Talk:Death of Israa Ghrayeb

Coatrack
I don’t see the need to highlight 20 year old statistics about honour killings in the Palestinian Territories in an article about an investigation that is still ongoing. Statistics from 1999 aren’t particularly relevant to 2019. There’s also the fact that this article already highlights the fact that it’s caused protests for the claim of being an honour killing. As it stands, the version of the article I pruned walks the line of reporting on the controversy surrounding the death without giving the impression the investigation is complete. Adding 20 year old “context” before that’s done isn’t NPOV. If statistics are needed, they should be recent, and commented on by reliable sources in relation to this death, and then incorporated into other sections, rather than highlighted in their own. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Concur on this particular diff. To avoid WP:SYNTH/WP:OR in this regard (relevance of particular statistics) - we should be sticking to sources that discuss Ghrayeb. If said sources use older statistics - then we should introduce them - but not if no other source is using this. (e.g. if Reuters is quoting the 1999 UNICEF report - it's legit, but not if we're using it directly). Icewhiz (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * e.g. - Gulf News - "The Women’s Centre for Legal Aid and Counselling, a Palestinian NGO documenting abuses in the West Bank and Gaza, said there were 23 cases of what it called femicide in 2018, and 18 so far in 2019.", also in AFP (via Yahoo), and The National - could be relevant.Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * More recent sources are indeed better, agree.GreyShark (dibra) 11:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , those might be appropriate. It’d need to be appropriately weighted and I’d likely include it in the responses section explaining the context of the reactions. We need to be careful to keep this as coverage of the death, and not commentary on social issues as the investigation is ongoing, and we don’t want our article to drive opinion or coverage. On a separate note, no clue where I am on 3RR, but would someone mind removing “reportedly” in front of the description of holding people in custody. That’s a weasel word, which usually implies doubting the statement following is true. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Only writing about the death while excluding the context is precisely what WP:PCR Provide context for the reader is explicitly saying enWP should not do. The audience should be provided with context. A Thousand Words (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Context can be provided without turning the article into a coatrack. Insofar as reliable sources discuss it in relation to her death and the protests, we can include it in a properly weighted and presented format. WP:BLP/WP:BDP and WP:NPOV overrules stylistic concerns like PCR. We present the facts, but in a properly balanced way in the correct articles. There has been no determination as to the cause of death yet, just speculation. Turning this article into a large commentary on Palestinian honour killings wouldn’t be appropriate given the ongoing investigation. We should report on the controversy, and note the honour killing speculation, but if that becomes the primary focus of the article, it would be inappropriate at this stage. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Was anyone convicted?
3 years on, the article lacks this information. Arminden (talk) 10:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)