Talk:Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell

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

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)[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]


RfC on infobox image[edit]

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[edit]

  • 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.[1][2] -- 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[edit]

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.

Opinion piece as source for facts, and correcting factual error[edit]

The 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2024[edit]

"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)[reply]

Typo fixed. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Self-immolation_of_Aaron_Bushnell&oldid=1222088358"