Template:Did you know nominations/Death of Mohammad Habali
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Article has been deleted.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Death of Mohammad Habali
edit- ...
that unlike what the IDF said, an obtained video of Mohammad Habali's death shows the area was calm when Habali was shot dead by an Israeli soldier?Source: Haaretz, Ynet News
Created by Mhhossein (talk). Nominated by Mhhossein (talk) at 17:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC).
Mhhossein This hook is not neutral, it's clearly pushing a POV. Please suggest another hook. And a QPQ is also required. (Another user can do full review but I'm just mentioning the clear issues) Joseph2302 (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Joseph2302:Thanks for reviewing the hook. But can you say what kind of POV do you mean? Are you saying there's the possibility that, despite the wide comments on the footage by Israeli and non-Israeli sources, the area had been violent when the shooting was done? --Mhhossein talk 13:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- I will agree with User:Joseph2302's comment that this DYK is not neutral. The short 50 seconds video doesn't show if there was any violence before the video started rolling. Haaretz does not claim that the area was calm. YNET states that area "appears" to be calm. As I see IDF has called for an investigation. The DYK as it stands right now takes a strong position on the event, even though the investigations are ongoing. Wikipedia cannot be expected to take a stand on this while the investigations are ongoing. I would suggest you to propose few other neutral ALTs for this DYK to proceed, regards. DBigXrayᗙ 01:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- The video is not 50 seconds, rather it's almost 41 minutes. Moreover, we're not here to analyze the videos rather we should adhere to what the reliable sources say. The contradictory claim by the IDF is mentioned by multiple RSs and the hook is just reflecting what the sources say. I don't think IDF claim can be priored over what multiple reliable sources say. That said, I've altered the hook and added "appeared". --Mhhossein talk 13:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
ALT1:... that unlike what the IDF said, the area appears calm in an obtained video of Mohammad Habali's death, when he was shot dead by an Israeli soldier?
- The video is not 50 seconds, rather it's almost 41 minutes. Moreover, we're not here to analyze the videos rather we should adhere to what the reliable sources say. The contradictory claim by the IDF is mentioned by multiple RSs and the hook is just reflecting what the sources say. I don't think IDF claim can be priored over what multiple reliable sources say. That said, I've altered the hook and added "appeared". --Mhhossein talk 13:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- I will agree with User:Joseph2302's comment that this DYK is not neutral. The short 50 seconds video doesn't show if there was any violence before the video started rolling. Haaretz does not claim that the area was calm. YNET states that area "appears" to be calm. As I see IDF has called for an investigation. The DYK as it stands right now takes a strong position on the event, even though the investigations are ongoing. Wikipedia cannot be expected to take a stand on this while the investigations are ongoing. I would suggest you to propose few other neutral ALTs for this DYK to proceed, regards. DBigXrayᗙ 01:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Joseph2302:Thanks for reviewing the hook. But can you say what kind of POV do you mean? Are you saying there's the possibility that, despite the wide comments on the footage by Israeli and non-Israeli sources, the area had been violent when the shooting was done? --Mhhossein talk 13:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Mhhossein: If you are unable to suggest a new, neutral hook by the end of this week, and/or are unable to provide a QPQ, this nomination will be marked for closure as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Full review requested: I've altered the hook and provided a QPQ. --Mhhossein talk 13:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: I think many people will not know what IDF stands for, let alone what the IDF said. Readers will not know the importance or implications in the death. The wording infers that an entity is guilty, which is the POV issue. The subject is far too bland, and not hooky. I'm willing to do a full review, but new hooks are needed. Flibirigit (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Flibirigit: Thanks for the comment and for the review offer. You're welcomed to see if the nominations qualifies for the main page. As for the hook, I tried to abide by the reliable sources which say the area "appeared" to be calm, despite what the IDF said, when the shooting was done. Do you think there's anything I've missed? Do you have suggestions for hook? --Mhhossein talk 05:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- I suggest looking at Death of Sammy Yatim, and see how that article elaborates on the community impact and reactions. The way people react to the death is what will make this event relatable to readers, and hook them into reading the article. I think the best way to move forward is to try expanding the article first. Flibirigit (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- You can see my previous creation which is far more similar to this one. Thanks for your suggestion and I made some edits, but, having searched through the net and having re-checked the already used sources, there were no more materials available in the sources regarding the "community impact and reactions". That said, I'm ready to add materials if you can show any in the sources. Also, you did not comment on why reflecting what multiple sources said could amount to POV? Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 13:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Pinging @Flibirigit: in the case he's not watching the page. --Mhhossein talk 12:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- I suggest looking at Death of Sammy Yatim, and see how that article elaborates on the community impact and reactions. The way people react to the death is what will make this event relatable to readers, and hook them into reading the article. I think the best way to move forward is to try expanding the article first. Flibirigit (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Flibirigit: Thanks for the comment and for the review offer. You're welcomed to see if the nominations qualifies for the main page. As for the hook, I tried to abide by the reliable sources which say the area "appeared" to be calm, despite what the IDF said, when the shooting was done. Do you think there's anything I've missed? Do you have suggestions for hook? --Mhhossein talk 05:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: I think many people will not know what IDF stands for, let alone what the IDF said. Readers will not know the importance or implications in the death. The wording infers that an entity is guilty, which is the POV issue. The subject is far too bland, and not hooky. I'm willing to do a full review, but new hooks are needed. Flibirigit (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- The article still needs more context before I will do a full review. It needs to explain why this specific killing stands out. For example, were there protests or outrage because the deceased had a mental condition? Was there any change in the status quo because of the killing? When you are able to expand the reactions or results, I will review then. Anyone else is welcome to review too. I also did not bring up anything on POV for multiple sources. I said only the proposed hook had POV concerns. I will entertain a new hook once more context is added to the article. Flibirigit (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hey Flibirigit: More context needs more materials by sources...Am I missing something? Check the source please before making next points. --Mhhossein talk 19:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- I hope you are able to find more sources and expand the article. I will move onto other work, and let someone else help you. Best of luck, have a great day. Flibirigit (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Please see that the context is already provided. Among them, see this paragraph:
"On 4 December 2018, at about midnight, 100 Israeli soldiers entered Tulkarem to raid various Palestinian homes. Several Palestinians threw stones at the soldiers, who retaliated by firing rubber-coated rounds and tear gas. In a different area of Tulkarem, about 30 of the soldiers spread out in small teams across a-Nuzha Street and an alley near al-Fadiliyah Boys' High School followed by the residents coming out of their homes and standing about 150 meters away from the soldiers near a local restaurant, to see what was going on."
- I've also added the context provided by the cameras, showing the scene before the incident. What else is missing? --Mhhossein talk 18:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Please see that the context is already provided. Among them, see this paragraph:
- I hope you are able to find more sources and expand the article. I will move onto other work, and let someone else help you. Best of luck, have a great day. Flibirigit (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hey Flibirigit: More context needs more materials by sources...Am I missing something? Check the source please before making next points. --Mhhossein talk 19:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- The article still needs more context before I will do a full review. It needs to explain why this specific killing stands out. For example, were there protests or outrage because the deceased had a mental condition? Was there any change in the status quo because of the killing? When you are able to expand the reactions or results, I will review then. Anyone else is welcome to review too. I also did not bring up anything on POV for multiple sources. I said only the proposed hook had POV concerns. I will entertain a new hook once more context is added to the article. Flibirigit (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Considering the topic in question, I think the only option forward would be to try to focus on the incident itself as opposed to what the Israelis or Palestinians did. Otherwise, the topic might just be too controversial to lead to a satisfactory hook. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- It seems that the reviewer's concern was mainly regarding the "context" which I think was already provided to the extent allowed by the available sources. --Mhhossein talk 05:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, when Flibirigit mentioned context, they were referring to the article itself, not the hook. The hook issues remain as of right now and honestly I think the only way to move forward would be to abandon any hook that involves IDF statements. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- It seems that the reviewer's concern was mainly regarding the "context" which I think was already provided to the extent allowed by the available sources. --Mhhossein talk 05:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: Could you please share your opinion on this nomination? Regards. --Mhhossein talk 06:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Regardless of the context and explanations given above, I have struck ALT1 as it ultimately does not address the issues with the original hook. Please re-read the discussion above, particularly Flibirigit's last comment from 17 February, as they also asked for a new hook. I would suggest, as I mentioned above, to focus on something other than the IDF statement. If you will be unable to propose a new, neutral hook, this nomination will be marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- He said he had "had POV concerns" with the hook which does not mean the hook should "focus on something other than the IDF statement". I'm reviving ALT1, which is still open to discussion for reviewers. --Mhhossein talk 12:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5: Please be specific if you're going to review the nomination, otherwise stop threatening with closure please. The original hook had POV issues since it was saying something beyond what the sources said. But, thanks to "appeared", I think ALT1 is a fair narration of the sources (Israeli and non-Israeli sources). If you think there's a POV issue and would like to review the nomination, then I welcome your elaboration on your comments concerning the hook. Please say what POV issue is seen in the hook so that I can fix it. Thanks. (f.n: I used to follow Naruto series until some years ago!) --Mhhossein talk 12:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- I have restruck ALT1; please do not unstruck it unless there is consensus to do so. No matter what context is given in the article or the hook itself, considering the topic and that there are discretionary sanctions involved, we really need to be careful with whatever hook is proposed here. Running a hook that focuses on an Israeli soldier killing a Palestinian will not sit well and would be a really really bad idea. Have you considered taking into account Flibirigit's suggestions? Rather than writing a hook about an Israeli shooting a Palestinian, a hook involving reactions to the incident might be a better idea. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5: Are you going to review the work? --Mhhossein talk 05:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Flibirigit offered to review, so I will only do so if they decline further participation. As of right now, my main concern is the hook, which has not yet been resolved. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- So, please note that simply rejecting the hook by saying it "focuses on an Israeli soldier killing a Palestinian" is not good excuse. None of Israeli soldiers or Palestinian people are the red lines we should not cross! I think you need to elaborate on why you think the hook is POVish? I'm in fact asking you to refer to the guidelines saying ALT1 is problematic. Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 05:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Did you not understand what I mentioned above, nor what the other editors have said here? ALT1 is unsuitable because it's clearly trying to push a Palestinian point of view, or at the very least appears to be siding with Palestinians. It is clearly intended to be a rebuttal to an Israeli statement, meaning it is pushing a Palestinian viewpoint. For that matter, the concerns would be the same if the incident had been the opposite (meaning if it was a Palestinian that shot an Israeli). Pushing a Palestinian (or Israeli) POV is very much discouraged on Wikipedia due to the aforementioned discretionary sanctions. And even if ALT1 was neutral (which it is not as of the moment), it is still not a very interesting hook. Shootings, as sad as they are, tend to be run of the mill, and the hook does not make it clear what makes it different from the many other casualties of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am also pinging previous commenters Joseph2302 and DBigXray if they can offer any more advice. At the rate things are going, if we cannot move beyond ALT1, closure may be the ultimate option. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5: I know what a POV issue is but just show me one sentence saying the hook is a Palestinian POV. Just one sentence in the sources or the article! What should we say when Haaretz/Ynet News/Aljazeera are saying IDF statement was probably not true? By the way, the whole article is on the shooting of an Israeli soldier and death of a Palestinian civilian so the hook should be on the subject of the article. That said, I've suggested two new hooks. --Mhhossein talk 20:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- The phrase "that unlike what the IDF said" pretty much sums that viewpoint up. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5: Yes, "that unlike what the IDF said" is the POV of Haaretz, Ynet News, Aljazeera and probably some other news outlets...should we ignore the viewpoint multiple news outlets agree upon? --Mhhossein talk 17:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- The phrase "that unlike what the IDF said" pretty much sums that viewpoint up. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5: I know what a POV issue is but just show me one sentence saying the hook is a Palestinian POV. Just one sentence in the sources or the article! What should we say when Haaretz/Ynet News/Aljazeera are saying IDF statement was probably not true? By the way, the whole article is on the shooting of an Israeli soldier and death of a Palestinian civilian so the hook should be on the subject of the article. That said, I've suggested two new hooks. --Mhhossein talk 20:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Did you not understand what I mentioned above, nor what the other editors have said here? ALT1 is unsuitable because it's clearly trying to push a Palestinian point of view, or at the very least appears to be siding with Palestinians. It is clearly intended to be a rebuttal to an Israeli statement, meaning it is pushing a Palestinian viewpoint. For that matter, the concerns would be the same if the incident had been the opposite (meaning if it was a Palestinian that shot an Israeli). Pushing a Palestinian (or Israeli) POV is very much discouraged on Wikipedia due to the aforementioned discretionary sanctions. And even if ALT1 was neutral (which it is not as of the moment), it is still not a very interesting hook. Shootings, as sad as they are, tend to be run of the mill, and the hook does not make it clear what makes it different from the many other casualties of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am also pinging previous commenters Joseph2302 and DBigXray if they can offer any more advice. At the rate things are going, if we cannot move beyond ALT1, closure may be the ultimate option. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- So, please note that simply rejecting the hook by saying it "focuses on an Israeli soldier killing a Palestinian" is not good excuse. None of Israeli soldiers or Palestinian people are the red lines we should not cross! I think you need to elaborate on why you think the hook is POVish? I'm in fact asking you to refer to the guidelines saying ALT1 is problematic. Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 05:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Flibirigit offered to review, so I will only do so if they decline further participation. As of right now, my main concern is the hook, which has not yet been resolved. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5: Are you going to review the work? --Mhhossein talk 05:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5 I don't have anything to add to your above post, the hook needs to be something other than "Palestinians think that Israel lied" Joseph2302 (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Joseph2302 It's interesting; No where in the hook, article or sources you can find a sentence as "Palestinians think that Israel lied"!!! Instead, 'Haaretz/Ynet News/Aljazeera reported Israel was probably lying'. --Mhhossein talk 20:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5 Thanks for the ping. having reviewed the new ALTs I agree with Joseph2302, Flibirigit and you. I feel that the ALT1 by the nom still does not address the concerns raised by the reviewers and has been rightly struck. This incident is still being investigated for facts and final report on the incident is not out yet. IMHO the suggestions given above are quite good and I would suggest the Nominator to accept the suggestion of looking for an ALT that isn't blatant POV. DBigXrayᗙ 13:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm suggesting two new hooks:
ALT2:... that an obtained video of Mohammad Habali's death shows the area was apparently calm when Habali was shot dead by an Israeli soldier?
ALT3:... that Mohammad Habali, shot dead by an Israeli soldier, was mentally challenged? --Mhhossein talk 20:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Again, ALT2 does not resolve the POV issues (and ALT3 is arguably even worse). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DBigXray, Flibirigit, and Joseph2302: Could you please help out the nominator in suggesting what would be a less problematic hook, or maybe even suggest another hook? I'm considering marking this nomination for closure unless we can reach a compromise on an acceptable hook fact, because right now it seems the nominator is unable to adequately respond to the suggestions made above. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: I think you'd better stop threatening with closure and don't forget that you're an involved party here. Thank you. --Mhhossein talk 19:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- ALT2 is again taking the anti-IDF POV for an under-investigation matter. ALT3 gives an impression that IDF knowingly killed a mentally challenged person. Some reports say he was killed in a clash others say area "appears" to be calm. IMHO Wikipedia should steer clear of this controversy and should not appear as taking sides. I have sympathy with the nominator here since I think considering the circumstances and highly conflicting claims from both sides on a matter that is still under investigation, it will be tough to present a neutral enough DYK. I will give a shot at an acceptable to all ALT. below are the three ALTs I propose. DBigXrayᗙ 06:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- ALT4 :... that after a video of Mohammad Habali's death surfaced, the case was referred to the Military Police to investigate the conflicting claims ?
- ALT5 :... that after a video of Mohammad Habali's death surfaced that conflicted with the caims, the case was referred to the Military Police for investigation?
- ALT6 :... that release of a video of Mohammad Habali's death with conflicting claims triggered an investigation by the Military Police?
- I have added my name in the DYK Nom for expanding the article and proposing these alts. DBigXrayᗙ 11:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DBigXray: you added your name in the wrong place. Once the nomination has been set, the only place to make additions is in the DYK creation credit lines. It is also good form to request that your name be added, not to add it yourself. I have added you to the co-creation credits. Yoninah (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Who would have thought Military police would address the case? That's certainly not hooky! --Mhhossein talk 18:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have added my name in the DYK Nom for expanding the article and proposing these alts. DBigXrayᗙ 11:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- ALT7:... that Mohammad Habali, a young Palestinian shot dead near his working place in Tulkarem, was mentally challenged?
- ALT8:... that a video of Mohammad Habali's death was obtained from the security-camera of a local restaurant in Tulkarem where Habali worked?
- ALT9:... that a video of Mohammad Habali's death shows he received the shot from behind?
--Mhhossein talk 19:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- To be honest, all of DBigXray's suggestions are fairly bland, but they're far more acceptable than the earlier proposed hooks. If this will end up being approved, ALT6 might be the best option due to having the clearest grammar, while being a concise and neutral summary of the article. ALT7 is a terrible terrible idea (managing to not only push a POV view, but also promoting the fact that the deceased had a condition!), while ALT8 and ALT9 are very very bland. I will leave the rest of the review to Joseph2302 and/or Flibirigit, while concurring with the suggestion that this be closed as unsuccessful if these options fail. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: currently an AfD discussion on this article, so cannot be promoted until that AfD is completed. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Here is the AFD link, for clarity purposes. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Adding the appropriate status icon for while the article is at AfD. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Article has been deleted per the AfD, we can't promote a hook if there's no article to promote. Closing as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
