Talk:Gigi Hadid

Antisemitism section as discussed in criticism thread

Antisemitism

Gigi Hadid has been repeatedly accused of spreading anti-Semitic content, especially on social media.

After Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, she compared the situation of the Ukrainian population with that of Palestinians and was subsequently criticized in the Israeli media.

A post published on its Instagram on October 15, 2023, which described the Israeli government's behaviour as "nothing Jewish", was criticised by the government for its lack of solidarity with the Israeli civilians injured and killed in the Hamas attack; her refusal to condemn Hamas was also criticised . The Israeli government responded directly to Hadid's statement. Alongside a screenshot of Hadid's posting, the government's official account said: "There is nothing heroic about Hamas's massacre of Israelis."

She was also accused of spreading misinformation about the Palestinian prisoners which were released in exchange for the release of Israeli and international hostages taken by Hamas in the attack on 10.07.2023.

FortunateSons (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

If something is either missing or not appropriately contextualised/ lacking a source, I would greatly appreciate the feedback. Also, there is something wrong with the footnote for source 1 and 5, did I make a mistake with the formatting? FortunateSons (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I just saw a comment on the other thread restricting the use of the daily mail, so here are two alternative sources for the fifth footnote:

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel-at-war/1701006165-gigi-hadid-falsely-claims-israel-only-country-to-hold-youth-as-prisoners-of-war

https://www.indiatoday.in/amp/trending-news/story/gigi-hadid-writes-israel-keeps-children-as-prisoners-of-war-faces-backlash-2468366-2023-11-28

also, I found two more sources for the first footnote if the statement is too broad to be supported by one source:

https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/others/gigi-hadid-sparks-outrage-after-sharing-post-accusing-israel-of-organ-harvesting-101701089938548-amp.html

https://www.thedailystar.net/entertainment/tv-film/news/gigi-hadid-faces-backlash-alleging-israels-involvement-organ-harvesting-3480926?amp FortunateSons (talk) 12:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This is a particularly contentious subsection proposal, with what is in my opinion sparse and questionable sourcing, including an opinion piece, the now-deprecated Daily Star, and little in the way of balance. It may also contain potential POV issues ("It is also not anti-Palestinian to condemn Hamas"). -- Pinchme123 (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The use of a semi-protected edit was requested in the other thread. I am pretty new at this, did I break a rule?

I fixed the POV and Daily Mail issue, thank you.

Would it be possible to specify what the exact issue with the section sourced with an opinion piece is (the section itself or the source)?

Regarding balance or other missing sources, I’m happy to add anything specific, what do you feel is missing? FortunateSons (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Before I saw this discussion, I left some comments on your talk page that might be of help.

Given the very high bar that WP:BLP and WP:AC/CT require here, we need to tread extremely carefully. After you are certain that all references meet the quality requirements of BLP, rewrite the proposal from those references. I suggest the additional step of asking for a review of the new proposal at WP:BLPN. --Hipal (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I greatly appreciate your help! FortunateSons (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, explained specifically what and where an edit should be made.

Sources are included in the text and were improved as suggested by another editor. FortunateSons (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes to the initial request [1]. Please make a new request. Editing past comments like that is not appropriate. I also suggest you spend more time finding better references, because there appears to be little difference overall. --Hipal (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not aware that it was standard practice not to edit an edit request to improve it, and will renew the request.

Regarding references: English is not my first language, could you explain what makes the references used have “little difference overall”? They are from different countries, with different political leanings and funding, and generally referencing the specific event in a factual manner. FortunateSons (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Carefully read WP:BLP to start. If you don't understand what BLP-quality references are, I think you'll find this frustrating, likely futile. --Hipal (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I have read WP:BLP, and believe to have corrected the use of any “bad” references in my newer version (which you rightly removed, but is still visible in the edit history).

If I missed one or multiple, I am happy to modify those as well, and would like to do so before creating a new edit request.

If it isn’t too much trouble, I would greatly appreciate you pointing out the exact issue with any specific reference, so I can correct them? FortunateSons (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you work on something else entirely. This edit request has been answered. --Hipal (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Insert a section called “Accusations of antisemitism” either before or after “personal life”

The inclusion of a section was discussed in the criticism thread (outcome: change of title, request of use of an semi-protected template) and improved (outcome: better sourcing, NPOV) in the “Antisemitism Section” Thread. I am able to make changes myself, but am looking for confirmation that the sources not specifically included (and therefore hopefully appropriately used) in the WP:RSP are appropriate. Suggestions on placement (and any specific improvements) are as always greatly appreciated!

Actual Text:

Antisemitism

Gigi Hadid has been repeatedly criticised for her statements regarding the conflict between Israel and Palestine, including accusations of antisemitism.

In 2021, Gigi Hadid was accused of „vilifying the Jewish state“ (in reference to Israel) in a controversial full-page New York Times Advertisement. The ad was criticised as inaccurate, including by Singer Dua Lipa, who was also featured.

After Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, she compared the situation of the Ukrainian population with that of Palestinians and was subsequently criticised in the Israeli media.

A post published on its Instagram on October 15, 2023, which described the Israeli government's behaviour as "nothing Jewish", was criticised by the government for its lack of solidarity with the Israeli civilians injured and killed in the Hamas attack; her refusal to condemn Hamas was also criticised . The Israeli government responded directly to Hadid's statement. Alongside a screenshot of Hadid's posting, the government's official account said: "There is nothing heroic about Hamas's massacre of Israelis."

She was also accused of spreading misinformation about the Israeli treatment of Palestinian prisoners in the aftermath the Hamas terror attack on 10.07.2023. She later retracted the statement and apologised on Instagram about spreading inaccurate information.

Others, such as an article in theRolling Stone, have been critical of the conflation between Hadids’ criticism of Israel and antisemitism, characterising the responses as an overreaction. FortunateSons (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

References

No. Gross violations of BLP and UNDUE. NOTNEWS vio as well. Note that the better a reference is (The Independent), the less it supports such a narrative. --Hipal (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:NPOV means accurately reflecting the representation given in sources cited. Further WP:NOTNEWS is indeed a serious problem here. I have to agree with @Hipal that less sensitive areas are a better place to start out editing and learn Wikipedia policies. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I am happy to correct weighting and NPOV (as you correctly stated, I am new here). Would a subsection in personal life improve the weighting issue? If so, how much should my original proposal be shortened to more accurately reflect the issue?

Regarding NOTNEWS, I would like to respectfully disagree: with over 20 news articles (over multiple years), including at least 12 from reputable sources, and the associated public discussion of the topic, it is more significant than the routine or gossip desciribed in NOTNEWS. FortunateSons (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

On second thought, I would like to follow Hipal’s suggestion and post it on WP:BLPN for improvement, just to not overburden this talk page. Should I improve something specific (the issue regarding references seems to be fixed?) before I do? FortunateSons (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

If the topic focuses on social media posts, as this does, it's not only NOTNEWS, but WP:SOAP tending toward WP:NOTSCANDAL.

As I said, the narrative is skewed away from the better sources. She's a high profile figure that gets name-dropped for the attention.

BLPN would be helpful in getting the article cleaned up, as I see a lot of content that's questionable, only getting press because of who she is. --Hipal (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree about the assessment on SOAP/NOTSCANDAL, but as I wrote it, a neutral party is probably better, even though a do not have a COI in the traditional sense.

Your position regarding the cause of the attention certainly has merit, but would also apply to significant parts of many other articles, as is the nature of a public figure with a large following. After all, there is a reason why the degree of publicity is often considered when weighing privacy and transparency.

I will report back once I (hopefully) receive feedback. FortunateSons (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be a section founded not in the subjects views and statements, but in the fact that others have criticized her. This is not a balanced statement. Giving weight to a Shmuley Boteach paid smear in the Times because you have an article that mentions the subject in passing in discussing the ad is not WP:DUE. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I am happy to add more details on the views of the subjects, where should more details be added?

Regarding the Times Ad, would you suggest rephrasing or removing the section? FortunateSons (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Was there anything that should be corrected about my BLPN, or is this appropriate? FortunateSons (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

This particular discussion falls within the Israel Palestine topic area ("broadly construed") and as a non extended confirmed editor, you may not participate in such discussions, except that you may make straightforward edit requests, per WP:ARBECR. Selfstudier (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Template:BLP noticeboard FortunateSons (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion was closed per WP:ARBECR. --Hipal (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Question regarding source formatting

I am having a bit of an issue with formatting the sourcing on 139 and 140 (the two new sources in the racism section), could someone tell me what went wrong? FortunateSons (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I figured it out, but would appreciate someone taking a quick look FortunateSons (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Is Grazia a reliable source for this?

It is just adding minor context and the publication appears to be generally reliable, but is it a reliable source? FortunateSons (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The reference was inappropriate and has been removed. --Hipal (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on that? The source is from a non-disparaged newspaper and is only used to reference facts which are apparent (i.e. from a photo). FortunateSons (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

New racism section, is anything inaccurate or missing

It is mostly compiling from the German wiki and other parts of the article, but I would appreciate a quick review whether something is wrong, missing or poorly phrased? FortunateSons (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Grossly inappropriate per the previous discussions and policies identified in them. --Hipal (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Would you like me to rewrite something specific? The incidents do exist and are covered to the degree specified within WP:BLP FortunateSons (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

And just to clarify, the issue that ended the last discussion was the fact that the topic was covered by WP:ARBECR or primarily affecting social media posts. Do you believe this to be case here? FortunateSons (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I find it extremely concerning that you summarize the previous discussions in such a manner. Best focus on content policy. --Hipal (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The Noticeboard was removed due to policy, and a primary argument by you was NOTNEWS/SCANDAL/SOAPBOX based on the fact that the focus was social media post, to quote you on 18:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC):

If the topic focuses on social media posts, as this does, it's not only NOTNEWS, but WP:SOAP tending toward WP:NOTSCANDAL. As I said, the narrative is skewed away from the better sources. She's a high profile figure that gets name-dropped for the attention. BLPN would be helpful in getting the article cleaned up, as I see a lot of content that's questionable, only getting press because of who she is. FortunateSons (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Most other debates with other people hat a (in my opinion, partially justified and partially unjustified) focus on the sources and NPOV, something that is less of an issue based on the fact that I mostly used CNN, FAZ and ABC here and am willing to work on phrasing regarding tone. FortunateSons (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a debate. I'm unclear if you understand any of the policies that have been brought up. We're not going to come to the required consensus if that problem remains. --Hipal (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I do have a language barrier (C1, but still), so that is a possibility. Could you explain what the specific issue with my edit is? Do you agree that ABC, CNN and FAZ are generally reliable? FortunateSons (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. This is not a venue to assist editors who have language difficulties. --Hipal (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think it is a language difficulty per se, I wrote exams in that language and got pretty good results. If you think I don’t understand the policy (which is possible), I would appreciate you explaining where the specific issue is instead of broadly gesturing towards a policy. FortunateSons (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Request: include the vogue italia photoshoot on the wiki page

Topic:

Hadid appears on a vogue italia cover with very tanned skin. She is accused of using Blackface. She apologizes and explains that she did not have control over the shoot. The issue received relatively widespread media attention, both conventional and on social media.

Sourcing: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fashion/gigi-hadid-vogue-italia-blackface-apology-steven-klein-twitter-instagram-a8335856.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/04/entertainment/gigi-hadid-vogue-italia-blackface/index.html https://www.insider.com/gigi-hadid-vogue-italia-blackface-accusations-2018-5?amp

More (in German) https://newsv2.orf.at/stories/2436733/ https://www.rnd.de/panorama/gigi-hadid-entschuldigt-sich-fur-vogue-cover-J5COJ4A7GGAGFDQUBZHV4ZRCPE.html?outputType=valid_amp FortunateSons (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Optional: also include the first controversy with the same publication.

Issue: received significantly less media attention, so sourcing is lower quality.

Source:

Last Lines in https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-05/gigi-hadid-and-vogue-italia-apologize-for-darkened-skin-tone/9731122 and https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fashion/gigi-hadid-vogue-italia-blackface-apology-steven-klein-twitter-instagram-a8335856.html, one paragraph in https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/05/04/entertainment/gigi-hadid-vogue-italia-blackface/index.html FortunateSons (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like clear NOTNEWS. It was out of her control.

In the future, it's helpful to provide basic reference information, especially publication dates. --Hipal (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn’t know that this was common practice; these articles are from 2018, the first incident was in 2015.

Could you explain how it is WP:NOTNEWS? While it was not directly within her control, it was (to my understanding) the second instance with this publication and typical of the artist. She also apologised, which is not generally something that indicates irrelevance. FortunateSons (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

See WP:IDHT. --Hipal (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand that this is your view, and appreciate your candor. Is there a more appropriate forum for this question, or would using something like BLPN be inappropriate? FortunateSons (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Until you can demonstrate a basic understanding of relevant content policies, it's likely to be a waste of time for all involved while putting you in an increasingly bad light. --Hipal (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I’m happy to re-read the relevant policies before making a request on BLPN. Do you feel like I lack understanding of anything except WP:NOTNEWS? FortunateSons (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)