Talk:Gigi Hadid

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)

I've already discussed this on your talk page. --Hipal (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Could you direct me to towards which of your comments answers this question? Or are you referring to “ I'm not sure I can help you, and don't feel it would be worth my time given the problems I've already identified. ” FortunateSons (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Like slay 8 is not a frickin Fortnite emote 72.109.27.108 (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Death threats and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

This information was reverted, with the following edit summary: "at least some appears UNDUE and has been discussed on talk page". She is of Palestinian descent. How can her pro-Palestinian stance and death threats against her be WP:UNDUE?

Hadid has supported Palestine and criticized the Israeli occupation for many years. In October 2023, she expressed concern over the humanitarian situation in Gaza during the Israel–Hamas war. She and her family have received death threats for their pro-Palestinian stance.

References

-- Tobby72 (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

What don't you understand regarding the relevant policies and previous discussions? --Hipal (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Please point where in previous discussions it was decided that her stance regarding the Israeli occupation shouldn't be mentioned at all. Only the accusations of antisemitism were disregarded and rightly so. How is this different from any of the other movements she supports and are included in the article? - Ïvana (talk) 04:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Afaict, there is no previous discussion of the death threats. Gigi's views on Palestine are missing from her bio. Burrobert (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the confusion. Bella vs Gigi, editing by apparent fans vs anti-fans, I lost track.

It all comes down to what references we have available and relevant policies. For references: WP:RS, WP:IS, and WP:BLPRS. As to the POV issues: WP:NOT (especially NOTNEWS), WP:RECENTISM, WP:POV.

There appeared to be better references regarding Bella than Gigi. Do we have any in-depth references available on Gigi's views? Last we discussed on Bella's talk page, it was unclear if editors understand the basics of what references are appropriate in a BLP. --Hipal (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

That's quite an alphabet soup, lacking any specific connection to the current discussion. Her views on the Israeli occupation and genocide were sourced to the Guardian and the Independent. We should not participate in the attempted erasure of Palestine by hiding her views from readers. Here are some more sources:

• Hadid and her sister, Gigi, who is also a supermodel, are vocal supporters of Palestinian rights whose social media posts reach tens of millions of followers.[1]
• This Newsweek article details Gigi’s views over time.[2]
• Here’s a RollingStone article which discusses Gigi’s push back about the popular Israeli tactic of conflatiing support for Palestinians with antisemitism.[3]
• It appears that the Israel government was concerned enough about Gigi’s influence that it responded on Instagram to her statements.[4]
• A Newsweek article from 2021 details her views at the time.[5] Burrobert (talk) 07:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

That's quite an alphabet soup They are WP:PAGs. If you cannot respect them, then we're wasting time here. --Hipal (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy tag regarding the RFC below. FortunateSons (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Some more sources on her support for Palestine:

• This 2021 source[6] says: "Hadid, who is half-Palestinian through her father, has been vocal about the recent escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Posting to her Instagram stories and her grid, she has brought attention to the ongoing violence, shared information about what it means to be Palestinian, and denounced human rights abuses". It quotes Hadid as saying:

“One cannot advocate for racial equality, LGBT & women’s rights, condemn corrupt & abusive regimes and other injustices yet choose to ignore the Palestinian oppression. It does not add up. You cannot pick & choose whose human rights matter more".

• The words Palestine/Palestinian appear three times in Gigi's bio, once in relation to her father's background and twice in relation to an incident from 2022. There is nothing about her comments on the treatment of Palestinians by the Israeli regime. In the one incident where the word Palestinian is mentioned we have removed the context so that readers will not be aware she was comparing the invasion of Ukraine by Russia with the behaviour of Israel towards Palestine. Here is an Israeli source which mentions this comparison "Last month, Gigi Hadid compared Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to Israel’s control of the West Bank".[7]
• Gigi commented on a terror attack in Tel Aviv in 2022 [8] "Vocally anti-Israel supermodel Gigi Hadid on Saturday criticized last week’s deadly terror attack in Tel Aviv as detrimental to the Palestinian national cause and a disappointment to Palestinians who want peace".
• Here are some sources which cover her reaction to the 7 October attack.[9][10][11][12] They quote her as saying:

"I have deep empathy and heartbreak for the Palestinian struggle and life under occupation, it’s a responsibility I hold daily".

"I also feel a responsibility to my Jewish friends to make it clear, as I have before: While I have hopes and dreams for Palestinians, none of them include the harm of a Jewish person".

"The terrorising of innocent people is not in alignment with & does not do any good for the ‘Free Palestine’ movement".

The sources say "Hadid and her younger sister Bella, whose 74-year-old father Mohamed was born in Nazareth, Israel, have always been vocal in showing their support for the Palestinian cause".

• Some reactions to Gigi's post about 7 October.[13]
• As mentioned above, the Israeli regime is concerned about her influence and has responded to her on social media. These sources cover her pushback against the Israeli tactic of smearing those who criticise Israel as anti-Semitic.[14][15][16][17][18][19][20] They say "The supermodel shared a graphic to her Instagram story that read: “There is nothing Jewish about the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians. Condemning the Israeli government is not antisemitic and supporting Palestinians is not supporting Hamas". " Burrobert (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

As long as it's unclear if you can respect Wikipedia's policies, this seems a waste of time. Are you familiar with "throwing mud at the wall"? --Hipal (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Her long-term pro-Palestinian activism is definitely not NEWS, RECENTISM or UNDUE. I would suggest Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and/or Wikipedia:Requests for comment. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Given the sources listed above does anyone oppose mentioning her views on the Israel-Palestine conflict? Burrobert (talk) 11:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Her long-term pro-Palestinian activism is definitely not NEWS, RECENTISM or UNDUE. I agree to an extent. What BLP-quality references support that?

The sources above appear to have been thrown out without regard to the relevant policies. I suggest identifying the best of them, explain how they meet BLP criteria, and what they could be used for.

I wrote over at Talk:Bella Hadid, "The Guardian piece doesn't give us much to work with, and doesn't rise above NOTNEWS and RECENTISM. Is there something better?" As for Gigi, the total content about her is "Hadid and her sister, Gigi, who is also a supermodel, are vocal supporters of Palestinian rights whose social media posts reach tens of millions of followers." We need to be careful not to fall into OR/SYN with what we apply to Gigi. --Hipal (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian, The Independent, The West Australian, news.com.au, yahoo!, Variety are generally regarded as suitable sources. Other sources which may be suitable, although they are not ideal, are Times of Israel, Newsweek, Bustle, Middle East Eye, HuffPost. How many sources are needed to say that Gigi "has supported Palestine and criticised the Israeli occupation for many years". Or for saying "In October 2023, she expressed concern over the humanitarian situation in Gaza during the Israel–Hamas war". Or for saying she "compared Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to Israel’s control of the West Bank"? Burrobert (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

We only need one if it clearly meets the policies, a few if we're struggling with the polices listed. Currently, it's unclear if we have any. Given the topic and contentious topic areas, let's ignore those you state are "not ideal". BLP requires high-quality sources. --Hipal (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Here comes a lot of text. I have copied some relevant content from the relevant articles linked above. There is a fair bit of duplication. The intention is not to include the text, but to use it as a basis for summaries such as those suggested above.

• Guardian

Hadid and her sister, Gigi, who is also a supermodel, are vocal supporters of Palestinian rights whose social media posts reach tens of millions of followers.

• The Independent

Hadid’s Instagram Story post, which was originally shared by @consent.wizardry, read: “There is nothing Jewish about the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians. Condemning the Israeli government is not antisemitic and supporting Palestinians is not supporting Hamas.” In response, the official Instagram account for the State of Israel criticised Hadid’s statement

The Instagram row comes one week after the mother-of-one shared an initial statement about the Israel-Hamas war. On 10 October, she condemned the “terrorising of innocent people” and wrote that her dreams for a free Palestine are not at the cost of Jewish people.

“While I have hopes and dreams for Palestinians, none of them include the harm of a Jewish person,” Hadid wrote on Instagram, adding that inflicting terror on innocent people is “not in alignment with and does not do any good for the Free Palestine movement”.

“The idea that it does has fueled a painful, decades-long cycle of back and forth retaliation (which no innocent civilian, Palestinian or Israeli deserves to be a casualty of), and helps perpetuate the false idea that being Pro-Palestine [is equal to] antisemitic,” Hadid continued. Both Gigi and her fellow supermodel sister, Bella Hadid, have been vocal about their support for the Free Palestine movement. On 17 October, TMZ reported that the Hadid family - including their brother, Anwar Hadid, and mother Yolanda Hadid - have been “receiving death threats over their support for Palestine”.

• The West Australian

“I have deep empathy and heartbreak for the Palestinian struggle and life under occupation, it’s a responsibility I hold daily. “I also feel a responsibility to my Jewish friends to make it clear, as I have before: While I have hopes and dreams for Palestinians, none of them include the harm of a Jewish person. “The terrorising of innocent people is not in alignment with & does not do any good for the ‘Free Palestine’ movement.” Hadid and her younger sister Bella, whose 74-year-old father Mohamed was born in Nazareth, Israel, have always been vocal in showing their support for the Palestinian cause.

• news.com.au

The 28-year-old, who has been a longtime advocate for the ‘Free Palestine’ movement alongside her sister Bella Hadid, described the ongoing devastation in the region as an “unjustifiable tragedy”, throwing her support behind Palestine’s struggle while also condemning the violence that had arisen as a result of the attacks. “I have deep empathy for the Palestinian struggle and life under occupation, it’s a responsibility I hold daily,” she wrote. “I also feel a responsibility to my Jewish friends to make it clear, as I have before: While I have hopes and dreams for Palestinians, none of them include the harm of a Jewish person. “The terrorising of innocent people is not in alignment with and does not do any good for the ‘Free Palestine’ movement. “The idea that it does has fuelled a painful, decades-long cycle of back and forth retaliation (which no innocent civilian, Palestinian or Israeli, deserves to be a casualty of) and helps perpetuate the false idea that being Pro-Palestine = antisemitic.”

• yahoo!

Gigi sympathized with both sides before thoroughly pointing out that "terrorizing of innocent people" wasn't the way to go about achieving the "Free Palestine" movement.

She said, "The terrorizing of innocent people is not in alignment with & does not do any good for the 'Free Palestine' movement. "The idea that it does has fueled a painful, decades long cycle of back & forth retaliation (which no innocent civilian, Palestinian or Israeli, deserves to be a casualty of) and helps perpetuate the false idea that being Pro-Palestine = antisemitic."

• Variety

The supermodel shared a graphic to her Instagram story that read: “There is nothing Jewish about the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians. Condemning the Israeli government is not antisemitic and supporting Palestinians is not supporting Hamas.” The State of Israel provided its own version of the graphic Hadid originally shared. She took to Instagram last week to share a statement on the matter to her millions of followers. “My thoughts are with all those affected by this unjustifiable tragedy, and every day that innocent lives are taken by this conflict too many of which are children,” Hadid shared at the time. “I have deep empathy and heartbreak for the Palestinian struggle and life under occupation, it’s a responsibility I hold daily. I also feel a responsibility to my Jewish friends to make it clear, as I have before: While I have hopes and dreams for Palestinians, none of them include the harm of a Jewish person. The terrorizing of innocent people is not in alignment with and does not do any good for the ‘Free Palestine’ movement.

Burrobert (talk) 05:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you.

We appear to agree that there's only a single sentence in the Guardian article that's useful.

Re The Independent (written by Meredith Clark, a lifestyle reporter, on 18 October). The article is entertainment churnalism, quoting hadid's social media posts at length, quoting State of Israel responses, providing some basic information on the state of the war, and ending with lengthy quotes from another Riz Ahmed against Israel's actions.

It's a poor reference. If we use it at all, I don't see much encyclopedic value for anything beyond, "Both Gigi and her fellow supermodel sister, Bella Hadid, have been vocal about their support for the Free Palestine movement. Their father, American real-estate developer Mohamed Anwar Hadid, is a Palestinian immigrant."

I'll get to the rest as I find time.

I'm unclear what article from "The West Australian" you're referring to. Could you please provide links at a minimum for each potential reference? --Hipal (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Links to the articles were provided previously. Anyway. I'll repeat them here:

Guardian [21]

The Independent [22]

The West Australian [23]

news.com.au [24]

yahoo! [25]

Variety [26]

The Guardian article was mainly about Bella so it would be a good reference for her bio but it is sufficient to support the statement that Gigi is a "vocal supporters of Palestinian rights", something which is not currently mentioned in her bio.

Btw, HuffPost, RollingStone, Yahoo! and TMZ are already being used as sources on the page so we may be able to use articles from those sources as well.

Given the length of this discussion and the fact no one else sems to be interested, I may start adding info about Gigi's views as documented by the better sources above. You can decide whether the text added is reasonable and perhaps we can then move on to some RfC's. Burrobert (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

So would these sources be acceptable to use? Yahoo Huffpost - Ïvana (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Both sources mention Gigi in relation to a letter to Biden requesting he support a ceasefire. The existence of the letter is not controversial so the sources would be adequate for mentioning that fact. Gigi's signing of the letter is mentioned elsewhere, e.g. USAToday.[27] Burrobert (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. The West Australian article is at PerthNow, so I was unable to find it in all the links. --Hipal (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The Perth Now/Western Australian article is written by an entertainment reporter, with almost identical format and very similar content as that of The Independent. It's a poor source.

The News.com.au article is very similar to the previous two, and poor.

TheBlast article hosted on Yahoo appears unreliable.

The Variety article is very similar to the other entertainment pieces, only much shorter and with far less context. It's churnalism and clickbait. It's a very poor source. --Hipal (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The sources are considered generally reliable for facts so we are within scope if we use the articles for facts. Anyway, you can provide feedback once I add suitable content from the articles. Burrobert (talk) 04:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but BLP requires more in terms of reference quality and adherence to content policies, and places the burden on those seeking to include article content. Put a proposal together, and we can discuss it. --Hipal (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Should we include information about her pro-Palestinian stance and related death threats? -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

If this is covered by independent and reliable sources, it can be included in the Personal life section. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Support inclusion, including the reception of her advocacy. We have significant RS coverage, and it’s clearly both significant and unique enough to warrant a section (probably around 3 paragraphs (covering actions, death threats and reception/reaction) in length, but others may disagree) FortunateSons (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment RS sigcov per request, sourcing/selection can be derived later:

FAZ: 1 2

Independent: 1

Times of Israel: 1

HuffPost (note the relevant restrictions): 1

i24: 1

Haaretz: 1

Jerusalem Post:1

RollingStone: 1

ynet: 1

Allgemeiner: 1

Please note the following:

1. While I believe that all are RS, I could have overlooked one or more unreliable sources

2. This search was done using key words, which may influence the outcome

3. It’s not an exhaustive list, nor is it all available content from each source.

4. some of those may have significant bias, and other sources were excluded due to reliability concerns. My judgement is not final.

5. I’m in Europe, so my search results may be impacted by privacy protections FortunateSons (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for identifying some possible sources. Are any new, or are they all from past discussions? --Hipal (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The search is new, but I assume that there is significant overlap.

For example, I believe that one of the FAZ sources and the HuffPost one are new, and I think we had a different ToI one back then. I could be wrong though (except about HuffPost due to the date). FortunateSons (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Given past discussions and the requirements of BLP, this RfC should be closed until the potential refs are reviewed. --Hipal (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Anyone voting can review sources (and/or add their own), and we can then work on the details if there is a consensus to include. However, this has been an on/off discussion (not counting reverts) for months, so a consensus for or against inclusion would save a significant amount of editor resources. An agreement at least vague content would already cut down on 80% of past discussions. FortunateSons (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

You're not going to change consensus by working out the details later. --Hipal (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Support per FortunateSons. Tobby72 (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Support in principle, but it would be much easier to assess if there were specific text to comment on. Clearly issues of due WEIGHT apply.Pincrete (talk) 04:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Identify some sources and propose some content first. Otherwise you risk violating BLP and the three areas of editing restrictions that apply here. --Hipal (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Reject as a BLP and CON vio. This doesn't look like a policy-based attempt at creating consensus as long as there are no details. --Hipal (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)