The
contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the
Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and
extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for
making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to
make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
A fact from Killing of Mustafa Tamimi appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 July 2018 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the
Israel Defense Forces exonerated the soldier who killed Mustafa Tamimi with a tear-gas canister (incident pictured), saying the soldier had not seen "any people in the line of fire"?
This article was
copy edited by
Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 14 June 2018.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic
Palestine region, the
Palestinian people and the
State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting
the project page, where you can add your name to the
list of members where you can contribute to the
discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article has been
automatically rated by a
bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Non-notable individual who died, apparently as a result of tear gas or a tear gas canister fired to quell a violent demonstration in which he was participating. Brief news-cycle thing, no demonstration of IMPACT or ONGOING coverage.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
01:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)reply
The individual may be non-notable (the article does not make such a claim), but his death meets
WP:NEVENT, per sources already in the article. I suggest the tag be removed. --
K.e.coffman (
talk)
01:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Perhaps I was not clear. The individual was non-notable before his death. The death itself occurred as the individual took place in a violent, but not notable political protest. The incident appears to non-notable because coverage was limited to a brief flurry of coverage, and a follow-up article relating that the soldier who fired the tear gas canister was not criminally liable. No coverage showing IMPACT or ONGOING coverage. This looks like a
WP:POVFORK of
Nabi Salih#Weekly protests, where this death is appropriately covered.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
10:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)reply
I disagree. This death passes NEVENT / GNG - mainly to the coverage of much more prominent family members that bring Mustafa up as a martyred relative - however this has generated LASTing and rather wide coverage. The more relevant question is one of a merge if there is a suitable target.I don't see how this won't survive an AfD (though merge might be a possible outcome there - redirect or delete are off the table) - the appropriate discussion type would be a merge proposal if this is a suitable target.
Icewhiz (
talk)
10:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Merger attempt is really questionable to me given the similar article created by EMG himself. Apparently, there's a misunderstanding regarding
WP:CONTENTFORK: "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles (or passages within articles) all treating the same subject." Are we really talking about the same subject? --
Mhhosseintalk14:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)reply
That's a PRIMARY report - and may perhaps be seen as the political position of the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office, but nothing else. There are other positions - e.g.
[1] - Testifying before military police investigators, the soldier who fired the grenade said he did not see Tamimi when he pulled the trigger. He stated that he fired in response to a massive barrage of rocks being thrown at the vehicle he was in, and that he did not see anybody in his line of fire. This account was adopted by others in the IDF Central Command, and was backed up by Military Advocate for Operational Matters Lt. Col. Ronen Hirsch's Thursday announcement.. According to B'Tselem (you can see a
video of photographs here, including of him) - he was shot "as he threw stones at a military jeep". Per the Independent (an actual RS) -
Clashes at Palestinian protester's funeral - "Mustafa Tamimi was shot in the head on Friday as he threw stones at an armoured jeep during a regular weekly protest by residents of the West Bank village of Nabi Saleh". So - non-violent is not quite borne out by actual sources here.
Icewhiz (
talk)
14:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)reply
no....Ahlam Tamimi didn't even live in the village. There is nothing which link her to Mustafa Tamimi: this is just a new low smear tactic, towards a dead man,
Huldra (
talk)
20:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Her family comes from there...she doesnt live there (and there is no info that she ever did), And NYT is about as reliable on Nabi Saleh affairs as Aruz Sheva (Btw, who said they loved her? Mustafa?)
Huldra (
talk)
20:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The NYT piece I cited above says she's from there.
[3] She was involving in the bombing while she was a student in nearby Birzeit - following which she spent time in an Israeli jail and then (following a prisoner exchange deal) in exile in Jordan. However, the NYT piece makes abundantly clear that she's from the village and mentions both Mustafa and Ahlam - clearly showing they are discussed as a set.
Icewhiz (
talk)
06:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)reply
RFC See also
The following discussion is an archived record of a
request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Neither Several editors voted both or neither - I count 4 votes either solely for neither or expressing a preference for neither as a first choice, 2 for both, and one editor who did not express a preference between both or neither. One of the editors who voted both also stated he would accept neither as a second choice. Two editors votes to include only Ahed Tamimi Neither would resolve editors stated concerns about NPOV and has the most support at this time and several editors made particularly strong arguments that this content was not appropriate/detrimental for the See Also section.
Seraphim System(
talk)23:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Both or NeitherNeither(First choice) or Both(Second Choice) the
WP:RS discuss them together for example
[4],
[5] so mention only one is clear POV violation.--
Shrike (
talk)
08:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Both + add
Bassem Tamimi (or as a 2nd option - Neither). All three are cousins, both are mentioned in conjunction to Mustafa in RSes - what good for the goose is good for the gander. I support both over neither, as this individual is not notable and the incident itself (a stone thrower getting hit by a gas canister) would've been in all likelihood non-notable. Most of the coverage of this cases stems from on-going coverage of Nabi Saleh and the notable Tamimis - hence, the notable members of the Tamimi clan are quite relevant here, and they definitely include all three (Ahed, Ahlam, and Bassem) - who are often mentioned alongside Mustafa's death.
Icewhiz (
talk)
09:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Both or neither symmetrical treatment for things that would be favored by different POVs is how you observe NPOV. Tragic that we have to have an RfC for a See also section. Preference for neither and having no See Also section at all -- it was detracting, not adding, to our encyclopedia. ----
Calthinus (talk)14:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)reply
BothAhed Tamimi and
Ahlam Tamimi are verified family members of Mustafa. People may also mix them up, so having those links helps clarify that. In general, a section addressing 'Notable family members' would be useful.
Shushugah (
talk)
15:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Neither If these people are related (either by blood or connection), then text is the proper way to make that connection, and 'cousin' has a much looser definition in some societies than in the West - is that the case here? Without such textual exposition, the connection seems wholly spurious and borderline
WP:OR, three notable Palestinians with the same surname? So what?
Pincrete (
talk)
23:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)reply
They all hail from the same small 600 person village - it is not just a random common surname. Media commonly reports they are cousins.
Icewhiz (
talk)
02:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Neither: if these family members are relevant to the subject's life, then they should appear in the text of the article. Semi-random names in "See also" are not helpful to the readers.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
22:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Tamimi family seems like the obvious choice, an article for which
amplesourcingexists: the clan is often discussed as a unit, both by
supporters and
detractors, and a Knesset subcommittee once
held an investigation into whether they were a real family. It would best serve our readers to provide as much reliable information as possible, conveniently organized, on the family to which Mustafa belonged and its political activities.
If reliable sources provide particular reasons to connect any two members of the family, these should of course be explained in the text of the relevant articles.
FourViolas (
talk)
21:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
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.
I only came for the RfC and don't know why I'm deemed qualified to review these edits - if you can't get agreement here, raise an RfC or some sort of dispute procedure. With my limited knowledge of the topic, some of these edits seem good, some less so, but as I said I only came for the RfC so it wasn't appropriate to ping me.
Pincrete (
talk)
19:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Many sources are using struck or hit as in English, and particularly American English, shot implies gun shot - which is not the case here. The gas canister is a fairly low speed projecticle. I Support either struck or hit.
Icewhiz (
talk)
15:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm not surprised by
your edit warring. You should provide sources for your claim, as I already did. That "the gas canister is a fairly low speed projecticle" has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion since we don't act based on your original research, rather we should note what the sources say. Your edit summary, "He was not shot with a bullet, he was struck by a gas canister," likewise shows you are acting based on your own original research. --
Mhhosseintalk15:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)reply
NPA please. You had editors cinfused by this at the dyk as well. NYT does not use shot,
[12] and plenty of other sources avoid this as well.
Icewhiz (
talk)
15:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)reply
No, you reverted without having actively participated in the discussion. Also, you based your revert on your own Original Researches and refused to show sources supporting struck. --
Mhhosseintalk05:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)reply
I posted in this discussion prior to reverting the edit with somewhat unclear edit summary of "unnecessary changes was reverted, See the talk page for the reasoning behind it". I also provided a spurce - NYT. I suggest you strike your assertions above.
Icewhiz (
talk)
05:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)reply
That's what the edit summary box is meant for. I had commented on the talk page so "See the talk page for the reasoning behind it" is crystal clear. I came up with four reliable sources, what you fail to do. --
Mhhosseintalk06:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Statistics
I checked the sources and made the following table:
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose This
WP:NPOV title as shooting is not explain the whole incident. Most of the sources also say that he threw stones toward the vehicle.So it was not merely shooting. --
Shrike (
talk)
12:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I don't think there is guideline saying the title should describe the details. What gives notability to all these events is that Mustafa Tamimi was killed by shooting. We are not here because of the stone throwing. --
Mhhosseintalk12:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Very familiar tactic in quoting just one part of a page from past NoCal100 socks. But what the sentence prior to that says is This is an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Article titles policy and the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) guideline. An explanatory supplement to a policy and a guideline. As well as being the result of
a widely attended RFC. And it reflects the common practice across a huge range of articles. Try harder. nableezy -
19:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)reply
It's an explanation of a policy, but apparently not one vetted by the community. There are very many articles that do not follow this practice, I've called out a couple, above, and can easily produce dozens more.
Inf-in MD (
talk)
19:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)reply
And I can produce dozens more, many of them moved on the basis of that explanatory supplement. You dont even attempt to address what that supplement calls for, that is a consistent way of naming things so we dont have the issues of systemic bias that has white people "killed" and brown people to suffer "deaths". nableezy -
19:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Of course. And the fact that there are dozens of articles that follow this convention and dozens which don't, show that it is not "an established naming convention for these types of articles". Perhaps we should have such an established convention, as the explanatory note requests - there's probably some process for doing that, but it is not now an established convention. And if you think playing the race card is going to work here, I suggest you take another look at the examples I called out, or at
Death of Jeffrey L. Smith or
Death of Howard LiebengoodInf-in MD (
talk)
19:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)reply
You tried to pull the race card to insinuate that only 'brown people to suffer "deaths"' - I showed you two examples in which the supposed "convention" is not followed, and the suicides of two white people are called "Deaths of...". I didn't say the note means "nothing at all", clearly some people follow it, But your assertion that this is 'an established naming convention for these types of articles' is wrong.
Inf-in MD (
talk)
19:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Im sorry what? Played the race card lol? Yes, there are white people who have death as the article title. I dont think anybody can take you seriously if you want to pretend there isnt systemic bias in how black and brown lives are treated in language and if you pretend that isnt true then youre just being silly. And the RFC result was While is not the level of support that is necessary to create a guideline (officially a no consensus outcome), there is enough of a consensus to create an explanatory supplement to the Article title policy using the revised flow chart as a basis. Would appear that this is a basis to be used, as consensus. Huh. nableezy -
20:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose and also oppose "Killing of": The current name is fine. Hitting someone with a tear gas canister is not ordinarily called "shooting", and the so-called explanatory supplement doesn't really have consensus support and isn't a Wikipedia guideline or policy. "Shooting" generally means hitting with bullets or shotgun pellets. "Death of" does not imply natural causes, despite the presentation of that red herring. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
18:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
That is a false presentation of the explanatory supplement. It very much does have consensus, as you can see
from the close of the RFC. And yes, death does imply natural causes, which is why
WP:DEATHS has "death of" as appropriate when the death is the result of natural causes or an accidental death. As far as the wholly unsupported claim that hitting someone with a tear gas canister is not ordinarily called "shooting", somebody should really tell the
Washington Post,
Haaretz,
BBC, the
Times of Israel,
The Guardian and
Al Jazeera that Tamimi wasn't actually shot. He was merely hit with a tear gas canister. nableezy -
19:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
The RFC in question was concluded with "not the level of support that is necessary to create a guideline" and was "officially a no consensus outcome". The header of
WP:DEATHS says "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." I have no objection to a characterization of "shot with a tear gas canister", but if you use the word "shooting" in the title, without "tear gas canister", I think it implies bullets. I did not find anywhere in the Haaretz article that refers to Mustafa Tamimi's death as a shooting. Maybe I missed it, but the shooting primarily described in that article is of a different person (Mohammed Tamimi, not Mustafa Tamimi). I couldn't access the Washington Post article, but I can see from the URL that its headline includes the phrase "shot with tear gas canister", not just "shot" or "shooting" by itself. The BBC article has one place with "was shot", but the two other places in which it describes what happened include a very clear mention that the projectile was a tear gas canister. The Times of Israel article, Al Jazeera article and Guardian article all seem very clear about the type of projectile. None of those articles use "shooting" in the title, without mentioning a tear gas canister. There is a reversal of logical flow between the idea that natural causes would typically be described as "death of" and the idea that "death of" would imply natural causes. Death by natural causes is obviously a subset of a broader category, which is simply death in general. JonBenét Ramsey did not die of natural causes, but
Death of JonBenét Ramsey is perfectly fine. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
07:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
It also concluded that there is enough of a consensus to create an explanatory supplement to the Article title policy using the revised flow chart as a basis. Jon Benet has already been brought up, and it has not been the subject of a move request ever. If one were attempted I would expect it to be moved to killing of. Haaretz says he was shot, but I did have the wrong link (
here). You know, the result of a shooting. nableezy -
15:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I can't see most of the additional Haaretz article due to paywalling, but I can see that its headline does not use "shot" and its opening summary uses "shot in the face with a gas canister" (not just "shot" without mentioning a tear gas canister). The headline uses "smoking gun", but that's obviously a teaser that begs for clarification in the body. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
19:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
The smoking gun it was referring to is the video of Tamimi being shot in the face and the video in the other case it discusses. I dont disagree that shot without the tear gas canister part is complete, but he very much was shot, not "hit". Regardless, I support killing, not "shooting" without clarification, and the only reason offered to oppose that is that the explanatory supplement is not a guideline or policy. There isnt any actual reason to oppose it mind you, just a little bit of
this and a little bit of
that. nableezy -
19:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I don't disagree with most of that. The problem that I see with "Killing of X" as a general title format is that I believe it implies a premeditated and intentional act. Some others seem to disagree with that interpretation. While some dictionaries include intent in the definition of "killing", others do not. Note that there is a difference between "killing of X" and "X was killed", and I think that difference is important. "X was killed" does not imply intent. I think there is also a difference that depends on the context of the phrasing. I think that an article title of "Killing of X" implies intent, but a sentence saying "the building collapsed, resulting in the killing of X" does not, even though both of those use the same string of words, "killing of X". I personally feel that it is important for Wikipedia to consider the connotations of the phrasing of its article titles and to be conservative about how its titles may be interpreted by readers. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
14:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Premeditated and intentional would be determined by a court according to Wikipedia, and would result in "murder of". Killing of implies it was due to another person. And regardless of whether you think the soldier who shot Tamimi saw him, aimed at him, tried to hit him in the face, or was just blindly shooting in the direction, he certainly was the cause of Tamimi's death, and that makes it a killing. Killing implies a homicide, not an intentional one. nableezy -
15:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Thank you for using a dictionary that says that killing is the act of intentionally killing someone. Lol. If you cant find why using this definition is asinine, well then thats not something I feel like I can help you with. nableezy -
16:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
That is the definition provided for the
(countable) noun. It uses the
verb in the definition. There is no inherent problem in doing that. There is a separate entry for the verb in that dictionary. The proposed usage in the article title is the noun usage. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
16:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
So what pray tell would the act of non-deliberately killing be known as? One more time, and this has consensus enough to be an explanatory supplement to our article title policy, death implies natural causes or an accident, while killing is the preferred form for when a death is the result of another person's actions. As was the case here. Dont intent to argue the point further, just note that there still is not any actual basis that has not already been rejected by a consensus of editors on Wikipedia. nableezy -
16:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
"Death of" does not imply natural causes or an accident. Saying it does not make it so. "Death of" simply applies to any manner of dying. I am not aware of any dictionary or Wikipedia guideline that says that "death" implies a lack of violence. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
22:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
The discussion at
this RFC found otherwise, and developed a way to create a name for articles without a recognizable common name that avoids issues of systemic bias or editors own personal biases. And that method has us using "death of" for natural causes or accidents, and "killing of" for homicides without a criminal conviction. As occurred here. If you would like to argue that your personal preferences and biases should be substituted in the place of that consensus then sure, cool. nableezy -
22:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
That's really not accurate. I have cited major dictionaries, not "personal preferences and biases". And that RFC had a no consensus result, and the flowchart in the non-guideline supplement that "has not been thoroughly vetted by the community" has arrows that flow into a box labelled "Death", suggesting to use such a title under certain circumstances when a topic does not have an apparent common name. It does not have any arrows that flow out of that box to indicate that a title that uses "Death" implies anything in particular other than death. A basic principle of logic is that the idea that "A implies B" does not mean that "B implies A". —
BarrelProof (
talk)
01:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)reply
That "change in mood" is more commonly referred to as a shift in consensus on how articles about shooting deaths should be titled. nableezy -
14:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)reply
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.
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the
Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and
extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for
making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to
make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
A fact from Killing of Mustafa Tamimi appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 July 2018 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the
Israel Defense Forces exonerated the soldier who killed Mustafa Tamimi with a tear-gas canister (incident pictured), saying the soldier had not seen "any people in the line of fire"?
This article was
copy edited by
Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 14 June 2018.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic
Palestine region, the
Palestinian people and the
State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting
the project page, where you can add your name to the
list of members where you can contribute to the
discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article has been
automatically rated by a
bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Non-notable individual who died, apparently as a result of tear gas or a tear gas canister fired to quell a violent demonstration in which he was participating. Brief news-cycle thing, no demonstration of IMPACT or ONGOING coverage.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
01:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)reply
The individual may be non-notable (the article does not make such a claim), but his death meets
WP:NEVENT, per sources already in the article. I suggest the tag be removed. --
K.e.coffman (
talk)
01:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Perhaps I was not clear. The individual was non-notable before his death. The death itself occurred as the individual took place in a violent, but not notable political protest. The incident appears to non-notable because coverage was limited to a brief flurry of coverage, and a follow-up article relating that the soldier who fired the tear gas canister was not criminally liable. No coverage showing IMPACT or ONGOING coverage. This looks like a
WP:POVFORK of
Nabi Salih#Weekly protests, where this death is appropriately covered.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
10:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)reply
I disagree. This death passes NEVENT / GNG - mainly to the coverage of much more prominent family members that bring Mustafa up as a martyred relative - however this has generated LASTing and rather wide coverage. The more relevant question is one of a merge if there is a suitable target.I don't see how this won't survive an AfD (though merge might be a possible outcome there - redirect or delete are off the table) - the appropriate discussion type would be a merge proposal if this is a suitable target.
Icewhiz (
talk)
10:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Merger attempt is really questionable to me given the similar article created by EMG himself. Apparently, there's a misunderstanding regarding
WP:CONTENTFORK: "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles (or passages within articles) all treating the same subject." Are we really talking about the same subject? --
Mhhosseintalk14:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)reply
That's a PRIMARY report - and may perhaps be seen as the political position of the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office, but nothing else. There are other positions - e.g.
[1] - Testifying before military police investigators, the soldier who fired the grenade said he did not see Tamimi when he pulled the trigger. He stated that he fired in response to a massive barrage of rocks being thrown at the vehicle he was in, and that he did not see anybody in his line of fire. This account was adopted by others in the IDF Central Command, and was backed up by Military Advocate for Operational Matters Lt. Col. Ronen Hirsch's Thursday announcement.. According to B'Tselem (you can see a
video of photographs here, including of him) - he was shot "as he threw stones at a military jeep". Per the Independent (an actual RS) -
Clashes at Palestinian protester's funeral - "Mustafa Tamimi was shot in the head on Friday as he threw stones at an armoured jeep during a regular weekly protest by residents of the West Bank village of Nabi Saleh". So - non-violent is not quite borne out by actual sources here.
Icewhiz (
talk)
14:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)reply
no....Ahlam Tamimi didn't even live in the village. There is nothing which link her to Mustafa Tamimi: this is just a new low smear tactic, towards a dead man,
Huldra (
talk)
20:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Her family comes from there...she doesnt live there (and there is no info that she ever did), And NYT is about as reliable on Nabi Saleh affairs as Aruz Sheva (Btw, who said they loved her? Mustafa?)
Huldra (
talk)
20:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The NYT piece I cited above says she's from there.
[3] She was involving in the bombing while she was a student in nearby Birzeit - following which she spent time in an Israeli jail and then (following a prisoner exchange deal) in exile in Jordan. However, the NYT piece makes abundantly clear that she's from the village and mentions both Mustafa and Ahlam - clearly showing they are discussed as a set.
Icewhiz (
talk)
06:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)reply
RFC See also
The following discussion is an archived record of a
request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Neither Several editors voted both or neither - I count 4 votes either solely for neither or expressing a preference for neither as a first choice, 2 for both, and one editor who did not express a preference between both or neither. One of the editors who voted both also stated he would accept neither as a second choice. Two editors votes to include only Ahed Tamimi Neither would resolve editors stated concerns about NPOV and has the most support at this time and several editors made particularly strong arguments that this content was not appropriate/detrimental for the See Also section.
Seraphim System(
talk)23:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Both or NeitherNeither(First choice) or Both(Second Choice) the
WP:RS discuss them together for example
[4],
[5] so mention only one is clear POV violation.--
Shrike (
talk)
08:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Both + add
Bassem Tamimi (or as a 2nd option - Neither). All three are cousins, both are mentioned in conjunction to Mustafa in RSes - what good for the goose is good for the gander. I support both over neither, as this individual is not notable and the incident itself (a stone thrower getting hit by a gas canister) would've been in all likelihood non-notable. Most of the coverage of this cases stems from on-going coverage of Nabi Saleh and the notable Tamimis - hence, the notable members of the Tamimi clan are quite relevant here, and they definitely include all three (Ahed, Ahlam, and Bassem) - who are often mentioned alongside Mustafa's death.
Icewhiz (
talk)
09:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Both or neither symmetrical treatment for things that would be favored by different POVs is how you observe NPOV. Tragic that we have to have an RfC for a See also section. Preference for neither and having no See Also section at all -- it was detracting, not adding, to our encyclopedia. ----
Calthinus (talk)14:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)reply
BothAhed Tamimi and
Ahlam Tamimi are verified family members of Mustafa. People may also mix them up, so having those links helps clarify that. In general, a section addressing 'Notable family members' would be useful.
Shushugah (
talk)
15:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Neither If these people are related (either by blood or connection), then text is the proper way to make that connection, and 'cousin' has a much looser definition in some societies than in the West - is that the case here? Without such textual exposition, the connection seems wholly spurious and borderline
WP:OR, three notable Palestinians with the same surname? So what?
Pincrete (
talk)
23:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)reply
They all hail from the same small 600 person village - it is not just a random common surname. Media commonly reports they are cousins.
Icewhiz (
talk)
02:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Neither: if these family members are relevant to the subject's life, then they should appear in the text of the article. Semi-random names in "See also" are not helpful to the readers.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
22:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Tamimi family seems like the obvious choice, an article for which
amplesourcingexists: the clan is often discussed as a unit, both by
supporters and
detractors, and a Knesset subcommittee once
held an investigation into whether they were a real family. It would best serve our readers to provide as much reliable information as possible, conveniently organized, on the family to which Mustafa belonged and its political activities.
If reliable sources provide particular reasons to connect any two members of the family, these should of course be explained in the text of the relevant articles.
FourViolas (
talk)
21:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
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.
I only came for the RfC and don't know why I'm deemed qualified to review these edits - if you can't get agreement here, raise an RfC or some sort of dispute procedure. With my limited knowledge of the topic, some of these edits seem good, some less so, but as I said I only came for the RfC so it wasn't appropriate to ping me.
Pincrete (
talk)
19:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Many sources are using struck or hit as in English, and particularly American English, shot implies gun shot - which is not the case here. The gas canister is a fairly low speed projecticle. I Support either struck or hit.
Icewhiz (
talk)
15:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm not surprised by
your edit warring. You should provide sources for your claim, as I already did. That "the gas canister is a fairly low speed projecticle" has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion since we don't act based on your original research, rather we should note what the sources say. Your edit summary, "He was not shot with a bullet, he was struck by a gas canister," likewise shows you are acting based on your own original research. --
Mhhosseintalk15:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)reply
NPA please. You had editors cinfused by this at the dyk as well. NYT does not use shot,
[12] and plenty of other sources avoid this as well.
Icewhiz (
talk)
15:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)reply
No, you reverted without having actively participated in the discussion. Also, you based your revert on your own Original Researches and refused to show sources supporting struck. --
Mhhosseintalk05:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)reply
I posted in this discussion prior to reverting the edit with somewhat unclear edit summary of "unnecessary changes was reverted, See the talk page for the reasoning behind it". I also provided a spurce - NYT. I suggest you strike your assertions above.
Icewhiz (
talk)
05:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)reply
That's what the edit summary box is meant for. I had commented on the talk page so "See the talk page for the reasoning behind it" is crystal clear. I came up with four reliable sources, what you fail to do. --
Mhhosseintalk06:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Statistics
I checked the sources and made the following table:
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose This
WP:NPOV title as shooting is not explain the whole incident. Most of the sources also say that he threw stones toward the vehicle.So it was not merely shooting. --
Shrike (
talk)
12:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I don't think there is guideline saying the title should describe the details. What gives notability to all these events is that Mustafa Tamimi was killed by shooting. We are not here because of the stone throwing. --
Mhhosseintalk12:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Very familiar tactic in quoting just one part of a page from past NoCal100 socks. But what the sentence prior to that says is This is an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Article titles policy and the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) guideline. An explanatory supplement to a policy and a guideline. As well as being the result of
a widely attended RFC. And it reflects the common practice across a huge range of articles. Try harder. nableezy -
19:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)reply
It's an explanation of a policy, but apparently not one vetted by the community. There are very many articles that do not follow this practice, I've called out a couple, above, and can easily produce dozens more.
Inf-in MD (
talk)
19:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)reply
And I can produce dozens more, many of them moved on the basis of that explanatory supplement. You dont even attempt to address what that supplement calls for, that is a consistent way of naming things so we dont have the issues of systemic bias that has white people "killed" and brown people to suffer "deaths". nableezy -
19:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Of course. And the fact that there are dozens of articles that follow this convention and dozens which don't, show that it is not "an established naming convention for these types of articles". Perhaps we should have such an established convention, as the explanatory note requests - there's probably some process for doing that, but it is not now an established convention. And if you think playing the race card is going to work here, I suggest you take another look at the examples I called out, or at
Death of Jeffrey L. Smith or
Death of Howard LiebengoodInf-in MD (
talk)
19:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)reply
You tried to pull the race card to insinuate that only 'brown people to suffer "deaths"' - I showed you two examples in which the supposed "convention" is not followed, and the suicides of two white people are called "Deaths of...". I didn't say the note means "nothing at all", clearly some people follow it, But your assertion that this is 'an established naming convention for these types of articles' is wrong.
Inf-in MD (
talk)
19:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Im sorry what? Played the race card lol? Yes, there are white people who have death as the article title. I dont think anybody can take you seriously if you want to pretend there isnt systemic bias in how black and brown lives are treated in language and if you pretend that isnt true then youre just being silly. And the RFC result was While is not the level of support that is necessary to create a guideline (officially a no consensus outcome), there is enough of a consensus to create an explanatory supplement to the Article title policy using the revised flow chart as a basis. Would appear that this is a basis to be used, as consensus. Huh. nableezy -
20:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose and also oppose "Killing of": The current name is fine. Hitting someone with a tear gas canister is not ordinarily called "shooting", and the so-called explanatory supplement doesn't really have consensus support and isn't a Wikipedia guideline or policy. "Shooting" generally means hitting with bullets or shotgun pellets. "Death of" does not imply natural causes, despite the presentation of that red herring. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
18:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
That is a false presentation of the explanatory supplement. It very much does have consensus, as you can see
from the close of the RFC. And yes, death does imply natural causes, which is why
WP:DEATHS has "death of" as appropriate when the death is the result of natural causes or an accidental death. As far as the wholly unsupported claim that hitting someone with a tear gas canister is not ordinarily called "shooting", somebody should really tell the
Washington Post,
Haaretz,
BBC, the
Times of Israel,
The Guardian and
Al Jazeera that Tamimi wasn't actually shot. He was merely hit with a tear gas canister. nableezy -
19:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
The RFC in question was concluded with "not the level of support that is necessary to create a guideline" and was "officially a no consensus outcome". The header of
WP:DEATHS says "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." I have no objection to a characterization of "shot with a tear gas canister", but if you use the word "shooting" in the title, without "tear gas canister", I think it implies bullets. I did not find anywhere in the Haaretz article that refers to Mustafa Tamimi's death as a shooting. Maybe I missed it, but the shooting primarily described in that article is of a different person (Mohammed Tamimi, not Mustafa Tamimi). I couldn't access the Washington Post article, but I can see from the URL that its headline includes the phrase "shot with tear gas canister", not just "shot" or "shooting" by itself. The BBC article has one place with "was shot", but the two other places in which it describes what happened include a very clear mention that the projectile was a tear gas canister. The Times of Israel article, Al Jazeera article and Guardian article all seem very clear about the type of projectile. None of those articles use "shooting" in the title, without mentioning a tear gas canister. There is a reversal of logical flow between the idea that natural causes would typically be described as "death of" and the idea that "death of" would imply natural causes. Death by natural causes is obviously a subset of a broader category, which is simply death in general. JonBenét Ramsey did not die of natural causes, but
Death of JonBenét Ramsey is perfectly fine. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
07:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
It also concluded that there is enough of a consensus to create an explanatory supplement to the Article title policy using the revised flow chart as a basis. Jon Benet has already been brought up, and it has not been the subject of a move request ever. If one were attempted I would expect it to be moved to killing of. Haaretz says he was shot, but I did have the wrong link (
here). You know, the result of a shooting. nableezy -
15:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I can't see most of the additional Haaretz article due to paywalling, but I can see that its headline does not use "shot" and its opening summary uses "shot in the face with a gas canister" (not just "shot" without mentioning a tear gas canister). The headline uses "smoking gun", but that's obviously a teaser that begs for clarification in the body. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
19:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
The smoking gun it was referring to is the video of Tamimi being shot in the face and the video in the other case it discusses. I dont disagree that shot without the tear gas canister part is complete, but he very much was shot, not "hit". Regardless, I support killing, not "shooting" without clarification, and the only reason offered to oppose that is that the explanatory supplement is not a guideline or policy. There isnt any actual reason to oppose it mind you, just a little bit of
this and a little bit of
that. nableezy -
19:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I don't disagree with most of that. The problem that I see with "Killing of X" as a general title format is that I believe it implies a premeditated and intentional act. Some others seem to disagree with that interpretation. While some dictionaries include intent in the definition of "killing", others do not. Note that there is a difference between "killing of X" and "X was killed", and I think that difference is important. "X was killed" does not imply intent. I think there is also a difference that depends on the context of the phrasing. I think that an article title of "Killing of X" implies intent, but a sentence saying "the building collapsed, resulting in the killing of X" does not, even though both of those use the same string of words, "killing of X". I personally feel that it is important for Wikipedia to consider the connotations of the phrasing of its article titles and to be conservative about how its titles may be interpreted by readers. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
14:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Premeditated and intentional would be determined by a court according to Wikipedia, and would result in "murder of". Killing of implies it was due to another person. And regardless of whether you think the soldier who shot Tamimi saw him, aimed at him, tried to hit him in the face, or was just blindly shooting in the direction, he certainly was the cause of Tamimi's death, and that makes it a killing. Killing implies a homicide, not an intentional one. nableezy -
15:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Thank you for using a dictionary that says that killing is the act of intentionally killing someone. Lol. If you cant find why using this definition is asinine, well then thats not something I feel like I can help you with. nableezy -
16:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
That is the definition provided for the
(countable) noun. It uses the
verb in the definition. There is no inherent problem in doing that. There is a separate entry for the verb in that dictionary. The proposed usage in the article title is the noun usage. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
16:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
So what pray tell would the act of non-deliberately killing be known as? One more time, and this has consensus enough to be an explanatory supplement to our article title policy, death implies natural causes or an accident, while killing is the preferred form for when a death is the result of another person's actions. As was the case here. Dont intent to argue the point further, just note that there still is not any actual basis that has not already been rejected by a consensus of editors on Wikipedia. nableezy -
16:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
"Death of" does not imply natural causes or an accident. Saying it does not make it so. "Death of" simply applies to any manner of dying. I am not aware of any dictionary or Wikipedia guideline that says that "death" implies a lack of violence. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
22:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
The discussion at
this RFC found otherwise, and developed a way to create a name for articles without a recognizable common name that avoids issues of systemic bias or editors own personal biases. And that method has us using "death of" for natural causes or accidents, and "killing of" for homicides without a criminal conviction. As occurred here. If you would like to argue that your personal preferences and biases should be substituted in the place of that consensus then sure, cool. nableezy -
22:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
That's really not accurate. I have cited major dictionaries, not "personal preferences and biases". And that RFC had a no consensus result, and the flowchart in the non-guideline supplement that "has not been thoroughly vetted by the community" has arrows that flow into a box labelled "Death", suggesting to use such a title under certain circumstances when a topic does not have an apparent common name. It does not have any arrows that flow out of that box to indicate that a title that uses "Death" implies anything in particular other than death. A basic principle of logic is that the idea that "A implies B" does not mean that "B implies A". —
BarrelProof (
talk)
01:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)reply
That "change in mood" is more commonly referred to as a shift in consensus on how articles about shooting deaths should be titled. nableezy -
14:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)reply
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.