Jump to content

Talk:Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell

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

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 13:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK toolbox

(
)

Created by HadesTTW (talk), Sameboat (talk), Leaky.Solar (talk) and Cdjp1 (talk). Nominated by HadesTTW (talk) at 21:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Comment: This looks good to me in terms of sourcing. Length and age are good, no copyvio. The fact is indeed very interesting, I was shocked when I read it. Two notes: 1. I’m not sure if this article meets stability requirements yet (hopefully it will soon), and 2. how about changing it so it says he self-immolated, and then you can link the article for self-immolation? Or just leaving the wording and linking self-immolation. Maybe some readers won’t know the term. Zanahary (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey @Zanahary:, it has been linked but it appears @HadesTTW: forgot to notify. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ll leave it to another editor to confirm stability. I don’t know the standard. Zanahary (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT1 for consideration: ... that U.S. Air Force serviceman Aaron Bushnell said that his action of setting himself on fire was less extreme than "what people have been experiencing in Palestine at the hands of their colonizers"? Source: Time and Politico starship.paint (RUN) 00:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think alt0 is way more interesting. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to be "that guy" but I'm rather uncomfortable with ALT0. I don't think a suicide is a proper topic for a "trivia" type DYK hook. I'm not suggesting editors are doing anything wrong here, but it strikes me as (unintentionally) callous. Why call out the response like this? A self-immolation is obviously a shocking thing. Do you really want to judge a person's response in the moment? Pointing a gun and saying get on the ground is what law enforcement is trained to do.
It also distracts from the man's death, as well as the point of the act, which was a political and humanitarian statement. Why trivialize it by pointing out something stupid that someone did in the chaos of such a shocking moment?
It wasn't a "police officer" by the way, even according to the Newsweek source, and Newsweek is yellow at RSP because it's a tabloid. It was a secret service officer (secret service are not police). If you look at serious journalism, you'll notice they aren't making a big deal about this aspect of this incident.
Bottom line, this topic is not really a topic about which I think we should be looking for "interesting hooks." "Did you know that... a U.S. Air Force serviceman set himself on fire in front of the Israeli embassy to protest the Gaza War?" is interesting enough, as is ALT1 below, without getting into armchair criticism of responders' responses. Levivich (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Newsweek is said by RSP to judge on a case-by-case basis. In this case, they're simply transcribing the primary source, which you can also find in other places such as YouTube, (this one's published by the Middle East Eye, which, although biased, does not seem to be considered by RSN to be unreliable to the point where they'd fake a video's audio), so I don't think RS concerns apply here. If there are concerns about "a police officer", just replace it with "a law enforcement officer".
I also don't see how adding the additional interest would distract from and trivialize the rationale of the act, which occupies almost 2/3 of the hook.
Anyways, to evaluate stability. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Levivich's proposal for "Did you know that... a U.S. Air Force serviceman set himself on fire in front of the Israeli embassy to protest the Gaza War?" is an effective DYK hook (this is my first DYK post so bear with me). It's simpler and more factually accurate. Bushnell was still one his feet when the officer started yelling. RS say only that he is pointing his gun at Bushnell after he collapses. Why would he yell "Get on the ground" to someone who had collapsed? When press has discussed this aspect, the officer's actions have generally received a negative reaction. There is no strong confirmation what his official role was. I don't know if that matters for the the hook. Ben Azura (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT1 seems best so far to me, in accurately reflecting the protest. His statements went beyond the war, and the entry reflects that, so it shouldn’t be reframed for DYK purposes. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Levivich I understand your concerns that using a strange factoid in an extremely serious event might be disrespectful. However I disagree with the notion that the officer involved shouldn't be judged and that his training explains his actions- even if you wave it away as a rational response to the situation, it still is an absurd thing to read about on paper and highlights the militarism of the American police. I'm fine with ALT1 but I do acknowledge it's a bit less interesting/catchy than the shocking fact of ALT0, and I won't be opposed to either although I prefer my original blurb. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 00:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we use ALT1, at least change the link from "his action of setting himself on fire" to "his action of setting himself on fire". Levivich's proposed hook allows the link a U.S. Air Force serviceman set himself on fire and that is catchy enough. Ben Azura (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. That makes the link feel like it'd go to the generic article about self-immolation. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it's an absurd thing to read about and it highlights the militarism of US police, but I think that is a negative because it takes the focus away from the topic of the article (the self-immolation, the Gaza war) and puts it on something else (stupid thing an embassy guard does, absurd militarism of US law enforcement). Often, a hook that focuses on some strange factoid can be effective, but in the case of an article about a suicide, I just don't love the idea of taking the focus off the suicide (and the international political issue) and putting it onto some other domestic political issue. It feels like Wikipedia would be using his suicide as a vehicle to score points against US law enforcement. Of course I'm not suggesting that's your or anybody's intent, just that I fear that'll be the unintended effect when it's read amongst other DYK hooks. Levivich (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Largely in agreement with Levivich, the detail shouldnt be the hook over the main subject of the article. nableezy - 16:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what world is someone literally killing themselves to protest a war less interesting than the idiocy of an American policeman? I've struck ALT0. Article seems to have calmed down significantly in the last week, so I could approve ALT1, but I'd like to see some strong rationales as to what WP:NEWSWEEK's doing in a article about a recently deceased individual. (WP:UPSD also whinges about Middle East Eye, but I see nothing about it at WP:RSP.)--Launchballer 05:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most claims cited to Newsweek are re-reporting from other sources, half of which describe the video I linked above. Two other cites of it re-report social media and Bernie reactions. The final one fact checks the officers' occupation, which can be removed if needed. I think it's fine. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess because none of those are particularly contentious, I think this is okay. Good to go.--Launchballer 00:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Video file.

[edit]

There is a video of his self-immolation on the internet archive. I was wondering if it is rational to include that in the article? 117.237.4.3 (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Capital One Associates Against Genocide" quote Aaron Bushnell

[edit]

A group of Capital One associates appear to have quoted Aaron Bushnell in requesting that the bank divest itself from Israel. https://www.capitaloneassociatesagainstgenocide.com/ here is the link to their page. I haven't seen a secondary source yet but this story is a few hours old, so I expect one to appear soon. Queazyeditor (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2025

[edit]

The Newsweek article listed as source 9 does not support the claim: "Others argued that Bushnell's act should not be praised or viewed as a legitimate form of political protest, warning about "copycats" who might imitate it." First, the claim is a non-sequitur. Second, the article does not say it. Third, the article actually states "The way to discourage copycat acts is to take this one seriously rather than write it off". Fourth, the article actually stated one person "oppose[d] valorizing" the actions "as a . . . legitimate form of politilcal protest."

Therefore, it is incorrect to state that others (plural) expressed Slate write Mark Joseph Stern's view based solely on the article. 2600:1700:512B:5400:CC6E:91A1:E8A:397B (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The direct quote from the Newsweek source that supports the claim in the article is as follows: "Meanwhile, others cautioned that self-immolation should not be a celebrated form of political protest, warning about the possibility of 'copycat acts' that could follow." Day Creature (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Self-immolation_of_Aaron_Bushnell&oldid=1311787752"