Talk:Killing of Shani Louk/Archive 1

A question of mine about Louk's age

Louk's age has been very inconsistent in the sources available to me. I've seen many articles refer to Louk as a 30 year old woman, while others claim that she was 22 (which is the figure that the wikipedia page is currently using). Is there any confirmation on her actual age?

Here are some sources that claim that she is 30:

1.https://kpic.com/news/local/shani-louk-allegedly-abducted-and-killed-during-hamas-terrorist-attack-attended-portland-jewish-academy

2.https://fox28savannah.com/news/nation-world/30-year-old-shani-louk-abducted-by-hamas-terrorists-gaza-israel-palestine-war-ricarda-zionist-fighting-middle-east-conflict

3.https://www.thejc.com/news/world/family-of-german-woman-whose-naked-body-was-paraded-around-by-hamas-plead-for-information-Rg1t4tb4IsCgIuaAVq1Kw

Here are the sources citing her age as 22:

1.https://news.yahoo.com/mom-festival-goer-shani-louk-134739882.html

2.https://www.thenationalnews.com/mena/2023/10/10/shani-louk-woman-abducted-and-feared-killed-by-hamas-is-alive-mother-says/

3.https://www.japantimes.co.jp/business/2023/10/11/tech/musk-x-misinformation-israel-hamas-war/ (Randomuser335S (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

This video shows her (expired) passport, with 7 February 2001 as date of birth: https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1710820667686285406 --Angbor (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 12 October 2023

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: moved. see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shani Louk (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 22:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Shani Louk → Kidnapping of Shani Louk – Per WP:BLP1E and WP:VICTIM, I don't think the victim should be the subject of the article. Additionally, it's consistent with other kidnappings and abductions in Category:Missing person cases in Israel and other crime-related cases where the victim is not notable prior to the crime. Phillycj 16:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. That would be consistent with other kidnappings and abductions. 2600:8800:2914:1600:F93E:B7FC:8D01:40F1 (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

This needs no debate. The tragic subject of this article is not a notable person other than for what has recently befell her. If this article exists at all, it should be an article about the events. Either that, or folded into a larger article about the events of this current conflict

What's more this is a private person, who has been a victim of a horrific attack, and an article about them by name not only violates all wikipedia's policies on this matter (see WP:BIO1E), ethically, it is more than questionable. All following debate should be on whether this particular kidnapping requires a separate article, or whether it belongs as a part of an entry in an article on the kidnappings and killings. Whether this article, as it stands, under the current title, should remain, needs no debate.

I am sure the contributors of this article did so with the best of intentions, but it must be rectified at once.

With peaceful wishes to all, --Tomatoswoop (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed 2A02:A46D:7F34:1:6104:1D15:146F:8E80 (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed as there are many missing person articles, and I think this one is no different. The article should be focused on the abduction and crime, and the Article name changed, and not her biography, as she is not notable outside of this event. PatrickChiao (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the victim should be the subject of the article as there is a better category for this topic. As tragic as this event is for her family and friends, it should be in a different category. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tomatoswoop I agree with you and think it should be moved, though I have seen in other contexts the name of the victim alone being the title of the article such as George Floyd. Is there a difference there, do you think, or just a lack of consensus? -- Lenny Marks (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think this webpage is highly inappropriate and invading her privacy and right to self-determination

I believe this page should be taken down. If Shani is alive, she wasn't able to consent to this, so her potentially finding this in the future can be very damaging. It's highly invasive and inappropriate. Please consider taking this page down and leaving the information to come from official sources or her family. 2A01:598:89F9:DCA2:1:2:6241:F50B (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Please cite some Wikipedia policy. RodRabelo7 (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Violation of privacy rights. Hence the page is now being redirected. 2A01:598:89F9:DCA2:1:2:6241:F50B (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

nothing to do with privacy rights per above user but I do not see it meeting notability guidelines per WP:NOTNEWS ToeSchmoker (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Other article

@Onetwothreeip: Hi. Just letting you know that the same content which you removed/edited here today is found in Re'im music festival massacre#Hamas' assault (4th paragraph).—Alalch E. 21:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I've updated that and directed content to this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

"Naked" is currently unsourced and is also incorrect

@Beccaynr: It's also incorrect. What is correct is that she wore some clothes. This can be sourced. A past version of the description of the video discussed this, but Onetwothreeip removed the description of the video, for reasons that I do not understand. Please see this revision: special:permalink/1180003712. It contains the following

Louk was at the festival, accompanied by her boyfriend, a Mexican citizen. After the Red Color rocket warning alarm was sounded, and the attack began, Louk talked on the phone with her mother, saying that there are few places to hide and that she will try to find one. After the massacre, Hamas paraded Louk, seemingly unconscious, in the back of a pickup truck. A video, which became viral, shows her clad only in her underwear, while the gunmen are chanting "Allahu Akbar", one draping his leg over her waist, another grabbing her hair, and a man in the crowd spitting on her.

References

Clad only in her underwear is correct. Squires says "half-naked" and and Sharon says "stripped down to her underwear". Please do something to make the content policy-compliant.—Alalch E. 19:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Half-naked is also correct because it's an objective description of the situation in the given moment.—Alalch E. 19:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I had quickly followed my initial edit with another edit to reflect references, so the article and lead currently says 'partially naked' and 'partly naked.' I am not opposed to more specific edits to reflect the sources, but it was the total removal of information about her appearance that seemed unsupported by the sources. Thank you for addressing this here, and I hope my follow-up edits at least somewhat help address the concern you have raised. Beccaynr (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. —Alalch E. 19:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Why would we speculate in the article about the subject's clothes? This is not relevant to a biographical article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, we are working to comply with WP:NPOV policy, e.g. representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic, so your recent removal [1] of the widely-sourced content from the article seems contrary to this core content policy. Beccaynr (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Then explain how it complies. All content on Wikipedia is meant to be neutral, it's meaningless to say that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

There are no opposing viewpoints in the sources regarding her clothing, it's just that the fewer number of sources who said "naked" as opposed to "half-naked" were being imprecise in their language. Later and more precise sources say "half-naked" or mention something like underwear, and there is a greater number of such sources. Later reporting, when the facts being reported have settled a bit (for example Louk isn't reported as being 30 years old anymore, and WSJ, a reliable source, said early on she's 30 years old, and so did many other sources), is usually more reliable than early reporting. —Alalch E. 21:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Example of an early source (Oct. 8) that we shouldn't use for claims that contradict a plurality of later reports:

• Crisp, James (2023-10-08). "Murdered woman's naked body paraded around streets of Gaza". The Sunday Telegraph. p. 7. EBSCOhost 8Q3191154397 – via The Wikipedia Library. The naked body of an woman was paraded through the streets in the back of a pick-up truck yesterday as Hamas fighters sat on her corpse.
  A celebrating crowd surrounded the armed men in combat fatigues, who shouted "Allah Akbar" from the open back of the truck. The woman was later named as Shani Louk.

Such sources existing is perfectly normal and has nothing to do with neutrality. —Alalch E. 21:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that those details are not particularly relevant, Wikipedia avoids WP:SENSATIONAL reporting. This is an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid. It also contravenes WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The WP:WEIGHT section begins, Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Article sources include:

• AFP (Oct. 10, 2023): "Even the most unbearable images have gone viral, including footage of a woman's partially naked body in the bed of a pick-up truck cheered by armed men. Her mother has identified her as Shani Louk ..."
• Telegraph (Oct. 11, 2023): "A young German-Israeli woman who was spat on and paraded half-naked through the streets of the Gaza Strip after being abducted by Hamas terrorists is alive, her mother said"
• Independent (Oct. 11, 2023): "Shani Louk, 22, was recognised by her distinctive tattoos and dreadlocks as the partially naked body inside a pick-up truck that was paraded through the streets by Palestinian gunmen."
• Times of Israel (Oct. 9, 2023): "seemingly unconscious when they displayed her exposed body on the back of a pickup truck in Gaza, where onlookers spit on her."
• Wall Street Journal (Oct. 10, 2023) "They paraded her naked body around in a pick-up truck" - per quote in article cite.
• Shani Louk: New twist after festivalgoer paraded naked through Gaza streets (Yahoo News Australia, Oct. 10, 2023)
• WaPo (Oct. 8, 2023) "In the video, the woman is facedown in the bed of the truck with four militants, apparently being paraded through Gaza."
• The Journal.ie (Oct. 14, 2023): "appeared to show Shani being paraded on the back of a truck by Hamas militants"
• Guardian (Oct. 13, 2023): "lifeless in the back of a truck, spat upon by Hamas fighters, legs unnaturally bent and her hair matted with blood."
• Insider (Oct. 10, 2023): "A video of what appears to be Shani Louk's body being paraded through the streets of Gaza on the back of a pickup truck have circulated social media since Saturday"
• Business Today (Oct. 9, 2023): "A video of a barely covered young woman with dreadlocks on the back of a pickup truck surrounded by Hamas soldiers went viral on social media"

Beccaynr (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

When reporters, commentators, and analysts writing for reputable publications, not tabloids, state certain facts, intentionally provide a certain level of detail, to enable the reader to understand what happened, that is not sensationalism. An encyclopedia can't shy away from difficult topics. This being quite difficult material to read has nothing to do with tabloid journalism. Removing such details which make it impossible to understand what it means to parade someone in the streets and make a propaganda video out of that, and simplifying this event to a generic kidnapping, would be WP:SYNTH through omission—combining certain sources and certain claims to one's liking while omitting the others. Our mission is to benefit readers by providing them with knowledge. WP:AVOIDVICTIM, when read correctly, does not mean "hide uncomfortable facts", it means avoiding off-topic, stupid, false, stuff that could cause distress.—Alalch E. 23:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the facts are what they are. Saying she was "naked" would be more than the reliable sources have stated and what is visable in the released video. Perhaps a better statement would be "partically clothed" which could be a more respectful way to describe her condition and adhears to WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Several of those sources are tabloid, or worse than tabloid. Most of them don't use the term "naked". "Partially clothed" would be much more suitable. "Parade" is also an unsuitable term for an encyclopaedia, even if it's appropriate for news sources. While we can rely on news sources for the information, encyclopaedias maintain higher standards than news sources of language. I should also point out the blatant misuse of Wikipedia guideline, perhaps unintentional, when WP:Neutrality was quoted above, since this is not a matter of viewpoints, therefore does not apply to this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You've repeated some of the already contested changes. None of the sources are tabloid or worse than tabloid. "Half-naked" is suitable, and partially clothed is fine. "Parade" is absolutely suitable as that's exactly what happened, according to all of the sources, and that's exactly how we should convey this fact, instead of doing original research to simplify the events to a generic kidnapping, which you are doing. The standard of language in this article is fairly high, and it has nothing to do with saying that Louk was paraded in the streets of Gaza, as there is no nice way to put it. You invoked neutrality, but you seem unable to explain what the problem of neutrality is. Why did you, then, even mention neutrality as an issue? We significantly disagree and may need to involve more editors to help us with this dispute. Sincerely. —Alalch E. 21:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

None of the sources are tabloid?? Do you seriously want to explain how Yahoo News Australia is not tabloid? Business Insider and Business Today are equally low quality, and Barron's (credited above as AFP) is also not an appropriately thorough source for world events. Someone else invoked neutrality, not me. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

None of those sources are tabloid and all are considered reliable. If they are hypothetically not the best possible sources (they're fine), they are still reliable sources, and they are not tabloid press. But they are used in conjunction with other sources, which are the best possible sources, which say all of the same things. See The Guardian for an example: An estimated 260 partygoers were murdered. Tens more could be among the 150 Israeli hostages believed to have been taken back to Gaza during the day. A video emerged of Shani Louk, 23, lifeless in the back of a truck, spat upon by Hamas fighters, legs unnaturally bent and her hair matted with blood. You invoked neutrality first in this thread, use Ctrl+F to find where. —Alalch E. 22:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, AFP is definitely one of the best possible sources. Excellent new agency for world events. Ultimately, none of these sources are used for the description of the video which you mainly contest. The sources are articles from the websites of CNN, The Telegraph, The Guardian, The Times of Israel, Der Spiegel, The Washington Post, and Die Zeit. —Alalch E. 22:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The AFP source is reprinted in other sources in addition to Barron's (which says at the top, "FROM AFP NEWS"), including Gulf News (AFP in the byline). At WP:RSP, Yahoo! News is a green-lit source; Insider is marked yellow, and I think the substantial recycling of content from Bild (marked red at WP:RSP) supports the removal of the specific source from the article. We can examine individual sources, but we have general guidance. I also think raising relevance generally is a NPOV issue, because we look to the available sources to determine what is relevant to include; AVOIDVICTIM also mentions "sourced, neutral, and on-topic" as part of the policy. Beccaynr (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Business Insider removed, thanks. It wasn't needed to support anything in the first place. —Alalch E. 23:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

We should be relying on Agence France-Presse directly, not sources which claim to be using their content. I also see no such approval for Yahoo News Australia. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I've changed Barron's with ProQuest. Sources don't need preapproval. Yahoo News Australia falls under Yahoo News. —Alalch E. 21:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I think including an accessible link would be helpful, especially because this article is at AfD and the widest opportunity possible to review the sources may be useful for participants in the discussion. Is there any indication that Barron's or Gulf News did not reproduce the AFP source accurately? If not, I think either cite can be used after verification, and the ProQuest template indicating the original source also included in the citation. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I've compared the Barron's and ProQuest versions and the only difference I see is that on ProQuest, there are subsection titles that are not included in the Barron's version, but that does not seem to be a substantive difference. Gulf News includes the subsection titles. Beccaynr (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Barron's is a credible and mainstream weekly, and any idea that this media outlet might reproduce an AFP story substantially inaccurately is completely esoteric, but I did it just to indulge Onetwothreeip. Feel free to revert to Barron's (and Barron's is probably a lot better than Gulf News, so the options should in my opinion be ProQuest or Barron's). —Alalch E. 22:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes @Alalch E.: this is 100% correct—why the urge to euphemize and omit the details of terror attacks? I would suggest that "stripped down to her underwear" is the clearest phrasing, as it makes clear that she was not voluntarily undressed.

I'm heartbroken to witness fellow Wikipedians attempting to downplay or whitewash the atrocities committed by Hamas and other Palestinians, including such digusting claims as Louk "was not undressed, she was wearing shorts and a bra. A look through her social media account shows that she has posts of herself in that very same outfit and other similar loose-fitting, revealing outfits." ElleTheBelle 15:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Die Zeit feature

• https://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/zeitgeschehen/2023-10/shani-louk-deutsch-israel-geiselnahme-bundesregierung-hamas

—Alalch E. 21:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Faz commentary

• https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/hamas-terror-gegen-frauen-in-israel-vergewaltigung-als-kriegswaffe-19246765.html —Alalch E. 12:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Murder of Shani Louk

This article have to be named Murder of Shani Louk not Killing of Shani Louk. She was murdered, not killed by accident. דוד שי (talk) 09:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

We don't know how or even if she was killed, so that claim just doesn't stand up. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

"or even if she was killed"

the videos showing her disfigured body in the back of the truck says otherwise. the IDF found skull bone fracture. remember wikipedia is a place of neutrality. facts matter. and the facts here with all the videos posted by Hamas themselves, shows she was murdered. CViB (talk) 11:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

That's WP:OR - you are deducing that she is dead. It is not confirmed. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment Just about every usable source one can imagine agrees that she is dead. The unknown minutiae don't really matter at this point and we can add them if more information is revealed. This page was edited in light of news that she might be alive but reliable sources paint a different picture now and we should change course accordingly. Killuminator (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

There still appears to be a lot of uncertainty, with statements put out and then withdrawn regarding whether a body was found. If a body was indeed found, then most of this page simply needs heavily redacting, because it is apparently about a kidnapping that never happened to Louk, but is instead in reference to some other individual. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Probably not gonna happen soon since her body had been paraded in Gaza Synotia (moan) 13:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Move to "Killing of Shani Louk" and revert

Moved from User talk:Alalch E./Archive 1 § Bit pre-emptive

 –  Context: For a brief period on October 30, the name of the article was Killing of Shani Louk—Alalch E. 16:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, about this - the claim by the IDF here is far from conclusive about events. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Israel confirmed her death (not just a statement of the mother) according to a German newspaper [2] ("Das israelische Außenministerium bestätigt den Tod der jungen Frau."). A fragment of her skull was found at the site of the massacre and the source notes that, after all, in the video it was possible to see that she has a gunshot wound to her head (from what I've been reading in the past week, there have been some other reliable sources that have also reported that in the video she is seen with a "head injury", or something to that effect, so this is not the only source that says this). She's among the fatal casualties of the massacre. No comment on "murder" at this time, but I oppose a move from "killing" to "kidnapping" (obviously superseded, there was never truly a confirmation that she has been kidnapped, it was always an inference based on her mother's unverified claim that she is alive), "disappearance" (confirmed dead now, and was initially reported as seen lifeless or even "killed" in the video [it's in the article], before the mother came out with the statement that she is / could be alive, so it just wouldn't work), and I slightly less strongly oppose a move to "death". If there's a desire to move to "death", I think that an RM would be in order. Sincerely —Alalch E. 10:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it's likely, but the Israelis aren't in a position to confirm anything. It was already stated that she had a head injury, and reported that she was in critical condition in a hospital in Gaza. Now we have an Israeli claim that is simply consistent with that head injury story, but no real proof of her death - just another unverified claim. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't care if you personally think it's likely, that's not what we're dealing with here. I disagree with you, but I can't comment further now. I will probably write something later. Cheers. —Alalch E. 12:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

That wasn't my point: my point is this is still in the realm of speculation - there is still a lot of information just whizzing around, with a claim of a body put out and then retracted again. It's not clear. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Just noting that I've moved this talk thread here.—Alalch E. 16:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

well looking at the hamasnik's face, he looks particularly uncomfortable, almost as if there is a corpse threatening to touch his boot. (ewwww) Synotia (moan) 09:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 30 October 2023

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: moved to Killing of Shani Louk. (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans (talk) 08:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Kidnapping of Shani Louk → Death of Shani Louk – We can not use the title "Kidnapping of Shani Louk" because:

1. The article does not, in wikivoice, claim that Shani Louk was kidnapped
2. The claim that Shani Louk was kidnapped is not verifiable

For these reasons the title fails WP:NDESC and WP:DESCRIPTOR, as it doesn't describe the event that is the subject of the article.

We can use "Death of Shani Louk" because:

1. The article does, in wikivoice, claim that Shani Louk is dead
2. Shani Louk being dead is verifiable

For these reasons "Death of Shani Louk" is a suitable title under WP:NDESC and WP:DESCRIPTOR, as it does describe the event as it it covered in the article.

About using the descriptor "death" as opposed to "killing" or "murder" see WP:DEATHS. I, as the nominator, am not opposed to the name being Killing of Shani Louk either.

If this topic is unclear to you, this new article by LA Times explains what happened: A young Israeli festivalgoer’s death is confirmed, shining light on families’ long ordeal —Alalch E. 22:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject notifications

Note: WikiProject Biography has been notified of this discussion. —Alalch E. 22:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC) Note: WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography has been notified of this discussion. —Alalch E. 22:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC) Note: WikiProject Germany has been notified of this discussion. —Alalch E. 22:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC) Note: WikiProject Israel has been notified of this discussion. —Alalch E. 22:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC) Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. —Alalch E. 22:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC) Note: WikiProject Terrorism has been notified of this discussion. —Alalch E. 22:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC) Note: WikiProject Women has been notified of this discussion. —Alalch E. 22:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I support Killing as an alternative title. Killuminator (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I support the title "Killing of Shani Louk". I think it's an appropriate and accurate option. Salvabl (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support move to Killing of Shani Louk based on the LA Times source provided by nom. Based on that report, this was no accidental death. She was killed, either gratuitously or as a consequence of self-defense. Havradim leaf a message 00:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Sure killing. Death is a natural process 2A0D:6FC7:25C:F075:BCC4:98C5:34AD:D0AC (talk) 05:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Wait: Shall this requested move be put on hold, as an articles for deletion process is ongoing? We could resume after the AFD finishes. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support moving to Killing of Shani Louk, but if there's consensus for Death of Shani Louk I'm not against it. Skyshifter ^talk 02:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support Killing of Shani Louk. RodRabelo7 (talk) 03:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support for Killing of Shani Louk per WP:DEATHS. Personally I believe it to be murder, but with no conviction or even actual suspect of the killing, I believe "killing" to be enough for now. AdrianHObradors (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support Killing of Shani Louk. She clearly did not die of natural causes! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  See my comment and cites of Newsweek and TMZ articles. 2601:47:4B82:DE70:C42:43B0:4B5D:86EA (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Wait (edit: changed to Support Killing of Shani Louk) The circumstances behind her death are far from clear. The Guardian says[3] "On Monday, however, Louk’s sister Adi confirmed that Shani had died, probably during the attack." The use of the word "probably" suggests RS are not yet certain. Once things become clear I would support the Killing title too.VR _talk 17:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  You could support "Death of" over "Kidnapping of" in the meantime because that is certain, and sources no longer say she was kidnapped, and did not really report that as fact prior to the confirmation of death but as a supposition. Please notice how the article never says in wikivoice that she was kidnapped. Yet the name is "Kidnapping of"; there's a disconnect. —Alalch E. 19:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed that "Death of" is appropriate now, "Killing of" should become appropriate when RS determine it was homicide, and "Murder of" will become appropriate when there is a conviction. VR _talk 19:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Vice regent, I think the "probably" there refers to when she exactly died. If she died during the attack, or after they took her and died from the injuries of the attack, does not apply to the current discussion in my opinion. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  That's a reasonable explanation and having looked at several other sources I think Killing should be the title. VR _talk 13:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support for changing name to either death or killing. Mason (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support (death option): We know neither cause of death, nor perpetrator and/or agent. It could have been friendly fire, shrapnel, etc. Killing implies a clear set of circumstances, and that is far from the case here. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Still a killing, even in the (let's be honest, highly unlikely given the circumstances of the day) event that it was accidental. If people fire off weapons and they hit someone then they have been killed by any definition, even if they were not the actual intended target! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

    Maybe highly unlikely, but that's still the realm of speculation. Most sources about her death talk about confirming her "death", not confirming her killing. Why go beyond the sources when not required? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support Killing of Shani Louk.Per Necrothesp.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support Death of Shani Louk. It's verified that she's dead, but due to the (currently unclear) nature of her death, I support a change to "Death of" per WP:DEATHS. I know that in cases of deaths under police custody (even in cases where it's heavily suspected the police caused it), consensus usually trends towards "death of" unless there's unambiguous evidence of homicide. XTheBedrockX (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, so per WP:DEATHS - unknown manner of death → "Death of ..." Iskandar323 (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

That's exactly why I support "Killing". In case of ambiguity maybe we should side with the victim and not consider giving the (fairly obvious) aggressor the benefit of the doubt. VR _talk 02:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support retitling to "Killing of Shani Louk" per WP:DEATHS. It doesn't matter if it was friendly fire, enemy fire, cross-fire, intentional or accidental, it's all homicide. It's really felony murder, which is what it is anytime a kidnapping victim dies during the kidnapping -- but WP:DEATHS has an intentionally strict threshold for "murder," which I don't think is met here per RS, but homicide, definitely, regardless of who is to blame for it. Levivich (talk) 03:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 October 2023

You've made it almost impossible to comment for anyone with a NPOV. Personally I found a lot of the KEEP arguments emotive. I favour the opening WP:BLP1E argument. It should be merged into the music festival article. Shani's is a truly distressing story, but I don't find her anything in her biography that elevates it above the thousands of tragedies on that day. Galerita (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 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. This template is meant for requesting edits to an article. You can participate in any of the ongoing discussions without using this template, recommend you add your comments to whichever section you see fit Cannolis (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Disparagement of Shani Louk and WP:BLPIMAGE

There is an image described as Louk, apparently unconscious in the back of a pick up truck with several armed people, apparently copied from Twitter, that was added to the article, and restored over a WP:BLPIMAGE objection. This section of BLP policy says it is particularly important in "situations where the subject did not expect to be photographed", which seems to apply here. I also do not think there are any sources that describe this image as anything other than disparaging to Louk; BLP policy also applies to recently-deceased people, so the recent confirmation of her death does not seem to be a sufficient reason to include the image in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I've started an FFD: Wikipedia:Files for discussion#File:Shani Louk in Gaza City.jpg.—Alalch E. 21:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I am sure that many of the victims of the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse would feel the same way about the photos we have there, but they are there because of encyclopedic purpose. We have an image of a man jumping to his death on 9/11 from a skyscraper at September_11_attacks#Casualties for similar reasons, as do we have images of murdered civilians in the lead of Bucha massacre, as well as in several sections therein. All of these are there because our use of images is not based on a one-dimensional criteria on the question of whether or not the depicted person want this photograph taken. Rather, we have to balance this as one of several factors, chief among them being educational value that images provide to our readers.

Major news networks, such as The Times, have posted pictures of victims as they were being kidnapped. There's reason for this—these sorts of images are notable and help the reader to understand the situation better than text alone is capable of. Wikipedia is not censored, and we have an obligation to our readers to provide images of educational value in helping to understand what happened here. For us to decide against including images of the very thing that this article is about makes little sense. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED includes, Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia's policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and using a neutral point of view), so when we have image that appears to have been created primarily to attack or disparage the subject, a discussion at minimum seems warranted as to whether this image complies with our BLP policy need to be conservative, avoid sensationalism, to consider the possibility of harm to living subjects, etc. There appears to be nothing in BLP policy that suggests removal is a one-dimensional consideration of whether the person wanted the image created or how they feel about it, and it appears our considerations are much more encyclopedic and multi-faceted.

Also, comparisons to what news sources have done in other cases does not seem particularly applicable here - not only are we not a newspaper, but this article discusses this imagery on social media and various responses, including from the European Commission, which seems to be an additional reason for caution when considering whether inclusion is appropriate here. Beccaynr (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Just noting that the file was WP:F5-deleted. —Alalch E. 13:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Videos of her abduction from Reim are absent

Totally missing from this article is any reference to the originally abduction of Shani from the Re'im festival, and to the (widely circulated and hence widely available) video-recording of that abduction, which shows her being forced onto the back of a motorcycle and then driven (with abductors holding her) back to Gaza. 2601:47:4B82:DE70:24A5:4D5:601C:3001 (talk) 04:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

That's not the same person. See https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-supernova-festival-noa-argamani-hostage-hamas-attacks-video/ —Alalch E. 07:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Noa Argamani was also taken hostage (I think also fr Reim). From your link, I see she was also taken on motorcycle. (This video does look familiar, and possibly it was Noa A). We should research archives, whatever we can, to find out if Shani was taken in similar way (and filmed).

But Shani Louk is a different person, and her being abducted deserves mention. 2601:47:4B82:DE70:C42:43B0:4B5D:86EA (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I could tell you to provide a reliable source about Shani Louk being taken on a motorcycle, but I know for a fact that there isn't any because that is not what happened. You are simply mistaken. Read the article to inform yourself about what happened in the case of Shani Louk.—Alalch E. 20:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Death info source

Just my thoughts. The article describes the bone fragment as being found at the massacre sight. Although this is never stated directly in any source, the german link quotes the mother as saying she now believes Shani died on Oct 7, which does imply she was told the fragment was found on sight. Additionally, it is logical that they found it there, because its crazy to say they found a random small fragment during a Gaza incursion, without the rest of the body. So, even though technically unsourced, I wouldn't change the article. As a scholarly remark, I express my hope that God avenges her blood so we can add an aftermath section discussing the fate of her attackers. 174.251.64.233 (talk) 06:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

This is now properly sourced in the article. —Alalch E. 03:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Category

Should be added the Category:Murder in Gaza? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.242.194 (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I doubt it, considering she was killed at the festival site in Israel. See comment titled Death info surce 174.251.64.96 (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

"Status" heading

I disagree with your introduction of a heading that says "Status", because it is not descriptive and not precise (see MOS:HEADINGS: Section headings should generally follow the guidance for article titles --> WP:PRECISE: Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article; this means that headings should unambiguously define the topical scope of the section). Louk's status is that she is dead. —Alalch E. 20:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Leaky.Solar: forgot to ping you.—Alalch E. 20:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Alalch E.: Not to worry, I was just annoyed at how choppy the article read with the long section headers....I wasn't to sure on how best to name that section because some of the bits from the families campaign could be merged in. It was kind of a catch all section for Shani's status after the viral video and the music festival massacre. I personally don't believe that the parts about her reportedly in the Gaza Strip with a head wound should be in the families campaign section and figured it could be merged with her now reported death. It can also provide context about why a large chunk of her skull was found (above mentioned head wound). But I'm open to thoughts for organization and naming. Leaky.Solar (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Basically, her family observed a head wound in the video but despite that hoped, according to their statements, that she was alive. But she wasn't alive because an event ocurred which removed the petrous part of the temporal bone from her head, which is not at all a large chunk of a skull, but a deep seated part of the skull that contains the carotid canal. So the family stuff is in my opinion definitely for the family section and not for a reporting-of-fact section. We shouldn't juxtapose those things. —Alalch E. 20:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't view it as odd or incorrect to have those two elements together. Her death was reportedly confirmed much later and reports her health status/well being while her status was up in the air show the progression of her known status. Both describe her health and life, although I see how reports of her being alive but injured could have affected how the family responded to her kidnapping.Leaky.Solar (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

There were no reports of her being alive but injured that affected the family, it's the other way around. The family's campaign affected the reporting. The family told the media that someone from Gaza told them that Louk is alive and in a hospital, but this was never verified, so it was never a reporting of fact, but a reporting of an allegation. Now it is evident that those unverified claims were not based in reality, because Louk could not have been in a hospital as a patient due to having been dead, as the video shows her dead body; this is according to the new sources, but also according to the initial (correct) reporting. Therefore it's incorrect to speak of an undetermined "status". —Alalch E. 21:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

And, with respect, I'd like to end this conversation if we're not actually disagreeing about the current structure of the article.—Alalch E. 21:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2023

Shani was paraded by Palestinian civilians as was shown clearly in the footage. 46.117.136.185 (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. HouseBlaster^talk 04:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The "See Also" section should be removed.

Her body is still missing, and thus this isn't really a case of a "Solved Missing Persons Case." She's not technically been legally declared dead yet, despite the fact that it's a medical certainty. She is still technically missing, even if it's most likely just her corpse.

As an unnecessary subjective comment, it's terrible and tragic. 69.249.102.223 (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Friendly fire theory

@Got Milked: You added content suggesting that Louk was killed by friendly fire and I have removed this content because it was not supported by reliable sources. Namely:

• The Cradle is about to get deprecated, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Cradle
• https://scheerpost.com/2023/10/29/the-hannibal-directive-what-really-happened-on-october-7th/ is "By Mnar Adley / MintPressNews" and MintPressNews was deprecated, find it in WP:RSP
• https://gvwire.com/2023/12/11/israeli-forces-confirm-friendly-fire-in-nova-festival-tragedy/ does not seem like RS.

Sincerely —Alalch E. 00:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Cont.

This content (see the box below) which you, Got Milked, added should be removed because it is not topical in this article. The sources do not mention the killing of Shani Louk. Please self-revert. You added this same paragraph to the article Re'im music festival massacre, but there the alleged occurrence of friendly fire has already been already covered in another part of the prose. Either way, whatever extended text about the festival in general and the Israeli helicopter allegedly killing civilians belongs in that article, not in this article. Placing it in this article only suggests that Shani Louk was killed by friendly fire. But reliable sources that do cover the killing of Shani Louk (unlike the sources which you have used here) do not contain such a supposition, so writing the article so as to say that Louk could have been killed by friendly fire is original speculation, which is in the realm of original research, which is prohibited.

You also seemingly called the coverage in this article "atrocity propaganda" in a previous edit, which could mean that you are editing this page to promote a fringe viewpoint, such as a viewpoint that Louk was killed by the army and that her death has been used as Israeli "atrocity propaganda" to unjustly malign the Palestinian militants.

You could have taken the term "atrocity propaganda" used in this way from websites promoting conspiracy theories and fringe viewpoints such as seen in a MintNews Press article, and you previously tried to insert a MintPress News article as a reference here (MintPress News is a deprecated source, see WP:RSP), meaning that you have been familiarizing yourself with this unreliable outlet, providing further indication that you are editing this article to "correct the narrative" according to the narrative of disinformation outlets, such as MintPress News.

So do not edit in this way, please. Please base yourself on commonsense editorial practices and reliable sources.

Confirmation of friendly fire

Israeli police investigations had revealed that Nova festival-goers were also killed by friendly-fire from at least one AH-64 Apache attack helicopter dispatched from the Ramat David Airbase, and of the approximate 3,500 attendees of the Nova event, 364 of those people have been confirmed killed; the ZAKA Tel Aviv emergency response unit had recommended the shredding and burial of the hundreds of motor vehicles in which many of the victims were slaughtered, due to sanctity of unrecoverable body parts or remains evident in the vehicles.

References

—Alalch E. 16:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

"body was found" on 30 October 2023 and "body apparently discovered twice" theory

@Davidlofgren1996 I disagree that saying that Israel said that the body was found should be added, as what was really found was a part of the skull, and the only reason to believe that the body as in a whole body (as opposed to a very small part of the body) was found would be reading only that tweet. But the source as a whole is very clear that what was found was the bone fragment. Going from here, your theory that the body [was] apparently discovered twice is false. What was discovered on 30 October 2023 was the bone fragment, and what was discovered on 17 May 2024 was the body or "the rest of the body" if you will. Your assertion that Anyone looking up Shani Louk’s death prior to May 2024 would have assumed her body had been found already is false, as everyone did not only read one tweet, or someone maybe did only read it, but, overall, what the reliable sources say is that a bone fragment was found. So most people looking up her death prior to the discovery of the body would have been correctly informed that the bone fragment, and not the body, was found. I don't know why the writer of that tweet chose the term "body" over "body part". Please see the CNN article as a whole, and don't substitute the quote of the tweet for the whole article. Sincerely —Alalch E. 00:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Alalch E. There’s not really any theory here; I thought it was relevant information to include as it was (apparently) a direct quote from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I still find it strange that a bone fragment was found and the time was taken to analyse it, as a lot of people died on 7 October and it is true that Israel have stated it is very hard to obtain evidence in a war zone - if it was possible to get this piece of evidence and DNA test it, why not do the same for any of the reported incidences of rape?

Having dug a bit deeper into this, it appears the original tweet has been wholly misquoted by CNN, despite the article being written an entire day after the tweet. Not sure why they’ve done this - maybe there was another tweet which was later deleted and replaced by this one, and the article was in someone’s drafts for a day.

Apologies for somewhat edit-warring; I just trusted that CNN wouldn’t misquote the original tweet, and felt that said tweet, had it existed, should’ve been included in the article as it came from an official source who would’ve had access to information CNN wouldn’t necessarily have had. However, as the quote apparently does not exist, this is a moot point. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 November 2024

They are Hamas TERRORISTS not militants!!! 2600:1702:67E0:B210:C1BE:81A8:8FBA:72EA (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Not done per MOS:TERRORIST Rainsage (talk) 05:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)