Template:Did you know nominations/Death of Mustafa Tamimi


 * 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Death of Mustafa Tamimi

 * ... that the soldier killing Mustafa Tamimi by firing a tear-gas canister at him was cleared since the Israel army said he had not seen "any people in the line of fire and was not criminally liable"? Source: Jpost, BBC
 * Reviewed: Tennis ball theorem

Created by Mhhossein (talk). Self-nominated at 19:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg New enough (moved to draft in 21 May), long enough. Generally well-written, neutral and sourced, though I suggest: (1) double-checking grammar and (2) adding some Israeli point of view to the "Controversies" section. In addition to using a Telegraph article as a source here, maybe you could also incorporate one or two Israeli media as source? No copyvio issue found. As for the hook, technically it's within the 200 characters limit, but IMO it's too long to be easily parsable in the Main page, so I suggest coming up with a shorter one. Remember, this will only be one of the many hooks there, if one is too long, readers will just skip reading it. QPQ is not done. HaEr48 (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you HaEr48 for the precise review. I have already tweaked the article for grammatical issues and have asked the GOCE to take a look at it. Also, I used an Israeli source to add their POV to the article, as you had suggested. The controversies section is now a balanced combination of the two sides POV. QPQ is provided and here's a new hook:
 * ALT1: ... that Israel Defense Forces cleared the soldier killing Mustafa Tamimi by firing a tear-gas canister at him since they said the soldier had not seen "any people in the line of fire"? -- M h hossein   talk 18:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks for the update. In my opinion, the article is in good shape now. I feel the hook can still be shortened. Try to avoid too many dependent clause, and prefer a straightforward sentence. May I suggest:
 * ALT2: ... that Israel Defense Forces cleared the soldier who killed Mustafa Tamimi, saying that the soldier had not seen "any people in the line of fire"?
 * ALT3: ... that Israel Defense Forces cleared the soldier who shot dead Mustafa Tamimi, saying that the shooting was "in accordance with the relevant rules and guidelines"? The direct quote is from this page referenced in the article.

What do you think? HaEr48 (talk) 06:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The suggested hooks are good, but how about the following:
 * ALT4: ... that Israel Defense Forces cleared the soldier who shot dead Mustafa Tamimi, saying that the soldier had not seen "any people in the line of fire"?
 * Thank you again. -- M h hossein   talk 13:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg ALT4 is good to go for me, if that's your preference. HaEr48 (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm in the process of acquiring a free photo for this nomination. What should be done in order for the DYK to get reviewed after the image is inserted? Can it be kept and reviewed here in this board? Regards. -- M h hossein   talk 13:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You can just do it here and ask me to review again. Check the other nominations on how the picture can be inserted in this page. Note: Even if the reviewer approves your picture, it doesn't guarantee this hook will be selected to be the lead hook. Only 1/8 hooks will be the lead hook and it's generally up to the promoter. HaEr48 (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment There are currently an edit war and ongoing RFC this should be sorted out before promoting. Shrike (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I finally came up with the picture. It took time and energy to get the permission. Can you please review the new hook along with the photo?
 * ALT5: ... that Israel Defense Forces cleared the soldier who shot dead Mustafa Tamimi (shot moment pictured), saying that the soldier had not seen "any people in the line of fire"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhhossein (talk • contribs) 18:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Picture seems fine and has an appropriate OTRS-supported license. Judging from lack of recent edits, the edit war seems to have died down. ALT5 is good to go. HaEr48 (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

comment Per WP:NPOV we should clearly say that he threw stones during the moment he was shoot Shrike (talk) 06:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ALT6: ... that Israel Defense Forces cleared the soldier who shot dead Mustafa Tamimi (shot moment pictured) who threw stones at the military vehicle, saying that the soldier had not seen "any people in the line of fire"?
 * My concern about ALT6 is that it's rather too long and not easily parsable with those dependent clauses. As I stated above, this will only be one of the many hooks there, if one hook is too long, readers will just skip reading it. A hook necessarily misses some context due to needing to be concise, and ALT5 is sufficiently neutral given this constraint. I still recommend going with ALT5. HaEr48 (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment To the promoter ALT6 was not stricken by reviewer but by Mhhossein(the nominator).I still think it should be clearly stated that he threw stones and if the NPOV hook is not possible maybe it shouldn't be promoted at all. Shrike (talk) 07:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree on ALT6. Please note that this hook has to comply, standalone, with WP:BLPCRIME towards the relatively unknown soldier who shot Tamimi with a gas canister (who was never convicted of anything, or even charged, after the investigation found he had acted in good faith during a highly violent stone throwing situation). If that can not be done concisely, then perhaps it would be better to refer to a different hook fact (leaving the BLPCRIME issue in the article, and not in the DYK box).Icewhiz (talk) 12:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how it violates WP:BLPCRIME? I don't understand. The hook states that the soldier is cleared, and it doesn't even name the soldier. And, why do you agree with ALT6 which mentions the same soldier? That said, I don't mind if the nominator has a less contentious hook, but otherwise my approval of ALT5 still stands. HaEr48 (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The soldier's identity can be known (i.e. the whole incident was photographed) - this is a well known incident, and therefore this a BLPCRIME issue. The circumstances of the soldier not having a line of sight are directly related to being in a vehicle that was being pelted with a barrage of stones (and hence, various hatches were closed). If we are to present the soldier's actions here, we should fairly represent them.Icewhiz (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the common scenario these users play. No, there's no violation of WP:BLPCRIME since the hook is not accusing the soldier of having committed a crime rather it says he acted correctly. The hook even mentions the reasoning behind it. It's very very interesting that Icewhiz agrees with ALT6 while he thinks it's a WP:BLPCRIME since the soldier might be seen in the photos. It's more interesting that he can see the soldier in vehicle with back doors nearly closed, "barrage of stones" and the "highly violent stone throwing situation" in the photos. No, there will be no other hook since I don't find it "contentious". -- M h hossein   talk 14:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The Hook is talking about a judicial verdict, so there's absolutely no accusation, hence in complete accordance with BLPCRIME. -- M h hossein   talk 14:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Since the whole protest/riot was videotaped from multiple cameras - there are quite a few frames where this individual may be visible from the day of the incident. As for stating this was a "judicial verdict" - then no - actually. The soldier was not tried. There was a military police investigation, and the case was closed by the IDF Military Advocate General unit - so no - there actually was no judicial verdict, and we are discussing the motivation of JAG closing the case.Icewhiz (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Be it a judicial verdict or "military police investigation", his innocence is secured by an official unit under law. Your argument is a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- M h hossein   talk 06:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * All the more reason to properly represent the situation the soldier was in.Icewhiz (talk) 06:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You've got a flawed understanding of WP:BLPCRIME which applies to the cases where there are unaddressed accusations. We're NOT talking about accusations here, rather final vote. -- M h hossein   talk 07:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking at this as an uninvolved person, I disagree with Icewhiz that the hook should mention the throwing of rocks. The article needs to be neutral, but the hook has length constraints, and can be selective in what it includes as long as it does not mislead. I don't like the inclusion in the hook of the word "shot", which makes it sound that the victim was targetted while other parts of the hook state that he was not. I favour
 * ALT7: ... that Israel Defense Forces exonerated the soldier who killed Mustafa Tamimi (incident pictured), saying that the soldier had not seen "any people in the line of fire"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems alright and preciser. Let's see what the reviewer thinks. -- M h hossein   talk 09:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg ALT7 sounds fine to me. Thanks . HaEr48 (talk)

HaEr48 (talk) 10:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok Shrike (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this, but I have a question. Is it appropriate to say in the first line of the lead that he was "shot"? "Shot" usually implies gunfire. It would seem more appropriate to say he was struck by a tear-gas canister, or, to be more precise, a tear-gas projectile. Please enlighten me here. Also, I find the image very hard to make out at thumbnail size. If we go with ALT1, I would pipe the link as who killed Mustafa Tamimi with a tear-gas canister or tear-gas projectile. Yoninah (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The tear gas canister is fired from a grenade launcher - either a M203 grenade launcher (connected to a weapon) or a number of standalone variants (some have a 6 round magazine). Shot might be misleading in regards to the common use of shot (as in bullets from a gun - gun shot), though technically the tear gas canister is shot as well. Some of the more partisan sources are using shot (e.g. +972 or Mondoweiss). NBC rolled with In 2011, Mustafa Tamimi died after a tear-gas canister hit him in the face at close range as he threw rocks at soldiers..Icewhiz (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * why is it called a canister and not a grenade, missile, or projectile? Yoninah (talk) 00:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would go with shot since its used by sources such as The Guardian, BBC, Aljazeera, Washington Post and etc. Regarding the photo, it's the only available photo of the incident which was apparently used by the media showing the shot line. The hook would be much more informative with that. Moreover, as the reviewer said, the hook needs to be brief enough. -- M h hossein   talk 01:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In English, grenades are usually hand thrown and usually have a time delayed explosive charge. The gas canister is fired from a barrel, and releases the gas from a hole in the canister. That being said - I think gas grenade is a possible but less used alternative. It is a canister and not a missile/projectile since the munition (tear gas) is inside the canister - which in normal use is not intended to hit or inflict much harm (typically - these are fired up high, hit the ground (or someone - minor injury in normal use) and release gas for a short time) - they can be lethal (as in this case) when shot at close range, at a low angle, and if they hit the "right" spot - but in usual use they are non-lethal (as they lose velocity rapidly).Icewhiz (talk) 04:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC) On the simple gnews raw hit test - "tear gas canister" has 12700 hits, "tear gas projectile" 201, "tear gas missile" 9; "tear gas grenade" has 2340 - however some of these refer to thrown grenades.Icewhiz (talk) 06:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The washpo source use struck --Shrike (talk) 07:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "The washpo source uses" "shot" in the title. -- M h hossein   talk 10:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that explanation, . One last question: Did anyone check the Hebrew papers? Do they also call it "shot"? On a side note, many of these U.S. papers are very biased against Israel. I'm surprised there are no Hebrew sources in this article. Yoninah (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yoninah: Is it a second (third?) review? I doubt if you've checked the sources accurately; timesofisrael, The Jerusalem Post and Yedioth Ahronoth are the Israelis sources used here. -- M h hossein   talk 13:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The lingo in Hebrew is different - for starters in Hebrew Gas canisters are usually called grenades (however - Hebrew uses "hand grenade" (רימון יד) for thrown grenade - which in English is often contracted). As for shot - it depends - it varies by partisanship of outlet (e.g. Haaretz is very much on the Tamimi side - and much of the continuing coverage of this is Haaretz (who will bring it up occasionally as an example - not too often, but sometimes) - the opposing partisan papers see this as a non-issue (other than reporting when the case was closed)) and also randomly. Some sources say the equivalent of shot. Others say "shot in a directly fired angle" (so low angle shooting). Others say the equivalent of "Tamimi was killed after being hit by a gas canister" (without saying shot). I will note that many Hebrew sources do state Tamimi was running after the jeep and throwing rocks. But linguistically - "shot" (or "ירי") is different in Hebrew - it isn't strongly associated (as it is in English, and particularly American English) with gun shot. e.g. - one would generally say that a tank "fires" in English (as opposed to "shoots") - but in Hebrew you would say shot. Same for Mortar (weapon) - which in English fires, and in Hebrew shoots - and this extends to Hebrew to other stuff as well..... In short - the American (or British) English lingo is probably a better guide in terms of lingo, as this is not a one on one translation - the Hebrew terminology in a tweener between a few English words. I would also avoid Hebrew outlets in English for linguistics (particularly YNET - which is not native English) - as often when they translate such "tweener" words they do not take into account the different context in English. In short - if you want to determine shot/fired/hit/struck - I would look at mainstream English language outlets (BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, Wapo, NYT, CNN, etc. and possibly JPost/TOI for Israel (Haaretz and YNET - for local news - being translations)).Icewhiz (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I came by to promote this, but need to resolve some questions first.
 * I really appreciate your time explaining this to me. So what we have now is this hook (ALT7):  ... that Israel Defense Forces exonerated the soldier who killed Mustafa Tamimi (incident pictured), saying that the soldier had not seen "any people in the line of fire"? with a fuzzy picture captioned Mustafa Tamimi moments before being shot. This all reads like a gunfire incident for our English Wikipedia readers. I'm willing to go with the hook, but IMO we don't need the picture. Yoninah (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe add "with a gas canister" somewhere, and/or simplify "had not seen "any people in the line of fire"?" to "had not seen Tamimi". For out of context readers I agree this does sound as if it is gunfire.Icewhiz (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So:
 * ALT7a: ... that Israel Defense Forces exonerated the soldier who killed Mustafa Tamimi with a tear-gas canister (incident pictured), saying that the soldier had not seen "any people in the line of fire"? Yoninah (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yoninah: fuzzy picture? This informative photo is used by many sources among them Alarabiya, Jpost, Haaretz, Yedioth Ahronoth and has gone almost viral (see this TineEye link). The smoke line is in fact showing the "line of fire" which was mentioned in the hook. Do Cwmhiraeth and HaEr48 have any comments on this? I would like to ask Yoninah to leave the nomination to another user, if he really thinks the picture is "fuzzy" without explaining what he exactly means by this. --  M h hossein   talk 19:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It was already explained to you its up to the promoter to decide if picture should be included or no Shrike (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I know that Mhhossein has been to great efforts to obtain this action picture so I don't think we should reject it on the grounds that it is "fuzzy" at thumbnail size. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "The great effort" shouldn't be either the reason to accept it.We should really consider how it will look at the main page Shrike (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Having the free licence version of this photo uploaded to Wikmedia, for which the main stream media had to pay money, should be a good news and it was not really easy to obtain that. It's clearly showing gas canister fired from the rear door of the armored vehicle. -- M h hossein   talk 05:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We may have a cropped closed box of the photo, if its what Yoninah means. -- M h hossein   talk 06:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg OK, I'm restoring the tick for ALT7a. I do not understand what you mean by a "cropped closed box of the photo". Yoninah (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * re the picture, usually a promoter has wide discretion in deciding which hook to run as lead hook (with pictures). Remember only one out of eight hooks get to have this placement, if every decision is up for debate, it will increase the promoter's burden a lot. Generally everyone would like their hook to be the one ;) As reviewer, I can say the picture is fine from DYK requirements' perspective, but it's up to the promoter to run it or not. HaEr48 (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. As you know, not all the hooks are nominated accompanied by a picture and hence your "only one out of eight hooks get to have this placement" argument is not really accurate. Remember that less than half of the nominations are pictured, if I'm not wrong. I was thinking of having it cropped, which I ignored on the second thought since the result is not much different. --  M h hossein   talk 13:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg OK. Verifying that the image is freely-licensed. Yoninah (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)