Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Killing of David Ben Avraham

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 17:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Killing of David Ben Avraham

(
)
David Ben Avraham moments before he was killed by an Israeli reservist
David Ben Avraham moments before he was killed by an Israeli reservist
Created by Makeandtoss (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 36 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Makeandtoss (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC).

The DYK hook uses “despite”, which is a word to watch per MOS:EDITORIAL. Maybe change “despite posing no threat” to “when he posed no threat” or something similar. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, noted and changed. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Would it be better to use "when" rather than "while"? According to Wikipedia, "while" is also a word to watch:
Words to watch: but, despite, however, though, although, furthermore, while ...
I actually think in this case, the sources support that it was later found there was no evidence that he posed a threat, but if the goal is to make the hook neutral, maybe we should avoid these "words to watch" in the hook. Wafflefrites (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Ok, changed to "when". Makeandtoss (talk) 09:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
ALT1 ... that David Ben Avraham was only granted Israeli residency after he was killed by an Israeli reservist soldier? starship.paint (RUN) 10:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC) Source: https://www.timesofisrael.com/disturbing-video-shows-jewish-convert-fatally-shot-by-idf-in-west-bank-posed-no-threat/ Interior Minister Moshe Arbel posthumously approved Israeli residency status for Ben Avraham. “We must learn lessons from this unfortunate incident that took the life of David Ben Avraham and do our best to carry out his last wish to be part of the Israeli people,” the minister said in a statement. “Approving his request does him justice, even if it is too late and under tragic circumstances.”
Oh, and the image above is non-free. It is not CCTV. It is a body cam. starship.paint (RUN) 10:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: Thanks for the comment. Being controversial or not is subjective, the original hook is fully sourced to multiple reliable sources, including the Israeli military which certainly does not have a conflict of interest in this case. I stand by the original hook.
As for the picture, it is certainly not copyrighted per WP: For example, "[i]f a security camera mounted in a lobby, recording 24 hours a day, captured a dramatic event, the video could be uncopyrighted." Also as evidenced by this example: [1]. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss: - that is not pre-positioned recording devices, not security camera mounted in a lobby, not information produced by an automated system, such as a CCTV or traffic enforcement camera. It's either a body camera video or even a handphone video. [2] starship.paint (RUN) 14:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: If it is a body cam then it is a "pre-positioned recording devices" and thus uncopyrighted. It is impossible to hold an M4 in a threatening way while holding a phone in the other hand. It is definitely a body cam video. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Now that I think about it, running the article at all on DYK would probably not be a good idea. ALT0 would raise concerns about NPOV, but even if those were allayed, it might be a bad look to run a hook about a Palestinian being killed by an Israeli on the main page, even if it was factually true. The content of the article itself may also give pause, especially now when the Gaza conflict is dominating headlines. This might be a case where, even if the article would technically be eligible, it may not be a good fit for DYK given the circumstances. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for expressing your opinion. But again why would there be problems of NPOV when Israel itself has admitted to this POV? If there is no opposing POV, then there is no NPOV issue. The article is well-written and is eligible for DYK. Why do you think it is a "bad look" to run a hook about a Palestinian being killed by an Israeli on the main page, when a DYK about a Ukrainian being killed by a Russian was posted at the height of Russia's invasion of Ukraine in April 2022?: "... that Ukrainian actress Oksana Shvets, who was killed in the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, starred in the 2013 joint Ukrainian–Russian television family saga House with Lilies alongside Russian actors?" Makeandtoss (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Had I known about that hook I would have opposed it as well. But for what it's worth, the Israel-Palestine conflict is a much more heated, longer lasting conflict. A hook that basically says "Israel did something bad to a Palestinian" being put on the main page would be a very very bad look for DYK, especially with the ongoing conflict. At the very least it might result in complaints either at WT:DYK or at WP:ERRORS, and at worst it could lead to criticism of the project as a whole. There are some topics that, usually for reasons beyond the control of Wikipedia or editors, are probably not a good fit for DYK and this is probably one of them. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it's appropriate for WP to display a double standard given whatever excuse. The article is well-written and is eligible for DYK. Anything other than that is subjective. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: - ALT0 would raise concerns about NPOV - why? It is factual and what have I neglected to mention? NPOV doesn't mean "don't make anyone look bad". starship.paint (RUN) 14:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  • This article reminds me of Murder of George Floyd and that article was featured in Wikipedia’s In the news. Most of the sources that reported on this are actually Jewish sources. I added a detail that he was shot in the lower body (which was reverted). There are some details missing from this English Wiki article. The Hebrew Wikipedia article actually has more details. According to the Hebrew article, he was shot in the lower body, and afterward a tourniquet was applied and they called an ambulance.Wafflefrites (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. @ Narutolovehinata5 This is a perennial topic which I always respond to with the same comment which is we follow policy. We follow Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines and we follow WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability. As with the rest of wikipedia, DYK is WP:NOTCENSORED. We feature controversial topics like this all the time on the main page in Wikipedia:In the news. Likewise, we have run hooks on even more controversial topics than this one in the past at DYK. Controversy is not a valid reason to reject a hook as long as the article is neutrally written and cited to reliable RS.4meter4 (talk) 06:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
  • The assertion regarding a strict following of WP:NOTCENSORED is incorrect, Content that will appear on the main page is often 'censored' in that it undergoes additional considerations to those that would apply to article space, including WP:ITN. CMD (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I would say that we curate not censor the main page. We curate the main page because there is a limited amount of content that can be featured at any one time. And while we may avoid inflammatory language purposefully at DYK and ITN as part of that curation, I personally have never seen a successful case of outright censorship being enacted against a given topic. Typically we work to find a way to feature eligible articles with sensitive content by modifying the language of how we present those topics on the main page. That said, there may be cases of censorship in the past that I personally am not aware of. If they have happened, they shouldn't have as a matter of policy.4meter4 (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Marco Pierre White Jr was rejected, although looking at it now it's hard to argue that as being particularly main page worthy. (I could very much do with you if I ever decide to GA it and try it on again here.)--Launchballer 21:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer, I don't think that's a good example of censorship. In the case of Marco Pierre White Jr I think there is a strong argument to be made based on WP:BLP policy that the hook was not appropriate for the main page. BLP policy is a whole other ball of wax.4meter4 (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Two examples of nominations that were failed at least partly due to the topic itself rather than just the hook(s) are Template:Did you know nominations/Watermelon song and Template:Did you know nominations/Tawhai Hill, Kānuka Hills, Pūkio Stream. I think there have been others as well including at least one Israel-Palestine hook, though I can't remember if the latter was rejected due to the subject itself or if it was due to its neutrality tag. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: @Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for expressing your concerns and asking for a different hook/angle. As a middle ground perhaps I think we can agree on ALT2: "that Palestinian convert to Judaism David Ben Avraham (pictured) was only granted Israeli residency after he was killed by an Israeli reservist?" Makeandtoss (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I would be strongly opposed to any hook that even touches the "Palestinian getting killed by an Israeli" angle, and I suspect that any attempts to push such an angle would at the latest result in being yanked from a prep/queue, or a trip to either WT:DYK or WP:ERRORS. For the record, had the incident been about an Israeli being killed by a Palestinian I would have said the same thing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Again, WP should not display double standards; if it is okay to feature a hook saying a Ukrainian was killed by Russia, then it should be perfectly fine for a hook to say a Palestinian has been killed by Israel. This pro-western bias is not appropriate and goes against Wikipedia's policies. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
It can also be a case of correcting a mistake. In my opinion, that Ukrainian hook should not have run in the first place, at least not with that hook.
I also have to note that it's not unheard of for IP-related articles nominated for DYK to be rejected entirely. See Template:Did you know nominations/Calls for the destruction of Israel, which was rejected based on the presence of a neutrality tag, although the subject matter probably didn't help. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with running a hook on calls for Israel's destruction if the article was normally written without any neutrality tags, heck I would have even reviewed and approved it myself. Why would I let my personal opinions or preferences obstruct Wikipedia processes? It's not a mistake to report on facts; how people feel/interpret/respond to these facts is up to them. I think this is really self-evident that that the Ukraine hook was not a mistake, and neither will this be. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Maybe we can try to rewrite the hook to help with the DYK nomination? Some articles say “mistakenly killed”:

https://m.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-792999 https://www.jns.org/palestinian-convert-to-judaism-mistakenly-killed-by-idf-in-judea/ https://www.israelhayom.com/2024/03/21/palestinian-who-converted-to-judaism-mistakenly-killed-by-idf/ Wafflefrites (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Both mistakenly or deliberately is POV and not appropriate as a hook. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment How about a hook that de-emphasizes the broader conflict and avoids Palestine V.S. Israel language:
Alt2 ... that after his death David Ben Avraham was granted Israeli residency as a form of justice by Israeli Minister of Interior Moshe Arbel?

This avoids saying how he died, who was responsible for killing him, whether it was a murder or accident, etc. Given his Hebrew sounding name, it's also not clear he's a Palestinian in the hook. It also leaves the reader wondering how Israeli residency could be considered a form of justice (which is a direct quote from Arbel). All of this to say, it's accurate, neutral, and non-inflammatory. It shouldn't raise anyone's hackles and is still interesting.4meter4 (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The article is about his killing, its circumstances and the context; it’s not a biography; so no, de-emphasizing the killing into some heroic recognition by the state that had killed him is quite honestly extremely inappropriate.Makeandtoss (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Ok. Since you aren't willing to tone things down Makeandtoss, it's not happening. DYK is not a summary of an article, and this hook statement is true. It's clear you have an editorial WP:POVPUSH and DYK isn't going to be your WP:SOAPBOX as a matter of principal. You can either accept a non-inflammatory hook to drive traffic and readers to the article you have written or not be featured at DYK Rejecting per Per rule C11 of the suplementary guideline, as the nominator is not willing to craft a hook that isn't sensational and insists on emphasizing violence and Palestinian/Israeli animus. 4meter4 (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Update After discussions on the WP DYK talk page, there seems to be more support for ALT3: "...that David Ben Avraham was posthumously granted an Israeli residency after having been killed?", which comes as a compromise solution between opposing views. Also, 4meter4 has expressed his openness for a new reviewer taking over the process. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I think ALT3 is good. The article has been updated and is more comprehensive. Feedback was given on the talk page and article improvements made based on talk page feedback. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
I can tell you that ALT3 is short enough, cited, and interesting; "being" is more concise than "having been", but I'll let a promoter make that edit. Let's roll.--Launchballer 15:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer: Any idea why I received this message? [3] Makeandtoss (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

You got that three minutes after AirshipJungleman29 moved it from DYKNA and then put it back into DYKN. Perhaps the bot picked something up in the interim?--Launchballer 16:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Oh for Pete's sake, I just realised what the problem is. This nomination has never had an actual full review.--Launchballer 16:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer: Would you mind doing it? The neutrality has been ensured as there were discussions on the talk page and subsequent edits to the article. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: can you explain under which policy you're saying "I would be strongly opposed to any hook that even touches the "Palestinian getting killed by an Israeli" angle". I can understand being opposed to something on grounds of it being not verified, or it violating NPOV. But we don't simply WP:CENSOR certain viewpoints (when presented in a verifiable and neutral way). VR (Please ping on reply) 11:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
There have been concerns in the past about topics that are pushing a particular point of view, or giving that impression, getting backlash. I remember of cases in the past where an article was nominated for DYK but was not allowed to run due to it being seen in bad taste. This happened not too long ago with Russia, which was nominated for DYK. It was ultimately not approved due to having a pending GAR, which ultimately failed anyway and it remained a GA, but even before then there was opposition running Russia on the main page at all due to the war. Having said that, while I am still uncomfortable with the article running, I appear to be in the minority here and will ultimately follow whatever consensus is reached. Having said that, if this is to run and isn't brought to WT:DYK or ERRORS beforehand, I would oppose any suggestion other than ALT3. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Oh go on then. Long enough, new enough. Already ticked ALT3 above. No maintenance templates found, no copyright concerns, neutrality's dealt with. I absolutely hate the WP:CLUMP of six references for the "grave incident" quote, but that isn't required for DYK. Let's roll.--Launchballer 15:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer: Is this still ongoing or needs a fix? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
This is on Approved, so it should be promoted soon. (I still hate that WP:CLUMP, but again, not a DYK issue. It should be.) Perhaps if a promoter skips this, they could point out exactly why not.--Launchballer 09:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Crossed off the other alts above for clarity, and restating ALT3 here:: "...that David Ben Avraham was posthumously granted an Israeli residency after having been killed?" CMD (talk) 01:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  • NPOV says "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." I have not seen a single news article on this event that doesn't start off by mentioning that Ben Avraham was killed by an IDF soldier. Without that context, the hook doesn't even make sense; is Israel's new immigration policy handing out permanent residencies to random victims of homicide? None of the opposition to these hooks seems to be based on policy, but a desire from the regular editors here to just avoid anything they see as controversial. WT:DYK and ERRORS in relation to any vaguely political topic devolves to the same 10 editors arguing about the same thing until the hook eventually never runs because it's "controversial". AryKun (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
    • Fair enough AryKun; which of the above hooks would you suggest, and would you be willing to promote it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
      • If it helps, ALT3a: "...that David Ben Avraham was posthumously granted an Israeli residency after being killed by an Israeli soldier?" CMD (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Somehow didn't notice this while replying to AJ, I'm good with promoting 3a as well. AryKun (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I would be inclined more towards ALT4 than 3a. But in either case I will go with consensus. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest ALT4:... that Palestinian Jewish convert David Ben Avraham (pictured) was posthumously granted Israeli residency after being killed by an Israeli soldier?
  • It mentions the facts that make the story notable in the first place and is similar to ALT1 and ALT2, but with less editorializing. I would be fine with promoting it if the others are okay with the hook. AryKun (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
ALT4a: ... that David Ben Avraham (pictured) was granted Israeli residency after being killed by one of its soldiers? This would avoid having "Israeli" twice, and "posthumously" is extraneous.--Launchballer 22:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss: I am very sorry to backtrack on this. It turns out that WP:CLUMPs deserve {{citekill}}, which would need to be remedied.--Launchballer 00:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Not sure "its" works there, as it refers to residency. What about replacing "Israeli soldier" with "IDF soldier"? CMD (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
ALT4b: ... that David Ben Avraham (pictured) was granted Israeli residency after being killed by an IDF soldier?--Launchballer 06:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Two separate links to the same article is a bit odd. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Whoops, serves me right for copying from both ALTs. ALT4c: ... that David Ben Avraham (pictured) was granted Israeli residency after being killed by an IDF soldier?--Launchballer 10:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I'd have thought the other way would work better, no? ALT4d: ... that David Ben Avraham was granted Israeli residency after being killed by an IDF soldier (pictured)? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Fair cop, although the soldier is not pictured. ALT4e: ... that David Ben Avraham (pictured) was granted Israeli residency after being killed by an IDF soldier?--Launchballer 22:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer: I have removed the cluster of refs. As for the ALT4e, good with me. Thank you for your great cooperation. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Alright, let's try this again.--Launchballer 14:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Killing_of_David_Ben_Avraham&oldid=1225312995"