Talk:Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell: Difference between revisions

I see that you object to mentioning Bushnell's opinion that Israel has no right to exist on the section on his views. I don't understand why. The fact that he held this opinion is clearly extremely relevant to the subject of the article, yet it has no mention in the current version. The current version only says that he said that Israel is "settler colonialist apartheid state", which might imply to the reader that Bushnell thought Israel doesn't have a right to exist, but not necessarily, whereas Bushnell in fact stated it explicitly. Vegan416 (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it matter? We are already quoting two posts from the account attributed to Bushnell, and they both give the reader an overview of Bushnell's views, which is that he was opposed to Israel. The quote about Israel being an apartheid state is, actually, extremely relevant to the article, because it directly correlates to the stated intentions in the section below, giving a throughline between parts of the article. I do not think the specific quote you want to include does the same. If readers want to read all of Bushnell's reddit posts, they can make a few clicks. We're here to summarize information.Parabolist (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It matters because there is a huge difference between saying that "X was opposed to Israel" and saying that "X was opposed to Israel's existence". It is important for example for giving the correct context to Bushnell's last famous words. His last words were shouting the slogan "Free Palestine" over and over again. Now many people claim that the meaning of this slogan is just a support for a two state solution with a free Palestinian state beside Israel, which might be true for some of the people who use this slogan, but clearly is not true in the case of Bushnell.

In short I'm afraid I'm going to insist on including this information in the article, one way or another. Vegan416 (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I disagree. We can wait for others to chime in on exactly how many reddit posts, sourced to a single secondary source, we should include in this article. Parabolist (talk) 08:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which point of mine do you disagree with? Do you think that there isn't a significant difference between saying that "X was opposed to Y" and saying that "X was opposed to Y's existence"???
I also completely disagree with your characterization of the dispute between us. The issue is not at all "how many reddit posts, sourced to a single secondary source, we should include in this article", since I don't suggest adding reference to any any new Reddit post, compared to what is already currently mentioned in the article. The issue in dispute is rather whether this article should or should not include the fact that Bushnell thought Israel has no right to exist.
And BTW if you seem to doubt the existence of these Reddit posts I can also reference them directly as the primary source for the quotes. The links are available.
In any case anybody is welcome to chime in. And if we cannot reach an agreement or compromise on this matter I'm ready to take it up all the way up to an arbitration committee if necessary :-)

Vegan416 (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the added quotation adds to the reader's understanding of Bushnell's views. I believe that what we currently quote is more than adequate to give the reader an understanding of that. I don't doubt the existence of the reddit account, but instead am pointing out that so far (to my knowledge) only the Intercept has reported in-depth on that account. This isn't to say it's not true, or that it doesn't bear inclusion, but that WP:DUE weight is something to consider with regards to how much detail we should go into. And finally, the Arbitration Committee doesn't settle minor content disputes. I don't know where you got that notion. Parabolist (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say you "don't think the added quotation adds to the reader's understanding of Bushnell's views". So try to answer this question: Do you really think that 100% of the readers who will read the article as it is now, will understand from it that Bushnell was opposed to the very existence of Israel, and that when he shouted "Free Palestine" while dying he didn't mean "free Palestine" beside Israel, but rather "free Palestine" instead of Israel? If the answer is "no" then obviously the added quotation does add to the reader's understanding of Bushnell's views, contrary to your claim.
With regard to the WP:DUE of the reddit account, actually not only the Intercept reported on this account (and BTW it makes a very compelling case that this account was indeed operated by Bushnell). I have already brought (in the edit you reverted) the ADL reference to it as well (which specifically mentions the quote about Israel having no right to exist). And here are some more sources mentioning this account (some verifying its relation to Bushnell; some mentioning specifically the quote about Israel's lack of right to exist; some mentioning other controversial opinions he expressed there): https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/aaron-bushnell-antisemitic-posts/ https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-791570 https://www.thejc.com/news/usa/hamas-praises-us-pilot-who-self-immolated-as-heroic-umomcs1e https://thefederalist.com/2024/02/29/how-did-the-anti-israel-guy-who-set-himself-on-fire-get-a-security-clearance/ (some of these sources are already appearing in the article in other contexts)
In any case, regardless of the WP:DUE of the reddit account itself, the issue here as I said is not the importance of the reddit account per se. Since we seem to agree that the reddit account does represent the views of Bushnell, then the only issue at dispute is whether the fact that Bushnell thought that Israel doesn't have a right to exist is important for understanding his views and what led him to his extreme action. And I think claiming that it isn't important is quite disingenuous.
I also don't think this will reach the Arbitration Committee. What I meant (somewhat tongue in cheek) is that I am willing to "fight" for this issue as far as is needed.

Vegan416 (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand the DUE here. I don't think that this distinction you're drawing between these definitions of "Free Palestine" you've come up with matters. I don't think drawing more weight to the reddit posts improves the article. We quote what we quote to understand that when Bushnell compares what's happening in Gaza to apartheid in the statements about his act, that these are held beliefs. You are inventing extra meaning to the phrase Free Palestine that I don't think exist. Free Palestine meant Free Palestine, in this context. You're the one adding the beside/instead distinction. But either way, we're clearly at an impasse, I only responded because you misunderstood my application of DUE here. It's about weight. Let's just wait for others to chime in. Parabolist (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are evading my question. Let's try again in a simpler way: What do you think Bushnell meant when he said "Free Palestine" on his death? Did he mean that there should be free Palestine beside Israel or instead of Israel? Vegan416 (talk) 11:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not evading it, I'm telling you it doesn't matter. Unless we get a source that analyzes how what he secretly meant by 'Free Palestine' was actually 'Destroy Israel', we report that he said "Free Palestine". Your theory that there is somehow a secret meaning there is original research. Freedom for Palestine is freedom for Palestine, and not about his thoughts on the peace process, or Israeli statehood. You're drawing a connecting line here that I understand you feel is obvious, but it's not to me. Ceci n'est pas une pipe. Parabolist (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but you are a bit confused here. I never suggested that we report anything about his last words other than that he said "Free Palestine". What I do suggest is that we fully report on his views on this subject as expressed in the period before that, and let the readers decide for themselves what they make of it. You on the other hand seek to hide this most relevant piece of information from the readers. And I wonder why... Vegan416 (talk) 11:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the last thing I'll say about it for a while (unless you respond, or someone else chimes in). Since we failed to convince each other of the correctness of our opinions I suggest that to get out of the impasse let's analyze this dispute from the perspective of "what is the damage done to the readers’ knowledge if I concede to the other side without giving up my opinion".
Your opinion is that the added quotation doesn’t “add to the reader's understanding of Bushnell's views” (your words), because you say that the existing quotes already “give the reader an overview of Bushnell's views” on this subject. My opinion is that the existing quotes do not give the reader a sufficient “overview of Bushnell's views” on this subject, and therefore my added words to the quotation do “add to the reader's understanding of Bushnell's views”.
Now, suppose I maintain that I am correct, but I agree to concede to you and agree to delete my edit. What damage is done to the reader’s knowledge from my point of view? A significant damage, because from my point of view the reader will miss an important relevant piece of knowledge about Bushnell’s views.
On the other hand, suppose you maintain that you are correct, but you agree to concede to me and approve my edit. What damage is done to the reader’s knowledge from your point of view? No damage at all. The only thing that will happen is that the reader will have to read 6 superfluous words (“It has no right to exist”) which according to your opinion he already knows to be a true representation of Bushnell’s view, because he somehow inferred this from the previous quotes.
I think this line of reasoning leads inevitably to the conclusion that you have to concede to me, regardless of what you think is the correct opinion in this dispute. Unless of course you have additional reasons to object to my edit, which you didn’t share with us so far.
In any case I’ll wait now for some reasonable time (say a week) to see if some compromise that we can both live with will surface here in this discussion, from you or someone else. If not, then in 7 days’ time I will raise this dispute to the next level. I see that the next options are requesting a third opinion (3O) or request for comment. I’m not sure which option is more suitable here.

Vegan416 (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there's some confusion as to international law here. No state has a right to exist; peoples have a right to self-determination. Any talk of states and the right to exist is rhetorical speech of the allegorical/didactic variety. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I agree that adding the extra post wouldn't be a positive, and that it would be UNDUE at best DarmaniLink (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement regarding international law is incorrect. But even if you were right it is completely irrelevant. The discussion here is not whether Bushnell was "morally" or "legally" right or wrong in his opinions. It is not for Wikipedia to decide on these issues. Rather, the question here is if Wikipedia should hide from the readers that he held these opinions, or not. Vegan416 (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not opinion, but fact then it's no more interesting than Bushnell saying that the sky is blue. If it's not a reference to anything established in law, the intellectual position is entirely philosophical. You also frame other editors as "hiding" things from the readers – a negative framing that implies you place equal importance on showing off this information. That in turn is an "irrelevant" judgment call on your part. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is an opinion and not a fact. The claim that "No state has a right to exist" is not a fact, because no moral statement is a fact, but rather an opinion. And in this case it is a moral opinion that most people dispute. Most people are of the opinion that states have a right to exist. And international law also holds the opinion that states have a right to exist, from which stem the right of states to defend themselves according to international law. Vegan416 (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that states have the right to exist is not grounded in international law AFAIK, so the converse would appear to be legal fact. A state is just a governing political structure. Why should any given political structure have the right to exist? The notion of asserting absolutes in this context is arguably as absurd as suggesting that a king should rule because of divine right. It's a rhetorical flourish to state that something doesn't have a right to exist because it could be interpreted as conveying a sense of implied moral condemnation, but otherwise it's little more than a curiosity. "Most people are of the opinion that states have a right to exist. And international law also holds the opinion that states have a right to exist" – sources? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/2016-05-01/ty-article/.premium/majority-of-brits-say-hating-israel-is-anti-semitism/0000017f-f6ff-d5bd-a17f-f6ff45a40000

Well, you are wrong on both things. Most people do think that existing states have a right to continue existing (as long as their citizens want that), and international law also think so. And here are some sources as you asked:

Regarding the opinion of most people about the right of states to exist, and even specifically the right of Israel to exist, you can see for example in this polls

https://transatlanticinstitute.org/analysis/denying-israels-right-exist-antisemitic

https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2018/11/europe/antisemitism-poll-2018-intl/

Regarding international law see for example here

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2796206 Vegan416 (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you note, those are all opinions. If you think it is a part of international law, you should be able to point to the statute in which it is enshrined. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the fact that most people believe in the right of states to exist (and even specifically in the right of Israel to exist) is sufficient to make the fact that Bushnell thought otherwise noteworthy, especially in the context of his suicide and the reasons for it. This is clearly not the same as saying that he thought "the sky is blue", contrary to what you said before.
If you have bothered to actually read the scholarly legal article I brought, you would have seen that the right of states to exist is recognized within the customary international law which makes your request to a "statute in which it is enshrined" irrelevant.

Vegan416 (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you read the paper either, because that's not what it says. It does say that there are no absolutes, as the former Yugoslavia could tell you. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are the sources mentioning this? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. It does say that. See for example the first 3 sentences in the "Conclusion" chapter in page 18. Of course this "right to exist" is not absolute. No right in any legal system is absolute. Even the right for life for an individual human is not absolute, thus every legal system that I know of allows killing other persons in self defense, if there is no other way to defend yourself from them. But it doesn't mean that the right to live doesn't exist. And the same is true for the right of states to exist. Vegan416 (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've responded to the wrong comment. I was asking about the sources for Bushnell's comments. But anyway, you're still not reading the paper correctly. The paper says that the right to exist is implied by the principle of territorial integrity, which is the notion that other external forces shouldn't be permitted to steal territory – that is the thrust of the paper; nothing more. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But this is what I said from the beginning - "international law also holds the opinion that states have a right to exist, from which stem the right of states to defend themselves according to international law". I'm glad to see that finally you admit that this right appears in international law.
The sources that mention Bushnell's comments are many. I referred to some of them in the deleted edit. If you can't find it I'll repeat it here: Primary sources: https://archive.is/xHoIU#selection-1299.284-1299.463 https://archive.is/K5o3l#selection-1627.0-1627.94 https://archive.is/1kMms#selection-3391.0-3391.243 Secondary sources: https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/aaron-bushnell-reddit-fire-protest-israel-palestine/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/aaron-bushnell-antisemitic-posts/ https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/anti-israel-activists-terrorist-organizations-hail-aaron-bushnell-martyr-after-self https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-791570 https://www.thejc.com/news/usa/hamas-praises-us-pilot-who-self-immolated-as-heroic-umomcs1e https://thefederalist.com/2024/02/29/how-did-the-anti-israel-guy-who-set-himself-on-fire-get-a-security-clearance/

Vegan416 (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it the wrong way around. That one paper merely says it's implied, by the principle of territorial integrity. That is all. That's very weak wording indeed. And again, just one legal opinion. Also, the two best sources above re: Bushnell, the Intercept and JC, do not mention the word "right" or "exist". So no, what you're attempting to peddle doesn't seem to have multiple RS behind it. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you don't understand the meaning of Customary International Law. Everything in there is "implied", since there are no "statutes" in this form of law. And the article I brought is definitely not the only one that proves my point about International Law. It's just the first one I picked at random. Here are some more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/10/31/should-israel-exist-palestine/ https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5567 https://books.google.co.il/books?id=xu-MDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT259
I'm not sure I understand what you are driving at regarding the sources for the comments. Are you trying to deny that Bushnell said these things???? I showed you the primary source for them from his own reddit account.

Vegan416 (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources establish no weight, so if you don't have multiple secondary sources establishing these things, there is no grounds for inclusion. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/anti-israel-activists-terrorist-organizations-hail-aaron-bushnell-martyr-after-self

But I have multiple secondary sources. See here:

https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-791570 Vegan416 (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those sources are highly partisan in the context, and the ADL is an increasingly problematic voice on the IP conflict in general. Note that it's also an ADL blog post, not a report or anything else more substantive. This doesn't really lend much weight to the specific quotation of the Reddit post. You could attribute either source for their characterisations. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both are considered reliable secondary sources. The fact that they may be partisan according to your view doesn't matter with regard to weight, as we are not discussing here the verifiability of the claim (which is not disputed), but rather DUENESS. Vegan416 (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In any case I don't have any objection to write this quote in the attributed form. Vegan416 (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is not something worth repeating based on two marginal sources. I said you could attribute their characterisation of Bushnell's views. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are not marginal sources. Especially not in this context. Vegan416 (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion articles on the suicide of Bushnell and the reactions to it

I saw that you deleted my paragraph describing shortly several opinion articles criticizing the praise of Bushnell's suicide. You gave this justification: "opinion pieces are not RS; opinion pieces are written by individuals and not "published" by websites".

You are factually wrong here in two ways. First of all the websites I gave are not website operated by private individuals but rather by well-known, important and influential media organizations. These are definitely part of the public discourse about events like the one covered in this article. If you think that I should also specify the names of the individuals who wrote the opinion pieces for these organizations I don't object to that, and I'll do that.

Second, according to Wikipedia policy the specific media organizations the I chose are in fact reliable sources for opinions, as long as they are attributed to these organizations, and described as opinions and not facts. See for example here for The Atlantic and National Review Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources:

"Opinion pieces, including all articles in the "Ideas" column (theatlantic.com/ideas/), are governed by WP:RSOPINION."

"The [National Review] publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline".

The Forward is also considered a mainstream journal Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 182

In short, since your revert was based on wrong information I reverted your revert.

If you still disagree we can discuss it further here. Vegan416 (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think inclusion of these two specific articles is WP:UNDUE as why are they worthy of inclusion compared to other opinion pieces? Also even if we do decide to include, National Review should also be described as "conservative" within the article so reader understands bias. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LegalSmeagolian @Makeandtoss

But other opinions were already included in the article. Why the opinions published by influential media organizations should have less weight in your opinions than the opinions of people like Aya Hijazi and Jill Stein wo are mentioned in the article? Also if we must put the adjective "conservative" before the National Review to show its bias then why not put the adjective "pro Hamas" before Al Jazzera (that is also mentioned in the article in the "Media Coverage" section) to show its bias? Vegan416 (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hijazi and Stein are both sourced in a non-opinion news article, so this is not analogous. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So if I find a non-opinion news article mentioning opinions similar to the ones in the opinions articles I brought you would not object to it?
I see that many wikipedia articles, even on contentious topics, contain quotes and summaries of opinion pieces as part of describing the public discourse about current events. If you think that this is giving undue weight to some opinions you are welcome to balance it with other opinion pieces. This seem to be the acceptable way to deal with it rather then forbidding all opinion pieces.

Vegan416 (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes.

2. If we keep doing that the article will be too long and not encyclopedic. It is clear that there are mixed opinions on the self-immolation - we do not need to include every (or any) opinion piece from every pundit/outlet when we have news sources that say the same thing. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LegalSmeagolian

Fine. I'll do that. But regardless of this circumvention in this case, I wish to defend the use of opinion article in general.
The WP:RSOpinion policy states explicitly that the use of opinion pieces is acceptable when attributed properly. Furthermore as I already said there are many wikipedia articles that manage to present a balanced survey of opinion pieces without becoming too long. If you haven't seen them I can show you examples.
The secret for achieving this is of course not to include "every opinion piece from every pundit/outlet", but rather to choose a representing sample of opinions that cover the spectrum of opinions on the topic from side to side. In most cases it will require no more than 5 opinions pieces. In extremely complicated cases maybe 6 or 7. This can be easily done without making the article too long and "not encyclopedic".
This coverage of opinions is particularly important in this article where the public reactions and public discourse about this suicide are in fact the only justifications for the existence of this article to begin with. Some topics have encyclopedic notability even if there is no public discourse about them. But this is clearly not the case here. I'm sure you understand what I mean, and if not I can expand on this as well...

Vegan416 (talk) 04:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vegan416: Please self-revert and seek consensus here on the talk page before reinstating contentious material per WP:BURDEN.

I clearly said opinion pieces are written by individuals and did not say anything about website ownership, so this is factually correct per WP:RSOPINION: "clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author."

WP:RSOPINION is valid in this case, but so is WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that edit is in violation of the WP:1RR however I already reverted it. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was a violation of 1RR, I clearly said the burden is on you to demonstrate verifiability for contentious material. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing LegalSmeagolian with me. But in any case when we are talking about opinions there is no question of "verifiability". this term is only relevant for facts. Vegan416 (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think saying "self revert" is really necessary as this is a content issue so a self revert isn't/wasn't necessary. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of the slogan "Free Palestine" that Bushnell shouted when he died

I see that you reverted my deleting of the link that was made from the quote "Free Palestine" by Bushnell to the wikipedia article Israeli-occupied territories. Your justification was "If someone says "Free Palestine" about the Israeli-occupied Palestinian lands, it makes sense to link to our article about the occupation. No one on the talk page has agreed with you about your theory. The burden lies with you".
I must ask you to self revert what you did, since you are wrong on every aspect of your justification, as I'll show now.
First of all you are wrong in the technical level about the question of burden. The link which you restored is "disputed content". It is so because I dispute it. And WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN are very clear on this: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content", and also "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". That is, the burden lies with you and not with me.
Second, you are also wrong on the factual level. You say "If someone says "Free Palestine" about the Israeli-occupied Palestinian lands, it makes sense to link to our article about the occupation". But this is exactly the unproved assumption I'm talking about. You assume that Bushnell said the words "Free Palestine" specifically on the Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza, but you have no proof of that. The slogan "Free Palestine" means different things in the mouth of different people. Some people indeed mean by this only "Free the West Bank and Gaza", and support a two state solution, while others mean by this "Free all Palestine", and support the dismantling of Israel and replacing it with a Palestinian state. And there also more variants in between this two options. See here Palestinian liberation (disambiguation). So if you want to link to a page that speaks specifically about the Israeli occupation the West Bank and Gaza, you need to prove that Bushnell spoke specifically about "Free the West Bank and Gaza" and not about "Free all Palestine".
You are also wrong when you say that no one in the Talk page agreed with me. You are confusing here two different issues. It is true that there is a still unresolved dispute about whether to include Bushnell's quote "It has no right to exist" in the article based on arguments of DUENESS. However everybody agreed with me that this quote is authentic and Bushnell really said that a few weeks before his suicide. Even you agreed with that! And even if you don't think that it is conclusive evidence that Bushnell meant "Free all Palestine", even you would have to admit that it certainly points in that direction. Especially when you add to it his justification of the mass murder of civilians on October 7 (which he called settlers, despite the fact they didn't live in the occupied territories). Now, I agree that this evidence might not be enough to justify writing in the wikipedia voice inside the article that Bushnell meant "Free all Palestine". But it is definitely enough to shift the burden to prove otherwise on you, if you want the article to say or imply (by adding the current link) that all Bushnell's wished for is just "Free West Bank and Gaza" and not "Free all Palestine". (Additional edit: In fact, as I proved in the previous points, the burden of proof in this case is on you anyway, even without this evidence of mine).
I wanted to suggest as a compromise that you link instead to this page Palestinian liberation (disambiguation), which includes all (or most) of the interpretations of this ambiguous slogan. But it seems that Wikipedia frowns on linking to disambiguation pages so I don't know if that's a good idea either. What do you think?

Vegan416 (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I can’t read all that for a WP link. There’s already a POV tag at the destruction article and the disambiguation article is unsourced. Even the “maximalist” interpretation is in itself maximalist; disestablishing of Israel is not necessarily “destruction” of it. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about. What WP link? What is the "destruction" article? What does it matter to my argument here if disestablishing of Israel is not necessarily “destruction” of it? What does it matter to my argument here if there is POV tag to the disambiguation article? Vegan416 (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway if my comments were too long for you, let's break them up step by step. Let's start with this question: Do you agree that putting this link (from Bushnell's "Free Palestine" quote in the article to the page Israeli-occupied territories) implies that Bushnell meant by this slogan only "Free the West Bank and Gaza" and not "Free all Palestine"? Vegan416 (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but these walls of text aren't convincing. If a reader who is somehow unaware of the politics of the area reads this page, and they see "Free Palestine", they might wonder "Why would he say that? Is it not free?" And so it is piped to our page on the occupation of Palestine, the thing that makes Palestine not free. Your elaborate theory that someone it means anything else is not gaining traction and is getting increasingly tendentious. This link has been in the page for weeks now, so your removal of it is the B in WP:BRD. You can't just remove everything that doesn't agree with your POV and then claim the onus is everyone else to justify it to you, the outlier. This is not how consensus works. Parabolist (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the example you pointed to, because it can be used to explain my point: If a reader who is somehow unaware of the politics of the area reads this page, and they see "Free Palestine", they might wonder "What exactly is this Palestine he wants to be free?" And so he gets piped to the page on the Israeli-occupied territories, and then this reader will understand that Bushnell just wanted to free the West Bank and Gaza... But you don't have any proof that this is what Bushnell actually meant, and I have given you ample evidence that in fact it is very unlikely that this is what Bushnell meant.
I don't understand your reference to my being the B in WP:BRD. You make it sound as if being Bold in wikipedia is bad thing whereas it is one of the mottos of wikipedia, and the BRP method is described positively there.

Vegan416 (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that "Free Palestine" has nothing to do with the occupation of Palestinian land is just simply ridiculous. And yes, your edits are bold, they are reverted, and now it's on you to find consensus. Parabolist (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I didn't say that "Free Palestine" has nothing to do with the occupation of Palestinian land. Rather I said that in this case it is likely to have yet another layer. Perhaps you will understand this better if I gave an analogous hypothetical example from the other direction:

Suppose a Christian self-immolates in front of a mosque in Washington DC while shouting "Free America from Jihadism". We know that the word "Jihadism" can have different meanings in different mouths. Some people use it to refer only to groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda, in which case an anti-Jihadist sentiment can be considered reasonable and benign. On the other hand there are many Islamophobes who use this word as a synonym for Islam, and for all Muslims. Now let's assume that while we don't have 100% conclusive proof that this self-immolator actually meant "Free America from Islam", there are nonetheless very strong indications from what he said in the recent past on social media that this was indeed his meaning, and he wasn't referring only to ISIS and Al-Qaeda supporters. And also let's further assume that this guy had become a sort of a hero for many Islamohobes.

And now think about a situation that a certain Mr. P., who is an editor in Wikipedia, insists that the article on this guy doesn't mention at all his more Islamphobic sounding social media statements on subjective grounds of UNDUENESS, while on the same time insisting that the word "Jihadism" in the quote of his last words would link to the page Jihadism which talks mainly about groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Wouldn't it look to you as if this Mr. P. is trying to whitewash the probable Islamophobia of this self-immolator? Vegan416 (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ask you to strike this wildly inappropriate hypothetical where I'm a racist, but I think it's fairly illuminating as to your POV towards the subject of this article, and the edits you're attempting to ram through about him. Good luck on finding consensus for any edit with that POV, you'll need it. Parabolist (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]