Talk:Assassination of Anas Al-Sharif

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Requested move 11 August 2025

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. clear consensus to not move this to the "Murder" title - no consensus on "Killing" title, if someone wants to try again with that (closed by non-admin page mover) Ivey (talk - contribs) 15:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination of Anas Al-Sharif → Murder of Anas Al-Sharif – I used Assassination because Israeli admitted planned to Kill Anas Al-Sharif so there is difference between assassination and murder.

WP:CON let's see the result

A. Assassination of Anas Al-Sharif B. Murder of Anas Al-Sharif QalasQalas (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Killing of Anas Al-Sharif. I recommend this title for neutrality and alignment with WP:NPOV. While "assassination" is used in some sources, many reliable English-language media simply report "killed" or "killing" (e.g., BBC, AP, ABC, PBS) rather than labeling this a legal or political assassination. Using "Killing of…" follows precedent in titles such as Killing of Osama bin Laden, Killing of Qasem Soleimani, and Killing of Jamal Khashoggi where WP policy favors neutral, descriptive language over legally loaded terms like "murder" or politically loaded terms like "assassination." This keeps the title factual and consistent with other articles covering state or armed-group actions where the victim’s civilian status is disputed or the context is conflict. --A lizard (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that some pages (e.g., Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, Assassination of Qasem Soleimani) have been moved to "Assassination," but those subjects were widely recognized as high-profile figures whose killings were consistently described as assassinations in reliable sources.
    In the case of Anas Al-Sharif, sources conflict regarding his role and affiliations. Using Killing of Anas Al-Sharif:
    • reflects the uncertainty in sources without implying unlawful intent,
    • maintains neutrality per WP:NPOV,
    • aligns with WP:MURDEROF, which reserves "Murder of ..." for cases with a conviction.
    I recommend keeping a neutral, descriptive title rather than using "Assassination," which carries implicit judgment not supported by consensus. A lizard (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Using "Killing of…" follows precedent in titles such as Killing of Osama bin Laden, Killing of Qasem Soleimani, and Killing of Jamal Khashoggi" B-but two of them are actually redirects to articles whose names begin with Assassination of! RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Specifically the latter two articles. Scanning the talk pages for all three, the main reason why bin Laden's death was not considered an assassination is the overwhelming Western opinion that killing him was justified, whereas both Western and Mid-eastern opinion overwhelmingly considered Khashoggi's death the murder of a prominent person. Soleimani's case is less clear cut. I think it comes down to the fact that he was a prominent military and political leader of a recognized sovereign state, a perceived legitimacy bin Laden lacked, even though both men committed or supported acts of terrorism. Assassination is the most descriptive term to use in the titles of all three, as well as this one: the key features are the prominence of the targets and the motives for killing them, both of with are without question in all four cases. Whether the killings were justifiable or otherwise legitimate is beside the point. "Killing of" obfuscates the full nature of the event, and if you think about bin Laden's case in particular, anything but NPOV. Xan747 (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I advocate for Assasination because it was a targeted, premeditated killing made by a state or skilled group of people. The Oxford English Dictionary describes Assasination as "The murder of a person (esp. a prominent public figure) in a planned attack, typically with a political or ideological motive, sometimes carried out by a hired or professional killer; a murderous attack of this kind", which most definitely applies to this. To add on more, whatever word is chosen needs to reflect the fact that this was a premeditated murder. Words such as "death of" would not be accurate. (Arachnid's userpage | what did I do now) 16:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. In the description of assassination there is "prompted by political, ideological reasons" so in this case this is better than murder. Lova Falk (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article should probably be merged with Anas Al-Sharif as neither article is large enough to need its own page. That being said, I think assassination is the most appropriate term to use as either this article's title or a heading on his page. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Death, WikiProject Palestine, WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, WikiProject Journalism, and WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - this is largely redundant with the main article, so I generally would prefer to merge it. "Killing" is probably the most appropriate as the term used by most English-language sources, although personally I think it's pretty obvious that this was an assassination. StereoFolic (talk) 05:16, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it as “assassination”. At first I would argue such wording is inappropriate but it is in the case of anas and several journalists a very appropriate term as they were not killed in crossfire but instead deliberately targeted and silenced by the IDF
furthermore, the Gaza-based journalists themselves specifically use the word “assassination” (اغتيال) to refer to the killing of their colleagues and also when they ended up predicting their own deaths
https://x.com/anasalsharif0/status/1819412855826887119?s=46
Anas al sharif: “the assassination of my colleague Ismail al ghoul”https://x.com/hossamshabat/status/1849162170661052417?s=46
Hossam shabat: “This blatant and belligerent attempt to transform us, the last witnesses in the north, into killable targets is an assassination threat and obvious attempt to preemptively justify our murder.” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose to "Murder of ... ". There is a strong claim that he was a member of Hamas, and killing an enemy soldier during war is not considered a murder. Even if this claim (about him being a member of Hamas) is disputed by some, it would be a violation of NPOV to call it a "murder". I don't have a preference between "killing of" and "assassination of".
EntropyReducingGuy(We can talk, but I reply with intended delay)💧♾️➡❄️📚 11:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EntropyReducingGuy, mind citing those "strong sources"? I suppose you have considered only the reliable ones, huh? RodRabelo7 (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are many RS that mention this claim. Here are just a few: 1 2 3 4 5 EntropyReducingGuy(We can talk, but I reply with intended delay)💧♾️➡❄️📚 14:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From source number 1 (BBC):
'but it has produced little evidence to support these claims.'
'Reporters Without Borders (RSF), a media freedom group, said the allegations against him were "baseless" and called on the international community to intervene.'
Whilst it does mention this claim it is important to note that the BBC was more or less impartial in this article, with it's international editor going as far to say that the proof is "not convincing". Additionally, by the IDF's own documents used as proof, it showed him as unable to serve. Furthermore, the only sources that support this claim are an Israeli (biased) news paper and the National Post, "a mouthpiece for the Israeli military" (Arachnid's userpage | what did I do now) 16:04, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • From source 1 (BBC): "The BBC understands Sharif worked for a Hamas media team in Gaza before the current conflict". They say that sentence in their own impartial voice.
  • According to WP:RSP the National Post is a highly reliable source without any reservations. The fact that some obscure journalist in some obscure site calls it by derogatory names doesn't change that. Times of Israel may be biased but it is also considered a reliable source. Sources can be biased and reliable at the same time. See WP:BIASED.
  • There were two other sources which you ignored. I can bring more to bear if you want.
  • RSF may think that the accusations are baseless, but they didn't refute the Israeli evidence.
  • The IDF documents don't show him unable to serve. They just mention that he was injured in his leg in training on 2017 and was treated for it. But many injured soldiers return to the battle field after they heal (fully or partially). And as we can all see he didn't have any problem walking and talking in the last two years.
EntropyReducingGuy(We can talk, but I reply with intended delay)💧♾️➡❄️📚 19:59, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - to those who argue that the title Assassination of... is irregular by citing the essay WP:MURDER, Wikipedia has a great many instances of article titles using the word "assassination" even when this isn't the WP:COMMONNAME of the killing. For instance in recent memory:
    • Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya in 2006; only one of the 71 sources cited in the article include "assassination" in the title. The rest of the titles use verbs like "kill, die, poison," etc.
    • Assassination of Boris Nemtsov in 2015. Only five of the 89 sources cited use the verb "assassinate" in the title. The remaining article titles use the verbs "shoot, murder, kill, die", etc.
    • Assassination of Vladlen Tatarsky in 2023. Only three of the 53 sources cited use the verb "assassinate" in the title. The remaining 50 articles use verbs like "killed."
All of those killings were indeed assassinations, and we accurately describe them as such in our titles. Unlike in those cases where responsibility for the assassinations has been litigated and/or shrouded in controversy, in the case of the Assassination of Anas Al-Sharif the Israeli government is openly acknowledging their premeditated killing and and celebrating his death.
The opposition to "Assassination" in the title is not based on actual practice in our encyclopedia nor is it based on policy; merely an essay. As demonstrated above we use the title "Assassination of..." all the time and in this case the perpetrator is actively acknowledging their guilt. -Darouet (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Building on your point, this would be a correct usage according to WP:MURDEROF, especially because assassination is not even mentioned in WP:MURDER (Arachnid's userpage | what did I do now) 16:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not proof that assassination isn't the COMMONNAME because news headlines don't count per WP:RSHEADLINE (only reliable sources count and the headlines themselves are not reliable sources). —Alalch E. 02:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Let it stay as it is, i.e, Assassination of Anas Al-Sharif . Reason: Merriam-Webster, among other dictionaries, defines assassination as 'murder by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons.' Quite evidently, al-Sharif was murdered suddenly for political reasons. Also, if it ain't broken, don't fix it. There's literally no improvement to be gained by making this move except to obscure the manner of al-Sharif's killing, which highly suggests significant NPOV-violating motives behind this proposal. Leave that title as it is. Abu Wan (talk) 04:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this event is an assassination and this rm is without a real rationale 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 20:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose changing. Murder is an intentional unlawful killing, and nobody has even been charged with same, let alone convicted of it. Assassination is the most accurate term to use given Al-Sharif's prominence as an activist and reporter prior to his death, and is used widely enough in multiple RS to support its use here. It is also perfectly neutral—it only carries the sense that his killing was targeted for a political or military purpose, not whether those motives are justifiable. Some have proposed using killing instead of assassination in the title. While possibly being seen as a more "neutral" term it loses both senses of his prominence, and Israel's motives for targeting him—which they have readily acknowledged and attempted to justify. Xan747 (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close per WP:SNOW? Metallurgist (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Metallurgist It has been 7 days because we do not close the process prematurely, so we should wait 2 days. QalasQalas (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's not unanimous enough. I think it definitely looks like the move will not be accepted, but you never know, things might change. (Arachnid's userpage | what did I do now) 20:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a clear consensus against the original proposal to switch to murder of. But the counter-proposal to switch to killing of is far too close to be SNOW. Xan747 (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion was originally closed as "No consensus" on August 17 by User:QalasQalas. This is not acceptable, as User:QalasQalas is the OP (!) and involved in the discussion. I've reverted the close and invite an uninvolved editor to perform the close instead. 162 etc. (talk) 06:18, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @162 etc.: it was a good close; there was a clear consensus against moving to "Murder of", and @QalasQalas did the right thing to essentially withdraw the proposal. There did appear to be some support for an alternative, "Killing of", which you !voted for. If you still feel strongly that is the better option you should simply open a move request for that proposal rather than reopen this one. Xan747 (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The OP cannot be the closer, full stop. See WP:RMCI#Conflicts of interest.
    I'll also note that the closing statement was "No consensus", not "Withdrawn", which has completely different repercussions. See WP:THREEOUTCOMES. 162 etc. (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SNOW is an exception to the uninvolved clause. I count zero support for moving to Murder of. Everyone who didn't !vote Oppose suggested "Killing of" as an alternate. Reopening this one just muddies the waters again. Better to just open a new move request and be done with this one. Xan747 (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SNOW may be used (by an uninvolved editor!) when the outcome of a discussion is unanimous and obvious - that is certainly not the case here.
    I've requested a close at WP:CR. 162 etc. (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't want to wikilawyer this to death, but the snow clause doesn't say an involved editor cannot do a snow closure. The snow clause is all about not further tying up editor resources by asking for a formal close when the outcome is obvious. And it is obvious here. I cannot find one single editor in this conversation other than the OP who thought the article should be moved to "Murder of." The only alternative given was "Killing of". The practical thing to do is simply re close this discussion and open a new move discussion to that effect. Xan747 (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The self-close was self-serving and highly involved because the closer naively started a move from "assassination" to "murder" believing it's gonna be one or the other, but no, it would have most probably been a third option which they had not foreseen and which appears not to align with their preferred options and ostensible POV: Someone who proposes moving an "assassination" title to a "murder" title, when "murder" is clearly not a sane policy option [not the CommonName, no conviction] clearly has a personal belief that the event was a murder, and this person would have had a dislike for "killing". The practical outcome they attempted to bring through was keeping the status quo: the title would have at least been the one they are half-happy with, as it's the title they had chosen when creating the article, and assasination is cognate with murder whereas killing is a lot different and only denotes homicide. Super inappropriate. —Alalch E. 21:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. After reconsidering, the SNOW close was probably not good because substantial support for a third option emerged. (This was actually my original position expressed when SNOW was first invoked.) Xan747 (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Killing of Anas Al-Sharif is what I support, per WP:MURDER and per WP:ASSASSINATION (which was written/conceptualized by myself, and which argues [tries to ... maybe I should rewrite it] the idea that this article should not be named using "assassination"—contrarily to how it was cited by some in this discussion). For "Murder of", "murder" either needs to form the CommonName or, in the absence of the CommonName, there has to be a murder conviction. For "Assassination of", conviction for a crime specifically named "assassination" isn't normally an option, and since using this politically charged contentious label that also imparts culpability for murder (and would therefore also require a murder-grade conviction) to come up with a descriptive title is pretty silly editorially, the only realistic possibility of using "assassination" is if "assassination" forms the CommonName. Here, the CommonName is not "Murder of ..." and is not "Assassination of ...", and there is no conviction, so the title can be neither "Murder of Anas Al-Sharif" nor "Assassination of Anas Al-Sharif". But it can be "Killing of Anas Al-Sharif".
    I request an uninvolved close.—Alalch E. 20:53, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi everyone,
The given outcome summary and procedure of the above move discussion astonished me greatly. I might be mistaken, but if I read the entire discussion correctly, it seems to me that the majority of the users present here were in favor of the move to the (initially not proposed, but almost immediately suggested) option "Killing of Anas Al-Sharif." Excluding users who voiced that they were not opposed to this option, I'm still counting a majority of 11 users (A_lizard (talk · contribs), AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs), IOHANNVSVERVS (talk · contribs), 162_etc. (talk · contribs), BarrelProof (talk · contribs), Martin_Mair (talk · contribs), StereoFolic (talk · contribs), Cameron_Dewe (talk · contribs), Vlaemink (talk · contribs), Alaexis (talk · contribs) &Alalch E. (talk · contribs)) explicitly preferring this option.
Given the confused ending of this poll (which seems to have initially been rapidly and unconventionally closed by the initiator (who preferred "murder of") as the "Killing of" option took the lead, but also because the highly charged atmosphere that surrounded the death of this journalist at the time has since been lessened somewhat, I' m going to be bold and implement the outcome of this move-discussion. Vlaemink (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vlaemink: While I understand your good-faith attempt to intervene here, the article title should be reverted back to Assassination of Anas Al-Sharif per consensus at RM.
Please see WP:MRV for information on contesting the result of the close.
@Ivey: 162 etc. (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vlaemink: An assassination is usually a form of extra-judicial killing with political overtones by a self-appointed executioner(s). Whether or not it is murder depends on whether someone was convicted of the crime of murder. Somebody can be assasinated without anybody being held accountable. But for an article to be called a "Murder" there needs to be a conviction for murder. Murders can still be assassinations, but the reverse only applies if someone is convicted of the crime of murder. I think not moving the article is an appropriate outcome given the opposition to the move. "Killing of" is a more neutral option but I think it needs a separate proposal with a clear justification for moving. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IDF justfying Sharif's extrajudicial killing

[edit]

Israeli military kills Hamas terrorist doubling as Al Jazeera reporter near Shifa Hospital Documents shared by the IDF included personnel rosters, lists of terror training courses, phone directories, and salary documents for Al-Sharif. https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/article-863836 Oathed (talk) 05:35, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Committee for the Protection of Journalists CEO Jodie Ginsberg to BBC there was no justification for Sharif's killing. BBC
Jeremy Bowen, Israel's evidence that Al Jazeera journalist was part of Hamas is not convincing. BBC QalasQalas (talk) 07:20, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Jerusalem Post is generally reliable but should be treated with caution when making extraordinary claims regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict per WP:JERUSALEMPOST. It should be used as a source for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict only to cite basic facts or if its reporting is validated by additional reporting from another source not similarly limited, which it fails per QalasQalas's provided cites. Goku from bd (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ALJAZEERAOathed (talk) 08:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This ought to be included but would need to be attributed as Israeli statements. Metallurgist (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is already in the lead section. G0KU⬃⬃⬃ 18:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge biographical article into assassination article

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing this discussion early as there is fairly clear emerging consensus Opposing a merge, and strong consensus that Al-Sharif is notable enough to warrant his own stand-alone biographical article, rendering moot the question of whether this article should be the merge target even if a merge consensus obtained. Thanks to all editors for their consideration. Xan747 (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging his biographical article into this one per WP:OVERLAP. Nearly half the biographical article covers his assassination, and includes additional details absent from this one. As this is a controversial subject, it makes more sense to centralize consensus discussions in one place. I lean toward making this the merge-into article since the biographical article was created after his killing, but am not set on that. But a merger should happen either way. Xan747 (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose: it is too late, WP:Bio article had enough to stand on its own while assassination article has been widely covered by international media and additionally there more five journalist redirect here: Moamen Aliwa, Mohammed al-Khaldi, Mohammed Noufal, Mohammed Qreiqeh and Ibrahim Zaher they were also targeted killed in Israeli airstrike. QalasQalas (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Al-Sharif was notable on his own, even being awarded a Pulitzer. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He didnt have an article until he was killed, so it does not seem that he was considered notable. And it was his team Reuters that was award the Pulitzer, not him per se. That actually ought to be corrected in the article. Metallurgist (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See below. Not having an article means nothing. RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Tbh I felt this move discussion should be initiated some weeks after things cool down more. I understand plenty of editors here would be very passionate to keep a biographical article on the reporter. I'm actually inclined to merge the contents of the main biographical page into the assassination, per WP:MEMORIAL, since the reporter is mainly notable only for being a target of an Israeli assassination. Also, there's a list page regarding the journalists killed during the Gaza War and most don't have their own pages. But as I said, I think any discussions to move should be done some weeks later, if there isn't any much more covered about him.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 03:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Most" journalists not having articles doesn't mean Al-Sharif shouldn't have one. Presumably some of them were more notable Wikipedia-wise than others. RodRabelo7 (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And yet he didnt have an article before he died, so he wasnt notable enough to have had an article in the most documented war in history. Metallurgist (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It simply means no one had created it before, not that he "wasn't notable". Different things; countless notable topics don't have articles yet they're still notable, that's precisely why new articles are created every day. RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He also had an Arabic language article dating back to 2023. EvansHallBear (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While an article about him exists in Arabic since 2023, looking at the page, it's still very thin on details. Also, the age of an article (WP:ARTICLEAGE) elsewhere doesn't exactly help to establish the notability of the person, unfortunately. That said, as similarly stated in the guidelines, if there's potential for further development, both articles can still be kept.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 14:47, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Potential for further development is shades of wp:crystal. This conversation should be about the current state of the content, not what we think it could be. Xan747 (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the conversation should be about notability. Just because there are WP: SURMOUNTABLE issues with the articles in their current state does not justify merging. EvansHallBear (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Past and present notability, not potential for future notability. Xan747 (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merging Al-Sharif into Assassination, but support merging Assassination into Al-Sharif, because he did get the Pulitzer prize and his life was more than his assassination. (But when writing this I understand that ZKang123 is right and we should wait a bit for this discussion.) Lova Falk (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think the assassination might be more prominent... But then again to think of it, theres probably 100 of similar cases with similar condemnations so unless the assassination led to stronger sanctions against Israel or other stronger consequences, especially in influencing the course of the war, then yeah maybe instead we could consider merging this page into the biographical entry.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 07:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I also think the merge should be done but in the reverse. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but I am not opposed to the reverse. The claims that he was notable before are easily dispatched with the fact that he did not seem to merit an article before. He did not directly win a Pulitzer prize, he was part of a group of Reuters photographers which won the prize. And most of his page is about the killing, not his photo work.Metallurgist (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and WP:EVENT, his biography and the assassination are separate, notable topics. The killing has substantial independent coverage meeting WP:GNG, so it warrants its own article. A merge would reduce detail and blur two distinct subjects. G0KU⬃⬃⬃ 18:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A merge would not necessarily reduce detail. I would in fact oppose such. A merged article with all the non-duplicate content retained wouldn't blur anything any more than both articles redundantly and separately already do now, and would be comfortably within article size guidance. Xan747 (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Al-Sharif's journalistic career and the airstrike that killed him along with 6 others are both notable in their own right.
EvansHallBear (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding individual notability, this from CNN is relevant: One of the most well-known Palestinian journalists in Gaza – and one of dozens to be killed by Israel during the war – Al-Sharif’s death has ignited international condemnation and calls for accountability. The 28-year-old rose to prominence as the face of the Gaza story for millions while Israel has blocked international media outlets from accessing the territory. Little known before the war, he quickly turned into a household name in the Arab world for his daily coverage of the conflict and its humanitarian toll. [1] EvansHallBear (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The question of Al-Sharif's notability prior to his death should obviously be done by looking for things written about him before then. His Arabic Wikipedia article, created in 2023, has three. Articles with fewer than that probably exist. That said, posthumous notability is a thing, so I am not opposed to merging this article in to his biographical one. But at this point there is just not enough biographical information to warrant separate articles about his life and death. Xan747 (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Al-Sharif's biographical article stands at about 1,900 words, and this one at about 1,400. Even if a merge kept all the content in both articles—doubtful given the amount of duplicate content—the result would be well below the guidance given in WP:SIZERULE that size alone does not warrant splitting or trimming articles that are < 6,000 words. Xan747 (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose There is enormous evidence that he was notable prior to his assassination. The fact that there was not an English Wikipedia article prior to his killing does not bear any weight. We are missing articles for countless notable subjects. Notability alone dictates whether we should have an article. This relationship is one-way; the existence or lack of an article has no bearing on notability whatsoever. StereoFolic (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose The subject was very well known in Palestine which explains the global reaction - for example protests - right after his death. For this reason alone I think we should keep his article and the one of his assassination separate. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

abbreviation "CPJ" not explained

[edit]

I suggest to mention the whole name of the organisation at least once in the article and give a link to it's wiki page Committee to Protect Journalists

VanderlekD (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, altho someone else did part of it. Metallurgist (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 31 August 2025

[edit]

Description of suggested change: https://www.timesofisrael.com/amid-global-outcry-idf-says-al-jazeera-reporter-it-killed-was-receiving-hamas-salary/

Diff:

−
none ORIGINAL_WIKITEXT
+
According to arabic documnets published by the IDF in October 2024 Anas al-Sharif joined Hamas's military wing on December 3, 2013, where he served as the commander of a rocket-launching team in northern Gaza. Al-Sharif was confirmed as the team commander on January 1, 2019, and his military ID number listed in the documents was 305342. On April 7, 2017, he was injured in his eye and suffered hearing loss during Hamas training, but he continued to serve in the organization, receiving a monthly salary of $200. Additionally, his name was found in the internal phone registry of Hamas's elite Nukhba Force in the East Jabalia Battalion, where he was listed under a codename. Regarding his elimination, IDF international spokesman Lt. Col. Nadav Shoshani stated: "Prior to the strike, we obtained current intelligence indicating that Anas al-Sharif was an active Hamas military wing operative at the time of his elimination. In addition, he received a salary from the Hamas terror group and terrorist supporters, such as Al-Jazeera." The IDF also stated that al-Sharif was "the head of a Hamas terrorist cell and led rocket attacks targeting Israeli civilians and IDF troops." CHANGED_WIKITEXT

176.229.31.93 (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The article already covers Israel's allegation that Al-Sharif was a Hamas operative, so it's not clear why it would be necessary to add this. Day Creature (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IDF confirmed the airstrike was targeted

[edit]

@טבעת-זרם: your edit to remove "targeted" on the basis it is an unsourced claim is false. [1]

The next very next paragraph of the article lays it out even more explicitly, with supporting citations:

The IDF later confirmed the strike, describing Al-Sharif as a Hamas "terrorist" who "posed as a journalist for the Al Jazeera network operative".[2][3] The IDF reiterated its allegations that Al-Sharif was a Hamas cell leader in charge of rocket launching.[4][5]

Now that you are fully aware that the claim is sourced—something I would expect an editor with your experience to have checked given all the citations surrounding the claim—you reverting my edit to restore sourced content could be considered a 1RR violation. I'll give you 24 hours to self-revert before reporting you. Xan747 (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Here's a Look at the Journalists Killed by an Israeli Strike in Gaza". The New York Times. 11 August 2025. Retrieved 11 August 2025.
  2. ^ Halabi, Einav (10 August 2025). "Senior Al Jazeera reporter in Gaza, who IDF said served as head of Hamas terrorist cell, killed in air strike". Ynetnews. Retrieved 11 August 2025.
  3. ^ Al-Mughrabi, Nidal; Lubell, Maayan (11 August 2025). "Israel strike kills Al Jazeera journalists in Gaza". Reuters. Retrieved 14 August 2025.
  4. ^ Fabian, Emanuel; Yohanan, Nurit; Magid, Jacob; Fabian, Emanuel (11 August 2025). "IDF strike on Gaza City kills Al Jazeera reporter accused of being a Hamas cell leader". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 13 August 2025.
  5. ^ "IDF kills Hamas terror cell leader posing as 'Al Jazeera' journalist". JNS. 11 August 2025. Retrieved 14 August 2025.

@IOHANNVSVERVS, Paprikaiser, QalasQalas, Mr. Lechkar, EvansHallBear, Daphne Preston-Kendal, ZKang123, Aviationwikiflight, Yacàwotçã, and Yeeno: On review, I realize that @טבעת-זרם is correct that this doesn't qualify as a 1RR. But they are obviously uninterested in self-reverting after being shown reliable sources saying this was a targeted killing, so I open this up to the top 10 most recent editors of the article to decide. Xan747 (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is wholly unreasonable if not downright disruptive to remove the word "deliberately," since the Israeli government and military were openly boasting that they targeted and killed Al-Sharif, claiming that he was a terrorist. -Darouet (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Paprikaiser (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the need to WP:AGF, but this feels like an unnecessary complication given that the sources clearly describe the situation. This was one of the most explicitly acknowledged and targeted assassinations in the Gaza Strip. Introducing doubt about the intent behind it risks undermining WP:NPOV, particularly since the IDF has openly confirmed that Al-Sharif was specifically targeted. The strike was deliberate, and Israeli officials have been clear that he was targeted as part of their military operations. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is still a targeted attack. The IDF and other outlets have already confirmed it as such.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The RV is about striking the tent, and whether it was intentional - and not the incident as a whole. Maariv [2] questions the intentions of this strike, and doubts who was the intended target, citing a source from Israel, while also providing the official publication. The sources given above either not mention the intention or the tent at all, or (TOI, NYT) say "attack on" but do not explicitly say it was DELIBERATELY hitting the tent, and do not attribute the intention to Israel. TOI's quote also violate #2 WP:REDFLAG because it comes from involved parties. Whitout a proper source that clearly say it was DELIBERATELY, this encyclopedia can't determine intentions, especially when they are challenged and don't have a source that clearly say it. Therefore this word should not be used in the context of the tent and should be removed from the sentence. TaBaZzz (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I promise you the IDF did not accidentally drop a missile on a tent containing a person they freely volunteered to have deliberately targeted for being an alleged Hamas operative. Xan747 (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the text from Maariv quoting an anonymous source, machine-translated to English by Firefox:

A security source said that Anas al-Sharif was defined as a legitimate target for the assassination because he took an active part in the fighting against IDF forces and was a member of Hamas. At the same time, the source declined to comment on whether he was the target of the assassination or if it was an incidental result. The defense establishment confirms that al-Sharif was on the list of “deaths” that Israel has declared.

The same source then quotes an official IDF spokesperson confirming that Al-Sharif was the intended target:

An IDF spokesman said: “The IDF attacked the terrorist Anas Al-Sharif in the Gaza City area a short time ago. The terrorist acted under the guise of an Al-Jazeera network journalist. The terrorist Ans Al-Sharif served as head of a squad at the Hamas terrorist organization and promoted rocket fires against the citizens of the State of Israel and IDF forces. The IDF has disclosed information in the past and many documents found in the Gaza Strip, confirming its military affiliation with the Hamas terrorist organization. The documents once again confirm his terrorist activity, from which the Al-Jazeera network tried to shake off.

We're going to run with the official statement, not an unnamed source. Xan747 (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Reuters source puts the entire thing together:

Israel's military said it targeted and killed Anas Al Sharif, alleging he had headed a Hamas militant cell and was involved in rocket attacks on Israel. [...] Al Sharif, 28, was among a group of four Al Jazeera journalists and an assistant who died in an airstrike on a tent near Al Shifa Hospital in eastern Gaza City, Gaza officials and Al Jazeera said.

Contra to your assertion, the NYT clearly names the IDF's intended target, the method being an airstrike, and the location being a tent:

[...]journalists for the Al Jazeera network [...] were killed in an Israeli airstrike on Sunday [...] Israel’s military said it carried out the attack on the tent where the men had worked near a hospital in Gaza City. [...] Israel’s military said on social media on Sunday that it had conducted a targeted strike on Mr. al-Sharif, whom it accused of being a Hamas fighter posing as a reporter.

TOI does not mention tent or airstrike, but does say:

Following Gazan media reports about Sharif’s death, the IDF confirmed carrying out a strike that killed him, saying he was a “terrorist operating under the guise of a journalist.”

That one is indeed vague about intent, and if one tried very hard, they could argue that while the IDF confirmed it had carried out "a strike" that did kill an alleged terrorist, the IDF neither confirmed or denied that al-Sharif was the intended target. But in light of multiple other sources documenting the IDF saying it had targeted al-Sharif, one would need to try very very hard to say that the missile hitting the tent was anything other than "deliberate". Xan747 (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not logical to argue that the IDF deliberately killed Al-Sharif, but, didn't deliberately bomb the journalists' tent he was in, when they killed him. Unless I'm misunderstanding the distinction being made. It feels like, "John Wilkes Booth deliberately assassinated Abraham Lincoln at Ford's Theatre, but we have no evidence that he deliberately shot him in the left box seat." I apologize if I'm missing something. -Darouet (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're not missing anything. Xan747 (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't bring any source that say hitting the TENT was intentional or planned, and therefore your conclusions are original research. TaBaZzz (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

killed in an Israeli airstrike [...] Israel’s military said it carried out the attack on the tent [...] Israel’s military said on social media on Sunday that it had conducted a targeted strike on Mr. al-Sharif

I suppose you could always argue it was a bomb or strafing run, not a missile. Please stop wasting everyone's time and find some productive way to contribute to this article. Xan747 (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the sentence to remove missile and use the exact words in the NYT and Reuters sources:

On 10 August 2025, the IDF conducted a targeted airstrike on a tent designated for journalists near the main gate of Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza, where Al-Sharif and his colleagues were sheltering.

Xan747 (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]