This article should be deleted

I hope wikipedia's not getting into the business of making articles for all killed people who aren't known for anything other than their death! Gee-wiz! She should be listed in Oct.7 article, nothing more. Tallard (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tallard: there's a clear consensus for the article to remain linked from the talk page header section. VQuakr (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a piece of IDF propaganda. Dominant views change over time. Right now the dominant political voices are pro-genocide. Next year, that could be different. Decisions are not set in concrete. If the idea of deletion is not presently supported by the institutionalists, fine, but we shall continue fighting for the non institutionalist view. If not today, then tomorrow, next month, next year. Tallard (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tallard, please stop with the trolling. Notability isn’t lost with time. The killing of Shani Louk (by terrorists, by the way) is notable for an article. See WP:DEGRADE. RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RobRabelo7 your comment goes against the Wikipedia rule of presumption of good faith. Please refrain yourself. Tallard (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for considering your behavior as trolling. RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an article "for" Shani Louk, and she shouldn't be "listed" anywhere. We aren't going to list the names of 364 (music festival) / 766 (the whole of October 7's) civilian casualties. The topic of this event is summarized in two sentences of Re'im music festival massacre. I would support constraining our coverage to only those two sentences if not for other facts in this article, all more-or-less encyclopedic facts, that don't really belong in any other, more general, article; it is this additional information that justifies this being a separate article. If you think I'm wrong in the sense that these other claims in this article, that go beyond the two-sentence coverage in Re'im music festival massacre, are not worthy of inclusion, that they are encyclopedically unsuitable—you could start removing them from this article, and when the content is roughly similar here and there, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, It would then be a good time to redirect this article to that article. I am interested in whether you can make a compelling case that specific sentences/paragraphs should be removed. You can make that case by editing the article and explaining things in edit summaries. I might disagree and revert. We would then keep discussing. There is also the WP:MERGEPROP process, which could lead to the same result all on its own (or in combination with the trimming process), and hasn't been tried yet. Maybe SmokeyJoe also has some ideas about trimming this article as a lead-up to redirection/merger; he suggested redirection as the most desirable outcome in the last deletion review, and the closer of that deletion review said that that the proposal from SmokeyJoe deserves due consideration but this will need to be done editorially. So, I don't know, let's see if it can be done editorially, i.e. if a step-by-step editorial process can prove that redirection is the best outcome for the encyclopedia.—Alalch E. 19:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alalch, if an upmerge proposal happens, I will certainly vote for it. A long time ago I put in a great effort in learning Wikipedia rules, and it was a horrible editing experience, and I will never again waste so much of my life arguing with people existing on a completely different plain of nobility. I now limit myself to an occasional "talk" here and there. So I'll "follow" this page, and await the eventual fix. Thank you. Tallard (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a case for merging of victims, but it is not urgent. This person was subject to coverage. The important question long term is whether coverages continues. There is no case for deletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add AP photo prize fallout

Please add the political fallout of the AP freelance photojournalist winning a prize, the "Team Picture Story of the Year" International Award, for an image of Hamas parading Shani Louk's body. This was awarded by the Donald W. Reynolds Journalism Institute at the Missouri School of Journalism.

AP even posted a self-congratulatory message about this but has deleted it due getting blowback. This WP article is also missing the name of the photojournalist even though the article uses the reviled photo. The photo of Louk's body being displayed was taken by freelancer Ali Mahmud and captioned in part: "Palestinian militants drive back to the Gaza Strip with the body of Shani Louk, a German-Israeli dual citizen, during their cross-border attack on Israel, Saturday, Oct. 7, 2023."

Sources: [1], [2],[3], [4], and [5]

2601:19E:427E:5F90:140E:3AC1:9FA3:21A9 (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Shani's notoriety was partially due to the widespread use of that image, I think it would be worth mentioning the controversy and her family's mixed reaction. 99.138.130.178 (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources? – robertsky (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a small note that the 2nd source is considered unreliable about WP:PIA topics. Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 05:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Killing of Shani Louk/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Killing of Shani Louk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator: Alalch E. (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Irruptive Creditor (talk · contribs) 05:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Passed Good Article Nomination

I believe this article has passed its Good article nomination. I reclassified it from the law category and into an appropriate one, culture. Otherwise, I reasonably believe it meets good article criteria. This is how the article, as of March 29, 2024, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Yes
2. Verifiable?: Yes
3. Broad in coverage?: Yes
4. Neutral point of view?: Yes
5. Stable?: Yes
6. Images?: Yes

The basis for my conclusion is as follows:

  1. First, the article is fairly well-written and I believe that a reasonable person could understand both the topic and its related topics. From what I read, it states an Israeli-German tattoo artist was believed to have been killed in massacre, multiple sources indicate the massacre was perpetrated by members or affiliates of a group known as Hamas, it had been reported that social media users shared video footage of what is believed to be her final moments, it was unknown for a while as to whether she had actually been killed, later forensic analysis of the scene deduced that the death of this person had likely occurred, the family was devastated, and this person's death pertains to a wider conflict going on between Israel and Palestine.
  2. Second, the information is verifiable to a reasonable degree. There are well-reputed sources (as established by current Wikipedia talk on perennial sources). Such sources include Der Spiegel, The New York Times, Washington Post, The Guardian, etcetera. Most of the sources are of either European or American origin. However, references to Indian, Israeli, and Japanese news media also appear. There are a minutia of suspect or unsatisfactory sources like Ynet (never heard of it) and such, yet an insurmountable majority of the referenced sources are fairly reputable.
  3. Third, while this article is about a now-deceased person and features a great deal discussion about them, it nonetheless is broad enough to weave in discussion about major questions of international policy and concern. It discusses this woman's death in relation to a regional conflict in the Middle East.
  4. Fourth, this article appears to be reasonably stable, I undertook a cursory look and could find no glaringly obvious hallmarks of edit warring or sockpuppetry. No massive flood of reverted edits by multiple editors (however, multiple edits by one user, Got Milked were reversed, but this appears to be a lone case and not indicative edit-warring), no torrent of IP users with similar ranges ricocheting around, etcetera.
  5. Fifth, despite the claims of one user, Tallard, on the talk page, I uncovered nothing to substantiate the allegation that this article is "IDF propaganda". For the little it mentions of Israel, the article seems criticize (Israeli) President Isaac Herzog for associating with a tabloid magazine.
  6. Sixth, it has images, or rather just one. However, the image is of fair quality and I don't believe this article would benefit from more.

I would like to congratulate all the editors who've contributed to this article.

Irruptive Creditor (talk) 06:32, 30 March 2024 (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.

Body found and retrieved

According to IDF spokesperson, Hagari. Killed on the 7th, her body was taken into Gaza. 94.230.83.123 (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added, thank you. —Alalch E. 15:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas responsible?

Are we sure Hamas was responsible for her killing? Could have also been a smaller Palestinian group. JDiala (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All we can do is regurgitate what the sources say...... Or are you suggesting some sources say otherwise?Moxy🍁 21:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter who is responsable, because animals can never be responsable for anthing.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F4:B723:762C:74FC:CFFD:EF6B:2BEC (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated footnote

Footnote B, regarding Orión Hernández Radoux, states he is still in Hamas captivity. This is not true, he was killed on October 7th: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-recovers-bodies-of-hostages-orion-hernandez-radoux-hanan-yablonka-michel-nisenbaum-all-slain-on-oct-7/ LivLovisa (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photos from Shani Louk

Hello everyone

Yesterday I uploaded four photos of Shani Louk to Commons, which the photographer Rom Eliaz made freely available to us. I don't have enough edits on enWP since I work almost exclusively on deWP, but maybe someone who owns the rights would like to choose a better image instead of this pixelated "fair use" photo? Take the one you like best. Greetings: איז「Ysa」 07:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ysabella, I have used the first image as I think it is the best of the group. Thank you. —Alalch E. 23:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alalch E.
Thank you so much! You choose very well! Greetings: איז「Ysa」 15:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Template:external media for an easy access to the photograph being discussed

I don't understand the ojection to the use of the {{external media}} template. While it's true that the photo can be seen in the references provided (as noted in the edit summary), there are 5 references in the section. Why make the reader click on the different links in search of the photo that is being discussed? Why not provide a quick and easy access to the photo? The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any benefit to adding a link; it doesn't seem any more accessible than the references. But as a side/avoidance issue - do we not have a fair use rationale for just showing the image? VQuakr (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using the {{external media}} template has the following benefits:
  1. The link immediately shows the photo w/o having to search for it in the multiple references provided
  2. The image comes up much quicker than loading up a page with lots of other text and images
The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a judgement call. We could do a WP:3O to break the tie? What are your thoughts on fair use justification for the image? VQuakr (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, if we can upload the photo using fair use, that would be best, because then the reader could see the photo without having to press any buttons. I just have no idea how to invoke fair use. If you know how to do that, go ahead. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a fair use rationale for just showing the image. As time passes, I am leaning increasingly more in the direction of adding that image to the article. —Alalch E. 21:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added it. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caption

Hello, The Mountain of Eden. I appreciate that you added the photo. You did so by also adding a particular caption. I don't agree with what you are adding to the article by introducing either of your variants of the caption. So, regarding your edit in Special:Diff/1278115397, and your edit summary: Per WP:CAPTION, The caption needs to establish the picture's relevance to the article and provide context for the picture. Please do not remove the relevance and context from the caption, my response is that the extra text does not make for a better caption as it is not needed to establish relevance and provide context; images are functionally tied to prose. You are the editor who originally inserted the caption, and you are insistent on making this addition to the article, so the onus is on you to get consensus on this talk page. While you probably disagree with my thinking on this caption, my arguments can't be discarded out of hand and perhaps a few more editors should get involved to form consensus. But I want to add that I appreciate your perspective and this does not have to be a big disagreement. Sincerely,—Alalch E. 16:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For example, VQuakr is someone who showed some interest in this photo. So, VQuakr, you migh want to comment on the caption as well. I'm noting that I don't have the faintest idea about what your preferences might be caption-wise. Regards —Alalch E. 16:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that "images are functionally tied to prose". But that doesn't mean that a reader should have to read the prose to understand the connection. That's what the caption is for. The idea is for a casual reader who just glances over the page to be able to quickly understand the connection. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging additional editors who have edited this page: טבעת-זרם, Ziv, Leaky.Solar, בר
Although we normally assume good faith, this edit with deceptive use of WP norms and policies (link to why the reasoning was bogus) should raise serious questions about the real motives of the editor who wants to remove details from the caption.
--The Mountain of Eden (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good day. Thanks for the mention, but I have to say at this point that I only contributed the picture of Shani Louk to the article, the ones that are available on Commons. I have no idea about the other image and would like to say that in Germany we are not allowed to use fair use images in articles. But even if it were available on Commons, I don't know if I would want it in the article on de:Shani Louk, which I helped write a lot. Why don't you use another one, e.g. the one with the posters, like in the German article? זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 19:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a sidebar regarding a different photo, but nonetheless, the photo you are talking about was in the article until a few days ago, when it was placed as hidden text w/o any rationale. You can easily unhide it. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I agree that this is a case of WP:NOCAPTION (which is a redlink). The image should be captioned per WP:NFCC to tie it directly to the prose that it is supporting. However, I don't think including "award winning" is necessary, and I don't think it needs to be as long as it is. I propose the following: Associated Press image of Louk's abduction. The prose can handle the specifics of the abduction (i.e. that it was by Hamas militants to the Gaza strip), and better include information on its awards/acclaim. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dreameditsbrooklyn's edit

While Dreameditsbrooklyn's edit of the caption constitutes a significant improvement to the caption (thank you for the edit, Dreameditsbrooklyn), I believe it's not complete. I believe the reason the photo received an award is that it captured an abduction in progress. Therefore, the word "abduction" should be included within the caption. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, please improve as you see fit Dreameditsbrooklyn (

talk) 15:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cont.

@Dreameditsbrooklyn: Thanks for the edit to the caption. The current form of the caption, after your edit is adequate, I can agree with it as-is, and I oppose any words being added or substituted, but I'd support removing the mention of the award as unnecessary information for the caption (but I am probably not going to act on that point for the time being).—Alalch E. 17:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yeah I'm not sure it's needed. lots of photos win awards. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, any caption should reinforce information about the subject of the article not the photo itself. Shorter is better IMHO. VQuakr (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kidnapping_of_Shani_Louk
No tags for this post.