Talk:Murder of Aya Maasarwe: Difference between revisions

Palestine Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Melbourne / Crime Start‑class Mid‑importance

Murder of Aya Maasarwe is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Australian crime (assessed as Mid-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Death Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Israel Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Wikipedia. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Wikipedia requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Wikipedia requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That's the Nine-Fairfax newspapers, the News Corp newspapers, and the major commercial networks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Murder -> Death was supported 3-1 with multiple reasons. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

There are proper policy WP:RM#CM.Please initiate discussion accordingly --Shrike (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I object to killing, the article and the subject is far more than the killing itself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Murder of Eurydice Dixon. I see it was just recently created. ghouston (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add:

• Aiia Maasarwe: 20-year old Melbourne man charged over Bundoora killing, Helen Davidson, The Guardian
• Man arrested over killing of Israeli student Aiia Maasarwe in Melbourne, 18 January, The Telegraph
• Aiia Maasarwe: Arrest over killing of Israeli student in Melbourne, 18 January, BBC

• Aiia Maarsarwe: Arrest made in connection with killing of Israeli student in Melbourne, Joshua Berlinger, January 19, 2019 CNN

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

• Aya Maasarwe: Accused to appear in court as family prepare for release of body, 9news.com.au: "Ms Maasarwe, a Palestinian Arab of Israeli citizenship"
• Aiia Maasarwe's family prepares to return her body from Melbourne to Israel, abc.net.au: "Family of Ms Maasarwe in Baqa al-Gharbiyye [..] is a locality largely populated by Arab-Israelis who identify as Palestinian citizens of Israel."

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Israel is not among "most modern-day cases", hadn't you noticed? Huldra (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No I hadn't. We follow Wikipedia policies--Shrike (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have added what you requested while following our guidelines --Shrike (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) ?[reply]

• Killing of Mollie Tibbetts is not dissimilar. There is a secion on the familly's wishes, which we have no obligaiton to comply with.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

• You ought not have put the ethnicity into the lede during a discussion in which you had not gained consensus.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks, Shrike, for moving the article, Huldra (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
• Keep at Aya Maasarwe, per WP:COMMONNAME. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

What description should in the article in the lead.

1. Describing her as Israeli
2. Describing her as Palestinian-Israeli via pipe link to Arab citizen of Israel
3. As a Palestinian citizen of Israel

Shrike (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Israeli, the lead should be what is factual without any editorializing. She was an Israeli citizen, holding an Israeli passport, and that is what should be reported, anything else can go further down if necessary. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Israeli The WP:ETHNICITY is quite clear "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" and many WP:RS describe hew as such anyhow for example BBC NYTIMES.Yes most of the sources do mention that her family identify as Palestinian but not in the title and we should do it in Background section as the WP:ETHNICITY requires "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead" --Shrike (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• First choice, Palestinian citizen of Israel, second Palestinian-Israeli. Since her family's wishes on the matter have been made clear, that she was not simply an Israeli and she was emphatically a Palestinian, reliable sources have reflected that. Among them, SBS, 9 News, Buzzfeed and the Guardian CNN News.com.au. Nothing about her citizenship has anything to do with the activities that made the person notable, making that argument wholly off-base. Now this may be impolite to say, but the number of users with a history of extremely Zionist and anti-Palestinian editing who insist on denying this woman her own damn identity is incredibly disheartening. nableezy - 18:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Your comment violates Wikipedia policies. I suggest you retract. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. If anybody would like evidence of the above Id be glad to provide it. Including when you called me a terrorist who endorses terror. nableezy - 19:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I got blocked for it (and that could be because at that time you had a Hezbollah userbox, don't try to hide that from your explanation), and I got blocked explicitly for calling you anti-Israel, and here you are calling me anti-Palestinian. That is a violation, and ABF, which is not in accordance of Wiki policies. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I am saying is that you, and for that matter Shrike, E.M.Gregory and Icewhiz, all have a history of editing on one end of a POV spectrum. Extremely pro-Zionist and anti-Palestinian. There are numerous examples of such editing. And it concerns me that you all have decided that this Palestinian exchange student who was raped and murdered must not be called a Palestinian. Why? Why do any of you give half a shit? I still dont get it, why do users who have never shown any interest in anything about the Palestinians besides their being "terrorists", why do you all insist that this one cannot be a Palestinian? Legit, I have no understanding of this. I cant fathom spending my time arguing over whether or not a Jewish Israeli exchange student who was killed in Brazil should be called Jewish or Israeli or anything else. I dont understand why this is an article any of you are even editing. Now of course I cant say you shouldnt be, but why do a collection of users who primarily edit about Israel even care what this one person is called? nableezy - 19:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, this edit above violates policy. The Kingfisher (talk) 08:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate the concern. nableezy - 15:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think what we're saying is that in the lead is one thing, and in the article is something else. That is all. She is an Israeli exchange student and that is how the lead should show it. And I find it odd that you have a problem with editors on one side with what you consider a bias, but do you have a problem with your edits and people who share your biases? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, because I do not import my biases into articles wholly unrelated. This has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and I have no idea why there is a predictable lineup in this RFC so far. As I said, I cant fathom spending my time arguing over whether or not a Jewish Israeli exchange student who was killed in Brazil should be called Jewish or Israeli or anything else. This is only a problem for editors who, we all know this to be true, are very much on one side of the POV spectrum. And I cannot understand why. nableezy - 20:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except you are importing your bias into this article. She is Israeli, as per guidelines, she should be labeled as Israeli in the lead. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Genius, I did not remove Israeli. I support Palestinian citizen of Israel. She was Palestinian. Several reliable sources say she was Palestinian. Her family says she was Palestinian. What bias exactly am I importing into this article. Im the one removing things that I dislike? Really? nableezy - 21:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the claims above. I for one, as might be seen in my first edit here (objecting to the move from murder to death of, which I saw as disrespectful) - see Maasarwe as a human being first of all, and edit this article as many other crime articles.Icewhiz (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You object to what exactly? In this discussion you started off saying it should Israeli-Arab, putting lie to the claim that you feel ethnicity should be completely removed, and edited to that effect. You further claimed that it was a BLP violation and potentially injurious to her family to call her a Palestinian, despite her family's express wishes that she be called Palestinian. You continue to disrespect those wishes by calling them Israeli-Arabs below. So you see her as a human being first, you just dont accord her the respect of allowing her own identity to be stated. I see. nableezy - 20:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Israeli. Per WP:ETHNICITY, balance of coverage in WP:RSes, and grave BLP concerns. Her ethnic background is also unrelated to the circumstances of her murder (in Australia). A large number of RSes do not use Palestinian, including: Washington Post, YNET, BBC, news.com.au, JPost, CNN, Telegraph, USA Today, ABC.au, Times of Israel, Fox, Sky, New York Times. An op-ed, by Jennine Khalik in The Guardian (who states in the same op-ed she and her family are Palestinian) complaining on the media coverage (and claiming Palestinian is appropriate) actually makes the opposite case for us: "It was also a reminder of how news reports can erase Palestinians so easily, with multiple Australian media outlets describing 21-year-old Maasarwe as Israeli or Arab-Israeli,... Several Australian media outlets showed that by using Israel’s official terminologies ... "[2] - so Khalik wrote an op-ed to complain how most outlets covered this - without Palestinian. To this we have WP:BLP concerns - Maasarwe is covered by WP:BDP and we don't known how all of her family relates (we do know of some). In most of the world, being Palestinian, Israeli, or any other ethnicity is of little concern - beyond a regular bio detail. In Israel - a state that per the Palestinian leadership: Israel has chosen to make it a year of a new war of genocide perpetrated against the Palestinian people (Mahmoud Abbas, September 2014, TOIAJ) - identification as Palestinian (a choice that some, but far from all, Israeli-Arabs make) - is a rather serious political statement. We should be exceedingly careful with this label. Icewhiz (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Palestinian citizen of Israel, since this is a neutral and true description. Simply describing her as Israeli, with a link to Israelis, is a distortion of the complex reality of the situation, and risks misleading casual readers. No-one is suggesting that her Israeli citizenship not be mentioned; similarly, her Palestinian ethnicity deserves recognition in the lead. RolandR (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Israeli Per *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. She is notable as a victim of violence against women. The murder was unrelated to her ethnicity. Her ethnicity is not "relevant to the subject's notability." Therefore, it should not be added to the lede, but it should be kept in subheas "Background," our COMMON location for this sort of information.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Palestinian citizen of Israel or None. It is clear (from her family's statement) that she did not identify as an Israeli, she identified as a Palestinian. We are violating her, all over again, if we don't respect that. I can accept that neither "Israeli" or "Palestinian" is noted in the lead, as that is not what got her into the news: (I suspect her perpetrator knew nothing of her ethnicity, or nationality), Huldra (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• wouldn't that be SYNTH, it's clear that the family identifies as Palestinian, we have no idea how she identified, regardless of that she was Israeli and that is how she should be identified in the lead. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• According to her family: she identified as Palestinian link No SYNTH about that, Huldra (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Stuff you family tells the press about your thoughts and opinions after you die are WP:RS for your family's opinion. Not for your actual opinion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, E.M.Gregory, serial author of Palestinians as terrorists articles, he knows more than this woman's family about her wishes. How silly of us. nableezy - 21:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• So you are accusing her family of lying. Nice. Huldra (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, they are not a RS for entry into an encyclopedia's lead. We can add that later on if you wish, but the lead should reflect facts. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, her family is very clear that she identified as a Palestinian, not as an Israeli (knowing some Palestinians with Israeli citizenship: this is completely unsurprising to me). You either accept that, or you are in effect saying her family is telling lies about her, Huldra (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• We can add it as the family's opinion of what her opinion was. But we cannot quote an assertion by the family about the thoughts of the deceased except by discussing them as a claim made by the family. No one accuses anyone of lying. There are other factors at play. Memory is fallible: you many remember what Grandpa thought about Obama or global warming differently than you sister does. Individuals suddenly thrust into a media spotlight may feel obliged to make statements that are politically popular. Mom may have told you why she and Dad decided to marry form one perspective, and have told your sister the same story from another perspective. Or your brother may have been very keen on Brexit when he talked to you in 2017, but reversed his position in 2018 when he told your brother that it was a really stupid idea. Neither of you would be lying if you told this to the press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you know any young Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims/Christians in Israel, with Israeli citizenship, at all? If you did, you would see that there is nothing surprising about her family's statement. Also, once self identifying's ethnicity is a very basic thing, that someone would misremember that is like saying they misremember that they identified as female, and not as male. Huldra (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I can certainly imagine a situation where a family would tell the press that their child was woman, when all of the adult child's friends knew that their friend had identified as a man.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• But here we have a case where not anyone who knew her has identified her as Israeli. Also, I was replying to your case of "misremembering": if someone had told their parents that they self-identified as a man (and not the daughter they once had): you can be damn sure they would remember it. Same with "Palestinian". Huldra (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Huldra, I hate to break it to you, but not everyone tells their parents. Just as not everyone tells Mom and Dad that they're no longer attending Mass every week, or no longer a Republican, or that they use a less ethnic name at work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• E.M.Gregory: did you read what I wrote, at all? I wrote "if someone had told their parents" ...bolding the part you apparenty missed, Huldra (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Several reliable sources explicitly say she was Palestinian. All that palaver above is utterly irrelevant. The point Huldra is making is that beyond the several reliable sources that explicitly say she was Palestinian is that even her family says she was Palestinian. nableezy - 21:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the page cites that family stating exactly that.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be responding to a point nobody made. I said several reliable sources say she was Palestinian. Not according to her family. But as a fact. nableezy - 21:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly we can state as a fact that she grew up in a Palestinian family, with excellent sources. The question of how a person identifies is not so simple.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If she were Jewish there is zero chance you would be arguing to say "she grew up in a Jewish family", that maybe she did not identify as Jewish and that despite reliable sources identifying her as a Jew and her family identifying her as a Jew that we cannot say that she is Jewish. Literally zero chance. nableezy - 22:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And compare for example this article that you created and nearly entirely responsible for. You label somebody a "Palestinian terrorist". Yet he lived in Jabel Mukaber, which Israel claims as its territory and whose residents hold Israeli residential permits and not Palestinian citizenship. So Palestinian in that article would be in reference to what? Because according to you here only what his papers say would matter. Why is he not an Israeli? nableezy - 22:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was one of the first things I noted, back in 2005: you are never noted as a Palestinian on Wikipedia, unless you had done something very bad. Very simple. I guess I could start an article about every Jew, or every Rabbi who has been found guilty of some crime.....sexual, monetary, what not. But I am just not that filled with hatred....Huldra (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Palestinian Arab of Israeli citizenship or words to that effect; both "Palestinian" and "Israeli citizenship" must go in the lead, since they're both vital context. Sources emphasizing this include here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here (many of these are currently in the article). Not all Palestinian identity or fail to give it equal weight with her Israeli one, and those aren't sufficient to omit it (in order to omit something that is well-sourced and high-profile in reliable sources, we would need sources unambiguously contesting it, ie. some sources describing her more briefly as Israeli do not allow us to ignore the greater number of sources calling her a Palestinian Arab of Israeli citizenship or words to that effect.) Note that this also addresses the WP:ETHNICITY complaint people are making above - since the majority of reliable sources have found the fact that she is Palestinian to be noteworthy, WP:RS and WP:DUE require that we do the same. The manual of style is just a guideline, but WP:RS and WP:DUE are hard requirements. --Aquillion (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources and your WP:DUE argument support discussing her ethnicity in the "Background" section of page - where it already exists. They do not support putting it in the lede. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Context: "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 victim of violence against women. Not because she happens to be from a specific ethnic background.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• But by that standard, we shouldn't have Israeli in the lead either: again, it is not her nationality which made her notable, it was, as you said: as a victim of violence against women. Huldra (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Incorrect. WP:DUE determines both what we put in the article and its prominence; if something is covered in the leads of many mainstream reliable sources (as this is), then it belongs in the lead of the article. WP:ETHNICITY is merely a guideline and cannot override WP:DUE, even for decisions about what goes in the lead vs. the body. Additionally, as regards WP:ETHNICITY, the question is not merely "was her ethnicity the cause of her killing" but "is her ethnicity a notable part of the story surrounding her killing", ie. is it one of the reasons her killing is noteworthy. Many sources, by putting it front and center, have indicated that they do see it as noteworthy as it pertains to this topic; we cannot ignore that just because you personally think those sources got it wrong. --Aquillion (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Israeli. Her ethnicity played no part in her killing, so it is not sufficiently notable to warrant placement in the lead. WWGB (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did her nationality play any part in her killing? Why should that be noted? nableezy - 02:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Context provides for it to be included. WWGB (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an impartial view. She was a Palestinian Arab of Israeli citizenship[3] but obviously, she was an Israeli also. Both descriptions of her status are true and correct. However, taking into consideration the overall situation in the region and sensitivity of the matter, her Palestinian identity should be recorded in the lead of the article.GizzyCatBella (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Guys this thread is really gross and disappointing. With friends I've been to the place where the horrible event happened as it has become a makeshift memorial full of flowers and went to her Janazah at the Albanian mosque in Dandenong. Members of her family in Melbourne were very distraught over everything that has happened. Threads like this are just another kick to the guts. Please this should not be hard. Her family self defines as Palestinian. The formula Palestinian Arab of Israeli citizenship works ok.Resnjari (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Palestinian Arab of Israeli citizenship: this is neutral and describes the situation. It also explains why Maasarwe's name is listed in Arabic in the lead, which is helpful to readers. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Israeli. Isn't this a continuing pattern of a certain editor always trying to place "Palestinian" into the lede of every article, regardless of policy? The Kingfisher (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please remember to assume good faith. --Aquillion (talk) 06:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote me a note about good faith over a benign comment that did not name any editor in particular, so why didn't you write anything to Nableezy when he referred to specific editors as "Extremely pro-Zionist and anti-Palestinian"? The Kingfisher (talk) 08:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your past accounts have the same habit of lying about what a person said. I wrote that certain editors have a history of extremely Zionist and anti-Palestinian editing. Please dont continue that habit of lying through omission of context as your prior accounts. Thank you. nableezy - 15:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Icewhiz, what exactly are the grave BLP concerns? Calling a Palestinian a Palestinian when they want to be called a Palestinian is a BLP violation? The NYTimes cite you use says the following: At the vigil, many people wore black at the organizers’ request, and they remained largely silent to respect the wishes of Ms. Maasarwe’s family. They are from Baqa al-Gharbiyye, a predominantly Arab city in the north of Israel, and identify as Palestinian. As far as CNN, and thanks for having me look, they also call her Palestinian. So too does News.com.au. nableezy - 19:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm also unclear on what BLP concerns are there. We know, from the reports in the media, that Maasarwe's family wishes for her to be identified as Palestinian. If it were the opposite situation, i.e. the family wanted to be identified as Israeli-only, I would understand the concern. But the family is quite specific; it's a compassionate thing for the article to reflect that. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find this thread distasteful. This girl’s life and death has nothing to do with the conflict, yet here we are stuck in a political debate. Sometimes self-control is the best path for us - we don’t need to fight this every time. Let’s please try to avoid adding to the family’s trauma. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i agree wholeheartedly. I saw her father when he was here in Melbourne, it was heartbreaking to say the least. Please everyone, some commonsense needs to be observed for certain situations.Resnjari (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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