Talk:Shireen Abu Akleh

A command note will be recorded for one of the officers in the field. A police check revealed that the use of force could have been prevented. The investigation also revealed that intelligence information had been received about the attempt of thousands of demonstrators to reach the area of Bar-Lev Road, violate the order and try to harm Jews traveling on the road. https://13tv.co.il/item/news/politics/security/police-funeral-903072321/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:184:3024:4D8C:3C52:FE3F:6BD0 (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should just wait for this to show up in an independent reliable RS. This is just unverifiable gossip at best.Selfstudier (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction regarding her killing, make it look like the IDF admitted something, while the official press release is about the PA not releasing the bullet to identify the possibility of IDF involvement. This is a clear propaganda technic to select a specific comment and disregard the clear statement, while adding sources only going in one sense to convince by repetition.--Jkluvmo (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What change are you suggesting? Change what to what? Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"...5.56x45mm NATO round, used in both M16 and M14 rifles..."

This isn't correct, the M14 rifle uses 7.62x51 NATO. Someone probably mixed up the M14 with the M4 (which does use 5.56 NATO, etc). 67.168.123.14 (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)some rando[reply]

Do you have a source for that? The article source attributes that to an Israeli Channel 12 report so we are stuck with it unless we get a better source.Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of sources are acceptable? US Army field manual FM-23-8 (US Rifle 7.62-MM M14) is archived at (https://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/amd-us-archive/FM23-8C1%2860%29.pdf), that should be the original version of the manual for the M14 from it's adoption. 67.168.123.14 (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source in the article says "As Israel’s Channel 12 reported, the bullet recovered from the scene was a 5.56x45mm NATO round, used in both M16 and M14 rifles, possessed by both the IDF and Palestinian combatants."

What we need is a source saying that the bullet recovered was a (some other specification), possessed by dad dah. If we don't have such a source (apparently you do not) and we can demonstrate the given specification as incorrect then the source is shown to be factually in error and will need to be removed altogether along with the sentence above.

Can you demonstrate that? Can you quote me something authoritative that proves the above sentence is incorrect? I'm not trying to be finicky, I don't know anything about weaponry or bullets. Selfstudier (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The army manual provided does not support the x51mm claim, using only 7.62mm. The Wiki article on the M14 might be a place to start. It does support the 7.62x51mm claim but it's unclear which reference that is taken from. InverseZebra (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Israel's Channel 12 is wrong that the 5.56x45 NATO round is used in both the M14 and M16. This is trivial to verify, as a starting point I refer you to the wiki article for the 7.62x51 NATO, second paragraph:

"First developed in the 1950s, the cartridge had first been introduced in U.S. service for the M14 rifle...:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62%C3%9751mm_NATO

it does not matter what the bullet turns out to be, the error is Channel 12's claim that the M14 uses the 5.56x45 round. It does not. 67.168.123.14 (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If no-one has any objection, I am going to delete the source and the offending sentence. Selfstudier (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Selfstudier (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Gunshot wound" is not wrong as far as it goes, however it seems we have editors intent on minimizing what is widely perceived as a death from Israeli fire as well as considered a targeted assassination by CNN. How to deal with this? Should we take up the suggestion to deal with it in the lead? Find a shorter way of expressing the wide perception in the infobox or even begin a new article, Killing of ...? Selfstudier (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted a longer description of this. A long description of the form "this report said this and that report said that and the IDF said this" is just far too much for an infobox field like that, it's usually for a couple words about their actual proximate cause of death like "missile strike" or "cancer" or whatever (see e.g. Andrea Rocchelli or Death of Andrey Stenin for similar articles), rather than a detailed account of attribution of responsibility. "Gunshot wound" is minimalistic sure, but not wrong, and generally how the infobox field is meant to work AFAIK.

Regarding what to do, I think we should summarise the state of knowledge regarding investigations into responsibility in the lead -- which we do, no? That seems to be most of the third paragraph. I'm not sure if there should be two separate articles about Abu Akleh and about her death, but from a purely practical perspective they fit here so it wouldn't be necessary just in terms of text size. I don't think this article should be moved to "Killing of Shireen Abu Akleh" though, as she appears to have been independently notable outside of the circumstances of her death. Endwise (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence of the first paragraph of Initial Israeli Investigations reads "Robert Mackey from The Intercept concluded that the footage distributed by Israeli sources unwittingly proved that it could not be Palestinian fighters who killed Abu Akleh.[39]"

That misrepresents his conclusion. He was only saying that the militant shown in the video could not have been shooting at Shireen because of the Btselem video showing there was no line of sight for the shooter. "it could not be Palestinian fighters" isn't what he concluded.

The sentence should be removed. The sentence before it "An investigation by B'Tselem, released hours after the Israeli official postings, likewise found that the alley depicted in the footage was nowhere near the site where Abu Akleh was gunned down and that it was "impossible" for the fighters to hit Abu Akleh or anyone in her vicinity.[39]" already covers that information. But again, "the fighters" should be changed to "the fighter" since we see only one. Or possibly, "the militant." It is the same source for both sentences, so they are redundant.

And the sentence before that is "A Haaretz report found the possibility unlikely as several buildings blocked a direct line of sight between that militant and the reporter.[38]" so there is already another source saying that information.FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Intercept source is not represented correctly because it is not distinguishing between explanation 1 from Israel (the video footage refuted by B'tselem) and explanation 2, the later release of body cam footage and what can be deduced from that (according to the Intercept). I will have a think how to fix that, anyone else can have a go in the meantime. This is somewhat academic since at this early stage, the main point of these sources is essentially that the early Israeli explanations just did not appear to add up or make any sense given the context.Selfstudier (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources mentioned in the section don't show an Israeli official claiming the militant shown in the video was shooting Shireen. The Israeli Foreign Ministry said that she could have been killed by Palestinian "indiscriminate fire" and showed the video of a Palestinian shooting an M16 style rifle around a corner without aiming. While Btselem has pointed out that the alley he was shooting down wasn't the one Shireen was shot in, that doesn't disprove the possibility that she was hit by a Palestinian militant inadvertently. The Intercept article is misquoted to try to disprove that possibility, when it merely backs up the Btselem claim that the shown militant was not shooting at her at the time. The "Initial Israeli Investigations" section seems to revolve around trying to play "gotcha" with Israeli authorities, by disproving something they didn't claim.

Israeli authorities used the video for a second claim that isn't addressed properly in the section, that of the Palestinians claiming an Israeli soldier was hit. Has there been any response by Palestinian or neutral sources about what those individuals were talking about? The Btselem video shows that they were on a street perpendicular to the one Shireen was shot on, a few hundred meters away. So the impossibility of the shooter in the video having hit her does not disprove that other militants had confused her with a soldier. FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason there is now an early investigations section is because editors were selectively inserting material intended to emphasize the possibility of Palestinian responsibility. The Israeli authorities have made a lot of statements, not all of them are in the article and the order in which they were made matters. The consensus of sources (see the later investigations in particular) appears to be that the Israeli authorities (IDF, Gantz, whoever) were, if not actually making stuff up on the hoof, were at the very least being disingenuous (then ie around the 13th). I think the whole business of Israeli responses (and the questionable reliability of them) needs to be highlighted more clearly in the article.Selfstudier (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworked the article so that all the "investigation" material is together and divided in two parts, early and subsequent. As well as being a more logical flow, this will make it easier to discuss who said what and when. Selfstudier (talk) 11:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence "Robert Mackey from The Intercept concluded that the footage distributed by Israeli sources unwittingly proved that it could not be Palestinian fighters who killed Abu Akleh." needs to be removed. It misrepresents The Intercept article, which said it could not have been the fighter from the video. As it stands, the article misrepresents the source as saying it couldn't be any Palestinian fighter. That wasn't the point of showing the one fighter didn't have line of sight to Shireen.FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to that above, I haven't forgotten, I'm thinking how to best fix the intercept material. Selfstudier (talk) 08:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the sentence you wanted gone is gone and replaced with clearer statements about the footage (not the video, body cam footage released later) and put into the correct place in the timeline.Selfstudier (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding "On 16 June 2022, Al Jazeera reported that it had obtained an image of the bullet and that according to ballistic and forensic experts, the green-tipped bullet was designed to pierce armour and 5.56mm calibre for use in an M4 rifle, the same as regularly used by Israeli forces.[37]" does not bring anything new to the article. Existing sources already specified that both Israeli and Palestinian forces use M16 and M4 rifles.

https://static.timesofisrael.com/www/uploads/2022/05/Untitled-245.jpg This image from one of the sources is from Jenin on the same day as the shooting. It shows Palestinian gunmen with six rifles from the same 5.56 family. The shooter in the video shot several hundred meters from Shireen on a side street was also from the same family as those shown carried by the Israeli soldiers.

So Al-Jazeera's reporting doesn't bring anything new to the article, and actually misleads the reader into thinking it is presenting new information when it isn't. It was already known and reported that the bullet was 5.56 and that the forces involved in shooting that day use it.FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New information not contained anywhere else in the article, properly sourced, I don't see the problem. How does the material added mislead? Selfstudier (talk) 08:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"As Israel’s Channel 12 reported, the bullet recovered from the scene was a 5.56x45mm NATO round, used in both M16 and M14 rifles, possessed by both the IDF and Palestinian combatants."

That information was removed because the source said "M14" when it should have said "M4." The source has since corrected the typo. That's a more complete summary. Saying that it's used by Israeli forces gives the impression that Palestinian forces don't use it, which isn't true. There is video of an M4 being shot and photos of Palestinian gunman carrying M4's and M16's on the same day. 5.56 bullets and M4/M16 rifles are also used by Lebanese, Jordanian, and Egyptian forces, as well as the Palestinian Authority security forces and all major Palestinian armed groups. It's common throughout the region and the world.

Also, Al-Jazeera's or anyone else's reporting on the bullet shouldn't appear in the Death section. It's part of the investigation, and should appear later where there is already discussion of the custody of the bullet.FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The bullet being armor piercing is new, and I dont see where that is claimed to be commonly used by Palestinians. nableezy - 14:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added the AJ source in the Death section because there were several references to the bullet there already. Only the Palestinians have the bullet so I would not say there is any independent investigation of that. AJ is only analyzing an image. The NYT article which was retained when the other source was removed says "Both Israeli soldiers and Palestinian militants involved in the Jenin clashes were carrying M16 assault rifles, guns that use the same 5.56-millimeter bullets, Israeli officials said." and does not mention M4 so that doesn't help.

https://worldisraelnews.com/al-jazeera-releases-image-of-bullet-it-says-killed-palestinian-reporter/, (WIN/AP) discussing the AJ report, says "The IDF says Palestinian terrorists use the same ammunition." but doesn't say in an M4. I would like to see a clear cut statement from a reliable source saying that Palestinians use this weapon with the same bullets AJ identified. Selfstudier (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bellingcat has some commentary here which may be helpful. Selfstudier (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that I have added that the Palestinians also use the M4. However Bellingcat also suggest that given the range of this weapon together with the video'd position of the fighters, the likelihood was that the shot came from the Israeli forces. We should check all the sources again for further discussion of this point. Selfstudier (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After rereading the article, I agree that the AJ report about the bullet together with information about M4 and Palestinian usage of it fits better after the Bellingcat information and conclusions, so I moved it there. Selfstudier (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of housecleaning: An M4 rifle is a variation of the M16. In media reports about US mass shootings, it's often pointed out that the rifle is an AR15-style rifle. In the same way, an M4 is an M16-style rifle. All the above fire the 5.56.

The Al-Jazeera report mentions green tipped armour piercing rounds. This isn't a wrong assessment, but can be misleading. The US military and many others use the green tip (also called an M855) as the standard bullet. It replaced an earlier bullet in the 1970's, when body armour became more common on the battlefield. So while the M855 is "armour piercing" it is also a standard round. Other bullets like the M995 "black tip" are more correctly called armour piercing.

I worry that Al-Jazeera is using "armour piercing" as a scare word. The same thing that makes it capable of piercing armour also makes it less likely to kill. The hardened tip means that it is less likely to deform in the target, causing less wounds. The Law of Armed Conflict prohibits bullets intended to increase the severity of a wound, so the M855 is compliant with international law. Another reason it is so popular for military use.

Al-Jazeera was the employer of the subject of this article. Using them as a source runs the risk of violating the spirit of using secondary sources. Reports made soon after the killing, by people with an emotional attachment to the subject, is not a good idea for building an encyclopedic article.FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On that basis, we ought to discount everything that the Israeli authorities say as well. Usually we content ourselves with attribution, the fact of her employment is known to readers, they can judge for themselves how critical that might be. Afaics, what AJ has said has for the most part been corroborated by independent third parties, even if AJ has a tendency to be a little too categoric in what it says but I think that applies equally to what the Israeli authorities say, varieties of "the Palestinians did it". Selfstudier (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article already is discrediting the claims made by Israeli authorities. Involved parties are less likely to be reliable, especially early in the news cycle.

The weight of media reports use words like "likely" to describe the probability of Shireen being shot by an Israeli soldier, that's reflected in the article. The Israeli authorities only need to be cited as a minority opinion, that there is no conclusive proof of who shot her, that the PA doesn't want to do a joint investigation, and that there is proof of M4-toting Palestinian militants in the area who at one time claimed to have shot a soldier.

Al-Jazeera as an involved party shouldn't be used in place of an uninvolved news source. Al-Jazeera is a major news source, but one that has been criticized in the past, especially as it relates to the I-P conflict. It'd also be smart to avoid it when discussing the Qatar government. It's not discredited entirely, but it makes sense to avoid contentious sources. AJ talking about the bullet as armour piercing and Israeli without further context is an example of that. They also described people who were with Shireen as "eyewitnesses" despite no one claiming to have seen the shooter.

You said "I think that applies equally to what the Israeli authorities say, varieties of "the Palestinians did it"." There were Israeli politicians who said that on social media, but I believe the Israeli military authorities are saying "a Palestinian might have done this." Again, that's a minority opinion but hasn't been ruled out.FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 10:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we should not lightly assume that the professionalism and editorial checks and balances of a WP:RSP source are affected, unless shown otherwise.

Iskandar323 (talk) 10:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

When given the choice between involved and uninvolved RS, we should choose the uninvolved though, no?FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 10:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AJ is not included as an investigative party in the lead of the article. Five independent reliable sources and their conclusions is what is mainly pointed up there. The article is not premised on what AJ says. Selfstudier (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the NYT has joined in the fashion and produced an "investigation" of their own, sigh. Another one to go through.Selfstudier (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As it relates to the bullet, it says "The experts’ calculations assume the projectile was a 5.66 by 45 millimeter bullet, the kind generally used by both sides." I'm assuming "5.66" is a typo, they mean 5.56.FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bullet/gun is not any longer that much of an issue, we have multiple independent reliable sources saying that in their view, the fire likely came from an IDF source. We have essentially one source, the IDF, still saying it could have been the Palestinians and that they need the bullet. Selfstudier (talk) 11:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, even the Israeli military is saying that it was likely from a soldier but they can't say conclusively. The NYT says "The Times found no evidence that the person who fired recognized Ms. Abu Akleh and targeted her personally. The Times was unable to determine whether the shooter saw that she and her colleagues were wearing protective vests emblazoned with the word Press." which I believe is in line with the other investigations. "Likely" shot by the IDF is the consensus, but the claims by some non-experts that it was "deliberate" is not backed up by evidence.FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the "found no evidence/unable to determine" stuff. How would you find such evidence/determine such a thing? Reads like boiler plate (lawyers?). The PA/AJ claims that it was deliberate are mentioned not highlighted. CNN went further than the others with "targeted". Selfstudier (talk) 11:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You asked "How would you find such evidence/determine such a thing?" but that works both ways. The claim by the Palestinian that militants had killed a soldier is still unresolved. Likely he saw a figure in body armour on the ground and assumed two things: That it was a soldier and that a militant shot them. "Eyewitnesses" are problematic.

CNN "suggests" that it was a "targeted" attack. That is based on the people present with Shireen, none of whom claim to have seen who shot her. Instead, they are quoted as saying no militants were near them. The main evidence in all the journalist investigations is the audio analysis putting the shooting approximately the distance between Shireen and the Israeli vehicle (direction unknown).

But the investigations can only be reported as what they are: investigations making conclusions based on incomplete evidence. The article can report on them, and obviously they paint a picture of a "probably."

But the minority view still needs to be represented as a possibility.FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned, it's right there in the lead along with the others.Selfstudier (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The suspected unit is totally wired, helmet cameras and live audio communications to register everything, aside from drone and satellite field coverage. This is never mentioned, but what happened inside the convoy would have been ascertained within a half an hour but the real battlefield then becomes 'managing' the 'news'.Nishidani (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"the real battlefield then becomes 'managing' the 'news'"

Calm down, soldier. Is there a source that each helmet had a camera? I just watched the footage Israel released and it appears to be a chest level "bodycam." The soldiers have night vision on their helmets, are you confusing that for a camera? Even if drones and satellites were covering the battle, I doubt they can detect bullets.FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bodycams. A snippet from one was selected for release of a dozen or so minus the voice overs. If the NYTs' experts can garner substantial information from audio analysis, so can Israel, in its defense. Nishidani (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your source that the soldiers are all wearing bodycams? I didn't see them in the snippet you mentioned. Nor boom mics, they seemed to just be yelling at each other.

Are you thinking of films where the generals are watching an operation from a control room, with each special forces guy having their own camera and audio and a heart rate monitor that flashes red when they get killed by the alien? Because I don't think that's real.FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know. "The IDF did not respond to a question about what, if anything, Israeli footage of the incident — from drones or body cameras — may show." (WAPO) We do know that some bodycam footage was released to assist with what I called explanation 2 above (the Intercept discussion).Selfstudier (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That unanswered question doesn't suggest drones were present, nor that every soldier had a body camera. It seems likely that a soldier firing out of a slit in the armoured vehicle hit Shireen, yet that wouldn't be seen on a body camera. There is no evidence of gun-mounted cameras.

The other editor seemed to be implying that Israel must have footage of Shireen being shot, and isn't releasing it to hide the evidence. But is there evidence of Israeli omnituens? Whether an Israeli shot her or not, it doesn't seem like there is any footage of it. Demanding Israel release footage it might not have is like saying "he won't confess, so he must be guilty."FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shootings of this kind are a regular feature of Israeli occupational practices, around which there is immense documentation, extending over decades. The highly technologised IDF units never bring forth their battlefield communications in incidents where these cases achieve some public scrutiny (Nothing of the kind was provided for example in the Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah, which could have clarified the Israeli realities). Unfortunately, for the IDF, in 2004 one journalist was leaked tapes recorded by soldiers during the incident in which Iman Darweesh Al Hams was murdered in cold blood. Despite the unambiguous evidence from the field, the captain was exonerated, promoted and received damages from the journalist who published those reserved army communications. That is the way Israeli military and civil justice works in this conflict. Even proof of culpability cannot pass the high bar for guilt when the IDF's actions are challenged. This is not a forum, Frank. It's just to remind you that Israel is known to have intensely detailed tapes and videos of every action engaged in, and access to them is off-limits for obvious reasons. That's all I, or I assume, most other editors, have to say by way of background. Let's drop it. Nishidani (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Israel is known to have intensely detailed tapes and videos of every action engaged in

You haven't demonstrated this. And there are numerous incidences where an Israeli recording would have benefited Israel but none were released. Also, you asserted that body cameras are common on Israeli soldiers but we don't see that on video, is there a source for that claim?. Before that, it was "helmet cameras and live audio communications" despite the video not showing such equipment on the soldiers.

That's in addition to your claim that drone and satellite footage must exist. Is there any evidence of that?

Let's drop it.

A funny thing to say after your third unsourced claim of Israeli omnituens.

The facts as they stand now is that an Israeli "likely" shot Shireen. There is no need to invent stories of satellites and missing "voice overs" (I suspect you are confusing film with reality) to make certainty where there is still doubt.FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UN: "All information we have gathered is consistent with the finding that the shots that killed Abu Akleh came from Israeli troops and not from indiscriminate firing by armed Palestinians." Haaretz. ... not sure "likely" is where we are at at this point. Short of a full, transparent Israeli investigation to the contrary, I think we can drop the adjectival qualifiers.

Iskandar323 (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

All of the journalist investigations use qualifiers. They are working with incomplete information.FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And yet 'likely' is not a word that features in the write up of the results of the UN investigation. Nor does any sense of uncertainty for that matter.

Iskandar323 (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

And we should report the UNCHR's office having made that assessment. Also the Palestinian Authority's conclusions as well as the IDF's.

The investigations by major news organizations carry more weight though.FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do they? Why? I would suggest the opposite. There are many media outlets, but only one UN. Its report is also the most recent update.

Iskandar323 (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

"Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

The UN organ for human rights has been routinely criticized by UN employees including the Secretary-General as well as major NGO's like Human Rights Watch and many members states.

When a UN organ reports on an international border, Wikipedia doesn't cite it as fact. The majority opinion of states gets the most weight, with a mention of minority opinions.

As for the report being recent, that'd only matter if there was new evidence. Since the report only has its conclusions and not the evidence it worked with, we don't know if that's the case.

The PA and IDF have also not "shown their work" and also have significant bias and a reputation for deception. Their reporting should be undervalued, despite having opposite conclusions.FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hugely irrelevant. The UN report has been republished by reliable, secondary sources, meaning that the report and its findings has been both produced and then checked and deemed passable by reliable sources. The UN is not being cited directly. 'Routinely criticized' is guff in the context (though I think human rights abusers are its key detractors. Shock horror!). All organizations, including all forms of media outlet have bias. It has no immediate bearing on reliability under the guidelines.

Iskandar323 (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

News organizations reporting the UNCHR's findings does not mean they checked or approve of the findings. How could they, when the UNCHR report does not "show its work" but rather just states its conclusion.

Saying "all organizations...have bias" does not mean the Wikipedia rule about choosing "neutral" RS goes out the window. There is a scale of neutrality, and uninvolved major news organizations are better than the PA/IDF or a heavily criticized NGO.

And it isn't just human rights violators who criticize the UN's human rights organ. Human Rights Watch is one of the most trusted NGO's in the world. Ban Ki-moon criticized it as Secretary-General. I'm not saying to ignore the UNCHR, but it shouldn't carry much weight in the article when better sources are available.FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're veering into forum territory here, let's keep the discussion to specific improvements in the article.Selfstudier (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are not a forum to ratchet up one's edit count and get over the 500 figure that allows one to edit.Nishidani (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dunutubble Id be fine expanding the NYT investigation bit in to its own subsection tbh, but what you did was a bit more than that. First, the NYT did not say that no Palestinian fighters were close enough to hit her, but rather the technical evidence says that the shots originated at a distance much closer than where the nearest Palestinian fighters with a clear line of sight were, but match where the Israelis were. Additionally, you removed the bit about there being no Palestinian fighters in the area Abu Akleh was, which refutes the Israeli claim that even if an IDF soldier had killed her it was because they were engaged with Palestinian fighters in the area. Why was that removed? nableezy - 16:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT investigation means that the article requires an overhaul, using its reconstruction timeline and data (crouched with the back of her head facing the Israeli position. The shot hit the back of her head). As articles progress all the breaking news must yield place to retrospective analyses like this, which we are now beginning to have, which render much of our material dated. Nishidani (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The New York times states that CNN, Associated Press, W.Post,Bellingcat all came to the same conclusion, that the likely source was Israeli fire. With the NYTs that means the lead should no longer list these separate results but read:

'Within a month and a half five major news outlets, in independent investigations, concluded that Israeli fire was the likely cause of her death.' Nishidani (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a DYK in the offing, maybe let that be done first and then get a brush.Selfstudier (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'd call Bellingcat a "major news outlet."FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 05:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NYT fixed their typo :) Selfstudier (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Jazeera released a handful of images, I dont know if I favor the one I placed in the infobox now or the one with her wearing the jacket marked press I placed below as being the main one. Figured the one in the infobox is more natural for overall biography, but if somebody wants to move the other there I wont object too strongly. nableezy - 17:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems good to me. Glad they finally responded.

Iskandar323 (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The US department of state that was given full access to the bullet and the IDF and PA investigations said that no clear conclusion could be made for who shot the bullet, and only stated that it was likely the IDF, therefore, it is not true to state definitively who shot the bullet, and most news publications have jumped to conclusions. I've linked the US department of states statement on the matter. https://www.state.gov/on-the-killing-of-shireen-abu-akleh/ Willtnic (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the case at all, "the US administration’s acknowledgement that it did not conduct its own probe. The PA did not claim that there was no clear conclusion, they were explicit about their conclusion, it was US State that said the conclusion was based on a "summation" of investigations by the Palestinian Authority and Israel so it would appear that the summation was more a summation of the Israeli position. All the other (proper) investigations concluded that it was Israel fire regardless of the bullet.

And "Van Hollen and other key Democrats wrote to Blinken last month to stress that the July 4 review "does not meet any plausible definition of the "independent" investigation that you and members of Congress have called for" and also said "There are a number of us that are not going to allow this to be swept under the rug, and we’re looking for answers,".

Even the US "acknowledged that the bullet that lethally struck Abu Akleh probably came from an Israeli army position". In these circumstances, giving undue weight to the US position makes no sense. Ditto the CNN conclusion, also an outlier, they went a step further and said it was targeted.

I'm impressed that you would create an account solely to put this question here. Selfstudier (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any part of the article that says it has been definitively been determined who shot it? But no, news agencies are not "jumping" to conclusions, they performed their own investigations and made their own conclusions. And we relay those. nableezy - 13:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, the highly probable responsibility of Israel is not an exceptional 'claim', since it actually deploys spotters and snipers regularly who kill Palestinians quite deliberately as an 'encouragement' policy not to demonstrate. This has very strong documentation, whereas instances of Palestinians shooting one of their own for some obscure publicity purpose are, if any, extremely rare.Nishidani (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise known as

Iskandar323 (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I haven't heard of Palestinians deliberately "shooting one of their own for some obscure publicity purpose" but there have been numerous cases of Palestinian authorities covering up the death of Palestinians from friendly fire and blaming it on Israel. This has happened from rockets landing short (something Hamas recently warned journalists not to report on), explosives exploding while being handled, and suspected collaborators being executed. There are also the documented cases of Palestinians having disputes with neighbors and blaming violence or property damage on Israel. The 2000 death of Muhammad Al-Durrah resulted from crossfire between opposing forces. Despite this, Palestinian media regularly ignored the presence of militants firing across Al-Durrah's position and the Gazan cameraman not releasing the full tapes.

Whether Al-Durrah was shot by Israeli or Palestinian forces, the fact remains the reporting on it by both sides focused blame on the other. This is why the shooting of Shireen Abu Akleh should focus on info not from involved parties. The investigations by major news stories mention the accounts of journalists who were near Abu Akleh at the time of her death, but don't rely on them. No witness said they saw who shot her, none had perfect knowledge of where Palestinian militants were located. There was initial reporting of a "sniper" on a rooftop.

Which relates to your assertion that Israel "deploys spotters and snipers regularly who kill Palestinians." Are you making more unsourced claims about the Israeli forces in the area? You still haven't explained why you are certain there were cameras, drones, audio records and satellite coverage from the incident. Now you are certain that every Israeli with a rifle is both a sniper and paired with a spotter?

I fear your speculative nature is not an asset for forming an encyclopedia.FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 08:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The same might be said about everything you just said, could it not? If Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah needs editing, by all means do that. Can we all just stop with the OR and stick with the sources, for stuff that needs to go in this article. Selfstudier (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to the editor who said Israelis should be assumed as brutal, while Palestinians should be assumed innocent. My position is that neither source is ideal for a controversial event in this most controversial of political topics. That's why I brought up Al-Durrah, who died under circumstances unknown, despite claims of certainty from those with a vested interest to lay blame.

So my position is that this article should emphasis uninvolved parties as sources, which is in line with Wikipedia's rules.

Consider this sentence in the lead: "Al Jazeera, an Agence France-Presse photojournalist, and the Palestinian Ministry of Health reported that the IDF killed her." These were all reports made soon after the event. Al Jazeera and the PMH's initial reports shouldn't be mentioned, since one is the employer of the victim and the other is a medical authority which did no investigation and is connected by politics. The AFP report is neutral, but again made by an initial report with little background info, so carries less weight than the later investigations.FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you neglected to mention it yourself, we should also then exclude everything that the IDF ("employer"), Israeli government officials ("employer") and the US ("connected by politics") said as well? It seems to me your position is one-sided. Nor does later necessarily mean better for if so we should pay more attention to CNN's allegation that it was a targeted killing, hmm? Likewise, earlier does not necessarily mean worse, do you have any evidence that the Agence France-Presse photojournalist was lying/mistaken? Selfstudier (talk) 13:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before "the shooting of Shireen Abu Akleh should focus on info not from involved parties." That means neither Israeli nor Palestinian government sources.

Later doesn't necessarily mean better, but same day or next day reporting is often flawed. There was a lot of information that hadn't come out yet. And for a group like the receiving hospital, it's unclear how their medical expertise would allow them to know who shot her. It was a bullet used by both parties.

The point is Wikipedia requires us to evaluate sources for their reliability on a case by case basis. Al Jazeera is a good source, but not for things related to the Qatari government or its own employees.FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Until your comment the word brutal does not appear in this section. Neither does innocent. As far as your complaint, these are reports by both AJ and the PMH were widely reported, and have since been widely verified by independent investigations. But that isnt saying we are giving a conclusion, it is part of a timeline of the event. We are saying that AJ and the PMOH made these statements, and they did. We are not concluding who the bullet definitively came from. nableezy - 13:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't been verified. Further investigations mostly returned a likely but not definite verdict that it was an Israeli soldier who shot her. So AJ and PMH saying that with certainty, when we know all the facts hadn't come out yet, makes it a weak source. I don't see the need for a timeline that includes contradictory information. Maybe save that for a Reactions section but it doesn't belong in the lead.

Saying "these three groups said Israel did it" at the start of the paragraph gives undue weight to the minority opinion of certainty.FrankForAllAndBirds (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone provide a link to the English text of the IDF's report on this incident, released on 5 September? If such a link exists, it should be added to this article. Constant Pedant (talk) 03:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was added here and removed here. It's a primary source/IDF claim so strictly not needed, we can rely on secondary sources for an interpretation. Selfstudier (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this case that is absolutely not true. But thanks for the link. Constant Pedant (talk) 11:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And why is that absolutely not true? We rely on secondary sources, not self-serving primary statements from involved parties. nableezy - 14:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The statements of involved parties, self-serving or not, are an essential part of the story. An encyclopaedia should give its readers links to primary sources. That is particularly true in relation to stories involving Israel, where 90% of secondary sources (ie, commentary on the events) are hostile to Israel. Constant Pedant (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I'm not sure if this counts as police brutality in the 2020s(I want to delete the category police brutality in the 2020s from the bottom of the page) Zifrs69 (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: That category likely refers to the police repression of funeral proceedings for Abu Akleh, which has been described by reliable sources as police brutality. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 03:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph in the lead is an eyesore, overly detailed to the point obscuring important points about her death.

On May 11, 2022, while wearing a blue vest with "PRESS" written on it, she was shot and killed while covering a raid by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) on the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank.[3][6] Al Jazeera, an Agence France-Presse photojournalist, and the Palestinian Ministry of Health reported that the IDF killed her. Initially, Israel suggested a Palestinian might have killed her, but on May 13 the IDF said that a probe found that it was possible she had been killed either by IDF fire,[7] or by Palestinian fire.[8][9] Separate investigations conducted successively by the Associated Press, Bellingcat, CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post all independently concluded that fire from an IDF unit was the most likely cause of Akleh's death,[10] CNN suggesting the death was the result of an IDF targeted killing.[11] On June 24, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) said it had concluded Abu Akleh was killed by a bullet fired by the IDF. The Palestinian Authority (PA) investigation had reached the same conclusion, claiming she was shot deliberately while trying to flee.[12] The US State Department subsequently announced on July 4 that tests by independent ballistics experts under U.S. oversight were unable to determine the gun it was fired from but that US officials have concluded based on a review of previous investigations that gunfire from Israeli positions most likely killed Abu Akleh and that there was "no reason to believe" her shooting was intentional. Axios subsequently reported that on 6 July Secretary of State Antony Blinken told new Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid that the Biden administration requests that Israel holds someone accountable for the killing.[13] On 5 September, the IDF admitted a "high possibility" that the journalist was "accidentally hit" by army fire, but that it would not begin a criminal investigation.

Should be shortened to something along the lines of:

While covering a raid by the Israeli Army on the Jenin Refugee camp in the occupied West Bank on 11 May 2022, Shireen Abu Akleh, who was wearing a blue vest that marked her as a member of the press, was shot and killed. Bullets continued to be fired in her direction as bystanders attempted to rescue her motionless body. Despite initial reports by her colleagues (including an AFP photojournalist) accusing Israeli soldiers for her death, Israel denied responsibility, and blamed Palestinian militants in the area for her killing. Later, Israel stated that it was possible she had been either killed by Israeli or Palestinian fire. Separate investigations conducted by international news outlets, including the Associated Press, the New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN, concluded that her death was the result of a targeted Israeli killing. Subsequent investigations by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the Palestinian Authority (PA), and the US State Department reached similar conclusions, with the US claiming there was "no reason to believe" her shooting was intentional. On 6 July, the US administration through Secretary of State Antony Blinken requested Israel to hold someone accountable for the killing. However, on 5 September, Israel refused to begin a criminal investigation, after it had reversed course and admitted "high possibility" that the journalist was "accidentally hit" by its army's fire.

Makeandtoss (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: has done this once already, he's a whiz at it, do it again? Selfstudier (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The length of this paragraph was indeed getting ridiculous. I edited and slightly trimmed down your suggested version (for instance, the bit about the phone call from Antony Blinken probably doesn't need to be in the lead), and added it to the article. Feel free to edit it further. Endwise (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article fails to mention that the IDF had raided Jenin in response to an axe weilding terrorist attack several days earlier, which took 3 innocent lives and left 15 orphans. This lack of context promotes sympathy for only one side of the conflict. Oyveyvey (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article states that the raid was on a refugee camp, but neglects to mention that it was on a raid on terrorists. Additionally, instead of allowing themselves to be arrested, they FIRED at the IDF personel. Oyveyvey (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shocking development, people in occupied territory dont willingly submit themselves to the whims of the occupying army. As far as the context, I'm not really finding much coverage on the purported purpose of the raid. Bring some sources and we can look. I see some coverage of a raid on May 8 outside of Jenin in response to an attack in Elad, but not seeing much for the cause of May 11th. nableezy - 21:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why any of that is relevant context for why a military operation needs to target journalists, which is incontrovertibly inexcusable regardless.

Iskandar323 (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I posted a link to a source, not sure why it's not posting. Oyveyvey (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@nableezy the other side of this story is that the military was targeting terrorists, and the journalist was unfortunately caught in the crossfire as were thousands of journalists in conflict zones across the world. If you have reason to believe that the IDF was targeting her, please explain what led you to believe that. Oyveyvey (talk) 09:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why the context is so important, is that without a full picture the reader has no why to know that Israel was acting out of duress, not just for fun. Oyveyvey (talk) 09:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a biography about a person. Any peripheral details/context about surrounding events not directly related to the person are simply off-topic.

Iskandar323 (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The Elad killings were were on 5 May and the suspects were apprehended on 8 May, three days before Shireen was killed. Your unsourced rationale for the Israeli raid is obviously incorrect. Also Jenin is in Area A so Israeli forces are not supposed to be operating there anyway. Anything else? Selfstudier (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She was buried in the Greek Orthodox Cemetery on Mount Zion, not in Mount Zion Cemetery (the Protestant cemetery) like the article says. The two cemeteries are nearby each other but are different. See for example: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/18/shireen-abu-akleh-palestinian-unity-in-life-and-in-death - SJy2iI83VJ (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change: "the Mount Zion Cemetery". To: "the Greek Orthodox Cemetery on Mount Zion". The two cemeteries are different. Sources:

• https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/18/shireen-abu-akleh-palestinian-unity-in-life-and-in-death
• https://www.npr.org/2022/05/13/1098859296/israel-police-funeral-palestinian-journalist-shireen-abu-akleh
• https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/for-shireen-abu-akleh/
• https://greekcitytimes.com/2022/05/12/greece-palestinian-west-bank/

SJy2iI83VJ (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. nableezy - 03:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited for her date of birth says April 13 and is different than the article now, which says April 3. Looked into it and there seems to be a variety of dates among different sources out there, even differing among more reputable sources:

• January:

• https://www.egypttoday.com/Article/4/115738/Shireen-Abu-Akleh-Who-is-Al-Jazeera-correspondent-killed-in

• January 3:

• https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0017crk
• https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/shireen-abu-akleh-obituary-trailblazing-palestinian-journalist-1.4881940
• https://www.imdb.com/name/nm13656978/
• https://cpj.org/data/people/shireen-abu-akleh/
• https://middleeast-business.com/breaking-news-al-jazeera-journalist-shireen-abu-aqleh-killed-by-israeli-forces/
• https://voi.id/en/bernas/167444/shireen-abu-aklehs-shooting-case-its-clearly-a-journalists-murder-not-an-accident
• https://gaza-palestine.com/2022/05/shireen-abu-akleh/
• https://mzemo.com/2022/05/who-is-shireen-abu-akleh/
• https://timeskuwait.com/news/yet-another-pen-falls-remembering-palestinian-journalist-shireen-abu-akleh/
• https://latestinbollywood.com/shireen-abu-akleh-wiki/
• https://primalinformation.com/shireen-abu-akleh-wiki/

• April 3:

• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2022/06/09/shireen-abu-akleh-trailblazing-female-war-correspondent-known/
• https://www.ibna.ir/en/tolidi/326774/noted-palestinian-reporter-shireen-abu-akleh-s-martyrdom-portrayed-in-a-book
• https://latestnews.fresherslive.com/articles/who-was-shireen-abu-akleh-is-shireen-abu-akleh-dead-471820

• April 13:

• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/20/shireen-abu-aqleh-obituary

• May 3:

• https://muslimmatters.org/2022/05/13/speaking-truth-to-oppression/
• https://www.rightrasta.com/shireen-abu-akleh-wiki/

Maybe the article should just say 1971 until there is more conclusive information. - SJy2iI83VJ (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't an AJ source with the date, at least I couldn't see one just looking. Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, AJ appears to just say 1971 in its coverage:

• https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/11/al-jazeeras-shireen-abu-akleh
• https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/23/abu-aklehs-colleagues-find-strength-in-her-legacy
• https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2022/8/18/photos-murals-mark-100-days-since-shireen-abu-aklehs-killing

SJy2iI83VJ (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Arabic Wikipedia cites this tweet containing a photo of the grave for the April 3 date: https://mobile.twitter.com/jafra_ps/status/1528729955495985153 -- SJy2iI83VJ (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was queried once before (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shireen_Abu_Akleh/Archive_3#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_23_May_2022) and then changed to 3 April somewhat arbitrarily. Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter is not RS, idk whether we can go with that as evidence. Even if someone uploaded the pic to commons, not sure we could use that either. It is odd that AJ don't give a dob, perhaps someone could ask them? Selfstudier (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the article could cite the obituary in The Telegraph since that's RS and it agrees with the date on the grave. The only reason for choosing that source over others as the one to cite though is because it agrees with the date on the grave. Could also remove The Guardian source then since it's apparently incorrect. -- SJy2iI83VJ (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems we can say with certainty that 1971 is correct, not sure we can say anything beyond that at this point. Citing the telegraph because it agrees with the pic doesn't really work unless we can use the pic, I left the other in because I don't like removing sources, I'll let someone else do that. Or we could perhaps put a note in the article to the effect that her dob is given differently by different RS and cite several RS as evidence for the note. Selfstudier (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "April 3, 1971" to "1971" throughout the article. See talk section above on birth date. Maybe remove The Guardian as a source for the date in the early life section given the disagreement between sources. Cite the obituary from Al Jazeera, her employer, that just gives the birth year of 1971: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/11/al-jazeeras-shireen-abu-akleh -- SJy2iI83VJ (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC) SJy2iI83VJ (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)  Done Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

her niece posted to instagram a happy bday on 4/3. I feel like thats reliable enough but leave it to others to decide. nableezy - 06:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wafa gives it as 4/3 as well. Selfstudier (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support updating the birthdate to 1971-04-03 but not citing Instagram. The WAFA source and The Telegraph could be used. --- SJy2iI83VJ (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It isnt citing instagram, its citing her niece's self-published post on instagram. But sure, Wafa works for me. Adding now. nableezy - 00:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article is locked, I ask someone update the lead, make it more concise, and simply say that Israel has ultimately apologized for killing Shireen Abu Akleh. The source is CNN.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/11/middleeast/idf-apology-shireen-abu-akleh-intl/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.99.105 (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look at this but at first glance, Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari - "I think it’s an opportunity for me to say here that we are very sorry of the death of Shireen Abu Akleh" is not actually an apology for killing her. It is also not any kind of conclusion since many are still calling for a full investigation and accountability. Selfstudier (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That the remark comes from an IDF spokesman qualifies it for inclusion, but only if contextualized as a reaction to the CPJ publication, since the spokesman is replying to that. It falls far short of an apology, since one cannot absolve the shooter behind closed doors, and then, when one's hand is forced, say 'Sorry' to the press highlighting Israel's record for killings journalists and then covering those responsible. The minimum to qualify for an 'apology' would be a formal letter to her family. That would have legal repercussions since a written apology admitting responsibility, which the spokesman's words do not do, would translate into satisfying a compensation claim. The words are carefully chosen indeed not to put on the public record any Israeli responsibility. Expressing sorrow for her death could equally mean 'we failed to protect her' (and imply the possibility that the other party, Palestinians, might have been responsible. 'I'm sorry to hear someone has died' in no way indicates any responsibility by the speaker afor the deceased's fate. Notably, the fellow remains confused. 'We want journalists to feel safe in Israel, especially in war time, even if they criticize us.” The assassination did not take place in Israel. Nishidani (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ergo, 'on the publication of the CPJ report, an IDF spokesman expressed sorrow for her death' is all we can write here.Nishidani (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

i want to update with additional citations, thanks QalasQalas (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a

"change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

...which, unsurprisingly, also found that an Israeli soldier killed Abu Akleh. See [1], [2]. Needs adding. — ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does, I will do it when I get a minute, if no-one else does it first. Selfstudier (talk) 10:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ops, I tell a lie, it is in there after all, Subsequent investigations, "On 24 June..." Selfstudier (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could we please add the category Violence against journalists and Safety of Journalists + Women in Journalism in the see also section? E.poul (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar323 (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Perfect, this is what I meant, sorry for the poor wording. thank you @

Iskandar323. Could you do it? E.poul (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Iskandar323 (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks!! ~~~ E.poul (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onetwothreeip: Please restore the content to the opening paragraph, which is used to establish notability, and her being a prominent journalist is certainly one of these notabilities, according to Wikipedia's manual of style. Your repeated reverts without attempting to discuss this on the talk page is bordering edit warring. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead currently states that Abu Akleh was a journalist. Are you suggesting that the lead should say she was a "prominent journalist"? Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onetwothreeip: I am not suggesting anything. I am directly stating that the information which you moved, be restored to the lede; the whole sentence that mentions she had been a prominent journalist, a journalist for 25 years, and a role model for women in the region. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To say she was prominent is redundant, so we don't identify biographical subjects as redundant in the lead paragraph. Her being a journalist for a certain amount of years and a role model for women are not her primary notability, so don't belong there either. Maybe in the lead section, but certainly not the lead paragraph. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onetwothreeip: No it is not redundant. Her prominency, 25-year career and being a role model were mentioned visibly in most reporting by RS about her. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with whether something is redundant or not. If she wasn't prominent, there wouldn't be an article. She would be notable whether she was a journalist for 20 years, 25 years or 30 years. These are details for the body, not the lead paragraph. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Obviously pertinent info. Selfstudier (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the first and second paragraphs of the "Refferal of case to International Criminal Court" subsection, the dates referring to the submission of an investigation to the ICC list May 23rd, 2018, and May 26th, 2018, respectively, as relevant dates, despite Abu Akleh's death being in 2022.

Also noticed reference 160 (in reference to the first paragraph) notes the article is from 2018, despite it very clearly being from 2022 and even having been archived that year. 64.188.159.15 (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]