Talk:Gigi Hadid

RfC: Israeli-Palestinian conflict

The following discussion 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.

---

Should we include information about her pro-Palestinian stance and related death threats? -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

If this is covered by independent and reliable sources, it can be included in the Personal life section. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Support inclusion, including the reception of her advocacy. We have significant RS coverage, and it’s clearly both significant and unique enough to warrant a section (probably around 3 paragraphs (covering actions, death threats and reception/reaction) in length, but others may disagree) FortunateSons (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment RS sigcov per request, sourcing/selection can be derived later:

FAZ: 1 2

Independent: 1

Times of Israel: 1

HuffPost (note the relevant restrictions): 1

i24: 1

Haaretz: 1

Jerusalem Post:1

RollingStone: 1

ynet: 1

Allgemeiner: 1

Please note the following:

1. While I believe that all are RS, I could have overlooked one or more unreliable sources

2. This search was done using key words, which may influence the outcome

3. It’s not an exhaustive list, nor is it all available content from each source.

4. some of those may have significant bias, and other sources were excluded due to reliability concerns. My judgement is not final.

5. I’m in Europe, so my search results may be impacted by privacy protections FortunateSons (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for identifying some possible sources. Are any new, or are they all from past discussions? --Hipal (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The search is new, but I assume that there is significant overlap.

For example, I believe that one of the FAZ sources and the HuffPost one are new, and I think we had a different ToI one back then. I could be wrong though (except about HuffPost due to the date). FortunateSons (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Given past discussions and the requirements of BLP, this RfC should be closed until the potential refs are reviewed. --Hipal (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Anyone voting can review sources (and/or add their own), and we can then work on the details if there is a consensus to include. However, this has been an on/off discussion (not counting reverts) for months, so a consensus for or against inclusion would save a significant amount of editor resources. An agreement at least vague content would already cut down on 80% of past discussions. FortunateSons (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

You're not going to change consensus by working out the details later. --Hipal (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Support per FortunateSons. Tobby72 (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Support in principle, but it would be much easier to assess if there were specific text to comment on. Clearly issues of due WEIGHT apply.Pincrete (talk) 04:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Identify some sources and propose some content first. Otherwise you risk violating BLP and the three areas of editing restrictions that apply here. --Hipal (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Reject as a BLP and CON vio. This doesn't look like a policy-based attempt at creating consensus as long as there are no details. --Hipal (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

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.

Post-RfC proposals

Please list proposals here so we can evaluate the references and proposed content against content policies while avoiding policy violations. --Hipal (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. This is the (most recent) sourcing list from above, would you consider any of them unsuitable or unreliable?

FAZ: 1 2

Independent: 1

Times of Israel: 1

HuffPost (note the relevant restrictions): 1

i24: 1

Haaretz: 1

Jerusalem Post:1

RollingStone: 1

ynet: 1

Allgemeiner: 1 FortunateSons (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

That would depend on the proposals. M.Bitton (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Of course, but I would rather work with sources whose accuracy is not disputed FortunateSons (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The reliability of the sources is always context dependent, and besides, there are other policies that come into play when dealing with a WP:BLP. Do you have a proposal to suggest? M.Bitton (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• After posting a statement which was supportive of Palestinians - describe by Rollingstone as “extremely mild”, the Instagram Account of the Israeli Government posted two stories criticising her.(RollingStone)(Independent)
• Hadid stated that she received death threats after speaking out. (Independent) (FAZ)
• Despite pressure from activists and receiving over 4000 letter, her agency IMG Models did not end their work with her.(Ynet)
• In November 2023, Hadid claimed that Israel was harvesting the organs of Palestinians, a claim described as a Blood libel.(Allgemeiner) She was critical about the imprisonment of Ahmad Al-Manasara, a Palestinian boy convicted of attempting to stab two Israelis, and claimed that Israel was the only country that held children as prisoners of war. Hadid later apologised for claiming that Israel had abducted, tortured and raped Palestinians before the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, stating that “I shared something that I did not fact-check or deeply think about prior to reposting”.(Allgemeiner)(JPost)(I24)(Haaretz)(ToI)
• Hadid wore a “keffiyeh-print dress” at Cannes, aknowledging it as a symbol of her support for Palestine.(HuffPost)

Those are the ones that have enough Sigcov that it’s pretty clear IMO. There are a bunch of general statements about her support for Palestinians and opposition to Oct 7, I’m not sure which of those are due, but am in favour of including at least a few. FortunateSons (talk) 09:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The RfC was about adding information about her pro-Palestinian stance and related death threats. The first part is already mentioned in the article (we don't need the minutiae). What do you propose for the second? M.Bitton (talk) 10:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

And my statement of “including the reception of her advocacy” per which the person who created the RfC voted. So we need the reactions to her post (at least point 4, it is clearly due). I also think we should elaborate a bit on her activism, it’s rather short FortunateSons (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The RfC close didn't say anything about "elaborating" on her activism. She's a model, what she does on the side plays second fiddle to that.

Do you have a proposal to suggest? M.Bitton (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

That depends. Which of the above points do you consider to be unfit for inclusion, and based on which policy? FortunateSons (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

No proposal means nothing to comment on. Moving on. M.Bitton (talk) 11:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Any of the sentences are a proposed sentence, there is no obligation to merge them first, and separate sentences are easier to discuss FortunateSons (talk) 12:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

In that case, you need to seek consensus for them individually. M.Bitton (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Do you have an objection to any of the sentences? FortunateSons (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Taken together, they are UNDUE beyond the pale, that's why I kept asking to suggest a proposal. M.Bitton (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Point 2 is the shortest possible description of what the RfC supported regarding death threats, so that one is fine, right?

Point 4 has excellent RS coverage and should go in, are you opposed to it?

I’m not opposed to changing/removing 3 and 5, but some idea of “activism through an about fashion” is probably due.

We should cover her statements, through it doesn’t have to be trough point 1, even if “called out by a government” is probably worthy of mention. FortunateSons (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

No objection to point 2 or a variation of it. The rest is UNDUE. M.Bitton (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

How is it Point 4 undue? There is coverage of the incident by:

FAZ

ToI

I24

Haaretz

Allgemeiner

Newsweek

National Post

and others, it’s neither routine nor minor, and therefore due. FortunateSons (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Since when do we add content simply because "there is coverage" of it? Anyway, I said what I think and don't intend on repeating it. M.Bitton (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Would you be willing to provide a policy-based reason why something covered by multiple newspapers of record is undue? FortunateSons (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I already have. As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I'm done here until the OP has had a chance to share their views. M.Bitton (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Given the political aspects of the existing and proposed content, asking to use references that are specifically excluded from such use is a waste of time.

I mostly agree with M.Bitton. I don't think we've made any progress on addressing NOT and POV problems with such content. I'm unsure if any mention of the death threats is due. --Hipal (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Which references are specifically excluded? I cross-checked with RSN and the list, but I could have missed one or more. FortunateSons (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Awards

She won Model of the Year in 2014. 2A00:23C5:EDB0:B001:7875:FFCB:5A59:604E (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)