Jump to content

Talk:Maram Susli

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

Name in Arabic

[edit]

Article currently gives her name in Arabic. Where is this sourced from? We don't normally give Australians' names in Arabic unless they also use that language; is there evidence she does? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She's from Syria and her first language was Arabic and she grew up Muslim HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://youtu.be/8LROivbJsuU?si=N3x7OL7XBtii8X4M literally video where she speaks Arabic HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right-wing

[edit]

@HumansRightsIsCool: Which source are you referring to which calls her far right? Do you mean this one? — Czello (music) 21:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah plus she's praised neo-nazis like Nick Fuentes, in this article it says she was interviewed by a Nazi and she's friends with another right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and has appeared on Infowars multiple times for over a decade. Other sources call her right-wing and I think she even said she has way more right-wing beliefs than left-wing. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this article also suggests she might be anti-semitic and might actually be far-right HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of what you've just said is WP:OR. Onto the sources themselves – this one is an opinion piece and doesn't actually call her right-wing. Do you have other sources that use that description? — Czello (music) 21:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yeah I saw other sources that call her right wing but I forgot where they're located in this article. I'll look right now HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to an article on Facts Buddy, Susli has contributed to various media outlets and has been involved with far-right and neo-Nazi podcasts and networks. I asked an ai chat bot for an article that describes her as right-wing because I'm way to lazy to go through all the sources, I knows a few sources in this article call her right-wing, but I forgot where. Also the 5th source I mentioned earlier that you linked, they use maram susli as an example for a right-wing conspiracy theorists, I think that's good enough. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay but if you can't actually find these sources it'll have to be removed as this is a BLP. Also the 5th source doesn't actually call her far-right/right-wing, but it says her post was made to a far-right forum. As it's an opinion piece that's not really enough. — Czello (music) 07:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, she is obviously right-wing, but if my edit is going against wikipedia rules, remove it, do what you have to do. I saw she's right-wing in sources, but I forgot where or I might be thinking of something else. I'm too lazy to look through all the sources that might take an hour so do what you have to do HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
here I'll remove it for you lol HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an FYI, because I see you're new here, and you've already added content previously without including a source: if you search for – "Maram Susli" "right wing" – in a search engine it shouldn't take you an hour to find any reliable sources. It'd also be worth cross-referencing with WP:RSP (or use the noticeboard search function) to check the reliability of sources, as many (if not most via news sources) aren't considered reliable. At a glance there aren't any sources I saw for this description though. You might otherwise be right that she is right-wing, but Wikipedia isn't based on what's true and "obvious", it's based on what's reliability sourced and verifiable. CNC (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just posting to emphasise to ‎HumansRightsIsCool that the sourcing requirements for biographies of living people (WP:BLP) are particularly strict, especially for contentious statements. I had to revert their last contribution because the source didn't directly support the claim either that Susli supports Hamas, or that multiple news organisations had said so. It might be your interpretation that anyone who supports a Palestinian protest is pro-Hamas, but it's not Wikipedia's role to make such inferences. I understand you might find this frustrating, but this is how Wikipedia maintains its NPOV stance.OsFish (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HumansRightsIsCool: I would like to invite you to self-revert this set of edits. In my view, they simply do not support the claim that Susli supports Hamas. You are aware that other editors have issues with the material you want to insert. You should therefore seek to establish WP:consensus on this talk page first. That's how it works here.OsFish (talk) 03:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do I constantly have to discuss something for hours, even when I simply just put 2-4 words somethings. I have an idea, how about you remove "Pro-Hamas" and put "Pro-palestine". She's obviously pro-Hamas, even on Twitter, but since that counts as original research and since the "ignore all rules rule" by Larry sanger is apparently irrelevant all the time, just put pro-palestine instead of pro-Hamas. Source do say that right? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is both a BLP and a contentious subject, which is why we need to be so cautious with the labelling we use - that's why there are so many discussions taking place here. IAR isn't a free pass to add things to articles with as controversial a subject. — Czello (music) 07:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She literally associates herself with Nazis :/ and she's pro-palestine and sources do in fact call her pro Palestine. Later in this article it says she's pro-hezbollah which is Hamas' biggest ally. Even if she wasn't pro-Hamas (which she is because she said so on Twitter), it wouldn't be far-off. I believe the "ignore all rules" policy should apply here because it's not far-off at all and it makes this article better when it says she's pro-Hamas since that's literally a big part of her career HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is WP:OR. We can only use descriptions that are overtly stated by sources. We can't make interpretations based on who she associated with. Not far off is too far off. — Czello (music) 07:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
we can use original research tho if we use the "ignore all rules rule". And since reliable sources suggest she's pro-hamas without saying it word for word, we should say pro-Hamas because it's not far off since reliable sources suggest it. It'll make the article better since it's accurate and a big part of her career. Since the sources suggest she's pro-hamas, and since saying that makes the article better or more complete, now it's time to use the "ignore all rules thing" since you can use that rule if it makes articles better. That's what the rule says, and with original research, she literally said on Twitter word for word that's she pro-Hamas. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 08:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if you wanna remove "pro-Hamas", fine. Just replace it with pro-palestine. Sources say word for word she's pro Palestine. Even though I think the "ignore all rules rule" can be used in this situation. However, can this article at least mention Hamas somewhere since it's a big part of her career? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 08:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You ask "Why do I constantly have to discuss something for hours, even when I simply just put 2-4 words somethings." Because that's how Wikipedia works. By consensus among editors applying the rules made by the broad editorial community. Where issues are contentious, people do argue over single sentences. It can be very frustrating for those with high passions, but without collegiately working by consensus, the project would collapse.
Wikipedia is not a place to publish one's personal arguments. It is a tertiary source (an encyclopedia), not a secondary one (such as a journal, newspaper or book). If the secondary sources themselves don't say something directly (and you concede they don't), they're not saying it. If you want to make a leap and draw inferences, you are conducting Original Research, and as Wikipedia editors, we don't do that. It's a no-no.
"Ignore all rules" has never, in my experience, ever been used to justify rejecting the principle of editor consensus. IAR occurs where editors agree (or offer no objection) to ignore this or that rule in the pursuit of a better encyclopedia. That clearly isn't the case here. (As Czello has just noted, IAR especially shouldn't be applied where the article is about a living person.)
In Susli's case, it is frequently (and bluntly) noted in secondary sources that she is an Assadist, a conspiracy theorist, and a source/ vector of disinformation. So we have that in the article's lead. We need that kind of sourcing for any claims that she supports Hamas, and you haven't produced any thus far. We already have a section containing her views on Palestine-Israel, but I honestly don't see enough in the sources currently used for that to be mentioned in the lead as a big thing she is known for.
If you can find such sourcing, I'm confident you will find the other editors happy to accept the insertion of the claims. We're all experienced editors used to changing our minds if the sourcing is there.OsFish (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should be cautious when we ignore all rules. A contentious BLP isn't the place for it; in fact, contentious articles normally have more rules applied for exactly this reason. — Czello (music) 08:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bro why did you remove the images, they weren't copyright @Czello HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 09:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the images were posted on Twitter and on YouTube. The images were not copyrighted at all. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also can you put the images back so we can discuss the whole pro-Hamas thing? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I added the images back. Let me try to find a source that calls her "Pro-Hamas" word for word. Also how were the rights of the images not attached right, I stated both times Susli was the author and one was republished by awesome jew. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 09:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
found a source https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-kardashian-look-alike-trolling-for-assad it says "She supports groups like Hezbollah", and groups like Hezbollah are Hamas. They're just using Hezbollah as an example. So can we keep my part in or does the wikipedia article have to copy sources word for word directly HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is your second revert of another editor's actions in 24 hours (first was here). There is a rule imposed on this article - because it is contentious and so editors are expected even more than normal to work for consensus instead of pushing their own point of view regardless - that editors may only revert another's edit once in 24 hours. Please undo your edit or I will ask for action to be taken against your account. Understand that I don't have to ask you first, I am doing so as a courtesy to an editor who is apparently new to Wikipedia.
As for the issue, usage rights do not appear to have been properly established, and the removal of them appears to me to be correct. Just because someone publishes an image they have the rights to in one place does not mean they have declared the image in the public domain.OsFish (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't mean that. You need to actively demonstrate that they're free to use; we can't assume. I'm going to have to ask you to self-revert given the restrictions this article is under. — Czello (music) 10:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do I demonstrate they're free to use. Look https://x.com/Partisangirl/status/1800545822649794764?t=nOMnce5NkYdYgytUJVKj_w&s=19
In this tweet she talks about her wikipedia page. She was on her wikipedia page like 2 days ago she's seen the images she didn't ask anyone to take them down etc., and she didn't copyright it. How do i demonstrate it's free to use. With every other celebrity, do you have to ask them permission to add non-copyright photos of them on wikipedia? No because they don't care and it's not copyrighted. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I'm pretty sure if the images were copyright they would've been deleted off of wikimedia commons the day they were uploaded. No mods deleted it, the author susli didn't career or ask David, (her friend who edits wikipedia for her) to remove it HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Btw sorry for the constant typos and grammar mistakes :( HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 10:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Syrian Girl DMed me yesterday and said there's this dude named David. She tells David what to edit on wikipedia if she doesn't like something about her page, she's been doing this for years is what she told me. Since she didn't tell David nothing, and since she didn't complain, the images are pretty much ok to use in my opinion. But since you guys are making a big deal out of it, I'm going to ask Syrian Girl. Yesterday was the only time she DMed me since I was having a fight with David she tried to get me to strip it. I'm going to try to DM Syrian Girl on Twitter again, not sure if she'll respond tho since me and David stopped fighting over her wikipedia page. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 11:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maram Susli would need to contact Wikimedia commons directly. See the instructions here.
We're not making a big deal. We're following standard rules about copyright. Wikipedia is NOT a free-for-all. It has legal responsibilities. Read back the conversation - multiple editors are trying to help you avoid problems and/or sanctions against your account.OsFish (talk) 11:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes images are on the commons for months, even years before they're deleted. Images aren't individually reviewed by mods. The fact that she's seen her article and hasn't complained doesn't prove they're free to use - we shouldn't assume. Again, I'm asking you to self-revert and remove them. — Czello (music) 10:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They've been nominated for deletion now, as there is a no CC license for either. CNC (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Hamas libel

[edit]

@HumansRightsIsCool Per your edit [1] I have reverted [2] as well as @OsFish [3] as this is blatant WP:LIBEL. The sources describe Susli as a "Syrian-Australian conspiracy theorist" and a "Pro-Syrian regime commentator", not as pro-Hamas. If you continue to make contributions like this, you will undoubtedly be bocked from editing. To be honest I'm surprised this hasn't happened already based on the libel twice added to the article. I see users above have tried to explain how Wikipedia works to you, but others won't have that patience. CNC (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the reason why I added "pro-Hamas" was because I thought I saw it in the sources, but yeah I was wrong. Sorry. If you don't want me around anymore that's fine, I understand that I'm an idiot. I didn't understand copyright, I'm very stupid, most of the time I couldn't even write full sentences without misspelling a word and I was never logical. The only reason I'm not miss-spelling a word right now is because I keep re-reading my writing over and over again. Please just block me, I feel bad for wasting everyone's time. If you don't block me I'm just going to log out of my account right after this and never log back in. All I've done was cause frustration. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that other users have taken their time to try and explain to you how things work should indicate that they don't want you to leave, only to avoid making mistakes and try and understand (and respect) the processes in place here that everyone has to abide by, otherwise someone would have simply taken issues to WP:ANI and you would have likely been blocked for a temporary period of time already. At least that's my interpretation and I say this based on seeing other users blocked for less. If I had to guess your willingness to engage in discussions has been your saving grace to avoid such an outcome so far. I otherwise imagine you have the ability to provide beneficial contributions, but at the same time you still have a fair amount to learn, and editing contentious topics (WP:CTOP) is always going to be a minefield for someone relatively new to Wikipedia. I'm otherwise not an admin, so I'm in no position to block you, I was merely giving you a final warning (on your talk page) as if it wasn't for you reverting yourself after breaching 1RR rule with libel, I would have likely taken the issue to ANI to be resolved there. But instead it seems you acknowledged wrong-doing. Finally, and without intending to sound patronising, I recommend you read up on policies and guidelines that others have referenced, and determine whether WP is something you want to contribute to, as if you don't agree with the policies and guidelines in place, it's unlikely to be the case. CNC (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion by HumanRightsIsCool

[edit]

This user reverted a clearly justified edit in which all I did was removed some amateurish, unencyclopedic, and in any case superfluous language ("got upset and") and converted smart quotes to straight quotes, which is the Wikipedia standard. The rationale given was "not constructive," which smacks of gatekeeping — not surprising, given the handle itself (to say nothing of its edit history) indicates this editor may be running an ideologically motivated account. Unless someone can provide a compelling reason otherwise, I will reinstate my edits. —Nonstopdrivel (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've not looked into the rest of the edit but it's worth pointing out I removed the "got upset" comment some time ago as it's clearly unencyclopedic language. — Czello (music) 09:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Czello. "got upset" is inappropriate here. I also suggest striking the personal attack. OsFish (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm calling out the behavior, not attacking the person. By their own repeated admission, they don't know how to comport themselves on Wikipedia. — Nonstopdrivel (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2024

[edit]

{{subst:trim|1=


} The Israelis are saying she was eliminated. Please confirm this.

 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. Cannolis (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maram_Susli&oldid=1251611825"