This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Shireen Abu Akleh article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
Frequently asked questions To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question. Shireen Abu Akleh Q1: Why does this page say what happened at her
funeral was an attack?
A1: At the moment
reliable sources widely refer to the incident as an attack and so it should be described as such. This does not mean Wikipedia shouldn't give context to what happened. |
A news item involving Shireen Abu Akleh was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 11 May 2022. |
A fact from Shireen Abu Akleh appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 3 August 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies 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:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
The result was: promoted by
Evrik (
talk)
17:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Created by Ezlev ( talk). Nominated by Thriley ( talk) at 19:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC).
ALT6 "Separate investigations by
Associated Press,
CNN,
Washington Post,
The New York Times,
Bellingcat the United Nations and the US government all independently concluded that fire from Israeli forces was the likely cause of Akleh’s death."
Selfstudier (
talk)
18:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
New review needed for hook. Thriley ( talk) 15:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy compliance:
Hook eligibility:
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
I added a citation needed tag in the "Reactions" section that needs to be resolved.
For the hook: This is a hotly contested part of the world, with many strong opinions. I don't think it's appropriate on the main page to state that the IDF killed Akleh, even though multiple investigations have claimed it. Furthermore, only one source in the article verifies that Akleh was wearing the blue press vest, but the hook makes it seem like multiple investigations claim this, so I don't think this is great to put together. I suggest another hook that focuses on a different aspect of this article.
As a side comment, I highly suggest that the article receive a copyedit, keeping in mind
WP:SUMMARY and
WP:NOTNEWS. There is a lot of information in the later half of the article that can be more effectively summarised or split into subheadings, especially the "Reactions" and "Investigations" sections.
Z1720 (
talk)
02:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
So where are we at with this? Z1720 you said you would solicit feedback, that feedback was given by Dominic. Is there some outstanding issue here? nableezy - 19:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment I like ALT7 its most neutral description of events.-- Shrike ( talk) 12:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Asking for a new reviewer to try to get this moving. I've already approved the article, so reviewers only need to evaluate the proposed hooks that are not stricken above (ALT5a, ALT7, ALT8). Z1720 ( talk) 14:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
For ease (slight c/e on alt5a):
I think ALT7 is a non-starter, she was not simply passively shot, and ALT7 and ALT8 are much less interesting and avoid the main topic of the article entirely. nableezy - 14:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict.) mentioned in the "Subsequent investigations" subsection.
@ Sammi Brie: Al-Jazeera released some images of Abu Akleh that would be much better to use than this one but would need to slightly modify the hook from saying (protest of her death pictured) to just (pictured). Could we do that and change the image to be used to this one? nableezy - 16:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
"...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
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"the real battlefield then becomes 'managing' the 'news'"
Israel is known to have intensely detailed tapes and videos of every action engaged in
Let's drop it.
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I posted a link to a source, not sure why it's not posting. Oyveyvey ( talk) 08:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
@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)
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)
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)
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:
SJy2iI83VJ ( talk) 02:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
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:
Maybe the article should just say 1971 until there is more conclusive information. - SJy2iI83VJ ( talk) 16:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Murder of Shireen Abu Akleh which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 14:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
...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)
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)
@ 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)
Restored. Obviously pertinent info. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Shireen Abu Akleh article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
Frequently asked questions To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question. Shireen Abu Akleh Q1: Why does this page say what happened at her
funeral was an attack?
A1: At the moment
reliable sources widely refer to the incident as an attack and so it should be described as such. This does not mean Wikipedia shouldn't give context to what happened. |
A news item involving Shireen Abu Akleh was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 11 May 2022. |
A fact from Shireen Abu Akleh appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 3 August 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies 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:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
The result was: promoted by
Evrik (
talk)
17:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Created by Ezlev ( talk). Nominated by Thriley ( talk) at 19:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC).
ALT6 "Separate investigations by
Associated Press,
CNN,
Washington Post,
The New York Times,
Bellingcat the United Nations and the US government all independently concluded that fire from Israeli forces was the likely cause of Akleh’s death."
Selfstudier (
talk)
18:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
New review needed for hook. Thriley ( talk) 15:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy compliance:
Hook eligibility:
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
I added a citation needed tag in the "Reactions" section that needs to be resolved.
For the hook: This is a hotly contested part of the world, with many strong opinions. I don't think it's appropriate on the main page to state that the IDF killed Akleh, even though multiple investigations have claimed it. Furthermore, only one source in the article verifies that Akleh was wearing the blue press vest, but the hook makes it seem like multiple investigations claim this, so I don't think this is great to put together. I suggest another hook that focuses on a different aspect of this article.
As a side comment, I highly suggest that the article receive a copyedit, keeping in mind
WP:SUMMARY and
WP:NOTNEWS. There is a lot of information in the later half of the article that can be more effectively summarised or split into subheadings, especially the "Reactions" and "Investigations" sections.
Z1720 (
talk)
02:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
So where are we at with this? Z1720 you said you would solicit feedback, that feedback was given by Dominic. Is there some outstanding issue here? nableezy - 19:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment I like ALT7 its most neutral description of events.-- Shrike ( talk) 12:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Asking for a new reviewer to try to get this moving. I've already approved the article, so reviewers only need to evaluate the proposed hooks that are not stricken above (ALT5a, ALT7, ALT8). Z1720 ( talk) 14:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
For ease (slight c/e on alt5a):
I think ALT7 is a non-starter, she was not simply passively shot, and ALT7 and ALT8 are much less interesting and avoid the main topic of the article entirely. nableezy - 14:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict.) mentioned in the "Subsequent investigations" subsection.
@ Sammi Brie: Al-Jazeera released some images of Abu Akleh that would be much better to use than this one but would need to slightly modify the hook from saying (protest of her death pictured) to just (pictured). Could we do that and change the image to be used to this one? nableezy - 16:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
"...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
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"the real battlefield then becomes 'managing' the 'news'"
Israel is known to have intensely detailed tapes and videos of every action engaged in
Let's drop it.
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I posted a link to a source, not sure why it's not posting. Oyveyvey ( talk) 08:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
@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)
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)
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)
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:
SJy2iI83VJ ( talk) 02:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
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:
Maybe the article should just say 1971 until there is more conclusive information. - SJy2iI83VJ ( talk) 16:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Murder of Shireen Abu Akleh which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 14:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
...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)
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)
@ 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)
Restored. Obviously pertinent info. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
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)