Talk:Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 28 days |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
Q1: Why does the article say that the self-immolation was protesting a "war"? Isn't it genocide? (Why can't I edit the article?)
A1: Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, and calling the war a "genocide" would make the article biased. Wikipedia needs definitive, reliable, and formal proof such as a court decision proving that Israel has committed genocide (do not use the South Africa v. Israel case as a source because it has not declared the conflict as such). Wikipedia is neither the place to push opinions on a topic, nor is it the place to "right great wrongs". Additionally, since articles related to the Israeli-Arab conflict are prone to more frequent vandalism and disruptive editing than others, it has been identified as a contentious topic on Wikipedia. Restrictions have been put in place that make unregistered users and users with less than 500 edits and 30 days of activity unable to edit related articles. See Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and Wikipedia:Nationalist editing for more information. Q2: Should the image of the self-immolation be removed due to its disturbing nature?
A2: No. Wikipedia is not censored. Images on some articles can be seen as objectionable, offensive, or disturbing, but are included for educational reasons. |
An item related to this article has been nominated to appear on the Main Page in the "In the news" section. You can visit the nomination to take part in the discussion. Editors are encouraged to update the article with information obtained from reliable news sources to include recent events. Please remove this template when the nomination process has concluded, replacing it with Template:ITN talk if appropriate. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
A fact from Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 March 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Did you know nomination
edit- 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)
... that shortly after Aaron Bushnell collapsed to the ground, having self-immolated to protest the Israel–Hamas war, a police officer pointed a gun at him and shouted "get on the ground"?Source: https://www.newsweek.com/who-aaron-bushnell-us-airman-fire-israeli-embassy-washington-dc-palestine-1873212- Reviewed:
- Comment: Thank you to @Mhhossein for the idea of a DYK. I'm not sure if this blurb is too long, but I think the hook of a police officer pointing a gun and yelling at a man on fire to get on the ground is interesting enough.
Created by HadesTTW (talk), Sameboat (talk), Leaky.Solar (talk) and Cdjp1 (talk). Nominated by HadesTTW (talk) at 21:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- Comment: This looks good to me in terms of sourcing. Length and age are good, no copyvio. The fact is indeed very interesting, I was shocked when I read it. Two notes: 1. I’m not sure if this article meets stability requirements yet (hopefully it will soon), and 2. how about changing it so it says he self-immolated, and then you can link the article for self-immolation? Or just leaving the wording and linking self-immolation. Maybe some readers won’t know the term. Zanahary (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hey @Zanahary:, it has been linked but it appears @HadesTTW: forgot to notify. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- I’ll leave it to another editor to confirm stability. I don’t know the standard. Zanahary (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hey @Zanahary:, it has been linked but it appears @HadesTTW: forgot to notify. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- ALT1 for consideration: ... that U.S. Air Force serviceman Aaron Bushnell said that his action of setting himself on fire was less extreme than "what people have been experiencing in Palestine at the hands of their colonizers"? Source: Time and Politico starship.paint (RUN) 00:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think alt0 is way more interesting. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry to be "that guy" but I'm rather uncomfortable with ALT0. I don't think a suicide is a proper topic for a "trivia" type DYK hook. I'm not suggesting editors are doing anything wrong here, but it strikes me as (unintentionally) callous. Why call out the response like this? A self-immolation is obviously a shocking thing. Do you really want to judge a person's response in the moment? Pointing a gun and saying get on the ground is what law enforcement is trained to do.
- It also distracts from the man's death, as well as the point of the act, which was a political and humanitarian statement. Why trivialize it by pointing out something stupid that someone did in the chaos of such a shocking moment?
- It wasn't a "police officer" by the way, even according to the Newsweek source, and Newsweek is yellow at RSP because it's a tabloid. It was a secret service officer (secret service are not police). If you look at serious journalism, you'll notice they aren't making a big deal about this aspect of this incident.
- Bottom line, this topic is not really a topic about which I think we should be looking for "interesting hooks." "Did you know that... a U.S. Air Force serviceman set himself on fire in front of the Israeli embassy to protest the Gaza War?" is interesting enough, as is ALT1 below, without getting into armchair criticism of responders' responses. Levivich (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Newsweek is said by RSP to judge on a case-by-case basis. In this case, they're simply transcribing the primary source, which you can also find in other places such as YouTube, (this one's published by the Middle East Eye, which, although biased, does not seem to be considered by RSN to be unreliable to the point where they'd fake a video's audio), so I don't think RS concerns apply here. If there are concerns about "a police officer", just replace it with "a law enforcement officer".
- I also don't see how adding the additional interest would distract from and trivialize the rationale of the act, which occupies almost 2/3 of the hook.
- Anyways, to evaluate stability. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Levivich's proposal for "Did you know that... a U.S. Air Force serviceman set himself on fire in front of the Israeli embassy to protest the Gaza War?" is an effective DYK hook (this is my first DYK post so bear with me). It's simpler and more factually accurate. Bushnell was still one his feet when the officer started yelling. RS say only that he is pointing his gun at Bushnell after he collapses. Why would he yell "Get on the ground" to someone who had collapsed? When press has discussed this aspect, the officer's actions have generally received a negative reaction. There is no strong confirmation what his official role was. I don't know if that matters for the the hook. Ben Azura (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- ALT1 seems best so far to me, in accurately reflecting the protest. His statements went beyond the war, and the entry reflects that, so it shouldn’t be reframed for DYK purposes. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Levivich I understand your concerns that using a strange factoid in an extremely serious event might be disrespectful. However I disagree with the notion that the officer involved shouldn't be judged and that his training explains his actions- even if you wave it away as a rational response to the situation, it still is an absurd thing to read about on paper and highlights the militarism of the American police. I'm fine with ALT1 but I do acknowledge it's a bit less interesting/catchy than the shocking fact of ALT0, and I won't be opposed to either although I prefer my original blurb. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 00:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- If we use ALT1, at least change the link from "his action of setting himself on fire" to "his action of setting himself on fire". Levivich's proposed hook allows the link a U.S. Air Force serviceman set himself on fire and that is catchy enough. Ben Azura (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree. That makes the link feel like it'd go to the generic article about self-immolation. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree it's an absurd thing to read about and it highlights the militarism of US police, but I think that is a negative because it takes the focus away from the topic of the article (the self-immolation, the Gaza war) and puts it on something else (stupid thing an embassy guard does, absurd militarism of US law enforcement). Often, a hook that focuses on some strange factoid can be effective, but in the case of an article about a suicide, I just don't love the idea of taking the focus off the suicide (and the international political issue) and putting it onto some other domestic political issue. It feels like Wikipedia would be using his suicide as a vehicle to score points against US law enforcement. Of course I'm not suggesting that's your or anybody's intent, just that I fear that'll be the unintended effect when it's read amongst other DYK hooks. Levivich (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Largely in agreement with Levivich, the detail shouldnt be the hook over the main subject of the article. nableezy - 16:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- In what world is someone literally killing themselves to protest a war less interesting than the idiocy of an American policeman? I've struck ALT0. Article seems to have calmed down significantly in the last week, so I could approve ALT1, but I'd like to see some strong rationales as to what WP:NEWSWEEK's doing in a article about a recently deceased individual. (WP:UPSD also whinges about Middle East Eye, but I see nothing about it at WP:RSP.)--Launchballer 05:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Most claims cited to Newsweek are re-reporting from other sources, half of which describe the video I linked above. Two other cites of it re-report social media and Bernie reactions. The final one fact checks the officers' occupation, which can be removed if needed. I think it's fine. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I guess because none of those are particularly contentious, I think this is okay. Good to go.--Launchballer 00:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Opinion piece as source for facts, and correcting factual error
editThe article currently contains this sentence:
"In an Al Jazeera column, Belén Fernández criticized The New York Times, which failed to mention Bushnell's motive in the title of their report, and Time, which implied that Bushnell might be mentally ill without elaborating on the "mentally disturbing" political reality, namely US backing for Israel in the Gaza conflict."
There are two points to make about this: First, the column in Al Jazeera is an opinion column (it is clearly marked as such in the site). Yet it is used here to establish two factual claims: That the NYT didn't mention Bushnell's motive in the title, and that the TIme implied that Bushnell might be mentally ill. Searching through the policy pages I didn't find any such prohibition on using opinion pieces to establish facts (so long as the facts are attributed, and the publication is reliable). Do you agree? I personally have absolutely no problem with that, but I'd like to hear other opinions.
In contrast, the second point is problematic in my view. And it is that the second "fact" mentioned by Belén Fernández seem to be incorrect. The Time in fact did not imply that Bushnell might be mentally ill. If you look at the "proof" she gives it is this: "At the bottom of the Time article, readers are charitably given the following instructions: If you or someone you know may be experiencing a mental-health crisis or contemplating suicide, call or text 988 – which naturally implies that Bushnell was simply the victim of a mental-health crisis". But his seems baseless. These instructions at the bottom are today a standard announcement that any self respecting publication publishes in any report about suicide, for the obvious and justified fear that such reports might rigger suicidal people to commit suicide. It's quite farfetched to present this as "The Time implied that Bushnell might be mentally ill".
Therefore I suggest to change the sentence into: ""In an Al Jazeera column, Belén Fernández criticized The New York Times for failing to mention Bushnell's motive in the title of their report."
@LegalSmeagolian@Sameboat @Parabolist @Iskandar323@Makeandtoss Vegan416 (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Does it matter that it seems baseless? Wikipedia is full of inferences that seem baseless to me. Having an opinion that something implied something is just an opinion isn't it? The sentence could be rewritten to make it clearer that these are her opinions rather than what it seems to do now, present it as if the opinions are correct. The way I read the Time claim is that it is just a device, a setup for her punchline - "At the end of the day, anyone who is not experiencing a serious “mental-health crisis” over the genocide going down in Gaza with full US backing can be safely filed under the category of psychologically disturbed", which I assume is her main point. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- You mean something like that?
- "In an Al Jazeera column, Belén Fernández criticized The New York Times, which failed to mention Bushnell's motive in the title of their report, and Time, for not elaborating on what in her opinion is the "mentally disturbing" political reality of US backing Israel in the Gaza conflict." Vegan416 (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- When we say things like "which failed", I hear wiki-voice, not the columnist's voice. Anyway, if it were up to me, I would probably get rid of her examples and replace them with her summary, something along the lines of "In an Al Jazeera column, Belén Fernández wrote that "the US political-media establishment appears to be doing its best to not only decontextualise but also posthumously discredit" Bushnell. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Since it appears in the section about media coverage I think I'll go with this:
- "In an Al Jazeera column, Belén Fernández criticized The New York Times, for not mentioning Bushnell's motive in the title of their report, and Time, for not elaborating on what in her opinion is the "mentally disturbing" political reality of US backing Israel in the Gaza conflict." Vegan416 (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- When we say things like "which failed", I hear wiki-voice, not the columnist's voice. Anyway, if it were up to me, I would probably get rid of her examples and replace them with her summary, something along the lines of "In an Al Jazeera column, Belén Fernández wrote that "the US political-media establishment appears to be doing its best to not only decontextualise but also posthumously discredit" Bushnell. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2024
editThis edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei highlighted Bushnell's actions in two X posts that sent a few hours apart." 2A00:23D0:FAE:FD01:20AA:2AC5:DABC:C629 (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Typo fixed. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Change request
editThis edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under "See also", please add List of peace activists. I have added Bushnell to that page. Thank you.
WagePeace (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Okay. Sounds reasonable to me. Groceryheist (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oops, you made the link to List of Peace Activists, which doesn't exist because titles are case sensitive. Can you change it please to List of peace activists? Thanks.
- WagePeace (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I see it's been fixed. Thanks again.
- WagePeace (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- I removed him from that list (which has a major citation problem per WP:LISTPEOPLE and thus removed the list from See Also. There aren’t sources that call him a peace activist, nor an activist for peace, nor refer to anything he’s done as peace activism, or anything to establish him as a peace activist. Zanahary (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Already done Melmann 19:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The death toll of 30,000 is according to the Hamas-run health ministry. It is said so in the BBC article that is cited a a source. This information should be added. 109.239.71.50 (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)