Jump to content

Talk:Death of Alan Kurdi/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Reactions section

I've just added some text about the reaction to the picture, since previously the article had a section titled 'Criticism of the general public's responses to the picture' without saying what 'the general public's responses to the picture' actually were. I also cut down the quote from Brendan O'Neill that was previously there - the length of it raised WP:NPOV and WP:Fair use issues. We only need to include enough text to give a sense of the article, not quote from it at length. Robofish (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Rename the article to Photography of Aylan Kurdi

As it is the photography that has been widely published worldwide.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The Norwegian article is called "The Photos of Aylan Kurdi's corpse". --Burst of unj (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
BabbaQ has opened a can of worms. Someone might say that Kurdi's death is not notable, but that the Reactions to the photos of Aylan Kurdi's corpse or the photos of the corpse are. --Burst of unj (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that rushing to create a separate article is the best option. Flat Out (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Photo and art

File:Arte de la Muerte de Aylan Kurdi.jpg
Alan Kurdi

File:Arte de la Muerte de Aylan Kurdi.jpg is an art replica of one the original photos, and is apparently under a free license, just in case the original photo is deleted for copyright reasons or insufficient license information. -Mardus (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The image's copyright status wrt Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons is somewhat better than that of the original photo, but should nevertheless be verified. -Mardus (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

No lifevests or some had lifevests

Some sources say that in the two boats which were launched at about the same time, some paid for life vest, and some had life vests. --Burst of unj (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no evidence they had life vests. Abdullah the survivor stated "We had no life vests." [1] The fact that many people escape by boats everyday it would be a dead give away if someone was purchasing or possessing this. There are many other reasons why it supports that they didn't have them. The voyage is only 2.5 miles, and I assume that Turkish authorities specifically look out for anyone who attempts to buy or possess them (especially where they are sold). There is likely some government restriction on this (who sells them or not).--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I found one reference that says that the boys did not wear life jackets. Other references will probably evenutally say if anyone in the two boats had life vests. --Burst of unj (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
If the wife and other adults had them they likely would've survived because people survive failed attempts. Abdullah mentioned that he experienced several failed attempts. If you click on the "View 20 photos" here and see all those photos you'll understand that people use them and survive failed attempts but in this case they died (except the father) and there are no signs of life jackets, which are designed to be tightly strapped on people. This all means that the father very likely took his wife and children on this extremely dangerous voyage without those life saving jackets. At the ending of this news story, it states: "Syrian migrant Ali said he would try a second time, but this time without life vests, which he said were confiscated by Turkish police after his failed attempt last week." [2]--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Photo

Unresolved

Please please change the photo. Everybody has seen it. A link can be provided to this photo, but main photograph should be one taken when he is alive. Please respect! And to the people who thinks he was not notable: he never got a chance to become notable! Thanks to humanity. His death is certainly notable. Please change the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.73.46 (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC) Someone should upload a photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.92.226.166 (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Birth Year 2013 in News reports

like this [3] 24.30.242.108 (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

That article is deeply flawed. It states "Three-year-old Alan Kurdi ... was born in 2013." This is clearly wrong (and impossible). WWGB (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

"Aylan" or "Alan"

The news stories call him "Aylan Kurdi" 1,820,000 as of today, but only call him "Alan Kurdi" 91,700 times, but someone moved the article to "Alan," saying that is the "correct" name. In Wikipedia articles we use the name most commonly used by mainstream English news media and other English language reliable sources. Where was the discussion of the move? Where are the reliable sources saying Alan is correct? It still says "Aylan" in the article and in reference to the photo. I am requesting an explanation rather than just making the obvious move back to the appropriate name for the individual. In any event, he is known only for one thing, so the article should be about the event rather than a bio of the person, so "Death of Aylan Kurdi" would be a more appropriate article. Edison (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

According to his own family his real name was "Alan" and the source is provided at the beginning of the article. Turkish authorities wrongly transliterated his name to a similar sounding Turkish name "Aylan", and hence the higher count on google search. But these two names are quite different indeed. Alan is the name of the Kurdish hero in the famous love story Mem and Zin written down by Ahmad Khani in 17th century and it is widely used by Kurds all over the world. See here for more detail [4]. Since the official language in Syria is Arabic, it is quite unlikely that Syrian Kurds would choose Turkish names for their kids.Vekoler (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The fact there is a place called Aylan in Iran proves that "Aylan" is not a Turkish name. According to your source, the word "alan" means "romance", so are you saying his name was "romance"?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Kurdish is written with Arabic letters in Syria. The assertion that his name was "Alan" all along makes no sense since it wasn't in latin letters until he was documented in Turkey.50.100.28.229 (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Alan is the name of a Kurdish clan. Kurmanji, which is what Kurds from Kobanî speak, can also be written in a Latin script; for example, Nu Dem uses the Latin alphabet.  --Lambiam 10:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
The New York Times today is still using "Aylan." Google News search today has 5,460,000 results for "Aylan Kurdi" and 594,000 results for "Alan Kurdi." The spelling in the article title should be that used most commonly by reliable sources. This smacks of original research. Edison (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, his Canadian aunt says the spelling of his name is A. L. A. N. If you watch the news in Canada 24.30.242.108 (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

See the correction in the middle of this CBC News article: [5] Aylan is thus clearly incorrect. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 10:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

How many photos? Have any of them been named by media?

The article does not say how many different photos have been published in a notable source. I have counted three photos (shot from different angles; not "cropped versions of another photo"). The three photos are referenced in Photographs of Alan Kurdi. --Burst of unj (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of "Description of the published photographs of Kurdi's corpse"

The one sided view of a writer for a conservative, seldom read magazine is not on quite the same level as mainstream media for citation.

This particular section quoting this one sided view describing the corpse of a child as "pathetic" is disgusting, offensive, and not appropriate. Of course there is nothing wrong with highlighting the fact that other people died during this incident and the media are not giving them any airtime, but I expect the dead toddler to be respected in the process. Also, I don't give a monkeys what context the word pathetic is being used in. It will always be taken in the first and most used context which is "totally inadequate" or words to that effect, which is why I have deleted this section. If the author of it wishes to replace it, please do so showing some sensitivity for the audience, or you are not only making the article inappropriate, but actually contradicting the point the article you used as a citation is trying to make. Mrspy (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

- Removed again as the removal was reverted with no explanation. I once again stress that the view of a single writer for non-mainstream media, in quotes, is not appropriate or necessary on this article, especially in the context that the said quote will be taken in. There are already sections regarding the general reaction to the photo, which includes information for the said magazine. There is no requirement for a separate section for one person's extreme view. Mrspy (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

- Might this malcontent be a Turk? 24.30.242.108 (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Request

Regardless of the tragic nature of the photo, I believe it is non free and therefore cannot be in the infobox as the main image. 69.73.10.197 (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Alan Kurdi lifeless body.jpg is used and already tagged as non-free. Why can't people click the image and see for themselves? --George Ho (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Fair use — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.242.108 (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
... Can you explain why or why not the use is "fair"? --George Ho (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Use of the photo is important to understanding the subject of this article, considering that it was the photo that brought him to international attention. The image size isn't that big , and we're only using one photo. Also, since Alan Kurdi is dead, there's no further opportunities for photos. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Now there are one photo and one drawn representation. --George Ho (talk) 06:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Only two bodies dragged out of water by one hotel employee and a friend

The reference [6] used says that the person who found him was an employee (bartender and chef) at a named [small] hotel. He and his friend (not necessarily an employee of the hotel. For all we know he might be a subcontractor, or outsourcee) found the body of two children. (I can not see that the reference refers to hotel employee and friend dragging more than two bodies out of the water). Can our article say something that the source does not say, and then refer to the non-source? --Burst of unj (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Amended to say two locals. WWGB (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

These two locals found only two bodies - Kurdi and a girl, according to the source. Then why does the article say that these two locals found Kurdi's brother? --Burst of unj (talk) 08:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Dragging the body out of the water, but photo showing the face down "in the drink"

One man who found the boy said that he closed the eyes of the boy, after he was found. Are there any sources that have questioned the possibility that the body has been positioned face down in water, before (?) the photograher arrived on the scene? Are there any sources that say that the tide was not rising at the time? Do any sources find the setting a little bit "too perfect" for photographing: The child's body has been dragged out of the water, but his face is still "in the drink", so to speak. I don't mean to sound insensitive, but I can not explain this any better. --Burst of unj (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I have cited that he was dragged out of the water. The citation [7] is in the other article Photographs of Aylan Kurdi . Burst of unj (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

If he was dragged out of the water, why does he lie on the beach face down? And if you see a little boy face down, why wouldn't you run and try to do anything, like anything else than taking a picture? If this is what happened I am shocked. If somebody placed him there after he was dead, face down I'd be disgusted. Is there any investigation on the matter? 92.192.108.104 (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I have not seen any reports about she being asked, by journalists or authorities, if she saw (or has knowledge) of the body being handled after it was placed on shore (the first time), and before being photographed. However propped photos do occur from time to time, and accusations thereof are even more frequent. I have not seen any such questions raised in media yet. Burst of unj (talk) 11:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Copy of three posts from the talk page regarding the photographs: "For one thing, we can't be certain how accurate the statements of the employee (of the Woxxie Hotel in Akyarlar) are. But assuming they are, I agree that it is strange that the body is positioned face down. After dragging it out of the water, the natural response would be to position it face up, which would be consistent with his statement about closing the eyes.

At the moment I see no other inconsistencies. He dragged the body out of the water around 6:30 am, which was before sunrise. On the photos he reposted on his Facebook page, marked by Facebook as a "Mobile Upload" from September 2 and therefore likely authentic, it is still rather dark. Judging from the light on Demir's photographs and on videos that must have been taken at the same time, on a day was not particularly sunny (there were scattered clouds), it is already one or two hours later. The gendarmes we see were not accidentally patrolling on the beach; the text on their backs reads "OLAY YERİ İNCELEME", which means (literally) "Event Place Investigation", the Turkish equivalent of our "Crime Scene Investigation". This means the police must have been alerted when the ambulance was called. By the time the photos were taken, the tide may have risen enough to reach what first was dry ground.
If the body was turned around later – something we can't be sure of based on the available information – the question remains who did it.  --Lambiam 13:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
That description is mostly as good as anyone's so far. As far as high tide and low tide and rising tides or a turn of tides - there are tables from which that info can be determined, by someone with those charts at hand (or the right digital tools). Burst of unj (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

You have provided the following link with photos, his Facebook page, marked by Facebook as a "Mobile Upload" from September 2. One photo has a boy in a red shirt, apparently with shorts at his ankles, lying on his back in the surf. If this is Kurdi, are there any notable sources which say who pulled his shorts from his ankles and placed them properly around his waist? Burst of unj (talk) 08:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC) ". (Posted here by Burst of unj (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC))

Wikipedians are NOT investigative journalists. The above is the result of yet another of an alarming number of posts and edits by Burst of unj which cut across Wikipedia standards. This must stop! Boscaswell (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Relevance of mentioning the main witness closing Kurdi's eyes gently after dragging him onto the beach

There is a need to mention what happened before Kurdi was photographed with his eyes and face in the surf: He had previously been dragged onto land, and the hotel employee had closed his eyes gently. (I can not say if it was a lowering tide or a high tide or foul play or something else that resulted in Kurdi being dragged onto the beach, according to sources, and later being photographed face-down in the surf (with the rest of his body on land). Burst of unj (talk) 10:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Eyes open / eyes closed

One editor seems fixated on reporting that Kurdi's eyes were open after death, and subsequently closed by a hotel employee. I see no notability in this incident. It's bordering on sentimental or ghoulish reporting. What do other editors think of this matter? It has been frequently reverted by several editors, but keeps returning, even in breach of 3RR. WWGB (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I have just removed this line (I agree, it's irrelevant) and reported User:Burst of unj to the administrators' noticeboard for edit warring here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Burst of unj reported by User:Robofish. Robofish (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Closing a dead person's eyes is routine and sentimental/superstitious. Funeral homes do it every day (with a mundane product), and most news outlets will blur/blank dead eyes in images, if they show corpses at all. If someone had opened Kurdi's eyes, that'd have been ghoulish and notable. Their initial state is even less important. Everyone with eyelids (or jaws) goes in one way or the other. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Photos of Aylan Kurdi's corpse

Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photos of Aylan Kurdi's corpse

— Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge to Photographs of Alan Kurdi

Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Kurdi

— Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

My halfhearted support of anyone nominating this article for deletion

At wikipedia in German there is a deletion discussion going on. Many say that the subject is not notable enough as a biography. I think that the subject's death is not notable - one drowned by death among thousands of drowned refugees, unfortunately. The photographs became somewhat notable after the death photos hit home pages of several dozens of notable web sites and front pages of several dozens of notable newspapers in addition to being mentioned by more than one world leaders. I will not nominate this article for deletion myself, since I created a topic similar to the present topic. But if someone else nominates this article for deletion then they have my support. (I dare say that I can guarantee that Alan Kurdi's name will not be purged from wikipedia. However wikipedia in Germany are in the middle of a lengthy discussion about how Alan Kurdi's name/fate/"aftermath" should be presented. Unfortunately I think that we need to ask some of the same questions as they have - in part because there is "Nothing Compares to You", Kurdi, and to the reactions to the pictures of his death.) --Burst of unj (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

After thinking things over for a few hours I have nominated the biography for deletion. It is not likely that I am the only one who thinks that biography is not notable and events including him being found in the surf. If there is ever a police investigation of individuals moving a lifeless boy from being supine out of water on the beach - to a prostrate position with his face only in the water, then that would be a different subject (possibly unlawful handling of a dead body). --Burst of unj (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Just contributed to the article but I support the delete vote. The media and other SIGs are making this a major story however it is merely one minor aspect of the mass of humanity flooding into Europe via extralegal means. Tragedy yes, notable person\event for inclusion in Wikipedia no. 人族 (talk) 07:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Dental problems of father

There is sufficient documented information that he left Turkey because he needed implants that were too expensive in Turkey. Witness from his sister ov video and WSJ.

Some users https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/78.146.96.53 and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/216.125.48.227 try to delete these facts.

User https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/216.125.48.227 even started to send me treaths because I reverted the page to the agreed version 94.111.123.111 (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC) here his treaths

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:94.111.123.111&diff=cur

94.111.123.111 (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC) The user Freshacconci is obsessionally removing this discussion topic and also treathening. This way is not a wikipedia method and user Freshacconci should be blocked for his unfriendly behavior and censoring the talk page which is the summum of anti-democratic behavior. 94.111.123.111 (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


Also the Herald Sun clearly states And what exactly was he “fleeing” when he paid a people smuggler thousands of dollars to bring his family — without safety vests — to Greece, to join that irresistible army of illegal immigrants now smashing through Europe’s borders?

Tima Kurdi explained. It was her brother’s dental trouble.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/syrian-refugee-crisis-tragic-boy-aylan-kurdi-needs-more-than-tears/story-fni0ffxg-1227515266729


His problem of implant looks to be the main cause for his trip. Why user Freshacconci refuses that it is even discussed? 94.111.123.111 (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

So what? Please stop being ridiculous and take this nonsense somewhere else. Volunteer Marek  23:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
so the WSJ an his sister are telling nonsense?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/image-of-syrian-boy-washed-up-on-beach-hits-hard-1441282847 Ms. Kurdi, speaking Thursday in a Vancouver suburb, said that their father, still in Syria, had suggested Abdullah go to Europe to get his damaged teeth fixed and find a way to help his family leave Turkey.

94.111.123.111 (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. Stop being disruptive. Volunteer Marek  23:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

You decide it is irrelevant with no arguments. When his sister tells it is the main reason for the trip to Europe and the WSJ prints it also with other media, it is irrelevent for you? Wikipedia is based also on argumentation, not on dogmas. 94.111.123.111 (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


I also would like to know, why the information is considered irrelevant.92.192.102.22 (talk) 10:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it rather looks that some have a political agenda in avoiding this information ˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.167.36 (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
It is very foolish to believe that someone would commit a serious crime, take such a dangerous boat ride and spend $1,000s to be able to go to Europe and have his teeth fixed. Looks like his sister was suggesting that once he makes it to Europe with the family then he may have his teeth fixed. This kind of information is irrelevant to this article, which is only about the death of Alan Kurdi and the impact of his images on the world.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The world is full of foolish people doing foolish things all the time. Part of the problem is you don't recognize it, when you're one of them. Basically what you're saying is that it is impossible that the man was acting foolish. That notion is foolish in itself.92.192.12.165 (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

"Ms. Kurdi, speaking Thursday in a Vancouver suburb, said that their father, still in Syria, had suggested Abdullah go to Europe to get his damaged teeth fixed and find a way to help his family leave Turkey."
Let me get this straight. So, the trolls think that because one aspect to leave Turkey, in passing, relates to teeth that somehow this negates all of the other, far more important aspects of the case? And that said one, tiny aspect mentioned in passing somehow was the reason that the whole trip was made in the first place? They cite an article but they don't even bother to read it, instead focusing on literally one single word in one single sentence? Wow!
Turkey being a destabilized state with all the basic human rights problems, the immense economic inequality, the inability to have basic services such as electricity and water work well, the anti-semitism, the anti-black prejudice, the anti-Christian bigotry, the government becoming more and more Wahhabi-like authoritarian, the terrorist attacks going on, the homophobia, the police corruption, and... the list goes on... means nothing, then? It's all about teeth? Wow... just... wow... CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Your more than obvious hate for Turkey shouldn't be mingled with facts. You won't believe it, but many people live a happy life in Turkey and people go there for vacation. Also your tdd (troll detection disorder) is out of place. I mean where would we end, if everybody called tdo-victims shxxbxgx? Relax. 92.192.12.165 (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

If it acts like a troll, talks like a troll, and thinks like a troll... well... there you are. Also, people went in droves to apartheid South Africa for vacation. Not to mention going to Castro's Cuba, Mao's China, and the like. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
CoffeeWithMarkets: You forgot the biggie, that the Kurdi family are Kurds, who have just as much a problem preserving their dignity in Turkey as Christians, homosexuals, Jews et al '''tAD''' (talk) 09:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I didn't forget it. I just thought it was obvious, and I had a long list anyways. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

"who made headlines around the world"

This is not encyclopedic, and this should not be a part of the article's first sentence. --Burst of unj (talk) 10:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

But it is a fact. Do you deny this, Burst of unj? Boscaswell (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
If the text was encyclopedic, then one wouldn't be able to ask "around the world, once or twice or?". Perhaps one could say that a significant number of newspapers had Kurdi as part of their headlines. --Burst of unj (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
So you are reluctantly agreeing that the statement is true, then. Something "making headlines around the world" is a perfectly legitimate statement in the English language and asking "once or twice" is just flippancy. Which isn't Wikipedian at all. Boscaswell (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I just changed it. The boy himself did nothing, it was all the photo. "Around the world" is still a bit inaccurate, but its a common enough idiom that a general reader should know it doesn't literally mean everywhere, just in many places throughout Earth. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The article currently includes: In a Guardian article Karl Mathiesen criticised media for calling Kurdi a "climate refugee" saying that "David Butter, an associate fellow with Chatham House’s Middle East and North Africa programme said such a conflict 'could have happened at any time in Syria, irrespective of the drought'"

I find this problematic given that, of the vast majority of news media coverage relating to the death of Kurdi, Kurdi's family, and so on, global climate change is not mentioned at all. Not at all. Not even in passing. It seems like even including a small reference to this appears to be 'undue weight'. Thoughts? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I read that on The Weather Network yesterday. Found it an odd sort of crossover, but they're mainstream, even if they're not a "traditional news" network (nor is the anti-Harper site they're recycling). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Huh, that's peculiar. I'm not sure what to think of that. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
One way to capitalize on a trendy topic is to combine it with another. Same reason most US shooting stories lately have feature pieces on the racism and terrorism aspects, even if there are none. Since Canada is relatively boring, our clickworthy shadowy boogeyman is a plain old highly-visible white man instead. "He's taking our air and water!" is roughly equivalent to "They're taking our guns/jobs/values!" and environmental terrorists/hippies are a poor man's corporate terrorists/hipsters.
In short, just the way this "social media era" goes. Narratives have to ride on some bandwagon/coattail or another. I wouldn't think too hard of anything about it. That way madness lies. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Reduction of "the general public" and the topic about publishing tradition and practice in Norway

Two problematic reductions which have occured in the text. One section has been about what notable commentators say about the general publics reaction. Now the section has a title regarding the publics reaction. I don't quite see that they belong together even though "general public's reaction" might rhyme with "reaction of [individual] members of the public".
Norwegian press has evolved what might be considered an ethnocentric practice of publishing pics of dead people: It's ok to publish as long as they are not Norwegian. --Burst of unj (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Whatever you think of Norway and its people, it doesn't mean that we should give undue weight in an article about Kurdi's death generally about a particular Norwegian culture debate. Stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Whatever you think of Norway and its people, there seems to be a difference of opinion about why its ok to print pictures of Kurdi, but not to print pictures of dead Norwegian teenagers. Burst of unj (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Your personal opinions are not relevant to the improvement of Wikipedia articles. It's long, long past time you stop disrupting Wikipedia in order to make a point. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Claims of disproportionate sympathy for a dead Caucasian than for drowned African children

Has anyone seen anything about claims that the sympathy for the photograph of Kurdi was disproportionately high because he is labelled, in a context of "race" or ethnicity, as being white or caucasian? (I might have seen some such claim, that since Kurdi looks like us, then "white"/"Caucasian" persons feel more sympathy then the sympathy felt for the photos of dead African children who drowned while trying to flee over the Mediterranean to Europe. Unfortunately I did not note any details about the piece.) --Burst of unj (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source making such a suggestion, feel free to add it to the article, provided it is done in a neutral way. Robofish (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone have such a source? Burst of unj (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
This doesn't name Aylan, but there have been claims to the contrary, that things would be more sympathetic were these refugees white. [8] I'm not at all saying that you've made it up, and if you can find a reliable source it should be included, but all I've read has been in the spirit that opposition to the migrants has been for them being "other", i.e. non-white and majority non-Christian '''tAD''' (talk) 05:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Whiteness, in the Anglo-American and European context, comes from a very narrow and specific cultural standard that relates to both skin color and various religious, socio-economic, etc identities. Thus, what is or is not 'white' ends up partly depending on the national government that you live under. See the articles for 'white skin privilege' and 'whiteness studies'. Hence how Irish people, European Jews, Persians living other Asian countries, and other groups can look 'white' but not be considered 'white' from the standards of cultural, economic, and government power-- that's not to mention people that fail the 'one drop rule' either. Also, all that I've seen in the media has been in the vein of what '''tAD''' pointed out as well. (I'm going to point out that, as an individualist, I really do not like ethnic dividing lines to begin with, and I'm just describing the world as it is, rather than as it should be). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Agreeing with CoffeeWithMarkets that society/circumstances dictate "white" in the 21st century, while in the distant past it was considered anthropological science. Of course, all of this really depends on who is making these claims, and we can write about it in due weight. As I said, Emma Thompson did not mention Kurdi in her speech on how she feels the public are unsympathetic to those seen as "non-white", but if she did, I don't think an actress' opinion is appropriate in such a matter '''tAD''' (talk) 09:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Defining "what is white" almost seems to me to be the same as trying to define "What is love". You can, or can at least try, and it's not like it's a waste of time. But it's a heavily social and cultural standard that's nation based as well as time period based. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I am only asking about references relating to - at least - Kurdi. Burst of unj (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I've never seen anything like that anywhere, although such comments may exist. Also, as a European, I've never heard any comments about the fact that these migrants "look" particularly "like us" : on the contrary, many seem to consider - however unfortunate that may be - that these people do not "look" (or "are not") "like them", because they are "Arabs" (the boy was actually a Kurd, and Kurds are not "Arabs", but most people don't know the difference) or Middle Eastern. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I did see an article in an online newspaper or other notable website: between the lines it said "Is it so that you are very sad when you see the picture of Kurdi, and are you are less sad when you see photos of darker-skinned (or "African stereotyped") refugee children who also are dead? Kurdi looks like you - or one of us - dark-skinned individuals look less like you". It is not easy to find one article, in a million, about Kurdi; i did not record the name of the publisher, or the exact words which were used. Burst of unj (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think such an article represents a notable viewpoint : I've never seen anything like that in my country's media. IMHO, highlighting it would be a case of WP:UNDUE. The obvious reason people in Europe feel currently more concerned about the Syrian refugees than they do about, say, the Nigerian victims of Boko Haram is that the Syrians are, these days, arriving on European beaches or crossing European borders, while the Nigerians are far away and therefore unlikely to do so anytime soon.
I've never seen any articles stating that Europeans tend to relate more to the Middle Eastern refugees because of the latter's ethnicity (i.e., country of origin, religion : considering them primarily as White, or Caucasian if you like, looks like an American viewpoint to me). If anything, said ethnicity might be a reason for many people not to relate to them. The reason Alan's death shocked people is that the pictures were quite powerful and that a child's death is always shocking, whatever his ethnicity. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I have asked for link to such article(s). After reading such article, might be a good time to judge said article. That might contrast "I don't think such an article represents a notable viewpoint". Burst of unj (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

On the Internet, pretty much anyone can write anything. Such an opinion may exist - actually it certainly does - but we should be sure that this viewpoint has any kind of notability whatsoever. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Jean-Jacques Georges. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
"any kind of notability whatsoever" might largely consist of an article published by a notable website or other source. That's one way for a viewpoint to be notable. Burst of unj (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, 4chan, for example, is a notable website. If I write what I think on 4chan, does that make me and my opinion notable ? And even if someone has written such a thing in a professional media outlet, that does not make it a representative viewpoint.
Yes, people may have been even more shocked by the pictures because the kid's corpse looked like that of any ordinary child (and it was the corpse of an ordinary child), but claiming that people in the West relate more to the refugees because these people are "White" seems rather quaint to me. At least, such a viewpoint does not represent a notable trend of opinion. I repeat myself, but to most people in Europe, the refugees do not look "European" (a lot of people may even be surprised to hear that the refugees are "White", precisely because they tend to equate "White" to "European", which the refugees are definitely not). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Did the father lie about his role?

More and more media outlets from the MSM state that the father was in fact the "captain" himself http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3230422/Abdullah-Kurdi-people-smuggler-migrant.html 94.111.123.111 (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

there is one accuser, the accusation has been rejected categorically. The media reports are all coming from one source, which is already in the story. The accusation is denied completely, it would therefore be wrong to highlight this in the article. Otherwise, WP becomes the judge and jury. WP is an encyclopedia, not a group of investigative journalists, although Burst of unj would like it to be that (as evidenced by his contributions to the talk pages). Boscaswell (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
This is the right course of action. We've noted the claim because it's been reported by reliable sources but haven't treated it as the gospel truth (which the sources have not). Until the claim proven, to claim it's the truth and focus too much on it would be a violation of our policy on biographies of living people. Remember that when the story broke out, all the reliable sources claimed that the family had an active refugee application request in the Canadian immigration system, which turned out to not be the case. Caution is the best course of action. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Patar knight It is getting mighty tiresome dealing with the non-WP:NPOV edits to this article, not to mention this non-WP:BLP one. Boscaswell (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
NPOV? Also the WSJ now? http://www.wsj.com/articles/account-of-capsized-migrant-boat-is-disputed-1441928060

other MSM here http://tvanouvelles.ca/lcn/infos/lemonde/archives/2015/09/20150911-095943.html Main Dutch newspaper also NPOV? http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/36281/Vluchtelingenstroom-West-Europa/article/detail/4140303/2015/09/11/Vader-verdronken-Aylan-beschuldigd-van-mensensmokkel.dhtml

Boscaswell review your own standards first before accusing these media. 94.111.123.111 (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The allegation was made, after the fact, and it has been denied completely. It's made in the article in a section that's connected to the properly related section. At this point, what exactly is being argued about? Is it stated that we have to take the information out of the body text of the article and put it into the lead? I would find that against consensus. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
the location is ok. But there is only one denying it. that doesn't decredibilize the witness. I'm hopefull real reporters will find other wirnesses and confirm the statement of that poor mother. 94.111.123.111 (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. You are not God, and neither am I. Neither of us were there when the boat sank and have omniscience about what happened. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
personnal attacks show mainly you are lacking real arguments. What is wrong to mention the only other witness's statements? 94.111.123.111 (talk) 05:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Those aren't personal attacks. As far as reliable sources go, they present the claims as possible, relate how the father denies them. I haven't seen any that have concretely proved one side or the other. Until reliable sources come to a consensus on what is the most likely account, we can't engage in original research and declare our own truth. We can only report what the sources say. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

a second witness has also said that he was a smuggler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.146.43 (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 4 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. When you disregard the comments that didn't seem to know what this discussion was about, there is a clear consensus to move the "Death of..." format per WP:BIO1E. There was also some discussion about whether his name should be spelled Aylan or Alan – that should probably be followed up on in a future RM if anyone feels strongly about it, as there wasn't enough here to call it a consensus in favour of either variant. Jenks24 (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


Alan Kurdi → Death of Alan Kurdi – Before I state my rationale, do not use WP:BLP1E for it applies to only living persons. The toddler is deceased, so you can use WP:BDP (although part of BLP1E) and WP:BIO1E. "Death of" should be reinserted because the article is not much of a biography. WP:AT applies; its lead says, "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." I tried interpreting WP:COMMONNAMES, but I could not do it well. (See replies) You can alternatively vote for using "Aylan Kurdi" again, but I was told that "Alan" is the correct name. George Ho (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 06:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  • SupportThe article is about the news coverage and photography of his dead body, so since he is unknown and nonnotable otherwise, the proposed move should be made. Also the spelling should be changed back to "Aylan" since that result shows up in 1.82 million Google News results compared to just 91,700 for "Alan." Wikipedia uses the spelling most commonly used in reliable English language sources.Edison (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I knew WP:COMMONNAMES is most misinterpreted. According to that rule, even when used by reliable sources, often an ambiguous or inaccurate name is avoided. However, we can't tell whether Aylan or Alan is correct name. --George Ho (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Do you mean "Alyan", Krzyhorse22? George Ho (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
This edit.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Do you prefer "Alyan" or "Alan", Krzyhorse22? --George Ho (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Aylan is probably the correct spelling. We can just put both, it's not a big deal.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
"Photography" looks confusing. As long as 'y' is not used, I'm fine with "Photographs of..." What about Photographs of Alan Kurdi's corpse, Burst of unj? --George Ho (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
There is only one set of notable Photographs of Alan Kurdi. I now think that the use of the word "corpse" in the title therefore is not necessary. If someone feels that the word "corpse" is undesirable in the article, then I will support them. (I suspect that it is common for media to use the word "body" or "dead body" about people who one sympathises with. Our use of the word "corpse" in titles, might be out of touch with what we are used to seeing in media.) --Burst of unj (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
In this particular situation, where death was very fresh, "lifeless body" is more appropriate. That's what most sources coined it.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
At the deletion discussion on German wikipedia [9] CB says that the case is more about the Photographs of Alan Kurdi - and less about his biography. --Burst of unj (talk) 08:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
There is now an article called Photographs of Alan Kurdi. --Burst of unj (talk) 10:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
That's a red link. The article is currently at Photographs of Aylan Kurdi. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - You have my full support. Spomtplainoi (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - His biography is well known and more so his Aunts local money collections in her locality near Vancouver and petitions to politicians - all of this which is now a part of Kurdi's biography. His biography is the anatomy of a disaster of how bureaucracy within Turkey and outside, leading to criminals earning money on attempted human trafficking across international borders, resulting in deaths. In addition, most of the other wikipedias are simply calling the article "Alan Kurdi". Burst of unj (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - He, and his lifeless body, has become the most visible symbol of the refugee crisis. It is not his death that was notable - one drowning amongst thousands, unfortunately. (Note that I do have interests in another article about this topic, and that article might eventually be forcibly merged into this article.) Burst of unj (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - If it turns out that the lifeless boy was moved out of the water, and that the mover claims that he did not leave the face of the baby "in the drink", or that he did not leave the boy facedown, then maybe the boy's biography is not notable, in addition to the boy's death not being notable. Then it is the propping of the lifeless body, and the distribution of the photo of a propped body, and the reactions that are notable. Burst of unj (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom but prefer the merge solution proffered in the section above. —  AjaxSmack  15:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:BIO1E. He is known only for his unfortunate death. Moreover, it was essentially an anonymous death that became famous only as an iconic representation of the plight of many. It would be fine to call the article something like Body of drowned Syrian refugee toddler, since that is how he his primarily known. That is unfortunate, but it is nevertheless true. Merging with Photographs of Aylan Kurdi may also be desirable. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge instead with (and to) Photographs of Alan Kurdi (as I have also recommended elsewhere).  --Lambiam 11:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong keep and link I hope I am in the correct section now. Anyway. If something is history and "relevant" for these times, it is the dead of this boy. It shows the tragic circumstances as a symbol for all the others who died - and still will die. I thing his entry here should be linked (or merged), and the entry in the list of Deaths should stay like this.
People who are responsible for this situation should be constantly reminded of the fact that they are, and that they are co-guilty of this tragedy. I know Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. And the boy was not able to make himself a well known man who achieved this and that. Life was taken from him before he had a chance to. We all in this community should do him the honour and make him the heroe he never could be. Royalrec (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
You might be at the wrong website. See WP:SOAPBOX. —  AjaxSmack  16:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Counterproposal

Alan Kurdi → Aylan Kurdi – WP:COMMONNAME, as his name commonly occurs in media as "Aylan Kurdi". In Google Search, "Aylan Kurdi" gets about 10,300,000 results, but "Alan Kurdi" gets only about 834,000 results. In Google News, "Aylan Kurdi" gets about 2,340,000 results, but "Alan Kurdi" gets only about 167,000 results. "Alan" is less common in English, and incorrect in Arabic (Arabic uses آيلان, "āylān"). Khestwol (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The correct spelling is Alan and reliable sources have confirmed that spelling, instead of Aylan, which was a mistake made by Turkish authorities. [10][11][12] COMMONNAME says "inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." The article should either stay here or be at Death of Alan Kurdi. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
No, the correct spelling is actually "Aylan". Arabic Wikipedia uses ar:آيلان الكردي (āylān), and never uses آلان (ālān). Khestwol (talk) 10:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, it's what reliable sources say that counts, and reliable sources use the "Alan" spelling. The Arabic Wikipedia, like the English Wikipedia, can't be used as a self-reference (or in this case cross-reference).---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
What about Death of Aylan Kurdi, Khestwol? George Ho (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I am also OK with Death of Aylan Kurdi, George Ho. Better than current title. I prefer the "y" spelling (Aylan) because that is more common. Khestwol (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
If this page was moved, it would be moved to Death of Alan Kurdi per WP:COMMONNAME and what reliable sources say is the correct spelling. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 4 November 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure). sst✈(discuss) 16:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


Death of Alan Kurdi → Death of Alan Kurdî – I revert an undiscussed addition to a diacritic above the "i". Now we must discuss whether to add the mark again. George Ho (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Both our policy on article names and our naming convention guidelines are fairly clear on cases like this. The former states: "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage." I have yet to see a single English language sources that includes the diacritic. The latter notes: "The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language." I have yet to see a single reliable English language source use the diacritic, so it should not be in the article title.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Extensive research report on reception of image - would be great to add to entry

I'm afraid I don't have time to add this material at the moment, but this research report from the Visual Social Media Lab at the University of Sheffield has a wealth of information about the image - both data about exactly how it spread in social media, data from Google about how peoples' searches changed after the image went viral, and analyses of how the image is similar to key Western images like the aestheticised corpse of Christ. The report is pretty easy to read and each topic/chapter is just a 2-4 page short paper, so it's easy to skim for whatever is most useful for this entry.

Vis, F., & Goriunova, O. (Eds.). (2015). The Iconic Image on Social Media: A Rapid Research Response to the Death of Aylan Kurdi* http://visualsocialmedialab.org/projects/the-iconic-image-on-social-media

--Lijil (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Charlie Hebdo cartoon ... remove this section?

Is it really justifified for this to be included? I think not. It's in extremely bad taste and seeks to 'tar with the same brush" as those who caused huge problems in Köln on NYE someone who was only a very young boy. I'm going to delete it in a few days unless there are howls of protests.Boscaswell (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Removed on 18 January.Boscaswell (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Age

If he was born, as is referenced, in 2013, he couldn't have been 'a three-year-old Syrian boy' (as the lead has it) when he died in 2015. Rothorpe (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, some sources say the family lived in Turkey for three years. How it is possible if a boy was born in Kobane, before moving to Turkey? There is absolutely falsified information. Ferakp (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Rothorpe you're right in that 2013 + 3 does not equal 2015. But the referenced story says 3 years old and born in 2013, so it's quite possible that the National Post story has the year of birth wrong, as 3 years old has come up in a lot of different places and he looks to have been about 3yo. I'm deleting mention of born in 2013 from the article. OK with you? Boscaswell (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
That's good, thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Ferakp you wrote "some sources say..." Which sources? I've read the National Post (NP) article and the ctvnews article, both referenced from the Wiki article, in an effort to make sense of it. If you have other sources, please reference them here. The NP story has the family seeking "refuge in Aleppo around the time of Alan’s birth." But in the ctv story Abdullah's sister Tima Kurdi is saying they are born of Kobani, so it would be wrong of me to edit the article to say he was likely to have been born in Aleppo. “He (Abdullah) said Turkey is not our country. They’re born in Kobani, and that’s where I want to take them,” Tima Kurdi told reporters at her home in B.C. “He said, ‘I’m going to be beside their graves.’”
Going back to the NP story, I think it is wrong, but only in timing. It says "Once more, their move (to Kobani) was tragically ill-timed. They had barely arrived before 10,000 Islamic State of Iraq & the Levant (ISIL) fighters surrounded the city,"...but in fact the siege of Kobani didn't take place until 2014. Please note that people make mistakes, that what you consider falsified information may only be stated in error. I think the writer of that story pushed events together. It is a complex story, it would have been an easy mistake to make. Journalists have deadlines and the accent on this story has always been on his death and the "refugees from seemingly never-ending fighting" angle. In that, the NP story is correct.Boscaswell (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Source says "...Unlike other refugees heading for Europe, the Kurdi family had lived in Turkey for three years before deciding to repatriate to Canada...", [1]
Ferakp (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/03/refugee-crisis-friends-and-family-fill-in-gaps-behind-harrowing-images

Father

Where does Alan Kurdi's father live now? Jim Michael (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

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.

Proposed merge with Nilüfer Demir

Based on the current sourcing, the photojournalist behind the Kurdi photo is not known apart from her relation to the photo. Those aspects should be covered in the parent article on the Kurdi photograph and do not justify splitting to a separate article on the photojournalist unless there exists a body of secondary, reliable sources that discuss the photojournalist's body of work and career in depth. As it stands, there isn't more than a sentence in the Nilüfer Demir article that wouldn't fit better in the Kurdi article. czar 10:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not support a merge and am surprised to see this suggested. The current sourcing shows definitively that the artist created the artwork. There is no other sourcing necessary to have both an article for the artist and the artwork. You are clearly not familiar with Wikipedia's policies regarding art or artworks. Jane (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I suggest you do more research before making the same accusation repeatedly. The notability guidelines require coverage specific to the artist—as I said above, there is plenty on Kurdi and the photograph (which is covered in the former), but everything that needs to be said about the photographer is or can be said in the dedicated section on the photograph. There is no source-based or career-based information that wouldn't already fit in the parent article, as the photographer article just duplicates what should be covered in the photo's section in Kurdi's article. This would not be the case if the photojournalist was noted for other aspects of her career or known so well for this photo that the other parts of her career became notable. But if all the info we have is related to this photo, we already have a place for it. As for policy, I'd also read through the golden rule of notability and situations in which an individual is known primarily for a single event. czar 19:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
A significant set of artwork is not the same thing as a significant event and should not be merged. The person responsible for creating a significant set of artwork is an artist and their notability criteria fall under the section for creative professionals. According the link you just cited, this person meets the notability criteria. I see no reason to merge the concepts together. Jane (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
What sources discuss her notability independent of the singular photo? czar 20:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • All agree that, to date, Nilüfer Demir is primarily known for her photograph of Alan Kurdi's body.
  • Opinion is somewhat split about Demir's notability, though the rough consensus is that she is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia in connection to her journalistic work on Alan Kurdi.
  • The decision at hand is whether to have a separate article about Demir or have it as a part of this "Death of Alan Kurdi" article. Opponents to the merger suggest that there is enough biographical coverage about Demir to merit an article and that she may become notable for other causes in the future. Proponents of the merger suggest that she is best covered in this article because this is her primary cause of fame and the article can be split again if Demir does something else significant.

Taking all arguments into account, I see no consensus one way or another. Since the articles have existed separately since the relevant event in 2015 and there is no overwhelming cause of harm either way, I'm closing this as no consensus, default to do nothing. Deryck C. 16:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

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.

The notability of photojournalist Nilüfer Demir, known for taking a picture of the death of Alan Kurdi, has been contested. Shall the Demir article be merged into the Kurdi article? George Ho (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Merge Sent here by bot. Considering there is nothing currently included on Nilüfer Demir's bio that is not directly related to Death of Alan Kurdi this does not seem to warrant a stand alone page at this point. Merge Nilüfer Demir into Death of Alan Kurdi per WP:PAGEDECIDE. --DynaGirl (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Do not merge: Also sent here by Legobot. Nilüfer Demir passes WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. According to WP:JOURNALIST, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." (Underlines added by me on the specific criteria that Demir meets.) Blurp92 (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge (invited by the bot) Just clarifying (it took me a minute to figure it out) this discussion was placed at an unusual place, the proposed destination of the merge. The article has no sources of the main type required by wp:GNG (in depth coverage of the subject) and no real encyclopedic content except about what is covered in this article. North8000 (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Do not merge So the picture establishes her notability, as a stub-class article. Maybe now other stuff will be added. But I do think the repetitive material at her page should be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluehotel (talk • contribs) 20:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Do not merge: While it's true that this photographer has only taken one historically notable photo, that doesn't preclude the author from having future photos categorized in the same manner. It's a stub, sure, but it's not worthy of deletion. Lucas "nicatronTg" Nicodemus (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge, more or less per North8000's argument. The debate further above about how how the different notability guidelines parse this issue is much ado about nothing, in my opinion. I think the case is ambiguous (perhaps fails WP:GNG, perhaps passes the lowest possible definition of WP:JOURNALIST, but even if we grant that notability is passed, there's still a pragmatic/WP:NOPAGE analysis to consider. Once I had reviewed the content of both articles, the decision became much clearer for me; there really is little in the Demir article to make a strong case for independent notability, and virtually nothing that is not already in the Kurdi article. And it feels a little WP:CRYSTAL to predicate the existence of an independent article on the notion that there potentially "could be" further coverage in other sourcing, in connection with a different encylopedically relevant topic, some day. On the balance of all factors, I have to endorse the merge. Snow let's rap 07:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge, per DynaGirl's argument and even more so Snow's comments, that while it may just pass 'JOURNALIST', the purely pragmatic issue of how best to present this info is probably within a single article about the event. Pincrete (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge. The photo is famous, and the event is famous, but not the photographer. Agree with Pincrete and DynaGirl, et al comments. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Do not merge: While it's true that this photographer has only taken one historically notable photo, that doesn't preclude the author from having future photos categorized in the same manner. It's a stub, sure, but it's not worthy of deletion. RYPJack (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Do not merge: It is irrelevant whether she ever creates another historically notable photograph. She was awarded by the Turkish Radio Television Journalists Association [13]. She has been awarded by Pulizer for flash photo [14], the Gold Prize by the United Nations Correspondents Association [15], and recognized by Time [16] as having taken one of the most 100 influential images of all time. On that basis, I evaluated others Alfred Eisenstaedt known primarily for V-J Day in Times Square has an article; Dorthea Lange and Migrant Mother both have articles; Hindenburg disaster has an article, but its photographer Sam Shere does not (though I would argue that he should); Alberto Korda has an article as does Guerrillero Heroico. I could continue, the point has been made. She is a separate entity from her work, she has been widely covered in the English press, Turkish press and German press with sufficient sources to confirm she is notable. The death did not receive the awards, she did. SusunW (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Do not merge: per SusunW and Blurp92. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Do not merge this photo has (tragically) become iconic. It is important and should not be merged. I agree with SusunW. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Do not merge. Photojournalist passes GNG.No need to waste time on this. Montanabw(talk) 17:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge: The article about the photographer says almost nothing about her except that she took the famous photos of this dead child. I don't see any other indication of notability. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge the photographer into this page about the notable photo she took. The photo is notable, the photographer is not (perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON; no prejudice against re-creating a page if she takes further notable photographs.}}E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2017 (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.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Death of Alan Kurdi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Death of Alan Kurdi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Do we need this article?

Greetings dear Wikipedians,

I would like to express my own opinion about 'poor' Alan Kurdi. I do not think Wikipedia needs an article about Alan Kurdi death. A lot of people die each second, and if we have an article about 3 years old illegal migrant we should write articles about good guys who live their lives. Those child, Alan Kurdi didn't do something extraordinary, he just died! When I die, will wikipedians write an article about me? I don't think so. We all know how 'refugee' is those Alan... There are a lot of attacks condemned by migrants against Europeans, have we any articles about these crimes? We haven't! Many European women was raped by muslims, have we any articles about them? I don't think so, and I would not be surprised if I know that there's no one article about them. Ok, if the article about 'a victim of the war, poor' Alan should be here, why there's no one article about really poor Europeans who was attacked by migrants? This article should be deleted! As I said, Alan didn't do something extraordinary, he just died and journalists just wrote about it. Wikipedia isn't newspaper, we mustn't write articles about persons who live and died --Denikin10 (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring your horrible rationale and horrible words, I would like to point you to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Kurdi where this was discussed. You're free to nominate it for deletion again but I'd suggest refraining from the unsubstantiated hyperbole and false equivalences. The rationale for keeping the article is fortunately much stronger than your prejudices and hysteria. freshacconci talk to me 19:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, I understand, I haven't any chances that this article will be deleted, but if Wikipedia has an article about Alan Kurdi, I should write an article about Bibi Wilhailm for example. If Wikipedia has an article about 3 years old illegal migrant who just died, it should has articles about Europeans who protests against migrants and about Europeans who became the victims of the crimes committed by 'refugees'. It should be fair then. --Denikin10 (talk) 08:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
We are writing an encyclopedia here, and the standards for inclusion are based upon guidelines such as WP:GNG, not upon what you perceive to be "fair". You are likely to run into WP:OTHERSTUFF quite quickly. And you may run into other problems as well. MPS1992 (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for thine advice, dear mps. I will definitely read WP:OTHERSTUFF, GNG, etc.--Denikin10 (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I think your point is valid. Your opinion is based upon neither prejudice nor hysteria. The reaction to the image throughout the world, however, was based on prejudice and hysteria. That is exactly why the images is encyclopædically notable. In particular it is notable for how it was so very effectively used as globalist propaganda to influence world politics in favour of open borders. Thus a Wikipedia-article about the image is clearly warranted.
However there is no question that there is currently too little information about the actual organizations that used this image to further their cause, except for ISIS. The fact is that a slew of left leaning organizations cold heartedly used the tragedy as propaganda for free immigration, when another image — that of Ebba Åkerlund, a victim from the Stockholm terror incident in April 2017 — could just as easily be used to argue against immigration. However the latter image is mysteriously under-reported, despite her death being arguably more horrible, and not just a mere accident caused by her father's ill adviced actions. Kebman (talk) 07:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Respectfully, this is the talk page, where you can give insight and suggestions in order to improve the article in question. The rule you just linked to is pertaining to the actual article and not its talk page. You can find the rules for the latter in the section WP:Talk Pages. My input is a defence of the article's encyclopædic notability, with a few suggestions for improvements based on my background as a media professional with higher education within Political Science. Kebman (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the link is at the top of this page, the talk page, telling us that this is not a forum. WP:NOTAFORUM clearly states, if you'd bother to read it, "In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance." And no, you're not presenting "a defence of the article's encyclopædic notability", you're talking about the subject and linked subjects with no discussion of the article itself or how to improve it, your claims to the contrary notwithstanding. freshacconci (✉) 20:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
That's, like, your opinion, and a very poor argument against my suggestions on how to improve this article. I think you're just using it as a moralistic crowbar to serve your own pitiful agenda. Tell me, do you or do you not want this article to exist? I do. I want it to exist. I think the article can be improved, though, since it's pretty one-sided as it is. If you want to discuss how to improve it, I'm all ears. If you want to continue being an idiot, I'll just ignore you. :) Kebman (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I pointed out how you were incorrect about talk page rules and no, you haven't offered a single suggestion on how to improve the article but instead used this page to discuss the subject and other editors. freshacconci (✉) 12:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Removing the photo

Is there, perhaps, some moral or ethical or procedural argument for removing the photo from this article? I do not wish to detract from the tremendous efforts which have been made to ensure this page remains an example of admirable rectitude, but, I personally am doubtful that the image itself needs to be presented here. The image, I am sure, is tremendously powerful, and that is probably why we all know who Alan Kurdi is. However, while I imagine some moral or ethical argument could be made for the image's removal from this page, I would like to add only this: it is extremely upsetting. It is profoundly upsetting and disturbing to see such a graphic image of such a tragic and personal event presented in an online encyclopaedia, or an encyclopaedia of any sort. Not least because of the issue of consent. Doubtless if more time had elapsed, the image would be far less disturbing, but the Syrian war continues. I can assure you I am not without my own opinions on the conflict, but I question whether the inclusion of the image here is at all graceful. I appreciate it has been used without restraint in the media. Shocking images invariably are. This, however, is an encyclopaedia.

I apologise in advance for any ignorance on my part, because I do not contribute in any meaningful sense to Wikipedia. I am a "lurker". But my own sensibilities prompted this post. As it stands, the entire page risks being perceived as being some post-hoc justification of the photo's widespread usage. It may be that this could be avoided simply by removing the photo from the article. I fail to see how the photo of a drowned child is little different to the photo of a violently murdered child, for example. The latter, I am sure we would accept, has no place on Wikipedia, or the internet in general. I am not sure this is so different. Thank you.

GimletsforRaymond (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

While I have some sympathy for your position, the photo shows that Kurdi's body is peaceful and undamaged. There is no inherent shock factor. The sole reason for the existence of the article is the worldwide circulation and subsequent notability of that photograph. Take away the image and there is no reason for the article to exist. There are other articles about images that are much more disturbing, such as Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém and The Falling Man. WWGB (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
GimletsforRaymond, you might want to read WP:offensive material and decide whether the image is encyclopedic or not. --George Ho (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
The helpful reference to The Falling Man from WWGB gives support to the view that the page should not be merged with that of the photographer, even though the photographer's entry isn't extensive, but that the material from her entry about the photograph should be consolidated in one place. Bluehotel (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
This discussion may also be of interest to you. Deryck C. 09:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Photos

If anyone has issues with the following images, please don't hesitate to discuss them. File:Alan kurdi smiling playground.jpg was nominated twice as FFD: first time, kept; second time, "no consensus". The File:Alan Kurdi lifeless body.jpg was discussed earlier as shown above (#Removing the photo). I think retaining both images is best bet before taking them to FFD. --George Ho (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Alan's age

In an NPR article, Alan's aunt says he was two years and two months-old when he died, not three years. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/08/31/642952840/an-aunts-memoir-remembering-the-drowned-syrian-boy-on-the-beach

As an aside, I wasn't aware Wikipedia is a place for users to flex their questionable ideologies -- don't like gays, immigrants, mouthy women, non-whites, yadda yadda yadda -- in their bios (this particular user's bio reads practically like an incel's manifesto) and editorial content demands. It would be nice if users who are so glaringly overt in their intolerance would be blocked. This is an encyclopedia and not a white supremacist private Facebook group.67.83.99.134 (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)corpho

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_of_Alan_Kurdi/Archive_1&oldid=1136654383"