction to the incident, the Pentagon responded in a press conference that "our support for Israel's inherent right to defend itself is ironclad".[8]

To this: In response to incident, the Pentagon responded in a press conference that "...while our support for Israel's inherent right to defend itself is ironclad, we've also continued to actively communicate our expectations that Israel take civilian safety and humanitarian assistance into account into their operations."

Someone at Wikipedia needs to stop this nonsense misrepresentation. 172.79.73.124 (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello?

here is the source, again:

https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3687510/pentagon-press-secretary-air-force-maj-gen-pat-ryder-holds-a-press-briefing/

Let's get this quote fixed. Flom54321 (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. The lead section is supposed to summarize the main points of the article in due weight, not providing every single detail. The fact that Ryder stated twice, not once, in the same response about "Israel's inherent right to defend itself" perfectly sums up the priority of the US. Besides, This is a Wikipedia discussion page, not Reddit or any social media/forum, so please refrain from accusing editors of "deliberate misquote" which is a violation of assuming good faith. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

To blatantly take a quote out of context like this is inexcusable for Wikipedia. I am indeed in violation of "assuming good faith". Flom54321 (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

How is it a misquote? KlayCax (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

This is obviously a bold but false accusation. I can elaborate bit further. The "ironclad support for Israel's right to self defense" aligns with reality, it's a different matter when it comes to "Israel taking civilian safety and humanitarian assistance into account". Just very recently the UN humanitarian office complained about the immense difficulty in delivering aid to Gaza, due to threats from Israel.[4] I'm hesitant to comment on the US commitment to alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, but if their actions don't align with their words, Wikipedia has no obligation to provide a platform for their propaganda. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 04:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate what you are saying here completely - I guess I misunderstood your angle. The reason I want this quote fixed is because I feel it at least opens the door in US politics to apply pressure to Israel to adhere to humanitarian concerns and law. I completely agree that the US is not living up to any standard humanitarian concern at this moment - I am hoping that will change. In any event, it is still a gross mis-characterization of the original quote. Flom54321 (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a complete mis-characterization of Ryder's response about Bushnell. This is the full sentence:

"And so those objectives are what continue to inform our approach to the situation in the Middle East, and as we've talked about before, while our support for Israel's inherent right to defend itself is ironclad, we've also continued to actively communicate our expectations that Israel take civilian safety and humanitarian assistance into account into their operations."

Here Ryder is addressing the humanitarian concern which was brought up at the conference in regard to Bushnell's protest action. Flom54321 (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

This has just been removed by @Cjhard from the article lead and I agree with the removal. It provided little to no substance to the event, unless the Biden administration make any substantial policy changes in response to Bushnell's outcry. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 04:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, this satisfies my concern. Sorry we had a misunderstanding over our intentions. Flom54321 (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I've closed this edit request. Glad you two could come to an agreement. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Just a reminder to everyone that since this whole article can reasonably be said to be part of the Arab–Israeli conflict, there's really no need to engage in back and forths with editors who are not extended confirmed. They can make edit requests, and it's probably fine for them to follow up if there is a specific question needing answering or clarification required before you can fulfill the edit request. However if you disagree with their edit request and deny it or only partly fulfill it without needing any clarification from them, any discussion on whether there are any merits to what's being proposed should be restricted to editors who are extended confirm. If non extended-confirmed editors try to participate in back-and-forths, alert them of the Wikipedia:Contentious topics designation for the Arab–Israeli conflict and perhaps also emphasise that they need to be extended confirmed to make anything other than edit requests relating to the topic. If they continue, edit ask for them to be blocked at WP:A/R/E or simply revert them. Nil Einne (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

"following misleading polarizing statements"

Come on now, this is Wikipedia not twitter. Whoever added this quip should be permanently banned 75.118.14.101 (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be an editor who does not understand the WP:1RR for contentious topics. I have notified them on their talk page and will ping them here. @Alpoin117? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Yikes. That's pretty egregious. KlayCax (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Reverted and warned for vandalism. B3251 (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Putting that in a quote box is actually an expression of an opinion and the particular opinion is a detriment to Wikipedia, so I am trying to benefit Wikipedia by removing the quote box. Alpoin117 (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

You just violated the 1RR again. Please self-revert and maybe start a talk page discussion if you have an issue with the quote box. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Calling his statement "misleading polarizing" because you think it is and removing a passage containing what somebody close to Bushnell considered him to be as a person because you somehow must know him better is not "just removing a quote box". You cannot remove and edit what you please just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. B3251 (talk) 03:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Opinions are not Wikipedia policy. Salmoonlight (talk) 03:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

So can we realize this proposed permanent banning of Alpoin117? This is an account with higher rights as it has passed 500 edits - and still not only so disruptive, but insulting other editors for example here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2024_February_26&action=history IHaveBecauseOfLocks (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Alpoin117 is blocked from editing so this discussion is moot. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes I see it's blocked for now indefinitely. IHaveBecauseOfLocks (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Better image/screencap

I got a screencap I think would be more recognizable and in general look a lot better then the one on the page right now, who can I send it to to replace it? Thrwaway22224 (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

https://ibb.co/M8WFB3D here is the link to the image Thrwaway22224 (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2024 (3)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

A repeated request does not make your point stronger on Wikipedia. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Patrick S. Ryder's words are misquoted taken completely out of context here. It actually gives the opposite impression of the full sentence.

Change this: "our support for Israel's inherent right to defend itself is ironclad".

To this: "...while our support for Israel's inherent right to defend itself is ironclad, we've also continued to actively communicate our expectations that Israel take civilian safety and humanitarian assistance into account into their operations."

This is clear from the sourced video footage as well as from the official transcripts here:

https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3687510/pentagon-press-secretary-air-force-maj-gen-pat-ryder-holds-a-press-briefing/ Flom54321 (talk) 03:30, 28 February 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.

@Sameboat: you forgot to mark this as answered. Queen of Hearts talk
she/they
stalk 03:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

“He posted on Facebook the following misleading polarizing statements..”

Can we neutralize this sentence which is clearly using biased language? LaggyMcStab (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Removed "misleading polarizing." Will try to find source for the actual statement. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 04:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The "misleading polarizing" thing was added by Alpoin177 who has been very disruptive. There's already been a discussion about them just above. Salmoonlight (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@ARandomName123 I think that user keeps re-adding that language despite it being repeatedly removed. Zaviya (talk) 14:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The user has been blocked, should be fine now. nableezy - 14:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

"misleading polarizing statements"

"Before self immolating, he posted on Facebook the following misleading polarizing statements[.]"

These adjectives are neither objective nor encyclopedic in tone and should removed. 2607:F2C0:E74A:710:69C9:64F8:60A8:D7F (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 04:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for reactions

It seems plausible/likely that in the coming days we will get more reactions and statements about the events from activists, politicians, etc.

What is the policy and general guidance or consensus around which reactions to include for an event like this? YordleSquire (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Reactions - Within the United States

I wrote the following text but cannot edit the page. I think it's important this statement is included in some form under the "Reactions" section. This is at least an acknowledgement from the Biden administration of Bushnell's death:

On February 27, when asked if President Biden was aware of the death of Bushnell, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre confirmed, saying:

“The president is aware. It is obviously a horrible tragedy, and our thoughts are with the family of the service member. We can't even imagine this horrible, difficult time.”

She reiterated that the DOD and the Metropolitan Police are investigating the incident and expressed that they are “not going to get ahead of that”.

Source: (38:50) https://www.youtube.com/live/05YigqRK6Ro?si=itxTkOBwuMdhJRHp Xieua (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

We need a reliable source writing about this statement, preferably. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2024 (4)

Request to propose speedy deletion for this page for it’s likelihood to increase violence around the world Weisz21 (talk) 11:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Improbable, all criteria for notability indicate this article should stay. This also doesn't follow the guidelines for an edit request and will probably be rejected soon. I can give you guides for the future, though: WP:Notability (events) WP:Articles for deletion#Nominating article(s) for deletion Ecco2kstan (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Situations like this is why Wikipedia has a speedy deletion option without a specified reason where you can add your own reason Weisz21 (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: "This page is going to increase violence around the world" is a bit of a stretch, and not a valid deletion rationale. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 13:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

GI Dissent

In January 2024, the Intercept reported that since November of 2023, the US Air Force had deployed officers specializing in “targeting intelligence” specifically for airstrikes and long-range artillery weapons to Israel.

• Biden Admin Deployed Air Force Team to Israel to Assist with Targets, Document Suggests, The Intercept, 11 January 2024 (https://theintercept.com/2024/01/11/israel-air-force-targeting-intelligence/)

Did Aaron Bushnell received orders to deploy? --87.170.201.19 (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think he did. It has been stated by a friend, I believe, that he was aching to get out of his contract (which supposedly was to end in May,) but he did this is a sort of f-you to the Military and America, while gaining the support of Pro-Palestinian activists. TigersTacos (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Bushnell's recent activity on Reddit

It appears that on his Reddit page, Bushnell has recently expressed his support for Hamas's attack on Israel on Oct' 7th 2023, specifically talking about the massacre at the Nova music festival and justifying it. "Hey so I am not Palestinian an am in no position to endorse or condemn Hamas' actions. That being said, neither are most people, and there are a lot of very confidently ignorant opinions being thrown around. There are no Israeli "civilians" or tourists who have no part in the oppression of Palestine. That idea doesn't make any sense and betrays a lack of understanding of what the oppression of Palestine even is. Israel is a settler colonialist apartheid state. All of its residents or their immediate forebears have moved there specifically to settle on stolen land. Land whose people are being cornered and cleansed just a few miles away, or right next door in the case of the West Bank. There are no Israelis without the genocide of the Palestinian people. To bring this into stark relief, there is the example of the music festival which the liberal states and media have made such a point of clutching their pearls over. "A music festival! How could it get more innocent than a music festival!?" That music festival was happening just three miles from Gaza, within site of the border wall. Imagine a similar event happening in the early days of the colonization of North America. Can you or I really say that Indigenous people are wrong for retaliating against colonizers who are rubbing their domination in their face?"'' Source: [5]https://old.reddit.com/user/acebush1/comments/?count=700&after=t1_k6kzlf7 Yayapro (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I posted a similar topic. I think that we should add that with a Social Media subsection on the page, along with the ACAB and Commmunist "rantings." He seemed rather mentally ill, and a lot of his posts were not directed towards the conflict, rather anti white, anti American, and celebrating the deaths of other United States servicepeople. TigersTacos (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@TigersTacos, Yayapro: Unless noted by a reliable, secondary source, we can't include it in the article. Speculation about mental illness, anti-white/american must not be added if the only source is primary. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright. I guess I can look online for further information from official news. It may be unlikely to be mentioned, as it was a fairly recent finding, and such sentiments are being less rare. TigersTacos (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

looking for a verified birthdate 2C0F:FC89:802E:2427:60AE:5AC3:BE0E:6025 (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Self immolation image

I think the current infobox image should be replaced with another image that shows the embassy gate as it is disturbing and inappropriate for most viewers. 2405:9800:B900:AD5B:7936:BAE6:2BFD:18D (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hm. If possible, there can be a spoiler feature that blurs the image and has a warning? But yes, we can change the visible photo to the Embassy Gate for disturbing content reasons. TigersTacos (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 14:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

As Davest3r08 mentioned, Wikipedia is not censored, nor do we blur and add warnings to useful images for "disturbing content reasons." If you find the image objectionable, you may hide it for your own view. Please see Help:Options to hide an image. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It is true we are NOTCENSORED. However, we are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper or sensationalist website. The question is, does the image add substantial encyclopedic value to the article or is its purpose primarily to shock or appeal to the emotions of the reader? I am dubious and note that in general it is extremely rare (though not unknown) for us to post graphic images of violence or traumatic injuries being inflicted on somebody. See also WP:DUE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Since this article is titled "Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell," it seems reasonable to include what the title is describing. If a different article is created simply titled "Aaron Bushnell" (not likely, but we'll see), then a simple portrait would suffice. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of articles that deal with notable crimes or incidents involving traumatic injuries being inflicted on people. Again, it is fairly rare for us to include such images. Just because an image relates to a subject doesn't mean it should get in the article. This strikes me as UNDUE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Most of the time the images are not as notable as the event itself, here, one of the things that makes it notable is the fact that it was live streamed on Twitch. An image helps impart what Twitch viewers were exposed to. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The New Yorker leads their article with stills from the video, including this image. Newsweek uses it in an article as well. I dont see what is the basis for UNDUE here, it is an image that is very obviously related to the subject of the article and an image used in reliable sources as well. nableezy - 19:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The image is not particularly graphic, especially when compared to other images of self immolation on this website. Furthermore, one of the things that makes it so notable is the fact that it was livestreamed, hence a screengrab of the livestream is appropriate and adds encyclopedic value. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

This isnt a graphic image, and it is not sensationalist, and it is very obvious to me that it does indeed add encyclopedic value to the article as it is an image of the topic of the article. Like ARandomName123, I think if this were a biography then it wouldnt be appropriate, but it is an article on the event and like say My Lai massacre or Tank Man or Burr–Hamilton duel there should be an image of the event. nableezy - 19:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

I agree with Ad Orientem on this; per WP:IMGCONTENT, the purpose of an image is to increase a readers understanding, not to shock or to bring attention to the article.

This photo does the latter, not the former - given that its inclusion is not the status quo I’ve removed it pending a formal consensus on its inclusion, although I would encourage editors to add an image of him in front of the gate prior to setting himself on fire - one should be available under the same free use justification as this image, although it may require someone willing to watch and screen capture a still from the twitch stream. BilledMammal (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It's inclusion was the status quo. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

This is an article about the self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell, not the Israeli Embassy in Washington or a biography Aaron Bushnell. If anything, we are lucky enough to have a photograph of the SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE, so why would the image be changed? It's like changing the image for United States Congress from its seal to the Capitol Building. Seems like plain censorship too me. Should the sexual acts depicted on the relevant pages also be removed due to them being obscene, just because you are offended by them and you're the main character apparently?. Fluffy89502 (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The image here better meets the requirements of WP:IMGCONTENT; it is equally informing without being gratuitous. Switching the current image out for it would appear to address your concerns. BilledMammal (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It is not equally informing, one is of a US airman just standing and the other is the actual event that the article is based on. Also how can you just claim "oh the status quo is no image" when that image has been on the article for nearly the entire length of the article being in existence. Also I don't thing a low resolution image is "gratuitous." LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The image has been in the article for 32 hours. There is no definition of "status quo" that includes that.

And it’s the airman moments before he sets himself on fire; we don’t need him on fire to depict and inform about the event. BilledMammal (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Self-immolation is the act of setting oneself in fire. Why would we use an image of a random guy just cluelessly standing in front of the Israeli embassy? 2804:14D:5C32:4673:D9FB:F8FD:FB91:A51F (talk) 00:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it does not show the topic of this article, that being the self-immolation of Bushnell. It shows something before that. And as such it is less informative. nableezy - 00:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Given that the event occurred so recently 32 hours is significant. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment So far 5 editors support including the image of the airman as the infobox image, and 4 are against. Did I count right? (This is not a vote). Ben Azura (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

There's a few more threads about this further up. #Infobox image and #Picture of Self-Immolation?. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Non-extended-confirmed editors cannot participate in discussions about this, only make edit requests, so you can take any IP out. As far as I can tell, it is just BilledMammal and Ad Orientem who has made any argument against using the current infobox image. I still do not understand what the reason why Ad Orientem thinks it is a DUE issue, and BilledMammal has merely made an assertion, without supporting it at all, that this image is supposedly gratuitous. nableezy - 00:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I also support the inclusion of the image. Wikipedia is not censored, and decision to include or remove content aren't made by counting votes, but by assessing the quality of the arguments made for doing so. Simply stating that the image is "inappropriate" doesn't mean anything; it's just an expression of personal preference. Cortador (talk) 18:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't support the inclusion of the image. I agree with Ad Orientem on this, the image does not add encyclopedic value but instead makes Wikipedia look like some kind of sensationalist website. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I've opened an RfC and reinstated the status quo pending the result of the RfC. BilledMammal (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Aaron Bushnell's Reddit Account Inclusion

I think we should include mentions and screenshots from his Reddit Account, which has been confirmed to be u/Acebush1. I think there is some valuable information on it to provide some more explanation for reasoning, as it seems to many that his cries about Palestine were more based on support, while he appeared mentally ill and his posts suggest anti-American and anti white activism. He, in addition, also has posts supporting the deaths of United States Servicemen and women from other branches. Can I have some further insight on the inclusion, along with maybe a section on "Social Media Activity?" Thanks. TigersTacos (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I have not seen reliable sources confirm that those are him - we need them to publish and report on it to merit inclusion. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

That would be WP:NOR.

Until a reliable source confirms that those accounts belonged to him and reports on his social media activity, it can't be considered for inclusion.

Even in such an instance, it remains to be seen what kind of language, if any, would be suitable to include. ConcurrentState (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Article Namespace for Aaron Bushnell

Won't it make sense if we consider having "Aaron Bushnell" Namespace per se his biography till death? I wanted to Start an Article to the Namespace but I found out it got a redirect to this page. What do you guys think Fugabus (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

He is not notable individually (WP:1EVENT). EvergreenFir (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

This is my personal opinion though but I saw an article written similarly of Thích Quảng Đức. A page for Aaron Bushnell will expand as his details unfold. We continue here. Fugabus (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Add alleged direct United States involvement in killings to article

[6] The US has been alleged to have directly deployed troops in Gaza involved in massacres against Palestinians. I would mention this on the main Israel-Hamas war article but the talk page is protected. I would suggest adding something like
United States (alleged direct involvement)
below Israel in the infobox. Bill3602 (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I would oppose any mention of such claims in the absence of strong evidence from reliable secondary sources per WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It's at least worthy of mention on the Aaron Bushnell article if not the main one, no?--Bill3602 (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

We do not permit Wikipedia to be used for the promotion of fringe conspiracy theories. If the conspiracy theory is independently notable, that might be a different matter. Then it could be discussed along with reputable sources while adhering to DUE and mindful of PROFRINGE. Otherwise we generally steer clear of such claims. See the above linked policies and guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it can be mentioned in a way that does not imply Wikipedia is promoting the idea. Conspiracy theories are well-documented here after all.--Bill3602 (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Notable ones are covered. But every nutty conspiracy theory does not get to be mentioned. Again, see the linked policies and guidelines. To quote RedFlag: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

New York Post is indeed unreliable, but The Hill has also covered this story[7]. Admittedly I would wait for more reliable sources. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I mention this on this talk page as this is the closest relevant one to this topic.--Bill3602 (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Talia Jane (@taliaotg), who has been instrumental in reporting on Bushnell's protest and was the one who originally released the blurred video after discussions with his family, wrote that is unsupported: https://twitter.com/taliaotg/status/1762892495904518444?t=j23DUaNvU5Fl17HhmrfuPA&s=19

→ "Regarding a recent New York Post article claiming Aaron Bushnell had inside knowledge about U.S. forces in Gaza, I reached out to actual friends of his (not just an anon “pal” talking to a conservative rag) who stated Bushnell had not been working for the USAF for four months: “Aaron has not been doing his military job for like four months so there's no way he has had access to any intelligence. Also I don't think there being American troops on the ground in Gaza would be the thing to push him to do this. He had a strong enough analysis to recognize the US role regardless of whether or not there were literal Americans soldiers on the ground.” --91.54.18.159 (talk) 04:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a patently fringe conspiracy theory that has been making the rounds in some of the darker corners of the internet, but has received scant attention from mainstream reliable secondary sources. Mentioning it would be WP:UNDUE at the very least. It would also create serious NPOV issues per FRINGE and REDFLAG. The general rule is that when mentioning fringe theories that there must be a corresponding explanation of the theory from reliable sources explaining the mainstream position. Since this belief has received little more than the occasional passing mention in reliable sources, it's not possible to discuss it in an encyclopedic manner. Thus any mention would be highly problematic per all the policy and guidelines that I have linked above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Praised ?

In the paragraph about US reaction it lists a number of people who "praised" his action. Can we have some kind of references for that, please, as we have for Bernie's reaction. IceDragon64 (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Here are some sources I could find through a quick Google search.

Mentions just Cornel's praise: https://www.newsweek.com/cornwell-west-praises-aaron-bushnell-pro-palestinian-self-immolation-1873973

Mentions praise from Jill, Cornel, and the DSA: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/presidential-candidates-activists-praise-sacrifice-us-airman-burned-alive-protest-israel

Mentions praise from Jill, Cornel, and Aya: https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-789166

Mentions praise from Jill, Aya, Dyab, and 2 other non-notable people (journalist Caitlin Johnstone and human rights lawyer Mai El-Sadany): https://www.newsweek.com/aaron-bushnell-called-hero-pro-palestinian-self-immolation-1873454 ZionniThePeruser (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Date of Death

Which day did he die? (Probably the silliest discussion ever, but it is being kick-started by a multi-day edit war on Portal:Current events/2024 February 25 and Portal:Current events/2024 February 26, due to source disagreement).

• Option 1 — February 25
• Option 2 — February 26

Discussion

This has got to be the dumbest discussion I have ever started, but with a multi-day edit war occurring due to source disagreement, it actually needs to happen. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

According to this Washington Post article, he died 7 hours after the immolation. According to this Time article, he self-immolated at 12:58pm. This would mean that he died on the same day that he self-immolated: February 25. GranCavallo (talk) 15:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• If there is a disagreement over the date of death amongst sources, the usual practice is to look for a consensus. If just one or two are saying the 26th they can be disregarded. If there is no clear consensus among the sources then use both dates with a brief explanatory note, i.e. "He was transported to a local hospital by DC Fire & EMS, where he died either later that day or on the 26th (sources differ). He was 25." -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

New reactions from within the United States

Within the United States:

Statement from Chicago-based NGO Justice For All stating Aaron Bushnell's self-immolation should "send a strong message to the United States": https://www.justiceforall.org/palestine/statement-on-aaron-bushnell-self-immolation/

Opinion piece from MSNBC writer Zeeshan Aleem defending Aaron Bushnell's self-immolation as an act of protest: https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/aaron-bushnell-immolation-israel-protest-rcna140722

Commentary from Talia Jane, who originally published the footage of Burnell's self-immolation, from Rolling Stone: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-commentary/aaron-bushnell-self-immolation-protest-hard-important-story-journalist-1234978325/

The Guardian's (US) Moira Donegan on Bushnell's death, calling it 'our loss he is no longer with us': https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/28/aaron-bushnell-self-immolation-gaza-israel

Ramesh Ponorru writing for The Washington Post, stating Aaron Bushnell was 'not a hero' and criticizing self-immolation as a form of protest: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/28/aaron-bushnell-protest-fire-dangerous/ Cadenrock1 (talk) 19:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2024

It’s Palestine vs Israel. Israel killed more children than terrorist. So it’s only right to stop saying Hamas. They are killing Palestinians. 96.230.252.100 (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

Proposal for addition of uncensored self-immolation video

Aaron Bushnell live streamed and archived video of his final moments on Twitch, including his political statement and self-immolation. The uncensored video has been uploaded but quickly removed from several social media platforms, and has not been shown on mass media to my knowledge. However, the video has also been uploaded on some independently operated websites, where it is available to watch and download freely. On the website below, which is operated by the Oneness Foundation, there is a 40 MB version of the video. I propose that this video be added to the article, with the subtitle "Content Warning: Uncensored self-immolation video."

<redacted link> Wandering Westerner (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. The immediate technical issue is the lack of free licensing of the source video. Per our Wikipedia:Non-free content policy, we can only host non-free content at its minimal possible form, in this case, a downsized single capture of the source video. If you can provide us a source video which has been declared to be released into either the public domain or Creative Commons, you are free to upload it to Wikimedia Commons (which allows the file to be used across all Wikimedia sister projects including Wikipedia) with proper licensing information. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 05:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Im removing the link as that is a copyright violation. nableezy - 05:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Why did you delete the link? There are at least seven links in the References section of the article that show clips of the video up to a minute long, without any indication of whether they have licensed the copyright to the video. Wandering Westerner (talk) 08:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The original link does not appear to be from a reliable source. We have strict rules on what kind of link we can provide in our articles. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 08:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

That is not an answer to my question, and I do not believe that is the real reason that Wikipedia editors refuse to add the uncensored video. Aaron Bushnell live streamed and archived the video of his own self-immolation protest on Twitch. Clearly his intent was for his video to reach as wide of an audience as possible in the public domain. But Bushnell's channel LillyAnarKitty was quickly removed by Twitch, and most reposts of his video have also been removed from social media. Even after the journalist Talia Jane claimed to have the consent of Bushnell's bereaved family to post a blurred version of the video on X, almost all media outlets that repost the video omit the portion of the video in which Bushnell is fully engulfed in flame. Bushnell made a political protest of some historical importance, but the vast majority of platforms are censoring his act of political protest to reduce shock value, including Wikipedia which has this article that turns up at the top of my Google search results for "Aaron Bushnell". If I cannot get you to see the error of your ways then I will contact Bushnell's family directly and request their permission to post the full uncensored version of the video. Wandering Westerner (talk) 08:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

If Bushnell's family members or friends possess the unedited version of the video and are willing to publish the video under Creative Commons license or into the public domain, you are again welcome to upload it to Wikimedia Commons. The copyright issue is what preventing us from hosting the media file. Wikipedia, as well as Wikimedia, is uncensored, so I can guarantee you that the unedited video would not be deleted because it's "objectionable". -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC on infobox image

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)

• B in the infobox per MOS:SHOCK, but include D later in the article (as in Thích Quảng Đức § Day of the act). Per WP:IMGCONTENT, The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article.. Including D under § Event serves the encyclopedic purpose of directly depicting the event which is the topic of the article. Squam Lizard (talk) 10:38, 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)