Talk:Bella Hadid

RFC: Death threats and the Gaza war

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is the following or a similar phrasing and sourcing due and appropriate for inclusion:

She participated in the Gaza war protests and called Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip "genocide." Hadid stated that she and her family have received death threats for their pro-Palestinian stance, saying: "I've been sent hundreds of death threats daily, my phone number has been leaked, and my family has felt to be in danger. But I can not be silenced any longer. Fear is not an option." In November 2023, Israeli music duo Ness & Stilla released the single "Harbu Darbu", which called for her death.

FortunateSons (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

References

Previous discussions: Talk:Bella_Hadid/Archive_1#Regarding_the_Religion_and_politics_section., Talk:Bella_Hadid/Archive_1#Death_threats_and_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict --Hipal (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes there is significant non-Event-specific high-quality coverage, and no policy-based reason for exclusion. FortunateSons (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• Yes per others and past discussions { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 16:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• Yes include, I did not know this, so it has been "undercommunicated",Huldra (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• Yes as well-sourced and significant, but I'd get rid of the quotes around "genocide" which aren't necessary as it's only one word and change it to "called Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip a genocide". Additionally, remove the wikilink to Gaza Strip and instead wikilink the word "genocide" to Gaza genocide. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 21:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

  Regarding the first half, I am not seeing anywhere in the source where that is a quotation. Am I missing something? --Super Goku V (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  The Al Jazeera article uses quotation marks around "genocide" but doesn't give enough context for us to do the same (they provide no date or context for the quotation). Since we have the article Gaza genocide I think we are fine treating the genocide as a fact in wikivoice and leave it as a more general statement that she described the events as a genocide. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 10:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  Omitting quote marks around the word would not imply that we are endorsing what she said as a Wikivoice fact. The existence of an article with the title Gaza genocide also does not imply that Wikipedia has concluded that the existence of a Gaza genocide is endorsed as a Wikivoice fact. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - it is insufficient. All quotes should have a date attached. Year and month would be good. starship.paint (talk / cont) 05:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Yes per the above votes. -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Here are links to discussions on similar or same topics: Talk:Dua Lipa#Harbu Darbu, Talk:Mia Khalifa#Harbu Darbu and Talk:Gigi Hadid#Death threats and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, something along those lines I don't see the issue with including this. However, I would make two comments: I think that dates (rough or possibly precise) should be included for the quotes. Secondly, I am not entirely sure that the statement "Israeli music duo Ness & Stilla released the single "Harbu Darbu", which called for her death" is completely compliant with WP:NPOV and possibly WP:BLP. Three relevant sources are given for this, The times of israel and Business insider describe the duo as calling for retribution against enemies among which Hadid is listed as one (or similar words) , while the times describes it as "demanding the killing" . A review of other sources finds one or two more describing it as calling for her death , and some others describing it differently . Personally I'd probably change the wording on that to maybe quote the exact words used in the song, or change the wording in some other way to ensure solid compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Tristario (talk) 05:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Yes overall: Some changes seem warranted per starship.paint and Tristario, but overall I agree with the wording and sourcing. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, in some form. It's a major aspect of her political activism based on coverage and can't reasonably be excluded entirely. If people have objections to the precise wording it can still be workshopped, but total removal isn't appropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• No as a whole, per BLP, NOT, POV, OR. The refs and coverage in them are poor to extremely poor. Combining the information in this manner suggests a narrative not in any of the sources. I think we can make a case for mention of her involvement in protests after the Gaza war, though the coverage is so extremely poor that we have no idea how many protests she participated in nor where. In contrast, we have better sources giving such details for protests we don't mention at all Talk:Bella_Hadid#What_protests_deserve_mention?. The quotes and name-dropping are UNDUE and NOT voilations: treating these inferior sources over better ones is grossly inappropriate. --Hipal (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• Yes- (Brought here from RFC/A) I would say that the proposed text contains some notable information, or at least parts of the information from the sourcing that can be verified. Also agree with starship.paint and Tristario changes which seem warranted. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• Yes. Sourced, non-trivial, neutral - of course it should be included. This is factual and essential information neutrally stated. SilkTork (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• Yes (Summoned by bot). For OP's reasoning and others – I also agree with Tristario that the wording on the "Harbu Darbu" portion would probably be better served by a quote of the exact words used in the song themselves. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment (summoned by bot) The controversy is notable and should be mentioned in the article. However, the description of it is incomplete. Apparently this controversy originated from a connection of the shoe to the 1972 Munich Olympics. If so, that needs to be fleshed out, as it is part of the controversy. Coretheapple (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• Yes changing !vote per comment below. Coretheapple (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  That’s already in the article :) FortunateSons (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you. That clarifies matters. Coretheapple (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• Yes (Summoned by bot) I can't see a reason to exclude here. Looks both sourced and notable. TheSavageNorwegian 16:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• Yes notable information. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, in general (Summoned by bot). Sourcing seems adequate, the information appears to be relevant and significant. I would support the changes to the wording suggested above (being more precise about the relevant content of the song, and either locating an exact source for the "genocide" quote or removing the quotation marks), but in broad strokes the proposed language does not seem problematic. -- Visviva (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Pings: FortunateSons (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

For most recent discussion: @Burrobert@Hipal@Jjj1238@Super Goku V@Tobby72 FortunateSons (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@Starship.paint for last discussion, no ping for Ïvana due to inability to participate FortunateSons (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@The Mountain of Eden, @Sean.hoyland for the Adidas-discussion linked below. FortunateSons (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I have a COI for Adidas, so I should probably stay away from that. Although I will take this opportunity to thank the people of Herzo for putting a cigarette machine in the street that saved me in my time of need on a Sunday (probably not there anymore) while being watched with suspicion by a local with a ferocious looking dog. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

No worries, though I would like to note that this is largely unrelated to Adidas. :) FortunateSons (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Asking once again, are there any new/better sources since this was last discussed? --Hipal (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

You mean, except the repeated mentions during the Adidas-issue? FortunateSons (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. If there are relevant references or discussions, provide them as I have done. --Hipal (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed you were aware of discussions you started. FortunateSons (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

How is that discussion relevant? --Hipal (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Because during that time, there was coverage of her participation at protests, for example by

ZDF

FAZ

and others FortunateSons (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for identifying some references that had not been brought up in the relevant discussions. --Hipal (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Of course. I believe that the other sources linked in that discussion are likely to be sufficiently sustained, and would exclude the ones I linked above under WP:NONENG, but if you think it makes a difference, I don’t mind citing these instead. FortunateSons (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Let's get any that you think would help copied here. --Hipal (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@Tobby72: You wrote, the situation has evolved since February 2024, and she has participated in several pro-Palestinian protests. Since we created consensus on the matter in June (you participated in the discussions through May), are there any protests that she participated in since, or other references we should consider? I'm not finding anything beyond reaction to her "Palestine belongs to the Palestinians" Instagram post in February, which doesn't appear to have DUE coverage. --Hipal (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Al Jazeera – "Hadid has taken part in several pro-Palestinian demonstrations during the war...". There are also several videos on YouTube of Bella Hadid at pro-Palestinian demonstrations. But I don't know how often she has publicly protested or made pro-Palestinian speeches. Do you think the proposed text should be reworded in some way? -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so quickly.

This article currently details protests:

Hadid is a long-time supporter of Palestine. In January 2017, Hadid attended the "No Ban, No Wall" march in New York City, saying in an interview it was her own family history that drove her to participate in the march. In December 2017, Hadid joined protests in London against Trump's decision to move the U.S. embassy in Israel and recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. In October 2023, she condemned the Hamas-led attack on Israel. Hadid and her sister Gigi donated $1 million to Palestinian aid agencies during the Gaza war.

So we already have in this article more detail than provided in that reference, cited to far better quality references.

Are there any others we should consider? --Hipal (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Le Monde – "Hadid has taken part in several pro-Palestinian demonstrations during the conflict..." The text is about protests against the war in Gaza. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Ref #6 above and https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/17/entertainment/bella-hadid-palestinian-protest-trnd identifies another in New York in 2021.

https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-supermodel-bella-hadid-joins-free-palestine-march-in-nyc-2021-5 identifies another in Aug '23.

I'm not finding anything after that provide details for any after the war started.

So, yes, I think we should include that she attended some Gaza War protests, and the 2021 protest in New York. I was hoping that there would be sources with details comparable to current references so we properly incorporate the information with what we already have, in chronological order. --Hipal (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

It seems we agree on the Gaza war protests. You probably still disagree with the inclusion of death threats and the song Harbu Darbu? -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC – closed

Pinging @FortunateSons:, @Jjj1238:, @Huldra:, @Dan Leonard:, @Super Goku V:, @Tristario:, @BarrelProof:, @Starship.paint:, @Aquillion:, @Hipal:, @MaximusEditor:, @SilkTork:, @Smallangryplanet:, @Coretheapple:, @Thesavagenorwegian:, @Quaerens-veritatem:, @Visviva:.

RfC is closed. What's next? -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Since the RfC proposed a specific wording as a starting point, we should start by adding that wording; since a lot of people proposed changes or made clear that they weren't tied to that specific wording, and the close noted this, it can then be modified through normal editing (eg. adding year and date to the quotes as Starship.paint suggested and several people supported) as long as the key points remain. --Aquillion (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd planned to see what guidance we can get from BLPN. --Hipal (talk) 02:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Only what has consensus. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• I'm OK with the wording as it stands. It's accurate and sourced. I'm OK with the quotes on genocide as that is how the source has it. I'm Ok with saying that Ness & Stilla are calling for Bella Hadid's death as the two sources say that. It appears to me to be carefully chosen and appropriate wording. Not sure what difference adding dates make. We don't normally add dates unless they are relevant. Not seeing what relevance the dates have. The main points are made: the subject of this article has spoken out against the Gaza genocide and has received death threats because of it. I think the details given are appropriate and helpful. We don't actually need to pile on more details than what we have, as then it starts to become undue. The article subject is not notable for speaking out for Palestine, she is notable for being a highly paid model. It is relevant to indicate information about her that has been reported in reliable sources, but let's not build this up so it becomes a political article by the backdoor. SilkTork (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  Will second everything @SilkTork has said above. Keep it concise so it doesn't spiral into something more than just the facts of what happened. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Alcohol use - moved from article for discussion

This was it's own subsection, titled "Alcohol use", immediately under "Personal life".

On July 22, 2014, Hadid was arrested and charged with a DUI. Her driver's license was suspended for one year and she was given six months of probation. Hadid was also ordered to perform 25 hours of community service and attend 20 hours of Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. In a 2022 interview, she said that she had adopted sobriety.

References

Maybe rewrite from the perspective of her sobriety, which is a long-term aspect of her life, rather than from the single incident? The sources are all fairly NOTNEWS. The InStyle article referenced by the Vogue ref is a puff/promo piece that's of no help (InStyle). I'm seeing quite a few potential sources about her sobriety that are probably better than what we have including articles in People and LA Times. --Hipal (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

This isn't really tied to the RfC as far as I can see. In any case, I just wasn't sure what if the deletion was valid or not, but your edit is a separate one that does handle the situation. I would say that we could restore the text in part with a flip and remove the sectioning. Something like: In a 2022 interview [with ? source], Hadid said that she had adopted sobriety. This follows an incident in 2014 where Hadid was charged with a DUI. If this doesn't work, then we would need a full rewrite. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Let me dig up the better sources I ran across. --Hipal (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

• Brief, focusing on sobriety.
• Longer, mentions Kin and the 2014 incidents
• Puff piece, echoing publicity campaign for Kin
• Puff piece, echoing publicity campaign for Kin

References

I can't find anything better. There's a lot of coverage due to the Kin publicity campaign. We already mention Kin in the "Other ventures" section. --Hipal (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Hipal: Hello. Was curious if it was decided that it was best to exclude or if this just got put to the side. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is anything encyclopedic here. We have WP:NOTGOSSIP articles in 2014, and WP:PROMO for Kin articles in 2022/2023. LATimes and People focus more on her, but they're still just (quality) churnalism resulting from the Kin public relations efforts.

Maybe we could use wording along your suggestion and place it with the Kin information? --Hipal (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I am fine with whichever is done. I was just curious about what happened as I recalled this while scrolling through my contributions for a particular edit regarding a template. If you don't believe it is encyclopedic, then we probably should leave it at that. --Super Goku V (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2026 (UTC)