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 reviewer, closed by Schwede66talk 16:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Not a review but a comment, but I have deep reservations about any of the hooks not just due to possible BLP concerns but also regarding the tone of any of the hooks, especially with the whole conflict going on. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
As a song related to a contentious topic, we should of course take care to comply with policies and guidelines. I'm unclear on what the tone and possible BLP concerns are and how they disqualify these hooks (presumably per WP:DYKHOOKBLP). Drill music often glorifies violence and there is no undue focus on negative aspects of the living people mentioned. Any clarification would be appreciated. gobonobo+c 16:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I really don't think that running hooks talking about calling for the death of Muslim artists, in reference to Hanukkah or Israel, while a major conflict that to put it mildly has proven very controversial, is a good idea. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. I do see where you're coming from. Some might say it wasn't a good idea to write the song in the first place. But the song was written, it became very popular, reliable sources reported on it, and now we have an article for it. I think the article qualifies for DYK in other respects. As far as I know, we have no rule that says we have to censor hooks when there is a major conflict. gobonobo+c 23:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
There isn't a rule against hooks about the Israel-Palestine conflict, but understandably such nominations and hooks get much more scrutiny compared to other nominations. In the past, hooks that were seen to be sensational or gratuitous involving the conflict had been modified or declined. The article itself isn't necessarily disqualified from DYK, but the hooks probably need to be changed. At the very least, if either hook was approved and ran on the Main Page, we would likely be getting complaints either at WP:ERRORS or at WT:DYK, which is something that ideally we'd want to avoid. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
No alternative hooks have been proposed. Given the concerns about the above hooks, the nomination is now marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm confused. The initial comment was prefaced with "not a review but a comment", so I've been waiting for an actual review. I did respond to the concerns about the hooks and asked for clarification as to what policy-based rationale disqualified the hooks. The response was that someone else might hypothetically object to it and we would want to avoid that. I don't see how marking this for closure is warranted. I'd like to request that another editor review this. gobonobo+c 07:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Respectfully requesting a fresh review, acknowledging the above conversation. gobonobo+c 07:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
@Gobonobo: To answer your question above, a full review is not necessary to fail a nomination if there are issues that would prevent it from passing. For example, if an article is ineligible due to not meeting length requirements or time-limits (i.e. within seven days of creation/5x expansion/GA promotion), a marking for closure could be done without the other DYK criteria being checked. As for the hooks themselves, they arguably not only are possibly BLP violations, more relevantly they could fall afoul of WP:DYKHOOKSTYLE, specifically: excessively sensational or gratuitous hooks should be rejected. In the past, hooks that were deemed inflammatory to religion were rejected, and there is a reasonable argument that the hooks proposed above are like that to both Jews and Muslims. As such, I would really suggest not going with either hook in this case. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 I didn't actually pose a question there. I see that you suggested not going with either hook because in the past other hooks were rejected that dealt with religion and because, as you say, an argument could be made that they possibly might not comply with DYKHOOKSTYLE. I think it is important to recognize that a topic that is sensational/gratuitous is not the same as a neutral description of that same topic. I don't think we should be rejecting hooks based on hypothetical objections or because someone might complain at WP:ERRORS, but per your advice, I'm providing revised ALTs that don't mention religious holidays or countries. As I'm getting the impression that the "suggestion" of using different hooks is anything but, I'm respectfully requesting again that another editor be allowed to weigh in. gobonobo+c 10:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Requesting full review/second opinion. gobonobo+c 10:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Huh. Here we go. The article is new, long enough, and comprehensive. I see no copyright issues. It is not easy to gauge neutrality in something like this. Everything seems factual (though for translations from non-English language sources I had to rely on Google Translate) and from what I can see, no aspect of the subject seems to have been neglected. I will say that the proposed hooks are... heavy. At the same time, the cited source, El País, is the strongest of all the sources cited in the article in terms of its reputability. Unlike Narutolovehinata5, I see no potential for BLP concerns in them. WP:DYKHOOKBLP advises against "hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons", but there is no focus on any aspect of any living people in these hooks. The hooks do not discuss any of the three women nor anything they said or did. Therefore I must dismiss this concern. What I am concerned about is whether it counts as synthesis to associate Billboard with the lyrics, seeing as how the cited sources do not do so. Therefore, ALT1 might be the safer option. I acknowledge that these hooks have a high likelihood of raising eyebrows, but at the same time I feel they are, as far as WP:DYKINT goes, prime DYK material; and I do not see grounds on which I could fail them. Therefore I approve, with preference for ALT1. Surtsicna (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I have to respectfully disagree that ALT1 is a safe option here. For one thing, there's a bit of an underlying context in that hook. Remember that Dua Lipa and the others are Muslims has Muslim roots, and the hook explicitly says Israeli. All of this while a conflict is going on with... complicated reactions from countries. If this absolutely has to run, I would suggest against any hook that alludes to either Israel or Palestine here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Dua Lipa does not identify as Muslim. Mia Khalifa was raised Catholic and has never identified as Muslim. As the article explains, they are not named for their (perceived) religious identity but for the stance they have taken. The suggestion to avoid mentioning Israel or Palestine is simply unrealistic. Surtsicna (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Still, the context gives me pause and it may be better safe than sorry in this case. We have had issues in the past before of hooks that merely touched on IP getting comments either on WT:DYK or WP:ERRORS, which is what I wished could be avoided here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Well, now is the time to scrutinize for errors. If you see any, point them out. I do not see any. Surtsicna (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
@Surtsicna and Gobonobo: is there any reason that ALT1 is more definite than the article, which says "was interpreted by some as a call for the deaths..." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: Are you referring all of the hooks? Beyond the first two, two alternatives have already been provided. gobonobo+c 21:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Oh, that is true, my apologies. Reviewer needed for ALTs 2 and 3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
In any case, if a "[r]eviewer [is] needed for ALTs 2 and 3", what does a reviewer need to do? I don't see anything in error from Surtsicna's review, aside from Narutolovehinata5 and AirshipJungleman29 disagreeing about the appropriateness of the hooks. If a reviewer is needed for ALTs 2 and 3, is the requested review to check if ALTs 2 and 3 are substantiated by the sources and appear in the article? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes P-Makoto: I am not going to promote ALT0 or ALT1. ALT2 and ALT3 have not received full reviews. If the article is going to run at DYK, those hooks need review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
ALT0 was nominated by gobonobo and is approved by reviewers Surtsicna and P-Makoto. However, as there is not at this time consensus among the five users participating in this DYK thread, to promote this hook, Gobonobo has proposed two more hooks, ALT2 and ALT3.
The content of ALT 2 appears in the article in a clear, unambiguous way (The song goes on to call for the deaths of Western celebrities Bella Hadid, Dua Lipa, and Mia Khalifa, who expressed solidarity with the Palestinian people and criticized Israel and Billboard magazine included "Harbu Darbu" in a Hanukkah playlist, comparing it to Leonard Cohen's performances for the IDF during the 1973 Yom Kippur War). Citations are provided in a clear way at the end of the relevant sentences, and reading the sources confirms they verify the content of hook ALT 2: A hip hop song ‘Charbu Darbu’, trending on Israel’s Youtube and Spotify charts, is advocating to kill Palestinians in Gaza, and saying supermodel Bella Hadid, singer Dua Lipa and adult film star Mia Khalifa, all vocal supporters of Palestine, should be killed, The Current; Ness & Stilla, "Harbu Darbu" [line break] Echad shtime! Fifty years ago, Leonard Cohen came to Israel to sing on the front lines. Hanukkah is a story of Jews fighting back in a war. This is almost like a version of that in trap and drill form (Billboard). I approve ALT2 as a hook.
As for ALT3, the content for the song being #1 appears unambiguously in the article (The song reached #1 on Israel's Mako Hit List, which tracks plays on streaming platforms and radio.). The source for this sentence is written in Hebrew, which I don't read, so it is taken on good faith. However, the version of the page at the time of reading only describes "Harbu Darbu" as a "drill song" in the lead. In the body of the text, it is called a a trap song, typical of Israeli hip hop, with a minimalist drill beat. To someone familiar with the trap, hip hop, and drill genres this may be a distinction without a difference, but a casual reader unfamiliar with music genres, may not grasp that having a drill beat is what defines something as a drill song. If the hook calls it a drill song, the body text should also clearly call it a "drill song". This problem applies to ALT1 as well (but there is not consensus to promote ALT1 anyway among the five users participating in this DYK thread).
To summarize, I approve ALT2 : its content has been verified as appearing in the article and in the cited sources. ALT3 has not been approved, as the identification of "Harbu Darbu" as a "drill song" does not unambiguously appear in the article's body text (the non-lede body text calls it a song with a drill beat, which may be the same but is not unambiguously the same to a reader with only a casual knowledge of music genres). Pinging participating users so they know that I've reviewed ALT2 and ALT3: gobonobo, Narutolovehinata5, Surtsicna, AirshipJungleman29. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
@Gobonobo, Narutolovehinata5, Surtsicna, and P-Makoto:, three admins have now commented at the above discussion. None of their responses are positive, and one has unambiguously stated they would not allow it to run on the main page. I am thus collapsing the above discussion as unworkable, and am putting out a last call for new hooks, or the nomination will have to be rejected. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Can experienced DYKers comment on..., promotion should be withheld until that discussion sorts things out. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)