Talk:Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Parabolist (talk | contribs) at 08:10, 29 March 2024 (→‎Mentioning Bushnell opinion that Israel doesn't have a right to exist: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

(
)

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.[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    Hey @Zanahary:, it has been linked but it appears @HadesTTW: forgot to notify. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ll leave it to another editor to confirm stability. I don’t know the standard. Zanahary (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    I think alt0 is way more interesting. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
I guess because none of those are particularly contentious, I think this is okay. Good to go.--Launchballer 00:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

Citation looks fine. Worth noting that The Western Journal is generally unreliable but not deprecated per WP:RSP. Dialmayo 13:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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" [1] is not covered here. --Mhhossein talk 20:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
"The posts quoted on social media were not from Mossad." From the article. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 20:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HadesTTW and LegalSmeagolian: I am not talking about the fake post on social media. The mockery videos themselves, regardless of whom they are, have not been rebutted AFAIK. --Mhhossein talk 20:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah OK, there is no such video, only a fake post. --Mhhossein talk 16:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Wikipedia is not censored. — Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It's inclusion was the status quo. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've opened an RfC and reinstated the status quo pending the result of the RfC. BilledMammal (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a clear consensus for inclusion of this image, you cant just demand your position be the status quo, sorry. Your removal also looks like a 1RR violation. I restored the image. edit: looks like you were a few hours off from the 1RR, but that is still edit warring against what was a clear consensus. nableezy - 12:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image has been removed half a dozen times since it was first added approximately 48 hours ago; I'm not sure how you can claim that its inclusion is the status quo.
It wasn't a WP:1RR violation; it was my first edit in over 24 hours. I think this is the second time in a relatively short span of time that you have mistakenly alleged that I've violated 1RR; in the future, if you think I have committed a WP:1RR violation please come to my talk page and present diffs of the edits you believe are violations. BilledMammal (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am wrong about the 1RR. Regardless, there was a clear consensus for inclusion here and you edit-warring to remove it is still edit-warring. nableezy - 12:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add alleged direct United States involvement in killings to article

[2] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
New York Post is indeed unreliable, but The Hill has also covered this story[3]. Admittedly I would wait for more reliable sources. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This is wikipedia, we dont traffick in conspiracy theories. This shouldnt even be a discussion. Googleguy007 (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
and... now I realize nearly all of those sources either aren't considered WP:RS according to WP:RSP and/or considered WP:RSOPINION. Great. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

 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)[reply]
Im removing the link as that is a copyright violation. nableezy - 05:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ECR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

RfC on infobox image

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
BilledMammal even replied to a comment respecting the fact that image removal is against consensus, where @Ad Orientem stated:
"I am dubious but can see that I'm also clearly in the minority here so I will defer to CONSENSUS pending anyone else chiming in on the matter. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)"
Despite this BilledMammal removed the image anyway - so I am confused how this deserves a RFC. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC is fine, the edit warring against consensus less fine. nableezy - 22:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also if you feel that I am potentially violating contentious topic policies which warrants a notice in my user talk page, I would advice you to read the same instructions carefully as well. You have been engaging in an edit war regarding the same image for more than once.[4][5] -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 11:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C would do nothing to enhance encyclopedic value. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    It is informative as it shows the reader what the event looked like. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • D - because this isn’t a biography of Bushnell, this is an article on the self immolation of Bushnell and the image used should be of the self immolation of Bushnell. I’ve also restored the status quo to prior to BilledMammals edit warring it out with the overwhelming consensus prior to the opening of this RFC supporting the use of the image of him at the start of setting himself on fire. Also, a number of sources do indeed use the image of Bushnell on fire, see for example New Yorker. But a news organization running or not running this photo has nothing to do with WEIGHT, news organizations have their own standards for image usage, and they may well be censored where Wikipedia is not. This image depicts the subject of the article, an image of a smiling Bushnell does not, nor does an image of what would appear to be some random gate. This is an article on a self-immolation, if a photo of the self-immolation is available that is very obviously the most appropriate lead image to use. And the claim that this image is supposedly horrifying is absurd, made without any basis at all. Just asserted as though it was fact when it is not. nableezy - 12:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a notice that user:BilledMammal brought me to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, accusing me violation of 1RR, when BilledMammal is the one who has violated 1RR repeatedly. I am not going to file a retaliatory complaint, but the 1RR accusations are unfounded at all. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 12:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The New Yorker article is an opinion article. I haven't been able to find any WP:HQRS that uses the image, and even if they exist they will be in such a minority as to have no impact on which image MOS:LEADIMAGE tells us to use. As for horrifying, how else would you describe an image of a person burning to death? BilledMammal (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Educational. And Ynet also uses this image. Also, do I have this right, that you argue to include and then restore this image of a bloodied baby and then say this image is "horrifying"? You support the usage of an actual shocking image where it is non-representative of the subject it is portraying and demand the removal of an image that actually does represent the subject it is portraying? nableezy - 14:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see User:BilledMammal taking people to AE in regards to 9/11's infobox displaying the moment of impact, nor about any of the much more "horrifying" pages of sexual acts that can be found on this site. The infobox image does not show him with serious burns, and is low resolution. I have a hard time taking this users actions in good faith. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can argue whether "horrifying" is accurate, but it's an image of a man burning to death. I think that's plainly the kind of shocking image that MOS:SHOCK talks about. But of course that needs to be weighed up with whether or not there are other relevant images to use. Endwise (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See for example Thích Quảng Đức, we include actual images of people burning to death when that is the subject of the article. But that is not this image, this is showing him at the start of the act, it is not his skin peeling off, it is not anything somebody would not expect in an article on a man burning to death. nableezy - 13:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that article the burning image is not in the lead. I think we all agree here that an image of him on fire should appear somewhere. I guess you have a point about this image being "the start of the act" though. Endwise (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because its a biography. This is an article on the event itself, and where the event is covered in that article there are multiple images, both considerably more graphic. nableezy - 13:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose B, slightly prefer D but okay with A. An image of Bushnell smiling is rather irrelevant to the article, IMO. He's not notable as a person beyond the self-immolation, and the self-immolation is what the article is actually about; see MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Option D is undeniably the most relevant to the article, but it's also true that an image of a person burning to death is rather shocking, so I have sympathies with people who do not want in the lead per MOS:SHOCK. But if you're going to replace it with it something it better be centrally relevant to the actual topic of the article, and I'm not entirely sure if anything else is. Endwise (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • D, and oppose all others and agree with Nableezy. The subject of the article is literally a man burning to death, MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. We are WP:NOTCENSORED and the image is crucial for readers' understanding what self-immolation (which is not common) of this man really is. Whether it is horrifying is subjective. Also, the man wanted us to see this, so we are not violating his privacy. starship.paint (RUN) 13:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A, if all the options have issues with being free, why are we considering any of them? I don't see how this article is enhanced by images of a burning person. TarnishedPathtalk 13:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The image would fall under fair use. nableezy - 13:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen how that argument works on here previously. TarnishedPathtalk 13:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nableezy, I've tagged it with a CSD. It will be gone soon. TarnishedPathtalk 13:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And I removed the tag as it clearly has a valid fair use tag. You are free to nominate it for deletion, but this meets the requirements of WP:NFCC. nableezy - 13:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is clearly fair use, no free alternative has emerged, not should we expect one. starship.paint (RUN) 13:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nableezy, I don't know that it meets all 10 of the criteria. I'm going to nominate it. TarnishedPathtalk 14:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know which criterion it fails, please be more specific. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The deletion nomination can be found here. Can we try to keep this section focused on the question of what image should be used? Though it would have been considerably easier to discuss that if the opening comment had asked the simple should this image be used question instead of offering some six different options in a way that makes it much harder to follow the discussion and determine consensus. nableezy - 15:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • D, and oppose all others, as per Nableezy. It’s an article ABOUT THE SELF-IMMOLATION of Aaron Bushnell, all other options simply DO NOT ILLUSTRATE the subject of the article. Period! By the way, it is interesting to notice that someone tried to speedily delete the image while this RfC was open… RodRabelo7 (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • D, and strongly oppose all others. The article is in fact about the self-immolation, so the most relevant image should be of the self-immolation. I do not believe that MOS:SHOCK or MOS:OMIMG should apply here, because Wikipedia is not censored. As was mentioned in a different discussion about this topic further up the page, it was pointed out that the page List of political self-immolations includes a photo of the self-immolation of Thích Quảng Đức. GranCavallo (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D: As I mentioned previously, this article is about the self-immolation, not a biography of him. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 15:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to be able to read this article -- or others like it -- without having to look at the image, or without having the image up on my computer screen while I'm reading the article. I think the image should be in the article, but it should either be behind a blur filter (click on it to unblur), or in a collapsed box (not preferable, blur is better), or somewhere "down below" in the body. But not unblurred as the lead image. (I'd be fine with it as the lead image behind a blur.) If it's not the lead image, then the profile picture is fine. (It doesn't have to be a biography to have a picture, it's fine to have a picture of the main participant in an article about an event.) I felt the same way about Murder of George Floyd and other similar articles. "NOTCENSORED" doesn't mean prominently display whatever grotesque image of people dying we may have. It doesn't mean prominently display pictures of death in article about death. It just means don't omit it entirely, or don't omit it simply because it's gruesome. But there is a big gap between "lead image" and "no image." So as a vote, it's "D" if it's blurred/hidden somehow, otherwise "B". Levivich (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Red XN WP:CENSORED RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I concern, English Wikipedia does not provide any mean to blur an image with browser processing effect in the article which could affect all users because of the not censored policy. Besides, the current image is already downscaled and doesn't show any visible burn injuries or blood, so I don't find any rationale to blur the image in the first place. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow that last sentence, just wow. It shows a person burning to death, but I guess for some people that's better than a "visible burn injury." Levivich (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It shows him on fire, and yes there is an obvious result to that, though the Atlanta self-immolator I think is still alive, but I dont think this shows him burning to death. But really, what other image would be suitable for an article whose subject is a person burning themselves to death? It isnt that the image that is disturbing, its the very topic, and the image, if it is to, as MOS:IMAGEREL says, Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, would naturally follow. nableezy - 15:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also if you are really concerned about grotesque images being shown in the article, I believe Thích Quảng Đức would give you more trouble because not one, but two, high quality self-immolation image thumbnails are used in that article. My point is, not being able to blur or hide the "grotesque" image by default is not a fair point to contest the inclusion of an image. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A. MOS:SHOCK is intended to cover this case, and counsels discretion. Regulov (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support D, and strongly oppose all others sans @Levivich's suggestion to blur which I understand but am neutral about. MOS:SHOCK should be considered in some instances, but if a user/reader is clicking a link with the words "self-immolation of X" in the article title, I think it is fair that they should expect something graphic (which I don't even find this image to be, as it is low resolution and not after he has been entirely engulfed) in the article's page. This is an instance where the infobox image depicts the event in question, and also the fact that it was livestreamed is part of why it is notable, therefore a screencap of the stream is appropriate. Also reiterate @nableezy's critique of this entire RFC. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • D, opposing the other options. This article is about the self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell, and therefore depicting said event is appropriate. MOS:SHOCK states that images should be picked if they "accurately represents the topic without shock value". Since the topic is the self-immolation of a person, showing the person smiling instead (as in one of the suggest alternative images) isn't appropriate. Cortador (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • C or A The image of someone setting themselves on fire is gratuitous and IMO does not add substantively to the encyclopedic quality of the article in a way that justifies its use contra MOS:SHOCK. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support D and oppose all others. The topic is "Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell," so the self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell is what should be shown. Opposed to blurring the image per WP:NOTCENSORED. Luke10.27 (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • D because the photo shows the action that is the article's subject, and per Sameboat: the current image is already downscaled and doesn't show any visible burn injuries or blood. SWinxy (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • C or A adding the controversial image would be good for shock value, but not for encyclopedic substance. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • D. There is nothing wrong with the current image apart from copyright issues. It is no more graphic than say a stunt actor setting themselves on fire. Compare for example the lead image on stunt. I will add however that if his family should object then perhaps there is reason to remove it. KetchupSalt (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • D - per Sameboat's "the current image is already downscaled and doesn't show any visible burn injuries or blood", as well as KetchupSalt's "It is no more graphic than say a stunt actor setting themselves on fire. Compare for example the lead image on stunt." In my opinion, the image is only as disturbing as the subject matter of the article. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • D - the image depicts the topic, the self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell. The other options do not "increase readers understanding of the article's subject matter" (WP:GRATUITOUS). JimRenge (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for D, oppose all others, page is called "Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell" so image should show "Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell", and not random other scenes. Simple as that. Also oppose blurring or similar - image is already very low res and should be upscaled ideally, but thats not possible unfortunaly. --TheImaCow (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option Wikipedia is not a democracy and Wikipedia is not censored, i.e. the picture of Bushnell on fire in the infobox, which is the scope of the article, as it currently is. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

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.

“Political statements”

Could the “political statements” section in this article be removed or completely rewritten? It only provides two supposed “political statements” — both of which are reddit posts from an account that might be his. I wouldn’t consider those cherry-picked posts on reddit to be “political statements”. Additionally, the use scare-quotes bring the neutrality of the section into question and make it seem particularly biased.

If not removed, could the section be rewritten to be more neutral and include more “political statements” made from that account? Medicationhaver (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they should have its own section at all but be merged into the Background section if this info is ever justified. I also think that the sources should be attributed because they are apparently op-eds. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 11:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, if we trust the Reddit post quoted by Yayapro, a non extended-confirmed user, was indeed written by Bushnell himself, the original edit by user:Nihlus1 seriously took Bushnell's message out of context.[6] Bushnell did not make any excuse to justify the Re'im music festival massacre. I haven't subscribed to Washington Post and I can't really check the op-ed myself, but its removal by user:StarkReport should not be treated as a 1RR.[7] -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 12:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For some more context, the opinion piece (archived here[8]) they cited does not even include the word “settlers”. The line that had that citation attached specifically had “settlers” in scare-quotes. And like you said, he did not “justify the Re'im music festival massacre”.
He is also still misquoted in the article. He did not say “there are no Israeli civilians”, which is in the article and implies citizens of Israel do not exist. He opined on reddit “There are no Israeli “civilians” or tourists who have no part in the oppression of Palestine,“[9] a much different meaning. “There are no Israeli civilians who have no part in the oppression of Palestine” became “There are no Israeli civilians” — a complete misrepresentation of his post. Medicationhaver (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes around civilians changes the meaning (There are no Israeli "civilians"); if they were absent you would be right, but given their presence I think the interpretation of the source is correct - and I don't think we should be changing content away from a source on the basis of our own interpretation of a primary source. BilledMammal (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though he does place quotation marks around "civilians" which indicates his belief of this, that does not mean he outright said "there are no Israeli citizens" and claiming he did so would be misinformation. It's fine to mention him not believing in the existence of 'Israeli citizens' but don't take that away from the focal point of what he said: "... that are not involved in the oppression of Palestine." Leaving this out matters quite a lot, doing so would be massively misconstruing it. B3251 (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who added the quotes around "civilians", on the basis that the Intercept source we're using (link) also added quotes around "civilians". LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 13:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but it's additionally worth noting that sources like The Intercept are quite biased with the way they want the reader to interpret the comment, which is why, upon taking a quick glance at the actual Reddit comment, you can tell that it's completely mischaracterized. Changing [There are no Israeli “civilians” or tourists who have no part in the oppression of Palestine] to just [the comment denied that Israeli citizens exist] or anything along those lines is a large misinterpretation of the whole comment and, whether done purposefully or not by the media article, should be taken into account. I'd consider it borderline misinformation at that point, but to each their own. Either way, leaving out the "... that are not involved in the oppression of Palestine" part of his comment is quite a huge deal due to its significance in the comment itself. B3251 (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"to ensure the safety of 2 people trying to put out the fire"

Can someone remove that baseless speculation?

The man was pointing a gun at him because he was a complete goon.

He even got yelled at by one of the responders. Dont white wash him 104.178.85.51 (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is supported by a Newsweek "fact check" source, but the current phrasing creates a chronological awkwardness in the article lead. The whole "while one Secret Service officer pointed a gun at him to ensure the safety of two others who were attempting to extinguish him" sentence should be removed as it would connect better with the following paragraph. I am not going to edit it because the one responsible for this sentence is falsely accusing me violation of 1RR. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the phrasing to be more neutral. The source that said the officer was ensuring the safety was from Newsweek, which is considered to not be a reliable source from 2013 onward. See WP:NEWSWEEK. GranCavallo (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the point of due weight, that gun pointing secret service isn't really that important for the article lead. As you have already mentioned, it is not supported by a quality source ie Newsweek. And then there is a chronological disarray in the article lead. Personnel responding to Bushnell are mentioned twice in the lead. Also Bushnell was declared dead the same day, not the following day. (Even though the death declaration cites Newsweek too, that one is much less contentious than the "ensure the safety" claim.) All in all, the article lead requires some thorough c/e instead of bandaid fixes. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 18:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2024 (2)

On the paragraph starting with "Following his self-immolation, Bushnell's actions were praised by..." remove mention of activist Dyab Abou Jahjah, as I could only find one article mentioning his praising of Aaron's actions, with said article being from WP:NEWSWEEK. (If someone finds another article from a WP:RS mentioning him, I'll strike this out.)

As well, add this article from The New Arab as a citation for Jill Stein and Cornel West's praise, alongside this article from Diario AS as a citation for Aya Hijazi's praise, as such statements have been challenged by User:IceDragon64.

ZionniThePeruser (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 01:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change time to match local time and add date

In the 4th or 5th paragraph it states that "His death was declared at 20:06 by the doctor." in 24-hour time format and also does not include the date in the same sentence that the time is stated, which could cause confusion. It also conflicts with the earlier format for time, which states "On February 25, 2024, at approximately 12:58 p.m. local time". Basically, if it could be changed to "His death was declared at 8:06 p.m. local time on February 25, 2024." or something similar in order to remove possible confusion. StringCheeseIsMyNameMyCriminalArrestBroughtMeFame (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 05:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2024

Change "perceived Palestinian genocide" to either "Palestinian genocide" OR "American backing of Israeli actions in Gaza". "Perceived" is editorialized and not impartial sounding, it sounds like he was mistaken in his belief. NotQualified (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Thank you for your contribution! However, I did not make the requested edit because "perceived" does not imply that he was mistaken. Rather, it simply states that he believed that Israel is committing genocide. That belief is not a universally accepted fact; as there is still significant controversy as to whether or not Israel's actions constitute genocide, it would be a violation of our neutral point of view policy to call the actions genocide. It is unambiguously true, however, that Bushnell perceived them as genocide. Saying only "American backing of Israeli actions in Gaza" would not give enough emphasis to his perception that the actions are genocide. Luke10.27 (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion tag for international reaction section

This tag which requests reactions from Israel has been added and removed multiple times so I am hesitant to engage directly, but my opinion is that it is very unlikely we would get any notable reaction from within Israel. If I were the Israeli authority, I would rather prefer both the admin and the general public not speaking openly about Bushnell, either positively or negatively. I believe it's rather futile to add this expansion tag to expect something very hard to come by in the first place, so it's better to remove it for now. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have hidden the tag. It may be useful in the future. RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also @GranCavallo: Where is the source of your claim that "Israel did not acknowledge or address the incident."? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 21:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That statement "Israel did not acknowledge or address the incident." is evident by the fact that Israel has not publicly acknowledged or addressed the incident. I have added the word "publicly" to the article as a clarification, as they have certainly acknowledged or addressed the incident privately. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please add it to the article, as it would be relevant information. GranCavallo (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "citation needed" tag is a bit of a lost cause. No media outlet is going to write an article about how Israel has had no response to the incident, but I also reckon that the fact that the Israeli government did not respond in any way to the incident is encyclopedic enough- (and also I'm sure many readers would be curious if Israel had one).
So the options I can forsee are 1. keeping that factually true sentence in unsourced, which could constitute WP:OR, or 2. removing any mention of an Israeli response or lack of response. It's probably going to be removed, which would be a bummer, as I'm sure it's a tidbit worthy of inclusion.
HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would constitute OR. I think readers curious about an official Israel reaction would read the article and correctly note the lack of a mention of such a response to mean that there was none. Zanahary (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ben Azura: Even though Seth Frantzman is an American, if his op-ed is published by Jerusalem Post, perhaps we can count this is a view "supported" by Israeli media thus replacing the "Israel has not publicly acknowledged or addressed the incident" statement. What do you say? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'll remove it, there has been little response from foreign governments. I'm not expecting that to change. Ben Azura (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record: We actually have a response from the Israeli Consul-General in Atlanta, Anat Sultan-Dadon, immediately after Bushnell's news hit the headline. However, none of the reliable source covered her statement on Bushnell. Oops, wrong info. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC) 14:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that? The only statement from her that I am seeing is from last year in regards to the Atlanta self-immolation. Some news articles about Bushnell are including it, but not making it clear that it is an old quote or that she is referring to the previous self-immolation. GranCavallo (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was cited on Chinese Wikipedia and I removed it for unreliable source, but after carefully reading it again, apparently her statement was about the 2023 self-immolation in Atlanta, not Bushnell's.[10][11] -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bushnell's another will

I previously added Bushnell's another will which cited TRT World[12] but got reverted for unreliable source.[13] Per past discussion, TRT World is not a deprecated source but requires editors to handle its articles with extra care. In this case I don't think citing its report about Bushnell's will would pose a COI issue with the Turkish government. Another less than ideal source for this info is Palestine Chronicle.[14] I am not asking for a complete restore of my previous edit, but this can be condensed to a brief mention of his wish to "scatter his ashes in a liberated Palestine" in the event section, after the "his cat be left with a neighbor after his death" sentence. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 05:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a notable aspect of the event, then reliable sources will report it. Right now, I don’t see a reason to include it. Zanahary (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Offwiki WP:CANVASSING

This page has become the target of WP:CANVASSING from reddit. I will edit the talk page to reflect this. The link is here: [15] Tdmurlock (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we already established that a post simply pointing out something in an article isn't canvassing. Salmoonlight (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon

@BilledMammal: Very due actually considering analogies with Quang has been mentioned in coverage by the Washington Post, the Guardian, the Time, Jacobins; to name a few; which are all RS according to WP. [16], [17], [18], [19]. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do they reference the cartoon? BilledMammal (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: WP:UNDUE deals with viewpoints. This is a significant viewpoint as demonstrated above. Whether the cartoon has been referenced or not is irrelevant. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the inclusion of the cartoon in accordance with Makeandtoss. RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By this argument we could include POV political cartoons in any article as long as they represent a viewpoint covered in the article. I think having non-notable political cartoons is clearly in violation of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Zanahary (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with the inclusion of the cartoon. GranCavallo (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death Toll?

Hey, not here to debate numbers, but the bbc linked article in the intro specifically says 30,000 deaths, “as reported by the Gaza health ministry”. In this Wikipedia page, it just outright claims 30,000 deaths. I just don’t know if another line should be added “according to the Gaza health ministry”. I think that’s the most neutral way to make a positive change. DJ-Joker (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed to the addition, as the real death toll might be higher, so specifying that it's from Gaza's own reporting does account for the possibility that the death count is under-exaggerated. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2024

The article should make clear that the Gaza health ministry is run by Hamas. This is an established fact, and confirmed by multiple media and government sources. I suggest the wording should be changed from: "which has killed over 30,000 Palestinians and resulted in a major humanitarian crisis" To: "which has - according to the Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health - killed over 30,000 Palestinians and resulted in a major humanitarian crisis"

Sources: BBC - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68430925 BBC - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68581090 AP News - https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-ministry-health-death-toll-59470820308b31f1faf73c703400b033 France 24 - https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20240314-aid-ship-slowly-heads-for-gaza-as-calls-for-assistance-grow UK Government Research Briefing - https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9874/CBP-9874.pdf Endellelverdam (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This has been discussed multiple times on multiple articles, and will require discussion by extended confirmed editors on this article if that qualifier is to be included. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vigil photos

A large number of photos are available for the 2/26 vigil mentioned in the article. I'm not sure which one might be the best fit for the article, but here is the link. APK hi :-) (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding those photos. I added one of them to the article in the Domestic Reactions section. GranCavallo (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I realized that I should explain why I chose the photo that I chose. I did so because it shows the gate where the immolation happened, it shows the embassy in the background to visually establish the location, and it does not show any close ups of an specific person's face. It is the overall most neutral depiction of the vigil from all of those photos. GranCavallo (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2024

The quote states "I will no longer be complicit to genocide". The sources say "I will no longer be complicit IN genocide" (emphasis mine). This is also more gramatically correct. Having watched the video in the sources I can confirm that it should be changed from TO to IN. Sgp10 (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. GranCavallo (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for addition under "reactions"

Crimethinc contacted his buddies in the army, and his words and history can be read under it. I think it's important to add this as it shows a connection to a wider belief system and motivation for his actions, as well as recounting their takes on his actions. He calls himself an anarchist, and others mention his background as in a cultish sect

It also takes the focus away from the media loops and more towards what he was trying to convey, which is what he wanted as well as more first-hand than other sources (including parents)

https://crimethinc.com/2024/02/29/memories-of-aaron-bushnell-as-recounted-by-his-friends

95.193.152.29 (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CrimethInc. is not an individual person and is not a reliable source EvergreenFir (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2024

5.216.9.164 (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 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. Amortias (T)(C) 22:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New York Post

@Ben Azura: Regarding this edit [20], please remove the citation of New York Post (Aaron Bushnell's self-immolation sparks Pentagon inquiry from Tom Cotton on how he was 'allowed to serve') because it is not a reliable source per WP:NYPOST. The Intercept source alone already suffices as it is a reliable source. The only reason I don't do it myself is due to the 1RR regulation. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 11:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ben Azura (talk) 11:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the misinformation section

This doesn't seem to warrant an entire section. I don't see much encyclopedic value to some random troll post, nor any reason to add it into this article. Maybe it can be integrated into some other part of the article? DarmaniLink (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant opinion insert?

"A friend of Bushnell named Lupe Barboza said in an interview with Al Jazeera that Bushnell was religious and anti-imperialistic, but that she did not think that Bushnell was mentally ill."

This statement is made under the section about his personal views, and nowhere in this section is it mentioned that Bushnell was mentally ill or that others thought he was. I'm confused as to why this part was added here.

Vixtani (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning Bushnell opinion that Israel doesn't have a right to exist

@Parabolist

I see that you object to mentioning Bushnell's opinion that Israel has no right to exist on the section on his views. I don't understand why. The fact that he held this opinion is clearly extremely relevant to the subject of the article, yet it has no mention in the current version. The current version only says that he said that Israel is "settler colonialist apartheid state", which might imply to the reader that Bushnell thought Israel doesn't have a right to exist, but not necessarily, whereas Bushnell in fact stated it explicitly. Vegan416 (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it matter? We are already quoting two posts from the account attributed to Bushnell, and they both give the reader an overview of Bushnell's views, which is that he was opposed to Israel. The quote about Israel being an apartheid state is, actually, extremely relevant to the article, because it directly correlates to the stated intentions in the section below, giving a throughline between parts of the article. I do not think the specific quote you want to include does the same. Parabolist (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Self-immolation_of_Aaron_Bushnell&oldid=1216135465"