Talk:Bisan Owda

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 August 2024

From the following article we see that Bisan Osda was a member of the Palestinian Progressive Youth Union movement https://web.archive.org/web/20240727002518/https://pflp.ps/post/16667/%D8%A7%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%AF%D9%85%D9%8A-%D9%8A%D9%81%D8%AA%D8%AA%D8%AD-%D8%B5%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%AD%D9%86%D8%B8%D9%84%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AB%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D9%84%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%A8%D8%B9%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%87

and is part of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, as per the listing on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Federation_of_Democratic_Youth

Since it was only 5 years ago, I believe it is relevant as part of Bisan Owda's background. Thank you. Steal the Kosher Bacon (talk) 12:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Any English language sources to support this? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, just saw this:

https://www.israelhayom.com/2024/08/08/gaza-journalist-with-suspected-terror-ties-reportedly-nominated-for-emmy/ Steal the Kosher Bacon (talk) 05:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bunnypranav (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 August 2024

Bisan Owda

OnyekeEjike (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bunnypranav (talk) 05:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

TheWrap

Hey @Rainsage, could you elaborate on this edit? FortunateSons (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The Reliable Sources page says: "As an industry trade publication, there is consensus that TheWrap is a good source for entertainment news and media analysis. There is no consensus regarding the reliability of TheWrap's articles on other topics." The BLP page says: "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."

I don't think we should use TheWrap as a source on this contentious topic on a BLP, when there are better sources. Rainsage (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

It’s a generally reliable source for entertainment news, being used for entertainment use. In what way do you think it can cause harm, beyond was is already covered in the article? FortunateSons (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think a journalist being accused of PLFP ties while reporting during an alleged genocide during which journalists are allegedly being targeted by the alleged genocider is entertainment Rainsage (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The alleged ties of a journalist and influencer being reported in the context of her Emmy nomination is, just as any other accusation of misconduct/a crime against a celebrity would be. For example, MeToo coverage would be entertainment too, IMO FortunateSons (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

And “this is important context to include” is not really a good due argument that gets close to a WP:coatrack (harm to journalists). And what is the issue with the lower reverted edit? It does not alter the meaning for the sentence. FortunateSons (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

It’s not a coatrack because the source is specifically about Owda and connecting the topics. That Al Jazeera's journalists have been killed by Israel with claims of their involvement with "terrorist organizations" is obviously relevant to this claim that this Al Jazeera journalist has such ties. But it is relevant because the statement connects the two. SBS Australia also connects the topic of the killed journalists to this campaign. nableezy - 18:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

So it’s just undue then. The response is longer than the main point, that’s never a good sign. FortunateSons (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you that the paragraph should be shorter, but if it mentions danger to her safety we should mention why. I also don't think this "controversy" warrants its own subsection. Rainsage (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

We could link to any of the subsections on killed journalists in the conflict? Would that work? FortunateSons (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think it undue in the slightest. And coverage from SBS relating the two demonstrates that it is due. Same for CBC And when the main point is an unsubstantiated allegation against a living person the response should be as long as the sources support. Which is this much. nableezy - 19:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

It’s undue relative to the coverage of the allegations, which is of course solvable by extending the allegations. But I would say that it would be better to instead shorten the response, particularly as it’s not her response. Maybe just keeping AJ and removing CAIR is an option? FortunateSons (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think that’s true at all, and no I don’t think either should be removed. We cover the allegation in full, and we cover the response in full. nableezy - 19:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

For example, the we neither mention the picture nor the speech at the anniversary. Both are highly significant IMO, and the CAIR statement matters less than the photos do. FortunateSons (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

What the CBC says is The industry group's main complaint is an unproven allegation that Owda has ties to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine … The PFLP allegations stem from posts on X (formerly Twitter) made by a communications analyst that purport to show Owda, 25, speaking at PFLP-related events as a teenager between 2014 and 2018. Purport to show, unproven allegation is the type of phrasing that would be appropriate here for a BLP. nableezy - 20:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I prefer the NYT phrasing, which says “There are reports and photographs indicating that Owda spoke at group events between 2014 and 2018.”, and linking to TheWrap, which uses “CCFP, a pro-Israel nonprofit organization, discovered Owda’s long-standing ties to PFLP, which has been a designated terrorist organization in the U.S. since 1997. The journalist regularly spoke at PFLP rallies and hosted events to honor Palestinians injured or killed in violent confrontations with Israeli soldiers. In 2018, the PFLP explicitly referred to Owda as a member of the Progressive Youth Union of the organization.” Let’s look for a reasonable compromise between those. FortunateSons (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The Wrap is a non starter here, it makes claims of fact that the real sources say are unproven allegations. nableezy - 20:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Which? FortunateSons (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Owda's supposed "long-standing ties to PFLP", which the actually reliable sources call unproven accusations or that reports suggest. nableezy - 22:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

That’s circular reasoning if that’s the claim I want to source. TheWrap is green on RSN for entertainment news (which it is), her picture are on the PFLP site, it’s a respected (enough) publication, and the NYT is citing it as attribution for the claims, which are not disputed as fraudulent. We should clarify that the extent and nature of the connections are unproven, but there is no serious dispute about what those pictures show, and so we should be clear about that part too FortunateSons (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

No, Owdas supposed participation in in the PFLP is not entertainment news. Much stronger sources are not making the claim the wrap is making, they are saying this is an unverified allegation, and that there is this petition. Using such a source in a blp is a straightforward BLP violation when stronger sources say it is not proven and the pictures only purportedly show such a thing, or that the pictures also wouldn’t prove any affiliation. nableezy - 01:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree on all counts, but in the spirit of compromise: “The group cited pictures and reports which purport to show Owda speaking at PFLP events as late as 2018.” or any other summary of the NYT + Deadline + other coverage is fine IMO, but the images are a core part of the story and should be included, but I’m not attached to the particular phrasing. FortunateSons (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

What can you infer about Obama from this photo of his dining with Ali Abunimah, Rashid Khalidi and Edward Said? If it were to circulate the effect would either be (a)see. I told you: Obama is an anti-Israel Muslim (b)See. I told you. Obama really is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause (c) Obama is a two-timing hypocritical brownnoser. He hangs out with Arabs and then stabs them in the back when he gets into power, etc. Photos, unless we have precise information on who said what to whom, where etc., have zero meaning and, in such cases, the use of such images only serves to suggest an implication you cannot objectively draw from them without such background. This is particularly true of photos of a teenager in a very small world where opportunities to engage in above-subsistance conversation are minimal. Here the promotors of their circulation clearly are intent on character assassination by innuendo.Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The Wrap got this from Creative Community for Peace which drew on a report by the self-employed Eitan Fischberger, who worked as an Iron Dome technician in the 2014 Gaza War, and was impressed by the great lengths he and his fellow technicans went to avoid civilian casualties, and disturbed by media distortions of this 'fact'. The facts there are that of the 2,310 killed in that war the United Nations Human Rights Committee stated 65% were civilians (1,500). The IDF says only 35% were civilians (808) - so yeah, either way Israel took extraordinary steps to avoid civilian casualties. Then Fischberger got his formative training, successively, working for CAMERA and NGO Monitor, both notorious for surreptitiously infiltrating wikipedia to influence its articles, aside from their status as unusable sources. Since then he's a freelance, and has suddenly developed, all on his own, a deep familiarity with Arabic-language websites. He has his name up there in lights for blowing Bisan Owda's cover as a teenage terrorist (after all he has stated he has dedicated himself to the defense of 'Western Civilization').

The IDF is on record as saying that anyone in Gaza who has had any link with Hamas, even though only as a journalist working for local Gaza media, is to be viewed as no different from a fighter in the Al-Qassam Brigades, any member of whom is killed when detected. 86% of over 200 journalists in Gaza stated their homes had been directly bombed. Of the 110+ Gaza journalists killed by Israel,30% worked for media outlets affiliated with or closely tied to Hamas (of which PFLP is one). Therefore, technically this narrative places her in a position of danger. Since Eitanberger is the core font for these allegations, I would suggest the place to discuss this is the BLP/Noticeboard for neutral input. Good luck with that one. I'd be happy to lay bets on the outcome. Nishidani (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

2024 Nobel Peace Prize nomination

Is this due for inclusion? Bisan's nomination is included on the page 2024 Nobel Peace Prize, cited to https://www.altinget.no/artikkel/dette-er-stortingspolitikernes-nominasjoner-til-nobels-fredspris-2024.

There isn't much coverage of this however and I'm not familiar with how significant being nominated for a Nobel Prize is. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

No. A large number of 'non-starters' are referred to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. Being nominated is not significant. I say that with no prejudice to her person or work. Nishidani (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, yes. But we will have to wait another 50 years for the nominees list to be officially revealed (https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination). Then we will be able to add her on the appropriate page (List of individuals nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize) GastelEtzwane (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 September 2024

Writing "Israel-Hamas war" is incorrect and highly offensive when all we see are civilian casualties, many of whom children. This is titled a GENOCIDE by the International Court of Justice. Not calling this a genocide shows that Wikipedia is dismissing these facts. It is not a war! Hohoho56 (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Not relevant to this talk page Rainsage (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Instagram in infobox?

Is it appropriate to include a link to Bisan's Instagram account in the infobox? As I did in this edit. The lead of this article states "She is best known for her social media videos documenting her experiences during the Israel–Hamas war in the Gaza Strip", which I believe she does primarily through Instagram. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that ok. For example, we link to live streamers too [1]. I’m not sure on the best style, but it’s fine on the content side IMO FortunateSons (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

DUE concerns over signatories named in reporting

@Hipal on what basis are you claiming that inclusion of individuals named in reliable reporting on the topic of Owda's documentary and the controversy surrounding it is undue? My inclusion of less notable names in a footnote was intended to reflect that those individuals aren't named in every article about the topic, but are nonetheless named by at least one source that covered it. That is an accurate representation of the weight given to us in the sources. At a minimum, you need to re-add Haim Saban and Michael Rotenberg, as they are both mentioned in the source used even after you reverted me and it would be undue to selectively include some of the individuals named and not others. I don't see how your allegation that this weight is undue, which you have refused to substantiate here or in our related discussion on my talk page, boils down to anything more than WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and WP:STONEWALLING. Please explain yourself. Unbandito (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for starting a discussion.

Please WP:FOC.

[1] trims for concision to reduce undue weight on this topic

As I indicated in my edit summary, I don't see how any of the names are relevant to Owda, the nomination, or the award. Instead, they are soapboxing for the petition.

I think the section should be rewritten giving prominence to what's important to Owda and the award, rather than being used as a soapbox and coatrack for other interests. --Hipal (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The names are obviously relevant to the "petition to rescind nomination" component of the section titled "Emmy award and petition to rescind nomination". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

This article is about Owda, not the petition. WP:NOT and WP:POV direct us to avoid soapboxing, coatracking, or otherwise giving undue weight. --Hipal (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:SOAPBOX or WP:COATRACK apply. The petition to rescind Bisan Owda's Emmy nomination is clearly relevant to Bisan Owda.

Whether or not the names of the signatories are due for inclusion, and if so which ones, is something that will need to be discussed with reference to RS.

Unbandito has presented a number of RS which reported on the names of the signatories. I tend to agree with their statement "My inclusion of less notable names in a footnote was intended to reflect that those individuals aren't named in every article about the topic, but are nonetheless named by at least one source that covered it. That is an accurate representation of the weight given to us in the sources." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The petition to rescind ... is clearly relevant to Bisan Owda. I mostly agree. I'd say it's relevant to the award, and the award is relevant to Owda...

Looking through the refs, I think we have enough coverage from high-quality sources (NYTimes, CBC, The Guardian), that mention of the petition is DUE, avoiding WP:NOTNEWS problems.

Given the topic and her ties with them, I think we should trim the material from Al Jazeera. If an independent source covers the same material, then we might remove the two Al Jazeera refs completely.

I see there is an opposing petition. I'm unclear if mention of it is DUE as I'm only finding a single high-quality source (The Guardian), plus entertainment and Arab sources. --Hipal (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to clarify my motivation for pursuing the inclusion of this material, since I seem to have been interpreted as soapboxing for the petition. I try to keep my own views on the topics I'm editing out of the discussion as much as possible so as not to give the impression that I am not here first and foremost to contribute to an accurate encyclopedia, however in this case I think I should clarify that I am not trying to promote the petition in any way. In fact, I think that history will not look kindly on this petition, which is why I think it's important that all the named signatories in RS be recorded in the public record in some capacity.

I wasn't aware of the counter-petition, and I do not object to including a mention of it (I would name and link Elia Suleiman and Farah Nabulsi, and restore the names from my previous edit if others don't object) for balance.

I'm fine with trimming AJ's assertion that the claims are baseless, but I think their comments that the petition endangered her are worth keeping. Unbandito (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

My comments, including "soapboxing for the petition" are about the disputed content as supported by the references. My apologies if they could be interpreted otherwise. I'm happy to refactor. --Hipal (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

As for rewriting it, what's most important is that Owda won the award. The rest is just politics with no lasting impact. --Hipal (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes it's politics. What makes it of "no lasting impact"? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The references. --Hipal (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I gave it a shot [2] based upon the discussion above, and reverted to the version prior to the edit-warring. I'm still concerned about the weight given to two individual's. More to follow... --Hipal (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I support this version per Unbandito's recent changes. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain why based upon the discussion above and relevant content policies? --Hipal (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it's your position that is unsupported by policy, the facts and the discussion here. @IOHANNVSVERVS established above that Whether or not the names of the signatories are due for inclusion, and if so which ones, is something that will need to be discussed with reference to RS. I believe The RS in the article (as well as the ones disputed) unanimously include some mention of the opposition to Owda's qualification in discussions of her award. The existence of the counter-petition by Palestinian filmmakers both adds to the notability of the controversy, and gives us a rationale for why the controversy is notable. The signers of the counter-petition accuse Hollywood of dehumanizing Palestinians and helping to enable the devastation of Gaza. In addition to Al Jazeera's assertion that the effort endangered Owda, this material explicates the high stakes of the controversy.

@Hipal I think you should review the following policies, which I believe support my recent changes given IOHANNVSVERVS's support: WP:DRNC, WP:NOTUNANIMITY, WP:SQS Unbandito (talk) 22:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

This is disruptive. Sanctions apply. Please collaborate with other editors, assume good faith, and focus on content policy.

I suggest we create proposals for changes, then have others review them to determine how to best go forward. --Hipal (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I have repeatedly created proposals for changes, taking into account your objections and seeking compromise. You're the only person who has opposed my proposed changes each time. Feel free to notify other editors about the dispute, as I suggested previously in our discussion on my talk page. I am confident that most will not object to my proposal and I'm willing to respect whatever consensus evolves from further input. However, I do believe that as things stand now, I have the support necessary to implement this version until the consensus evolves. Unbandito (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

You're the only person Again, WP:FOC. You're incorrect. See the diff I provided in my first comment above.

Consensus is required. Sanctions that specifically require an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page. Please stop edit warring. Let's get an WP:RfC put together. --Hipal (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Not that I think entertainment publishers should be used to determine encyclopedic value and due weight, but Variety's relationship with Creative Community for Peace makes me question a lot of my initial perception of this content. ("Variety is a media sponsor", "Variety... serves as a media partner" "Variety is the event’s official media sponsor.") --Hipal (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

That's an interesting development I wasn't aware of, thanks for bringing that up. It definitely raises a concern that Variety is trying to promote the petition. If the content in dispute here were a quote from one of these articles, for example "This is not about choosing sides. It’s not a war of who deserves more compassion. It’s about the right of Israel to exist, and the right for its people not to be terrorized" I can see how Variety's relationship to the source would be an issue. However, all we are discussing here with regard to Variety is whether to name all the people who they say signed the petition or not. Maybe my own bias is getting in the way here, because in my attempts to add the content in dispute I really hadn't considered soapboxing for CCfP to be an issue. When I read about a bunch of rich, influential celebrities (who are evidently sponsored by Variety, EA, Amazon and Warner Brothers) trying to get a refugee girl's documentary nomination canceled, I see that as so unambiguously cruel, out of touch, embarrassing, etc. that I really don't see how writing about it from a neutral point of view could end up being promotional. I am starting to understand your perspective a bit better as this discussion continues. I felt that the inclusion of the counter-petition helped to add balance to the section and explain the notability of the controversy as a whole, and I thought you agreed.

I know I am responsible for reading up on all the relevant Wikipedia policies, especially as it applies to contentious topics. However, there are a lot of policies and they can be pretty confusing at times. I am still learning by doing. I was able to find the page you quoted in your last edit summary and I now understand how attempting to reinstate one's reverted edit without consensus is edit warring. I have attempted alternative edits that I felt were an adequate compromise when my previous version was reverted, but I have only reinstated a reverted edit verbatim after our discussion here, which was 2:1 in favor of the reinstated version. WP:NOTUNANIMITY says:

Insisting on unanimity can allow a minority opinion to filibuster the process. If someone knows that the group cannot move forward without their consent, they may harden their position in order to get their way. This is considered unacceptable on Wikipedia as a form of gaming the system, as well as tendentious editing. There is even a three revert rule to limit efforts to stonewall the editing process. Editors should make a good faith effort to reach a consensus. That means that the dissenting party has to state how the current proposal fails to meet the interests of the wider group, rather than merely stating they will not accept it. But after a good faith discussion, sometimes the dissenting party must consent to move forward even if they disagree with the specific course of action.

Based on my understanding of that policy, I did believe that I had obtained the affirmative consensus required to restore that version. Can you explain why you think that isn't the case?

What I am seeking at this point, seeing as you don't accept this version, is a more substantive discussion of the issues at play. I feel that you have "dropped" a few of the arguments I have advanced in my other comments in favor of the version currently in dispute. Can you substantiate your objection to the version you most recently reverted? I also want to give @Innisfree987 a chance to weigh in, since you pointed out that they reverted a previous version that I had tried to implement, but they have not been active in disputing subsequent versions. Their input could be valuable here and save us some trouble. Unbandito (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response. This feels like I'm interacting with a completely different person. I appreciate the effort you are making to work with me.

I don't want to quote my first comment above, but it summarizes my perspective: We should only be including what's relevant to Owda's life.

In my experience, focusing on WP:NOTUNANIMITY is an indication that WP:AGF has been abandoned.

Thank you for pinging Innisfree987.

I want to re-review the non-entertainment references, to see what's DUE based only on non-entertainment references. Again, this looks like wartime politics with no lasting impact beyond publicity for the parties involved. If you are in a hurry, let's put together an RfC with the versions we currently have. --Hipal (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

While I'm not in a hurry, I'm not against putting together an RFC if you think that's necessary. However, I don't think I fully understand how to conduct one properly, so it would have to be mostly on your initiative. I also would like to see if some more discussion can help us understand each others' position better, whether or not we do an RFC. I think that some of our disagreement is upstream of a question of language that could be decided by an RFC.

It seems like one of our major points of disagreement is over not just the specific language but where on Wikipedia is an appropriate place to cover this controversy. You've been consistent in raising the objection that the content on a living person's page should be relevant to their life. When I had tried to add this content to the signatories' pages, I said on my talk page that I think a person's views on the most polarizing and controversial topics of their day are often relevant to a reader of their biography even if those views didn't directly impact the work they're known for, giving the example of Melvil Dewey's racist and antisemitic views which are included on his page.

On this article, where I thought the inclusion of the material might be deemed more appropriate, I put forward an argument based on the sources in discussion that the incident was relevant to Owda's life since the bulk of sources mentioned it in the context of her winning the award and, as Al Jazeera said, it endangered her, and as the counter-petition said, it contributed to the dehumanization of Palestinians and enabled the destruction of Gaza. (I'm paraphrasing a bit there.)

Can you explain why you found those arguments unpersuasive? Is there somewhere else on Wikipedia that you think is a more appropriate venue to include a full accounting of the controversy?

To be clear, although I have made my case for inclusion on these various biographies, I am not necessarily attached to including the material specifically on a biography page. I just don't have any good ideas about where else to put it, and I think it belongs on a page with at least some traffic where it fits naturally with the rest of the content.

For example, I don't think that the 45th News and Documentary Emmy Awards page would be a suitable alternative since it's a stub article dominated by tables and will likely remain one, and the controversy might have been the only remotely newsworthy thing that occurred at that event, which means it would take up an outsize amount of space on the page.

Ultimately, I think this controversy is most notable as its own discrete event that exemplifies a prevailing attitude of our time in the Hollywood cultural milieu which will likely be instructive to people in the future who seek to understand how influential people in American society thought about the war in Gaza as it was occurring. Do we agree that there is some value in documenting that?

To address the other issue you brought up of entertainment sources being used to determine notability, I am not sure I completely agree that non-entertainment sources should be our sole metric to determine due weight. Since this is a Hollywood controversy, I would think entertainment sources would carry some weight and be appropriate to factor into our determination of notability. Obviously I wouldn't want to cite them on the Israel-Hamas war page, but the same sources that are the best for that page would be just as inappropriate for some scientific or historical topic that requires a journal article or book. The context matters, and in this context I would like to know more about why you think the entertainment sources have no value.

There is some precedent on Wikipedia for including similar material on the most relevant biography page. While these two incidents aren't perfectly analogous, I see my version of the section here as similar to the section that covers the reception to Sacheen Littlefeather's Emmy Awards speech. I think it's appropriate in that case that the reception to her remarks is covered most extensively on her page with a more brief mention on the 45th Academy Awards page, and I think much of the reason why that's appropriate applies here.

Let's see if we can reach a deeper understanding a hopefully a compromise. Unbandito (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

No offense, but let's remember we're discussing a petition that didn't create the outcome sought, nor apparently made any difference other than creating some publicity.

For me, and I hope all Wikipedians, what matters are the references, the relevant policies, and any other relevant general consensus. That's why I'm taking time to look closer at the references. --Hipal (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Some quick thoughts after digging through the refs:

I think it should be rewritten relying mainly on the CBC (Maimann 2024) reference. The Guardian (Pulver 2024) reference is also good though very brief. I'd add https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/bisan-owda-gaza-journalist-emmy-award-b2619380.html to verify the win, and drop all the other references.

The underlying, broad context is that journalists in Gaza are in extreme danger from the Israel Defense Forces, and that Palestinians have the right to tell their story. --Hipal (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd like the dust to settle a bit more here, but what we need to do is rewrite the section as a summary. Currently it suffers from being written as events were unfolding. --Hipal (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)