Jump to content

Talk:Murder of Aya Maasarwe/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Title - death / killing / murder

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

Death of Osama bin Laden? Reliable sources are saying she was murdered so we can report that, but Maasarwe's death is a broader topic than her murder, which is why we call these articles Death of. So the legality of calling it a murder here is actually a red herring. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure that comparison works here, and it isn't a red herring because articles don't stay at "death" but tend to wind up at "murder" if there is a successful conviction. We don't use "Murder" when there are ongoing legal proceedings as to murder charges, and prejudging the findings of current criminal trials is a bad idea for many reasons. This is universal on Wikipedia - e.g. Murder of Jo Cox sat at "Death of Jo Cox" until immediately following the end of her killer's trial, and Murder of Jill Meagher sat at "Death of Jill Meagher" until someone belatedly realised last year that the name should be updated following the killer's conviction. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Bin-Laden is complex (heck - one could even argue for "execution of"). Most criminal homicides (which this appears to be) on Wikipedia are either "killing of" or "murder of". It can be murder prior to conviction (or without one) - but it depends on circumstances (obviously if a defendant asserts self defense - then no). Icewhiz (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
The articles become "murder of" if there is a successful conviction. It can't be murder prior to conviction because the court hasn't reached that conclusion, so it's prejudging the legal proceedings - any defendant's plea or circumstances (unless it is a guilty plea!) has no bearing on that. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I would say the article remains being Death of regardless of any conviction, since this is about more than the murder. There's also the Death of Adolf Hitler, Death of Benito Mussolini, Death of Michael Jackson and Death of Muammar Gaddafi, even though they were not natural deaths. Murder of Jo Cox should most likely also be Death of, and also with Murder of Jill Meagher. Even though there hasn't be a conviction, the sources are describing this death as a murder so we should be reflecting that in the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're comparing it to people who weren't murdered and who died in ambiguous circumstances, when as I just pointed out, Wikipedia has a clear international precedent for dealing with these specific cases. Wikipedia has erred on the side of caution in just about every other case I can think of because the average Wikipedian doesn't have a good grasp of laws around reporting on criminal trials and is unlikely to be as careful about avoiding screwing up as media outlets that can run their stories past lawyers. We've already seen in recent cases that Australian judges have been taking a specific interest in Wikipedia editors publishing things they shouldn't without comprehension of either the legal risks for themselves or the risk of derailing attempts to get justice for victims of crime. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Because they are titled with death, and not killing or suicide. The newspapers are saying she was murdered, so we can say that these sources are saying she was murdered. Because of the legal ambiguities we can't say she was murdered as if it were from our own research, it would have to be clear it is something said by a reliable source. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
The presumption of innocence is a well-established legal principle. I suggest that any source that describes the death as "murder" in the absence of a conviction is self-evidently not reliable (at least in its use of that word). Mitch Ames (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
That's the Nine-Fairfax newspapers, the News Corp newspapers, and the major commercial networks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Murder -> Death was supported 3-1 with multiple reasons. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
In fact - more than one objected. I'll note that Australian sub judice concerns are of little concern to Wikipedia. Icewhiz (talk) 08:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
There are proper policy WP:RM#CM.Please initiate discussion accordingly --Shrike (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:BOLD is the relevant policy here and it's now 4-1 with only one person objecting. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
We've got myself, Mitch, WWGB supporting "Death" and Onetwothreeip and I think Icewhiz supporting "Murder" (I'm not sure about Shrike because I've been out all day and I'm not sure what move he was objecting to.) Either way that wasn't a consensus for a sudden move. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Considering @Shrike: moved it back to Murder, he supports murder. What was "sudden" her is the move from murder to death on 07:28, 19 January 2019. @The Drover's Wife: - you are move warring, I suggest you self revert. I am willing to compromise to "killing of". "Death of" is wholly inappropriate and disrespectful to the victim here.Icewhiz (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I have no particular objection to killing - it's a bit less often used, but that's not important (and WWGB's already stated his approval below). The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I object to killing, the article and the subject is far more than the killing itself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
You were arguing for using "death" on that exact basis twelve hours ago, and you were the one who moved the article to the present title. I disagreed with you about it necessarily staying at that title in the long-term, and now you seem to have flipped sides and are arguing against your own move, but citing exactly the same logic that you were using for that move twelve hours ago. This seems like an odd thing to do. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Quite the contrary. This article is about the death, which is broader than either murder or killing. The article should be at Death of Aiia Maasarwe for the reasons I expressed earlier today. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Murder is determined by the courts, not by Wikipedia editors. All we have now is Death, Killing or Homicide.WWGB (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Arrest

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

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

Articles are not titled on the basis of emotion. Although I'm surprised someone can seriously say "death" is "far too weak". Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, I am surprised that people can argue that it has to be "Death of" until someone is convicted of the crime. Under that "rule", Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, or Assassination of Olof Palme should be changed (nobody has been convicted of their crimes), She was murdered, (whoever murdered her) there is no indication that she dies a "natural' death, Huldra (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
We can get away with calling something "murder" when no-one has been accused arrested or charged, because we are not suggesting that any specific person is guilty of a crime. However when someone has been charged, BLP policies become relevant, because if we refer to "murder" we are implying that a specific person has committed a crime - which is contrary to the principal of the presumption of innocence.
She was murdered, (whoever murdered her) there is no indication that she dies a "natural' death, – There is no guarantee that whoever killed her committed murder. Even if a specific person were found to have killed her (and that has not happened), depending on the circumstances, it could (for example) be manslaughter or not guilty by way of insanity. We must not presume guilt of a specific crime until someone is convicted in a court of law. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
There a lots of deaths with are reported as murder, even when the perpetuators are never caught, say Murders of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran. Are you going to move that to Deaths of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran, or, if not: why the double standards? Huldra (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
If a named person was arrested and charged with the crime, then I would move the article from "Murder..." to "Death...", for the reasons that I explained above. The reason for the "double standard" is that BLP applies to specific, named people. If no-one has been arrested or charged WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply, but if someone has been arrested and charged it does. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
There is nothing in WP:BLPCRIME which says we cannot call it a murder, when the police and the overwhelming number of WP:RS calls it that. Also: your interpretation is very counter−intuitive: you are "weakening" the case for dead, *if* someone is arrested for their killing/murder? I think that is interpreting WP:BLPCRIME too far. Huldra (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
There is nothing in WP:BLPCRIME which says we cannot call it a murder – I disagree, in particular, BLPCRIME says (with my emphasis here):
"editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."
I assert that calling it a murder suggests that the person charged has committed a crime (murder), which BLPCRIME says we ought not do.
your interpretation is very counter−intuitive: you are "weakening" the case for dead, – The dead are not covered by BLP, the living person who has been charged with a crime is. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Eurydice Dixon comparison

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

For the claims of Maasarwe's murder attracting "international" coverage, all but two of the sources in her article so far are Australian. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 22:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Murder of Eurydice Dixon. I see it was just recently created. ghouston (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to add:

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

Requested move 20 January 2019

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

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


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

... if the court convicts. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree. That's why for now the current pagename works. In future after the whole case goes to court and depending on the outcome, other changes for the name of the article might be needed.Resnjari (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Murder or Killing as it was not death by natural causes and most of the sources describe it in such way --Shrike (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Murder" because that implies that a specific person - who has not been convicted - committed that crime. WP:BLPCRIME says we should not include material (which I take to include the article title) that suggests the person has committed a crime unless there is a conviction. The person charged is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Murder of," no objection to "Killing of." Same view as Roman Spinner - Maasarwe was certainly killed, but "murder" prejudges the court case which is something to be avoided per BLPCRIME. This article is not a news source; we can await the court outcome and consider if a further rename is needed then. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • 'Support As page creator. A lot of the supporting rationale for the original undiscused move from "murder" to "death" seems to be based on the falsehood that to say Maasarwe was murdered automatically means we are casting prejudicial aspersion about the guilt of an individual. I don't agree with this. We are saying Maasarwe was murdered, which is an indisputable fact, but not saying whether any particular person is guilty of a criminal offence or not. The article makes clear that the accused has only been charged (and not convicted). Reliable sources such as The Age, and the ABC have used the word murder. We should follow their lead, not set our own unique standards. AusLondonder (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Maasarwe was murdered and we ought to reflect that in the article, but that is not the matter of titling the article. The article should continue to be "Death of" since the article and topic is about far more than the murder or killing. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

BLP vio

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

I think we should follow sources.The proper description for her is per our article and the sources --Shrike (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Rubbish. All the Palestinian I know with Israeli citizenship are not hiding that they are Palestinian...I can find sources which say that an ever increasing percentage of them primarily identify as such.
Also:
Even "Honestreporting" (!!!) report that "The family has contacted media organisations asking for the spelling of the name to be changed to Aya, instead of Aiia – which police had been using based on her passport information – to reflect their wish for her to be identified as Palestinian."
We are spitting on her family when we mock their wishes, Huldra (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:ETHNICITY in "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, " --Shrike (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Israel is not among "most modern-day cases", hadn't you noticed? Huldra (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
No I hadn't. We follow Wikipedia policies--Shrike (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Not all countries have three ARB cases in their history. I see you have now removed Palestinian completely from the article. Please reintroduce it, or I will take the two of you to AE, for disruptive editing, Huldra (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Most sources are using Israeli Arab. While some Israeli-Arabs may be willing to risk using labels that may be dangerous - we should not make the decision for them based on an editor asserting something about the people they know. These labels are dangerous in areas of conflict - Japanese in WWII US, Serb/Croat/Bosnian/Albanian in former Yugoslavia in the 90s. Icewhiz (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
IT IS THE FAMILY WISH: "The family has contacted media organisations asking for the spelling of the name to be changed to Aya, instead of Aiia - which police had been using based on her passport information - to reflect their wish for her to be identified as Palestinian." And you are spitting on them. Shame, shame, on you, Huldra (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I have added what you requested while following our guidelines --Shrike (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
You have NOT followed her families wish, and there is NO fixed rule that a minority as to be identified with their nationality, quite contrary: look at how say, how native Americans are identified. Huldra (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
There is no such policy to follow the family wishes.Also why previously you deleted [1] "Israel" you understand such edits are WP:TE --Shrike (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC) ?
Nice try. I deleted "Israel" as that was not in the Haaretz source (check for yourself), This isn't about my editing, but about yours, Huldra (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

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

If everything about the crime was the same, but Aya was Jewish, and not Palestinian: what are the chances of her being Jewish being mentioned in the first sentence? I would say the changes of that would be about 100%, Huldra (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Fact check. The ones I checked lede with "an Israeli" Jewish comes in further down the page: Killing of Alexander Levlovich, Killing of Esther Ohana, Murder of Eliyahu Asheri. These were all killed in Israel. But if some do have "Jewish" in the lede, it should be discussed on the relevant talk pages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Fact check. Not a single one of those three were killed in Israel; all were killed on the Palestinian land occupied since 1967. And we all know that all people murdered on the West Bank are Jewish...at least on Wikipedia, where assorted editors over the years have done their best to write memorials to them, while ignoring any Palestinian victim. (So when are you going to start The killing of Aisha Mohammed Rabi? )(link) Huldra (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Again, what is the a reason we cannot call this person a Palestinian per the Guardian, and now per the SBS: "Ms Maasarwe, an Arab Palestinian woman with Israeli citizenship", Buzzfeed (even correcting their article to reflect it): Aya Maasarwe was a Palestinian citizen of Israel, The National (UAE): A Palestinian exchange student ... Her family asked the media to spell her name Aya, to reflect that she was a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship, rather than the Aiia that appeared on her passport. Why exactly do yall care if this person, whose family explicitly identifies as Palestinian, is called a Palestinian? nableezy - 00:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Page states: "Maasarwe was born in Baqa al-Gharbiyye, Israel, to a Muslim Israeli Arab family.[2][6] Her family identify as Palestinian.[7]" Accurate, sourced, and in the usual "Background" section where we put info on ethnic backgorund, birthplace.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
You seem to be answering a question that nobody has asked. No matter, Ill restore Palestinian citizen of Israel citing these sources. nableezy - 00:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Most mainstream reporting is using Israeli or Israeli Arab. A minority of sources (including a newspaper in Abu Dhabi you've cited above) - use Palestinian.Icewhiz (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Since when does a newspaper being in Abu Dhabi mean it isnt mainstream? Are we only allowed to use newspapers written by Europeans, Americans or other white people? Im sorry, I dont understand the distinction here. But if I need articles written by only western sources here, these from Australia should be fine shouldnt they? 9 News, ABC. Again, why do you all care so much that this person not be called Palestinian? Why does it matter to you? nableezy - 16:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Context: "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen... Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." Maasarwe is notable as a woman killed while walking home at night. She is notable as a victim of violence against women. Articles note that she was a visiting foreign student, but he ethnicity is NOT "relevant to the subject's notability." The murder was not related to her ethnic status, or even to her foreignness. Page should revert to status before Nableezy's recent change. With "an Israeli" in lede, and ethnic details given in Background, as per WP:MOSBIO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, we should refuse her the identity that she seems to have chosen and force on her one that at least her family rejects. Anyway, I dont see how her citizenship has anything at all to do with the context for activities that made her notable. nableezy - 16:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It's really irrelevant what the family wishes, this is an encyclopedia, we should try to report on facts, and in this case the fact is that she was an Israeli and that is what we should report. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Its likewise a fact she was a Palestinian. A fact with now several reliable sources. I still dont understand why any of you care that this person is identified as a Palestinian. Why does it bother you? nableezy - 16:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't bother me, it's just not facts. She was born in Israel and was an Israeli citizen and had an Israeli passport. That her family wants her to be called Palestinian can be noted but certainly in the lead she should be called what she was, an Israeli citizen. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
What the fuck does its just not facts mean? It is a fact when reliable sources say it is a fact. Reliable sources say as a fact that she was a Palestinian. nableezy - 18:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

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

You mean insert what reliable sources say about the subject? How is that an answer for your removal of well sourced material? nableezy - 18:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
The rules - see my comment [Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Context]] above - about what belongs in the lede are clear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Which rule? What does her nationality have to do with her notability? What exactly allows you to remove what several reliable sources say? nableezy - 19:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • You missed a vital part of WP:ETHNICITY, which states it should be omitted ...unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Since many reliable sources mentioned it within their first few sentences, they've judged it to be relevant, and we have to do the same thing - we can't second-guess them on this. WP:RS and WP:DUE trump the manual of style, after all. --Aquillion (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The fact that she is a Palestinian Arab with Israeli citizenship is extremely well-cited and is stated as fact as her primary description in the intro to a large number of sources. Suggesting that it could be considered a BLP violation is absurd; it's clearly WP:DUE for the lead given the large number of sources that noted it. EDIT: Sources (copy-pasted from my !vote below) include here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Most of these place it prominently in the lead, showing that they see it as relevant to this event and its notability and therefore satisfying the requirements of WP:ETHNICITY, addressing the objections people made with regards to that guideline above and below. --Aquillion (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

RfM?

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

Thanks, Shrike, for moving the article, Huldra (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait Her family prefers Aya, but her passport has Aiia? Shouldn't we go with the passport?E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
    • No. We go by WP:COMMONNAME / WP:NICKNAME, not by what's written on the passport. That is pretty basic - it's one of the most common things to come up when discussing the naming of articles about people. Hence why eg. Bono has its current name. Additionally (and a bit more obscurely), see the final paragraph of WP:SPNC, which notes that For minor spelling variations (capitalization, diacritics, punctuation and spacing after initials,...): when a consistent and unambiguous self-published version exists, it is usually followed. --Aquillion (talk) 06:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep at Aya Maasarwe, per WP:COMMONNAME. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
    On the google-news test - Aiia "wins" by a factor of 3 to 1 - so Aya isn't really the COMMONNAME currently. However, since the page was moved, I would wait and see how coverage goes. The official Israeli English name was Aiia (this is actually chosen by the individual / family(for minors) when issuing a passport for the first time - however.... Israelis tend to be bad at transliterating - there's literally hundreds of variations) - and this is probably what will appear in court records (which might drive future coverage for COMMONNAME). The usual Israeli transliteration of this name (from Hebrew and Arabic) is Aya - which is why in some early English reporting from Israeli NEWSORGs (which was based on direct translations from Hebrew/Arabic (Israeli newspapers such as YNET & Haaretz are originally written (mostly) in Hebrew - and then are translated to English) there was use of Aya. In short - I would advocate waiting - while Aiia does beat out Aya in terms of COMMONNAME presently, there's a fair chance that would change and having this page bounce back and forth does little. I did add Aiia as an alternative name in the lede. Icewhiz (talk) 06:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hometown

When reverting an IP's (I think the editor who wrote the above comment) edits I noticed one of their changes was to remove the pipelink to for Baqu al Gharbiyye. This was poor edit since it left in intact the Baqu al Gharbiyye elsewhere in the article. But generally, it's unclear to me the reason for this pipelink. I appreciate it's what the SBS used, but I see no evidence this is actually referring to any preference by her family or whatever unlike with the Palestinian issue or name issue. It's not like there is a direct English quote from her family. So it seems to me it's easily possible it's just what some journalist or subeditor chose for some random reason. That being the case, I don't see any reason to follow the SBS. Is there something I'm missing? If there is a common transliteration dispute between Israeli Arabic and Jewish populations over the cities name, this should be reflected in our article on the city, and also a redirect should be created. So there should be no need for a pipelink. We could link to Baqu al Gharbiyye directly. Nil Einne (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Suspicion of BDS infiltration of the article

Clumsy attempt at outing by IP inside this box, nothing useful. --Calthinus (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I highly believe many editors here came from the University of Melbourne and participated in BDS movements, which infamously became the largest BDS supporters' congregation in Australia.

1. Her family identify as Israeli Arab not Palestinian Arab, in addition to her family resided in China for over a decade; if her family accepts Palestinian identity, PA President Mahmoud Abbas may have responses ready.

2. Israeli passport do not display Arabic. It's Hebrew/English/French.

3. HTS claimed responsibility, published to its members. ASIO dismissed claim.

4. This have nothing to do with Arab-Israeli conflict.

Please edit carefully, or else this article may fell into permanent 30/500.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.223.45.207 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

With regards to 1, the source explicitly says her family identify as Palestinian. If there are any sources which say they identify as Israeli, please provide them we can discuss. I have no idea of the relevance of 2. If you are referring to her name, nothing says anything about her passport. If she is an Israeli or Palestinian Arab, her Arabic name may very well be more relevant than her name in Hebrew, regardless of what is in her passport. The name could easily be covered in RS, sourced from her family. I can't find any evidence Hayat Tahrir al-Sham ever claimed responsibility for her death (I assume that's what you mean), again please present sources. Although note that even with sources, this sounds the sort of thing which is too irrelevant to cover. Nil Einne (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
BTW, I reverted what remained of your edits as they mostly seemed to be the sort of contentious things which need to be handled with care, especially since your reasoning seemed poor. (E.g. Your claim that her family identifies as Israeli despite the fact this goes against what every other source seems to say, and you've provided zero sources to support it instead made outrageous claims all these other sources were somehow mislead by the BDS movement from the University of Melbourne even though I'm pretty sure some of these sources spoke directly to her family.) Your claim about Hayat Tahrir al-Sham was already reverted as unsourced, as it should be. Nil Einne (talk) 10:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Incidentally, I found this source [2], which suggests Mahmoud Abbas did have a statement to be read out at her funeral, but it was rejected along with any speeches from Israeli politicians, by her family as they didn't like her death being twisted into a political matter. Nil Einne (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
To the IP please don't cast aspersions on other editors and i remind them that their references to Melbourne University students is crossing over into WP:OUTING territory and is best avoided as wiki sanctions may apply if reported. The article is NOT about the BDS movement but the killing of a young women in tragic circumstances. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

1. Completely fake, no sources. BDS groups* claimed Aiia Maasarwe and her family is Palestinian. In fact she's not, her family identify themselves as Israeli Arab, and holds Israeli passport, in fact, their family wants the girls to serve in the IDF if this didn't happen, no more changes to that please. If they identify as Palestinian, PA President Mahmoud Abbas will probably offer money from martyr's fund for her funeral.

2. Her passport have name written in Hebrew and English ONLY. Her name should be written in the following sequence: English, Hebrew, Arabic.

3. HTS claimed responsibility through its social media accounts. It was dismissed by ASIO.

4. Nothing to do with Arab-Israeli conflict. Since her family spent most time in China.

  • Unfortunately, University of Melbourne has now became the capital of hate speech in Australia. They have a specific way of dealing with conservatives and Liberal Party supporters, incite bullying conservative users in Wikipedia, and denigrating them by any means necessary. Their brains have filled with BDS, Left-wing rubbish and Socialist propaganda. I can probably believe editors made the comments above are clearly under influence of University of Melbourne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.223.45.207 (talk) 11:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
To the IP, this talkpage is WP:NOTAFORUM to air out perceived grievances or about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.Resnjari (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Just listen to my four points and revert it please. Nothing too complicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.223.45.207 (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Issues of her identity are complex as Aya was from a complicated part of the world. The discussion was had in the above threads. Intertwining issues of her identity with other things like BDS in no way assists editors. Even at her funeral the family distanced themselves from politicians [3]. Please everyone show respect.Resnjari (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Misleding lede

Wording now on page implies that she was in Australia in an Australia-Israel student exchange. Actually she was on an exchange program between Shanghai University and an Australian Univerisity. She appears to have chosen to go to university in China, where her father appears to run a business of some kind. Needs clarification. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems to have been fixed now. Our article says "She was studying at Shanghai University, and was in Melbourne as part of a student exchange program with La Trobe University" Nil Einne (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hebrew Name

@WWGB: - removing the official Hebrew name of an Israeli citizen, with an editing rationale of "she is not Jewish" (ethnicity/religion), is grossly unacceptable. Hebrew is the official language of Israel, regardless of religion or ethnicity, and this is the subject's legal name who has been widely covered and known in Israeli coverage. Please see MOS:LEADALT. Icewhiz (talk) 07:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Icewhiz. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

She was a Palestinian Arab with an Arabic name. Even if the Hebrew should be included (and I dont actually think it should be), it shouldnt be first. nableezy - 21:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

We should remove both foreign language spellings, they are not critical information for English Wikipedia.Hebraization of surnames is non-voluntary in Israel but not here on Wikipedia and I'm having a hard time understanding how starting a conflict over how a homicide victim's name is spelled helps to improve an enyclopedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaki Naggar (talk • contribs)
Hebraization (a short lived 50s initiative vs. army officers and gvmt officials) has nothing to do with this - it did not apply here. The foreign language legal name is critical - as when one looks for sources, often much of the sources are in that language (which is the case here). This is particularly important for non-Latin alphabets (e.g. Hebrew, Chinese, Russian) - as moving from the latin alphabet to those alphabets is not obvious (for German - turning say Röpcke into Ropcke, ö to o, is easily reversed)). MOS:LEADALT exists for a reason - and the value for the encyclopedia is being able to find non-English sources as well linking our English name to the foriegn name which is searched. (In this case we do not have an interwiki - and I do not know if we will - as I think this murder fails hewiki's crime/terror notability guideline - which is tougher than enwiki's guideline - though that may change following the trial - inclusion is very important for indexing).Icewhiz (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Guidelines seem very thin as to WHEN a non-latin rendering of a name should be included. Silly examples (IMO) include David (Ali) Sonboly's name (in Parsi?) on 2016 Munich shooting, and I believe in the past Pete Sampras's name being rendered in Greek - in both cases there is neither any reason to believe that the individual could actually even read or write in the given script (let alone had a strong cultural connection to it), nor any reason to believe that anything important has been written about them in that script.

In this particular instance, the young woman clearly has no cultural connection to Hebrew, but if significant material has been written in Hebrew about her, inclusion would be justified IMO. Pincrete (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Pincrete: - the vast majority of Arab-Israelis, particularly the young, can speak, read, and write Hebrew. They live in a country where the main official language is Hebrew.Icewhiz (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
No cultural connection? At all? Even when speaking Arabic Israeli Pal./Arabs will end up using loads of Hebrew words. The language permeates their lives. Reported extensively both by RS and my own ears. What her family was protesting was her identity being erased. But including Hebrew and also Arabic and that she was Palestinian does not erase her identity.--Calthinus (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
If it will help readers find foreign language sources we should include it for the benefit of readers. Zaki Naggar (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah this^ is where I'm coming from too Pincrete - readers who are interested in finding more about her and the issue -- I would imagine those who study violent crime trends etc etc -- in other languages will appreciate the Arabic and Hebrew equivalents being here. This isn't trying to imply she isn't Palestinian as at least I've already voted that she should be "Palestinian Israeli" in the lede and that seems to be where the discussion is going there at a quick glance. --Calthinus (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Ultimately, IMO, nationality and ethnicity, even the person's own identification are all fairly incidental. We record Chekhov's name (and his works) in Cyrillic firstly because he wrote and published in Russian and secondly because a great deal of good source material about him is also in Russian. Conversely, even if Salman Rushdie had retained his Indian citizenship, there would be no good reason to record his name in 'Indian' script - he has never published anything in that script, and little additional info would be available about him AFAIK.
In the Maasarwe instance, I can see a case for claiming that additional info about her might be available in one or other 'local' scripts, but am insufficiently familiar with 'local' media and language use to advance an opinion. Hebrew being the (a?) official local language/script and whether Maasarwe could read/write some Hebrew/some Arabic all seem incidental to whether either rendering fulfils any informational purpose.Pincrete (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Note regarding discretionary sanctions for the Arab-Israeli conflict

I've added the "DS" notice to the talk page. Unlike most sanctions regime, this comes with its specifications of who can edit related content (anyone can use the talk page).

Specifically, editors with accounts need to have 500 edits as well as at least 30 days tenure to edit such content. IP editors simply may not edit related content and can be reverted. Note that this only applies to content relating to the Arab-Israeli dispute, not unrelated content. Doug Weller talk 10:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but what the heck does this article have to do with "Arab-Israeli conflict"? It's about a young girl killed in Australia. Seems like very pointy tagging to me. WWGB (talk) 10:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
you also didn't log it.Sir Joseph (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
And there's a debate about whether she is Palestinian or Israeli and both wikiproject banners are above. Anything to do with the conflict, even if it isn't the focus of the article, is subject to discretionary sanctions. There's nothing to log as I haven't added any specific page restrictions such as 1RR to the page. Doug Weller talk 13:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
User:Doug Weller does 1RR applies to the page ? --Shrike (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@Shrike: no. I don't think that would be correct and if it did, I'd have to include it in the notice above, create an edit notice for editors to see when they edit, and of course I would have to log it. The sanctions only apply to the relevant content, not to the entire article. Doug Weller talk 13:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Name

I dont think it is true that most sources use Aiia, at least not most since her family requested her name be spelled Aya. BBC uses Aya, as do Australian sources. Even the Times of Israel uses Aya. Aiia is and should be a redirect, but the title should be Aya. nableezy - 01:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I searched "Maasarwe" in Google and all except one or two were spelled Aiia. Can you at least bring this to a discussion before you change it back to Aya? It was Aiia originally. There are far more sources, particularly in Australia, using Aiia rather than Aya. If at some point the sources uses Aya more than Aiia we can change the article title accordingly. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I just gave you four sources that spell it Aya, among them two in Australia, so I dont know how you are only finding one or two that use something other than Aiia. Im not sure why the discussion should start with Aiia instead of Aya. nableezy - 01:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
This is the search, and it comes up with results like this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this. So I think it's appropriate it's changed back to Aiia. The change to Aya was bold, but per WP:BRD if that bold move is reverted (which is effectively what I did moving it back to Aiia), it becomes a matter of discussing it to get a consensus moving forward. I don't doubt there are four sources that use "Aya" but only about two were on the first Google results page. It's unlikely that a Times of Israel article would be among the first results, for example. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Those sources come prior to the family publicly requesting that the name be spelled Aya. And, for example 9 News in Australia explicitly noted that The spelling of Ms Maasarwe's first name has been changed from Aiia to Aya in accordance with a request to 9News from the Maasarwe family. As far as BRD, the move took place nearly a week ago. How long do you think something "bold" lasts? nableezy - 01:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Youre edit-warring over the title? That seems a bit aggressive but ok. nableezy - 02:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Aiia produces many more hits than Aya. In fact, Aiia was used exclusively in the media until her father said that the family preferred the spelling Aya. There is difficulty in resolving WP:COMMONNAME as her family and friends commonly use Aya, whereas the media (after her death) commonly used Aiia, based on her passport name. WWGB (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it produces more hits, but that ignores the passage of time. Here is an example. The BBC, when this was first reported, used Aiia. After her family requested that Aya be used instead, they used Aya. And why would they do that? I dont know, but Id hazard the guess that because it is the decent thing to do to a human being, and to do otherwise is totally and completely pointless, in addition to being decidedly not decent. nableezy - 02:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
As stated in the move summary, I'm avoiding an edit war. I've never heard of a bold edit becoming less bold over time, I don't think that makes sense. I can't find any reference to a time limit or something like that. As for the sources, they are able to change the titles of these articles they've published, but they haven't yet. Maybe they will, but for now the subject is known to most of us as Aiia. There is just no need for haste or for predicting what reliable sources will choose to do. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I hope we won't continue to be subject to accusations of being mean and nasty human beings which is unfortunately common in discussions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Personal reflections of that nature aren't appropriate there and they aren't welcome here either. Wikipedia has editorial guidelines and it's up to the reliable sources on whether they choose to follow a certain way of writing. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
So your position is that you can come to an article, revert edits made weeks ago, and demand that your edit be the one that stand. Ok, thanks for letting me know that. And avoiding an edit-war by making two reverts? Okaaayyy. they are able to change the titles of these articles they've published, but they haven't yet, um what? I literally just gave you an explicit example of two news sources changing the name they are using. Do you have any response to that besides the out there demand that they should go back and edit their old articles to reflect that change? nableezy - 02:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I thought you said it was a week ago, now it's "weeks" ago? I wasn't the person who started the article, it wasn't an issue brought up when we were debating if the title should be Killing or Murder, and I wasn't the person who wrote all those media articles using the name "Aiia". Yes you did show two examples of sources using "Aya", but most of the sources are using "Aiia", as is seen in the search results page I linked. That was part of my response which I know you read, not some "demand" upon anyone. As for the actual move procedure, a bold move was reverted. I don't see what all the drama is about when it could very well be that the reliable sources start using "Aya" and this article would then follow. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
No, this one was a week ago. You above claim there is no time limit at all. Whatever, moving on from that. You dont seem to have gotten my point about "most sources". Those sources are largely from prior to the family requesting the name be spelled Aya. And news sources have in turn followed that request. Again, the BBC will show up, with several articles, in your search using Aiia. However, since her family made the request, they used Aya, noting The family have asked the media to spell her name, Aya - to reflect that she was a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship - and not Aiia, which officials had been using, based on her passport. You see how they started using Aya because of that? SBS likewise shows up in your search for Aiia. However, after the family made the request, they also began using Aya. The Australian will show up in your list using Aiia, prior to the family request being made. Now this one is going to shock you, but guess what? They started using Aya too There are a lot of stories that were written prior to her family making clear how her name is spelled in English. Those stories use Aiia. Since then, most sources I have seen have been using Aya. You cant just point at a google search like that is the end all be all of how the article is titled. Sources are, present tense, using Aya. nableezy - 02:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
They are able to change the titles of articles that they have already published. They have not yet. Most of the sources for this article were published shortly after the event. After all, this article is about an event and not a person. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
That isnt how news works. You are not addressing the point, not even a little bit. Yes, this article is about an event. And its title includes the name of a person. That person's name is spelled in English "Aya". That is relayed by several reliable sources. Ones that you claim support your revert-warring over the title to Aiia do not in fact support that. They support Aya. nableezy - 04:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 5 February 2019

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

The result of the move request was: page moved by Aquillion. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Killing of Aiia Maasarwe → Killing of Aya Maasarwe – Since her family requested that her name be spelled Aya instead of Aiia news organizations have largely followed suit. Sources that previously spelled her name as Aiia now spell it as Aya. Examples:

BBC on 18 Jan: Aiia, 22nd: Aya, with a note as to why they changed to Aya

The Australian on 17 Jan: Aiia, on 23 Jan: Aya.

9 News on 19 Jan: Aiia, Jan 22: Aya

Herald Sun on 20 Jan: Aiia, 21 Jan: Aya

Once her family made clear how her name should be spelled in English reliable sources have by and large reflected that change. So too should our article. Nableezy 05:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose for now as I've shown that it's generally not true that they've changed Aiia to Aya. Some have, but most publications have not changed the titles of the articles they've published, and the other instances of the subject's name. Generally there is too much emphasis being placed on how much the family wants this. It doesn't seem to be an important desire for them, as her name is normally Arabic and Hebrew. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Aya_Maasarwe/Archive_1&oldid=1079499556"