Talk:Gilad Shalit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gilad Shalit article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Israel Portal
Gilad Shalit is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Gilad Shalit is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Use of the term "hostage", source

User:Jaakobou insists on adding the sentence:

“ Shalit, a member of the IDF's Armor Corps, holds the rank of corporal and is the first Israeli soldier captured and held hostage by militant palestinian forces since Nachshon Wachsman in 1994. ”

(my bolding), citing as a source a BBC article referencing Amnesty International. The article with the title Israel seizes Hamas legislators, however, says:

“ Amnesty International, the human rights group, called for all hostages to be released and for "an end to the wanton destruction and collective punishment" by Israel. ”

This sounds a lot more like Amnesty International referring to the Hamas legislators as "hostages". Please find a better source or revert. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 10:53

here is another source (CNN). a militant group took him and is holding him hostage. if you have any source saying otherwise, i'd be surprised. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Take your pick: [1]. Personally, I like the first link best, BBC: Hezbollah capture marks new escalation. No mention of him being a hostage. pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 11:16
P.S. Your CNN source uses the word "hostage" in the heading only and nowhere else. That's kind of weak. pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 11:18
the BBC link also uses the word "abduction" which you object to. and he is held hostage against their prisoners in israel, there is no way to get around that. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
No way to get around your POV? Get me a source specifically calling him a hostage. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 11:26
Even the definition of the word hostage is debated. Where it is contentious we should avoid using it, even if there are one or two sources using the word. If there is a common consensus across media sources that are believed to be NPOV, then I believe it would be appropriate to use it. I do not believe that is the case here. I believe there are alternative words that adequately describe the situation and negate the need to debate whether it is an abduction and whether he is being held hostage or not. Timb0h (talk) 12:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Timb0h, i'm always open to suggestions. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Jaakobou you're abusing the principle of sourcing and citing again - you know what you want to say, and then find something on the web that says the same thing or uses the same terminology and then post your preferred wording into the article, claiming it's been sourced and that the issue is at an end. It doesn't work like that. If you go round the internet, even restricting yourself to reliable and mainstream sources, you're likely to find what you want, for example here the use of the word "hostage". Someone else, with an opposing POV, will probably find what they want, eg even the word "POW". You'd be the first to scrub that out, even though it would have been put there using exactly the same justification as you want to use (ie there was a source for it). As pointed out above, when there is no consensus in the sources, they can't be used to "prove" anything either way. --Nickhh (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
please give a read to WP:NPA and try rephrasing your statement. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(reset) What on earth are you talking about? --Nickhh (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

new - How about Germany's main newspaper calling him a hostage in their international version? [2] Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

How about the International Herald Tribune talking about a "prisoner exchange"? Or how about, "you have missed the point entirely"? There is no consensus in the media - all your example does is reinforce that. As of course does mine --Nickhh (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's see, Der Spiegel with a 1million plus circulation beats a 232k circulation for the IHT by four times. But I'll zip up if you do. :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
And the Bild-Zeitung has a cirulation of more than 3 times that, but that doesn't make them more reliable, does it? pedro gonnet - talk - 06.12.2007 11:46
There's a world of difference between a Tabloid like the Bild-Zeitung or the Weekly World News and a serious news weekly like Der Spiegel or Time. Was I honestly supposed to take this seriously? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
(EC) As per Nickhh's comment, you can always find a source or two for anything if you look hard enough. According to Google, "captured" beats "hostage" by a factor of two. Even "abducted" gets more hits than "hostage". pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 13:53
Google is not the right tool for this one see here: [3]. BBC and CNN use hostage or abducted, it doesn't get bigger than those two... even if some might argue that the IHT is more neutral. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe he was seriously suggesting we have a Googlefight. Whilst I think the BBC and CNN are generally good sources, without a common concensus in the media I still believe we should stick to neutral terminology and avoid loaded words. Timb0h (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
So what is the right tool? Your personal opinion? You can play the same game on news.google.com if you want -- "abducted" beats "hostage" by a factor of about 2.5. The sources include Haaretz, Ynetnews, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and the Washington Post. This is just to show you that the term "hostage" is a minority in the media. Google isn't proof, but a factor of 2 or more is a good indication that one term is used more often than another. pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 15:42
pedro, you seem to keep using sources that support the position against you.
(1) was the BBC, who support "abduction". [4]
(2) is Ynet who supports "kidnapping" [5]
(3) is haaretz who supports "abduction" (betzelem support "abduction" and "hostage") [6]
(4) JTA support both "kidnapped" and "abducted" [7]
(5) washington post support "abduction" [8]
as far as i'm concerned, this issue is finished. if you still insist, i'm willing to open an RfC regarding this issue. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, User:Jaakobou, where, in all this, do you see the use of the word "hostage"? Did you even bother reading the heading of this section? It's about using the word "hostage" and your source being bogus. Don't try to take this discussion anywhere else. pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 16:01
don't force me to supply diffs. the issue is that you used the word captured and/or POW and objected vehemently to the use of kidnap, hostage or abduction. are you now saying that you changed your mind regarding one of the latter options? JaakobouChalk Talk 16:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't say the BBC support the use of the term abduction. The article linked is actually a reference to the subsequent incident, and only uses the word abduction once. Recent articles on Gilad shalit do not use that term [9] [10] Timb0h (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)\
let's say, that the bbc, who is noted as one of the bodies most consistent on not using the word "terrorists" when israeli civilians are the target, don't object using the term... hence: the case should be closed. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

\leftarrow Nobody's forcing you into anything, User:Jaakobou... You're losing this argument (the use of "hostage" in the intro with a bad source which I reverted) and flailing around, trying to push this all in some other direction. Please revert your introduction of the word "hostage" and we can discuss the other issues later, elsewhere. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 05.12.2007 16:30

Gods, this is lame. What is your alternative word for him, Pedro? "The kidnapped?" "The captive?" "The detained?" "The imprisoned?" Rather than wasting more time on this fruitless waste of time, please provide an alternative. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with his actual name? Timb0h (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Whatever you like best, just not "hostage" or anything else which is POV and/or not supported by sources. pedro gonnet - talk - 06.12.2007 11:39

please stop asking me to revert because that and the hyperbolic language (per "You're losing this argument") is getting ridiculous. you've provided sources that promote the opinion opposing yours and hence, the discussion is now moot. i'm still open for suggestions or an RfC if you insist on going there. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou, my "opinion" is that the word "hostage" shouldn't be used and that your source was dubious at best -- which is what the heading of this section states rather clearly. The vast majority of the sources don't refer to him as a "hostage", hence, we shouldn't use the term "hostage". Whatever my opinions may be regarding the other words (in Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict I endorsed "captured" and "abducted" because they are used in this article throughout, as opposed to "taken/held hostage"), they are not relevant in this discussion. Get back on track... pedro gonnet - talk - 06.12.2007 07:01
Per the hostage article, a hostage is a person or entity which is held by a captor. Kidnapped would be incorrect since this soldier is not a child. Captive would be suitable. I've never encountered anyone who has claimed that "hostage" is a POV term. Maybe we should hold a straw poll on whether or not the term is loaded? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
"Hostage" usually refers to a criminal abduction. The context, however, is that of an armed conflict, one even sanctioned by the Fourth Geneva Convention (right to resist occupation is written there, if I remember correctly). Capturing a prisoner in war is not a criminal act. I agree to using the term "held captive", as you suggest. pedro gonnet - talk - 06.12.2007 14:50
And as for the BBC's policy on nomenclature, see [11], especially the last paragraph. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 06.12.2007 17:18
(1) betzelem called it war crime. (2) CNN called it hostage demands. enough. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The BBC article makes it pretty clear that he is not a hostage. Your source vs. mine. I'm starting an RfC... Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 07.12.2007 09:16

•

Gilad who was captured / abducted is held against his will. He was not taken hostage but his captors' demand for his release makes him hostage of the situation.

AlainFarhi (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with AlainFarhi - seriously, we don't need to cite usage of the word if the situation meets the common definition. Sort of a ridiculous argument. He is being held against his will, there are demands related to his potential for release - i.e., he is a hostage. AvruchTalk 18:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The article states "Shalit’s captors issued a statement on Monday, 2006-06-26, offering information on Shalit if Israel agreed to release all female Palestinian prisoners and all Palestinian prisoners under the age of 18." This is a ransom demand for a hostage. There may be justification for taking Shalit hostage, but this demand PROVES that he is a hostage being held for ransom. We can debate the justification for hostage taking, but not that this has occured. Raggz (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
"A hostage is a person or entity which is held by a captor."
"Ransom is the practice of holding a prisoner to extort money or property to secure their release, or it can refer to the sum of money involved. Holding people for ransom has occurred throughout history. ... It also refers to demanding concessions from a person or organization by threatening damaging action." Raggz (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: Use of the term "hostage" regarding Gilad Shalit

This dispute is regarding whether or not Gilad Shalit should be referred to as a "hostage".

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
  • Most serious news sources do not refer to Gilad Shalit as a hostage since he was captured as a soldier during an armed conflict (see, for example, [12]). Up to about a week ago, his article used to refer to him as "captured" and "abducted". User:Jaakobou introduced the term "hostage" only to make a point in a discussion Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict elsewhere. pedro gonnet - talk - 07.12.2007 09:22
  • I don't know about "serious," but I think it's fair to say that the Beeb is seriously, notoriously, aggressively anti-Israel. Editor Jon Williams statement was touching, I wonder if he had an opportunity to review this atricle [13], where they call British soldiers captured in Sierra Leone "hostages." IronDuke 01:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not really involved in the dispute but I have been active in the discussions. I think this whole dispute is lame. The word hostage does not have the special meanings that Pedro is reading into it and is preferable, imho, to any other label for this soldier. And repeating the hostage's name over and over again has serious readability issues. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • You are involved. The article currently does not use the word "hostage" and is perfectly readable. The problem was the introduction of the word "hostage" once to make a WP:POINT, not throughout. pedro gonnet - talk - 07.12.2007 09:55
  • I support the use of "kidnapping" [14], "abduction" [15] and "hostage" [16]. i don't mind the use of "captured" every now and then, but not as the only word allowed. in my mind, "hostage" is the most appropriate to describe the situation he's in. which is the issue of the current RfC conflict [17] - p.s. i find POW at fault because (1) it wasn't done during a war and (2) also because he is not given POW treatment. (3) lastly, no source uses the POW terminology. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "Kidnapping" is the only useful term here, especially per WP:RS. Anything else just obfuscates what happened. IronDuke 01:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Comments
  • Apart from B'Tselem and CNN, no other serious media source uses the term "hostage". pedro gonnet - talk - 07.12.2007 09:22
    • Other than Germany's 1 million plus circulation Der Spiegel with has an estimated readership of 6.5 million and is Europe's biggest and most influential news weekly. You forgot Poland Germany. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
      • After you got busted citing their circulation you're now using the unreferenced claim to "readership"? pedro gonnet - talk - 07.12.2007 09:55


  • Gilad who was captured / abducted is held against his will. He was not taken hostage but his captors' demand for his release makes him hostage of the situation.
AlainFarhi (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Clearly, the article can use whatever terminology that well-sourced, respected references use. If a good reference is cited using the word "hostage", there's no issue with using the term in the article. I recognize the political nature of the debate, but this can easily be abstracted away from that. Note, though, that these have to be good references, i.e. major news sources like the AP, Reuters, the BBC, etc.. DanielC/T+ 16:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I would have no problem with including a section on him being a hostage or not and the discussion thereof, but for the introduction and nomenclature in general in the article, the term is not accepted enough and too controversial even for the BBC. pedro gonnet - talk - 07.12.2007 16:28
  • Wikipedia is not the BBC, and does not have a policy on semantics. What matters is whether or not reliable sources use the term. If so, it's acceptable for it to be used here. If not, it is not acceptable. It can't be made any clearer. If you have another term that you prefer, cite a reliable source that uses it and put it in the article. Further, this article is about Gilad Shalit, not about some minor argument about terminology. Any section detailing such a disagreement would be inappropriate for the article. DanielC/T+ 16:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • This article works fine without the word hostage. There is no reason to add it. By the way the article on Hostage includes the following paragraph, which I agree with. As a loaded term, it should be left out.
However, in modern days, it means someone who is seized by a criminal abductor in order to compel
another party such as a relative, employer or government to act, or refrain from acting, in a 
particular way, often under threat of serious physical harm to the hostage(s) after expiration of an
ultimatum.
Let me just say that I checked what the international law has to say about the matter. First of all, the international law regards the POW status as a privilege. This privilege includes regular visits of the Red Cross, immunity against being brought before a court of law etc. Being a POW is a privilege reserved to any soldier or a fighter in a properly-organized military organization, regardless of the way he was captured. To this matter, it is irrelevant whether he was abducted, captured in a battlefield or whatever. Now, Shalit was definitely abducted. When he faced his enemy he wasn't involved in war, and he wasn't present in a battlefield. He was involved in a rutine work of a soldiers within Israel's borders. Since he was a soldier at the time of his abduction he is entitled to a POW status. His abductors indeed call him a POW (asīr in Arabic) but they do not provide him the POW privileges. Therefore, in practice he is more of a hostage. DrorK (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
That all sounds like Original Research to me. Anyway I agree that we shouldn't use the word POW in this article. However someone doesn't have to be either a POW or a Hostage. A lot of effort on both sides goes on trying to portay the situation as such and such. Personally I think it's a pretty unique situation. Both Hostage and POW are loaded terms and give implications, so let's avoid them. Timb0h (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid this situation is no longer unique. The fact that we find it hard to describe means that we still thinks in the terms of WW2 and fail to see the changes in the way conflicts are conducted. Now, organizations like Hamas or Hezbollah prefer to use the term POW because they wish to give their actions a sense of legitimacy. Absurdically, they refuse to comply with the demands stated in the international law for POWs. It should be mentioned that Shalit is a POW according to the international law, and it should be mentioned that in practice he is not treated as a POW. It should also be mentioned that he wasn't taken prisoner in battlefield, but abducted from within Israel, because this is the truth. BTW, there were Lebanese citizens abducted from southern Lebanon to Israel by the Israeli army (I think they are all released now). I would never say they were "captured". DrorK (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that is still all your opinion and should be left out of the article unless we have reliable sources. Timb0h (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
We have shown multiple reliable sources which use the term "hostage" in relation to this soldier. It is simply that those with an agenda refuse to acknowledge that these sources exist, even to the absurd point of trying to compare them to tabloid rags. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You have not shown multiple reliable sources to support the use of the word hostage. The pages linked in support of such claims are all Israeli newspapers and cannot be considered to present a NPOV in this matter. Abduction is a word I agree has been used in multiple reliable and neutral sources. There are literally hundreds of reliable and neutral sources that support the terminology such as held captive, captured and held, held prisoner etc. There is no reason to try and introduce loaded terminology unless you are trying to push an agenda, which should be kept off of wikipedia. Timb0h (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
My usuall reply for this type of dispute is "what do reliable sources say"? Unfortunately, both sides, I am sure, can provide sources to back up their case. Therefore, what is the most nuetral way to describe this? I would myself would go for "abducted", especially in the lead, even though it appears he is being "used" as a hostage. Anyways, not an easy one as usuall. Good luck :) Cheers, --Tom 14:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)ps, I removed category kidnapping but left category hostage, neither "side" will probably like this :) --Tom 16:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Der Spiegel is Israeli. Try again. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It's certainly not multiple reliable sources. That piece on his father is clearly a sympathy piece. Timb0h (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's redirect. Do you have a policy reason why the Israeli press is not a reliable source or is it simply a prejudice against them? Is there a policy reason that a reliably sourced news article is dismissed simply because one editor believes that it is a sympathy piece? "I don't like it" is not an argument that carries any weight, Tim. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
All three of the core wikipedia policies need to be considered together, not in Isolation. You can't just grab one source that uses one term and plaster it all over the article citing the policy of Verifiability and the guildines on Reliable Sources completely ignoring the policy on NPOV. Israel is an involved party in this article and the national papers cannot be considered to be publishing a NPOV. Obviously the same goes for Palestinian newspapers. The entire context of the article in the german newspaper you linked was an interview with the victims father. That in itself doesn't discount the entire article, but you should consider it in context. When you have a single article from a neutral reliable source and hundreds of articles from neutral reliable sources, the only reason to use that article is to try and put across your own point of view. As per policies obviously it's not a numbers game and we don't just present the majority verdict. If you want to add a few lines that say about how Israeli (and one german) newspaper present the matter then that may be appropriate for the article. Media coverage of this event is certainly relevent. However, asserting the terminology of the whole article on the basis of these few sources is clearly not using a NPOV. Timb0h (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
In other words, according to your original research, the german newspaper is NPOV. Sorry, wikipedia has a NOR policy as well. Thanks for playing tho. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't state any conclusions, hence it isn't OR, I simply stated the context of the article. Unless you disagree with the fact that it was an interview with Shalits father then you cannot disagree with what I said. Could you please alter your tone and argue the point instead of the person. Timb0h (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
You stated a conclusion about the source, that it is portraying this person in a positive light. We do not draw conclusions, we simply state what the reliable (and Der Spiegel is beyond reliable) sources state. You seem to have a problem accepting that. You also seem to have a problem with the Israeli press. Your personal feelings about the sources have no bearing here, we report what the sources say. We've shown RS meeting press reports where he's labelled a hostage. You are dancing around trying to poison the sources and inserting your POV upon them. This is problematic. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no personal feelings about the Israeli press. Everyone knows Gilad Shalit is an Israeli. We are looking to convey a Neutral Point of View as per wikipedia's policy. The only reason to ignore all other reliable sources and insist on sources which are not neutral is to try and push an agenda, something that is not appropriate for wikipedia. As I have said before, simply providing a few sources that use a certain word does not satisfy all of the wikipedia policies. We must aim for both reliability and neutrality. Timb0h (talk) 13:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide any evidence showing that Shalit has been brought before a court of law of some sort? Have the people holding him listed him as a POW? Unless these actions were taken, he cannot be regarded as a prisoner or a prisoner of war. This is not an interpretation. This is a fact. By calling him "captive" or "prisoner" you create a false impression as if his imprisonment has some sort of legitimacy according to either local or international law. Had it been the case, we would have known exactly who holds him, his physical and mental condition, the exact reason or purpose of his imprisonment etc. Since the people who hold Shalit never supplied this information nor took any required action according to local or international law, then you cannot avoid the conclusion that he is being used as a hostage. For me a person being used as a hostage is a hostage, but if you prefer the term "used as a hostage" I wouldn't mind that. 11:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drork (talk • contribs)

Captive simply means someone who is held against their will. It has no implications of legality what-so-ever. It's meaning is simply someone who was captured. Someone who is kidnapped and held hostage is also a captive and held in captivity. Prisoner technically also has the same meaning, but I will admit that it has a slight connotations of official status (but not legality). Given most of the neutral articles seem to use the words captive and captivity, if you want to change references from prisoner to captive then I won't object in the aim of making this article as NPOV as possible. Your analysis and conclusions about his hostage status however are undeniably Original Research Timb0h (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I could equally argue that your interpretation of the English words "captive" and "prisoner" is an original research. You can dismiss any opinion you don't like by calling it an original research, and we'll never reach the end of this discussion. The facts of this story are simpler than they seem to you - (1) he was attacked while being on Israeli soil and not engaged in warfare. He was wounded and taken to Gaza against his will. That's abduction according to any dictionary. (2) Although being entitled to a POW status (being a soldier), the people holding him do not treat him as such (the Red Cross didn't visit him etc.), so we can do without the POW term. (3) The people holding him refuse to release him unless the Israeli government free certain Palestinian prisoners kept in Israeli jails. This is bargaining, where Shalit is used as a "bargaining chip", otherwise known as a "hostage". I fail to see the original research in this simple logics. DrorK (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
When you chain together sentances like that, you are doing original research. I am promoting the user of words that are undeniably fact, the words that have been used by all neutral reliable sources. The words that are as neutral as possible. This is not the place to push your own agenda. I have not argued anywhere that the term POW should be used. The term abduction is a slightly loaded term, as the term prisoner is. I think however that either can be used acceptably in the right context. The terms kidnapped and hostage however are very loaded terms and should be avoided. I do not see why we cannot come to a consensus on these terms. Timb0h (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Chaining sentences to create a logical deduction doesn't fall under the original research prohibition, otherwise every common sense claim is an original research. I'm not sure, though, that your interpretation of English words is consensual. Do you have any source to back your claim that "abduction" has a different tone than "kidnapping"? My dictionary treats them as synonyms. Furthermore, would you take out of Wikipedia's lexicon a word that accurately describes the current situation, just because some people find it emotionally charged? The facts on the ground are compatible with the definition of "hostage". Would you prefer to use a less accurate word because some people don't like that word? DrorK (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Your assertions do not fall under common sense. Your analysis of whether he is a POW or not and the bargaining that goes on, then drawing a conclusion from that analysis is the definition of original research. Here are two sources that show a differece between abduct and kidnap [18] [19]. You will see the kidnap version specifies Illegal. I understand that from some other places the meaning is less clear. It is especially complicated by the legal definition of the crimes of abductions and kidnapping. The crimes are almost identical. The meaning of the words is slightly different. I am happy to avoid both if that makes you happy. We should stick to as neutral terms as possible Timb0h (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If Shalit is a hostage, then what to say about 1000s of Palestinians languishing in Israeli jails? Shalit, as a uniformed soldier outside of his own country, cannot really be defined as a 'hostage' by any means. --Soman (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Soman, palestinian prisoners are mostly held after being brought in front of a courthouse for their militant activities. they are, unlike gilad shalit, given the basic prisoner rights as the geneva accord demands - and are also given some extra rights, based on the israeli jail system (example: Samir Kuntar got his first degree in the open university while behind bars). Shalit became a hostage to the Palestinian demands, and we have a reliable high profile reference for this. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
'Mostly held', in your own words. Any legal process by an occupying force against the inhabitants of the occupied areas is a pure sham, the resistance fighters are denied their POW status by the occupant forces. 'Captured' is an accurate term to use in the context of Shalit. --Soman (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Lets try and avoid debating the whole israeli palestinian conflict here and concentrate on facts about Gilad Shalit. Timb0h (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As we call Palestinian hostages/prisoners "prisoners", Shalit should also be called a "prisoner".Bless sins (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there any evidence he is imprisoned? Prisoner means a very specific thing. Was there a criminal proceding by a court empowered by a nation-state? Please, if you're going to push your POV, at least use words properly. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually no [20]. The definition is anyone who is captured and held, but as per popular usage it usually refers to people on trial or in prison. If we go down the route of using any term that has a single source (which I am NOT advocating) then even the JP calls him a prisoner multiple times [21]
Shalit was taken prisoner Sunday when gunmen attacked an IDF post near Kerem Shalom, just outside the border with southern Gaza.

Timb0h (talk) 09:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight - a paramilitary organization of Palestinians digs a tunnel across the recognized borderline between Israel and the Gaza Strip, sends a unit of armed Palestinians into Israel attacks a regular patrol of soldiers (not engaged in warfare), kills several of them, wounds another one, then takes the wounded soldiers into the Gaza Strip, refuses to let the Red Cross visit him (despite requests from the RC delegation to Gaza) and conditions the realese of the Israeli soldier with the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, and we still argue whether or not this act is legal? Is there a law, rule or norm not violated here? Or am I getting into original research again? And don't get me wrong, the Israeli forces did similar acts in the past. There were several Lebanese civilians kidnapped from southern Lebanon into Israel, and some acts of arresting Palestinians in the WB or the Gaza Strip could be regarded as kidnapping. Most - not all - Palestinians kept in Israeli jails were brought before a court of law and were entitled to legal defense. Nevertheless, you cannot say that Shalit is not treated as a hostage or wasn't kidnapped by Palestinians just because you are not happy with the Israeli conduct. You cannot justify one crime by another. It is not a case of symmetry. DrorK (talk) 09:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes that is all considered Original Research. I make no judgements about what is legal or not by either sides involved in the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Anyone who says they know but does not have a degree in international law is kidding themselves. Even lawyers cannot agree amonst themselves on this issue. Either way, it is not relevent to the article. All of the reliable sources avoid using words that imply legallity (or lack thereof), so we leave it out of wikipedia. Trying to debate these things on wikipedia, with the aim of inserting your own opinion into the article is completely pointless. Timb0h (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Dror, if a country is at war, then all its soldiers, no matter where they are posted or what they are doing, are involved and therefore also legitimate military targets. pedro gonnet - talk - 10.12.2007 09:50
Clarification: Which country is holding this soldier hostage again? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary Section Break

Wow, that's quite a mis-reading of what I wrote... Israel is in an armed conflict with the Palestinians, therefore any Israeli soldier is fair game. The same way Israel thinks it's OK to bomb militant Palestinians while their having tea in the Gaza Strip, the militant Palestinians think it's OK to capture a soldier in uniform during active duty inside a military base inside Israel. pedro gonnet - talk - 10.12.2007 10:29
If any soldier is a fair game, then there is no use for the international humanitarian law, and we can consider it null and void. Since I never heard about such a decision, I believe this law is still valid, and therefore we have a solid reason to talk about legality of military actions. By the way, who says it is okay to bomb Palestinian militants while they are having tea? Wasn't Israel heavily criticized for the "targeted killing" policy even by Israelis? And one other thing - you needn't be a lawyer specialized in international law to understand what is an illegal abduction or what is a hostage in such conflicts, just as you needn't be a lawyer specializing in criminal law to recognize a robber bursting illegaly into a bank. Wikipedia is all about telling the facts on the ground in the most straightfoward way, not about beating around the bush in order to be "politically correct". If one sees a black and white striped donkey, one may call it a zebra without being condemned for indroducing an "original research". DrorK (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
No, you see, in times of war, the Geneva Conventions distinguish between combatants and "Protected Persons" (i.e. civilians). In times of war or during occupation, it is legitimate to capture or kill combatants (note that this is only an "or" and not an "and/or" -- once you capture one, you have to make sure they live, which means no executing prisoners). It is not legitimate to treat them inhumanely -- this is where your "international humanitarian law" comes in. But you are allowed to capture or kill them. If you've ever done military service, you should know this -- every soldier does. If you are a member of the military during a conflict, you are liable to get killed without it being a criminal act -- i.e. without your killers getting punished for it. pedro gonnet - talk - 10.12.2007 15:32
We are lucky not to have you among the legislators of the international law. Your ideas about right and wrong during wartime are totally false, and I wonder who gave you a copy of the Geneva convention - give it back to him and ask for a genuine copy. An act of crossing the border and attacking either civilians or soldiers on their own soil is a clear case of agression, and it doesn't matter whether or not the attacker is in a state of war with the the attacked country. According to your logic, had the September 11 attacks targeted a military base near New York city rather than the World Trade Center, it would have been considered legitimate. This is an absurd. You may share the Hamas' opinion that Israel has no soil, as it calls the whole territory "occupied Palestine", but luckily there are few people who share this view. Furthermore, even if your views were correct - and they are absolutely false - there is still an obligation upon the people holding a soldier against his will to let the Red Cross visit him, to send information about his condition and to treat him fairly and decently. The people holding Shalit did nothing of the kind. They treat him as a hostage according to the simplest definition found in any dictionary. DrorK (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with saying "abducted" on this issue. Drork, I agree mostly with you, but I'm not sure how it is aggression to attack soldeirs on their own soil if you are at war with them. however if you're saying this act was aggression since it was not an act of a state government, but rather a terrorist group, I agree. Pedro Gonnet, I disagree with the points and reasoning you have laid out on this issue.(nothing personal, by the way). --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I seriously don't get why you are arguing over things that have no place in the article. Regardless of who is right about whether it was legal or not, this is no place for Original Research and the reasoning on both sides is just that. If you want to argue over the legalities of various parts of the Arab-Israeli conflict then I suggest wikipedia is not the place to do it. Timb0h (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The whole idea of having laws of war is that all is not allowed even in wartime. The international laws of war do not regard soldiers as living targets, quite the contrary - they demand treating soldiers and fighters as human beings even in times of war. Of course civilians are even more protected by these laws. In this case, Shalit and his fellow soldiers did not pose a threat to the attackers, nor was there any casus belli to justify an invasion into the Israeli territory and attacking Israeli forces. Furthermore, according to the international law, a wounded soldiers should not be captured, unless this act would save his life. Holding enemy soldiers as prisoners is meant to prevent the enemy from reusing this manpower as long as violence continues. The idea of using people, even soldiers, as bargaining chips is not legitimate. I am fully aware of the fact that Israel did the same in the past, but this fact cannot justify such an action on behalf of the other side. It is not a question of symmetry. Now, as I said, I don't subscribe to the idea that any logical conclusion is an original research. In my opinion, calling a black-and-white striped donkey a zebra is not an original research. DrorK (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
As per wikipedia policy, the fact of whether said stripey mammal is a donkey or not is irrelevent unless there are verifiable sources stating that it is a donkey. And if there are multiple verifiable but conflicting sources on the subject then we do not state either as fact and stick to a neutral point of view Timb0h (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by previously uninvolved users

  • Leave out the word hostage, just because you can. Other terms are available. Concentrate on getting the facts right. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • problem is that "one side" of the involved editors are also against 'abducted' and 'kidnapped'. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
And some people needlesly object to 'captured'. For the record I don't object to abducted if used in the right context. Timb0h (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
See if you can round up some more uninvolved people. Try some wikiprojects. Then you can have a friendly get together to find your consensus compromise and move on. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, I have no problem whatsoever with the term "abducted" -- it's the language that was in use here before User:Jaakobou went on his WP:POINTspree. pedro gonnet - talk - 11.12.2007 08:26
well, that sounds constructive enough. thanks for your comment. that is helpful in moving closer to some resolution. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nachshon Wachsman

would appreciate an explanation on why Nachshon Wachsman and gilad's rank are important to the introduction. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Mentions of Nachshon aren't really relevent and make the introduction overly long. His rank and unit along with his D.O.B. (and hence age) are relevent details to describe who he is. Timb0h (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
so what part of the edit are you contesting exactly that you reverted it? JaakobouChalk Talk 21:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
As I said multiple times, Trivia sections are bad style and should be avoided. Wikipedia:Trivia sections. Keeping it in the header is better than adding a trivia section. It may be found a better place in the body of the article or deleted altogether. Timb0h (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
the lead should be an introduction to the article, not a collection of trivia WP:LEAD. please go carefully over the policy reference you're linking for me, since there's nothing there regarding the point of conflict we're having; it is rather a note to avoid unimportant/undue references from clamoring articles. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Which point of conflict are you talking about? using the word hostage? I agree that has nothing to do with this. If you want to remove the reference to Nachshon, then do it without creating a trivia section. The policy is clear on avoiding trivia sections. Move the reference to lower down in the article if you don't want to delete it from the article completely. If you do either of those things, I wont revert that change. Timb0h (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Warring

Please stop edit warring. Multiple reversions on BLP articles is a serious problem and could result in protection of the article. Personally, I prefer Timb0h's version as more encyclopedic. AvruchTalk 18:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The last version that I reverted still needs a lot of improvement I think. If we can just agree on which words should and should not be used then I think together we can come up with a much better reading article. Timb0h (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

What's the point of starting an RfC and then leaving no space for previously-uninvolved people to comment? I came in order to put in my tuppence-worth but now won't bother. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I will comment. By the Geneva Conventions, when captured a member of a signatory is captured, he or she is a POW and is not a hostage. If a fighter who represents a power that did not sign the Geneva Conventions is captured, they are called a combatant.
Israel signed of some (but not all) of the GCs. Hezbollah has signed none of them. If captured by Lebanon (which signed) then he would be a POW. Hezbollah is not a signatory and does not comply with the GCs. It is not a nation.
The question becomes: Is Hezbollah complying with the GCs? If so, do they let the Red Cross visit as is required etc etc...? If not - he is a hostage. If so, by the GCs he is probably a POW. The decision was for Hexbollah, the name follows their decision. Raggz (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
you got a little confused between hezbollah (ehud goldvaser and eldad regev) and hamas (gilad shalit) - still, your reply covered both cases. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no support for the claim that an Israeli soldier is being held by the government of Lebanon, (if there is a reliable source is required). The terminology for his status IF this were the case is this totally inapplicable. He is not being held by a recognized military force but by an armed insurgency that invaded Israeli territory to commit crimes by Israeli and international law. These crimes were committed by an insurgency that has not signed the Geneva Conventions and has not observed them, in violation of them and international law. If this insurgency acted as a military force and observed the GCs, this question would be hard. It is not hard, the insurgency is not a military entity. The capture served no military purpose. The detention serves no military purpose whatsoever.
The word hostage is appropriate. Why is he being held, why was he not just killed? If someone can answer this, or any of the above, I will refrain from editing the proper word hostage in. WP has a policy against weasel words, and this debate that resulted in the RfC is about if weasle words are better than the correct term. Raggz (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
my thoughts exactly. i believe that deletion of the word hostage disregards that all three are held without basic human rights (not even red cross visits) as hostages. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, kind of like the majority of those Palestinian prisoners the Israelis are holding, don't you think? pedro gonnet - talk - 03.01.2008 14:28
are you talking about the ones with regular visitations from their family (not red cross) or the ones who finish university education [22]?
shame. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I was talking about the ones in military prisons on administrative detention subject to regular harsh interrogation techniques considered torture by the United Nations [23][24]. Oh, and family visits have been forbidden since the start of the Second Intifada. pedro gonnet - talk - 03.01.2008 15:22

I believe that you are correct, but your point seems irrelevant. What link is there between this hostage and the Israeli prisoners? Raggz (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that User:Pedro Gonnet was blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation on this article. I have no firm position on the issue, but I will see to it that proper dispute resolution is followed without the edit warring that took place today. Hopefully a more reasoned approach can be taken in the future. DanielC/T+ 00:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hostage/Captive debate section

I do appreciate the idea behind the introduction of a section to the article about the argument over the hostage vs captive semantics, but here I think it's misguided due to the fact that the only controversy I've seen is here on this talk page. If evidence of an actual debate on this particular disagreement over semantics can be found outside Wikipedia I think it's a great solution; my own investigations haven't shown any results though.

I am, of course, open to discussion. The sentiment of compromise is great, but verifiability is, to grossly paraphrase Robert Heinlein, a harsh mistress. :) DanielC/T+ 00:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If the section does not work for the majority of editors, fine. I believe that it works well, and recommend working on it rather than deletion. I suggest that the section heading be changed, I don't really like it, but can offer nothing better. Raggz (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I definitely agree that discussion and playing around with the idea is greatly preferable to immediate deletion. No worries about reversions from me. :)
In any event, let's wait until Pedro is back to start any major edits. He's the most vocal proponent for one side of the debate, after all, and deserves a say in the matter. DanielC/T+ 00:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm back and I'm all for it -- this is indeed a good solution. Waiting to see how User:Jaakobou feels about it, since he's the one who started this dispute...
I would like to add a link to the Guardian opinion piece on their naming decision (the link is on this page somewhere) as a note on how the press sees the issue. Would anybody mind that or would it be excessive bloat? Cheers and many thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 04.01.2008 09:45
Absolutely, if such a resource exists. My only objection to the section is its lack of references, but if there's one out there I'm quite happy with adding it and putting this all behind us. DanielC/T+ 11:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad, I meant the BBC, not The Guardian. The link is here. Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 04.01.2008 11:29
I am also a proponent of usage of the word "hostage." I am open to discussion of this issue. however, I feel there should not be any doubt that this is a distinct, notable issue. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite follow what i'm supposed to feel about? based on RfC comments though, i've seen a distinct majority for the use of hostage and believe that this should not be reverted without some extra mediation or something similar. JaakobouChalk Talk 18:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

An RfC is not a vote... If you want extra mediation, then request it. Your feelings were requested regarding the addition of a section to "teach the controversy" regarding the "hostage"/"captive" label. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 07.01.2008 07:29
i think it could be ok but it could also turn into a WP:TOPIC issue.
as for the current version, i don't see a need for extra mediation (since there's a fairly clear +5 !votes consensus from the RfC), but if you insist that you are correct... i am open to extra exploration of WP:DR. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, an RfC is not a vote, and there were many voices against the term "hostage" which is not supported by the sources (as explained to Steve). Since you are the one wanting to insert that language at all costs it is you who has to start any kind of WP:DR. pedro gonnet - talk - 07.01.2008 12:06
i don't mind opening it, but if memory serves me right - the change came because you went on another article relating gilad shalit and replaced the word with the word captive (not that i'm making an attempt to point fingers).
p.s. first edit to this issue (that i'm aware of) on this article was 22:46, 28 July 2007.. now i don't have check-user abilities, but i sure wish i had. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
p.p.s. pedro gonnet, would you be interested that i open a mediation process or would you prefer to do it? JaakobouChalk Talk 13:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, dear people, it is obvious that the words "held hostage" in this context cannot be considered neutral usage by any standard. Paul kuiper NL (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that does not seem obvious to all... If this goes to mediation, User:Jaakobou, you will lose. However, if your path to enlightenment will only lead through a mediation, then I guess that's the way to go -- even if this means the issue will not be resolved for a while longer. So, to answer your question directly: yes, you may start a mediation.
As for the accusations: No, you started this dispute when I noted on Israeli-Palestinian conflict that this article does not refer to him as a "hostage" and thus neither should any other, which is why you decided to fudge this article to make a WP:POINT. The IP you cite is from somewhere in the United States, probably Virginia, whereas I am in Switzerland. You'll have to try harder. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 07.01.2008 13:31
One thing must be clear - whatever you think of the way Gilad Shalit was taken against his will, he is currently being held as a hostage. This is not POV. I'm one of those who think one may always use words according to their plain meaning. We shouldn't take out words from our lexicon just because someone feel uncomfortable with them. Once the good people of the Red Cross finally get to see Shalit and verify he is held in decent condition, I'll be willing to reconsider the use of the word "hostage". DrorK (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
A soldier cannot be legitimately captured by anyone except the armed forces of legitimate national government. Nowhere does this article claim that Shalit was captured by the legitimate forces of the Palestinian Authority, or even of the Hamas-elected legislators. He could not be, since officially the PA condemns violence against Israel. this article makes it clear that Shalit was captured by non-governmental private militant groups. therefore he was kidnapped, and is held hostage. Some soldiers do get kidnapped. Just look at this article. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with Steve. Hostage is the proper word choice. (And it alleviates the captive, captured doubletalk that so annoys me.) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The Geneva Convention does recognize a non-government armed force as a legitimate rival in battle, if it complies with some conditions, most notably: (1) its fighters wear distinctive uniform or symbol; (2) it has a command that takes responsibility to its fighters; (3) it honors the international law. Had Hamas let the Red Cross visit Gilad Shalit and honored other principals of the international law, the term POW night have been appropriate. However, this is not the case. DrorK (talk) 09:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Continued

Per this diff - [25].

Can someone involved please assort the diffs of each RfC comment before we take this through dispute resolution? JaakobouChalk Talk 21:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've requested a Mediation Cabal on this issue. There's a box on the top of the page leading to the request here.
Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 21.01.2008 07:30
There seems to be some confusion about my involvement here, so I should point out that I have not in any way advocated the inclusion of a section detailing the so-called controversy about the terminology used - I introduced that section on the talk page as an argument against a section that was being inserted by another editor. I strongly disagree with this approach because it adds undue weight to a minor topic that, to my knowledge, is confined almost entirely to Wikipedia. I would much prefer to see this resolved by simply settling on a term and using it in the article, although this seems a bit optimistic at the moment. Any term is fine with me, as long as it's been used in a reliable source. DanielC/T+ 14:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Daniel that this is a terminology issue first and foremost, and that moving the terminology dispute into the article isn't a good idea. Is there general agreement that Shalib was abducted, kidnapped, or otherwise taken away and held for ransom (Edit: or not, as it were; but ransoms are involved)? Xavexgoem (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
(Paraphrase/crossposted from case): I understand the dilemma a bit. Because the details are vague, I suggest "...and possibly being held for ransom(cite,cite,cite)" or some wording thereof; imho, if someone were held against their will while up for ransom, the need for "hostage" is removed as it's implicit. I know this isn't RfC, but consider it a potential compromise. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
My interpretation is that if his captors have signed up to the Geneva Convention he is a prisoner of war and as such has various rights, including access to outside humanitarian agencies, such as the Red Cross/Red Crescent. If not he is surely a hostage. Jack1956 (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

If there are no objections, I will help mediate this discussion. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not object and actually like your proposal ("and possibly held for ransom"). Thanks for getting involved, pedro gonnet - talk - 22.01.2008 07:04

Pedro and Jaakobou have agreed on the term "abduction", so far as I can tell; discussion on the use of "hostage" can be discussed here, but preferably (for the moment) under the "Discussion" header on the case page, noting my ... uhh, notes (mediator notes). I apologize in advance if any other party had not been warned (and the party list was expanded), but I thought it'd be ok not to link the case page from here after that dispute had been settled between those two users. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Pedro, I think the stipulation was you use "abduction". :) Xavexgoem (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that! Sorry. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additional Mediator

Do you have any problems with my name added to the list of mediators? Seddon69 (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

6 sources??! I know I'm the mediator, but c'mon :p Xavexgoem (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

when the mediation is officially over and done with, we can probably choose the best ones and narrow it down - until then, it was a precautionary step. JaakobouChalk Talk 22:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Ehh...well, OK. I recommend you find the best sources now, though; someone is going to call that overkill. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
We have 15 sources on the MedCab, I'm open to hear which others feel are best. JaakobouChalk Talk 08:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Apparently, to some editors, 6 is not enough. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] mediation

Concerned editors who are interested in presenting evidence into the mediation are welcome to. JaakobouChalk Talk 18:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editing hostage/captive

Please refrain from editing controversial material regarding the medcab case when no outcome has been reached. It is simply good courtesy not to make edits while such a disagreement and discussion occurs. The hostage will remain there for now. But if there are more reverts then ill report this page to the Admin notice board and request the page be locked on whatever version its on. Seddon69 (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A French citizen

While Shalit is a French citizen, a fact that made France and the EU somewhat involved in the efforts to release him, he was not a French soldiers, but an Israeli one, and according to what I know he never lived in France. While his French citizenship is a significant fact about him, his first affiliation is to the State of Israel, as an Israeli citizen, a resident of Israel, and an Israeli soldier performing his compulsory service. DrorK (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just to let the IP know that the reversions of his Israeli-French is purely to reduce ambiguity (Israeli qualifies soldier in that sentence, more than it does Shalit's citizenship). If he does it again, just leave a message on his talk page. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] International Law

The section Internation Law is performing Original Research. A source should be cited instead. Rather than citing sources for A and B and then saying thus C must be true. A source should be cited for C itself to avoid inserting Original Research into an article. 87.82.130.228 (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of sources issue:
Cordially, JaakobouChalk Talk 15:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, this is a prime example of WP:SYNTH. Feel free to nuke it. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 14.04.2008 15:44
Or, better yet, cite it ;-) (but it should go if it isn't sometime soon)
Although I don't know exactly what's being talked about :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
If I understand recent activity correctly, what's being talked about is an attempt to remove 'hostage' from the article but perhaps I'm falsely jumping to conclusions.
Cordially, JaakobouChalk Talk 16:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
We've been through this. If I write that the United States is a federation, do I need to cite a source to prove it? The word federation is clear to any English speaker, the system of government in the US qualifies according to simple logic, I don't need to look for someone who said "the United States is a federation" in order to say it. It would be an overdoing of the no-original-research rule. Similarly, saying that Gilad Schalit is (currently) a hostage is simple logic - he is held against his will, his imprisoners do not grant him POW rights (even though the international law says the should), he wasn't brought to justice nor was he accused of any crime, and his kidnappers refuse to let him go as long as the Israeli government doesn't comply with their demands. Any English speaker would call him a hostage, you don't need a Harvard professor's article to tell you that. DrorK (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree in principle; however, as this is likely to break consensus again, the easiest thing to do would be to cite it. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Leaving asside whether he is a hostage or not, the section highlighted is clearly written as original research. A B leads to C. You need to cite C. An article on wikipedia is not the place to put forward arguments as to why he is a hostage 87.82.130.228 (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, no; I agree in principle that fairly basic definitions don't need to be sourced. This isn't a fairly basic definition, because of the contention. I guess it was frivolous commentary on my part ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
What exactly is the debate about? Is it about neutrality? We could say Gilad Schalit is a "captive" as a neutral term, but then we'd loose a lot of information. Neutrality doesn't mean concealing information or "laundering" unpleasant situations. For example, the imprisoners refused to let the Red Cross to visit Gilad Schalit. They demanded the release of more than a thousand Palestinian prisoners held in Israel in return to his release and even threatened to kill him if their demands are not fulfilled. The English term "hostage" is the best to encompass Gilad Schalit's situation. Just for the sake of being fair, Israel held hostages too (all of them were returned to Lebanon eventually, as far as I can know), but this is irrelevant here. The point is that avoiding the term "hostage" would be concealing information. DrorK (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I can agree a mild re-write of the 'international law' section to include "his status is of a 'hostage'" (instead of 'as such his status is...') and some of the raised points (such as the recent death threats). Please place your suggestions (if you wish to make them) here first and not on the article. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The section needs sources, not synthesis. If you want that phrase in, you're going to need a source stating it explicitly, not just using the word somewhere in the text. And your appeal to work here and not in the article smacks of hypocrisy, given your usual modus operandi. pedro gonnet - talk - 15.04.2008 10:32
Agreed. The first paragraph in the International Law section is clearly an attempt to Bootstrap the word hostage into the article without sourcing it properly. The second and third paragraphs however are phrased in a proper manner.

(ud for Jaakobou) I'm wondering if it's best to remove that sentence (last sentence in 1st para of international law) and let the facts speak for themselves? What say you? Xavexgoem (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

To be frank, I'd like someone else to "mediate" this long term disruptive activity by Pedro and fellow anon meat-puppets. In the meantime, you can try to rephrase the text there, but I request you revert your moving of sources from the intro. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • blank stare*
Umm, OK. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
My apologies for strong phrasing. You've certainly made sincere attempts at resolving the content related issue. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest changing the first paragraph to be something more along the lines of: Schalit's status is often referred to as that of a hostage in the Israeli press <citing sources> but the international press has not shown a concensus on the issue, also using words such as Captive <citing sources> and Abductee <citing sources>. 87.82.130.228 (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. There is clear international consensus that he is a hostage and the word 'captive' may describe that Hamas holds him, but it does not describe the conditions in which they do so.
p.s. I've already linked you to relevant sources, so I request you avoid WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but you are clearly in the wrong. You have provided a few links where he is described as a hostage. You have failed to show that hostage is the preferred term that is used in the media. Your selective use of references is an attempt to give the term hostage undue weight. 87.82.130.228 (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
If you don't mind me jumping in here, again, but the medcab case that I was informally mediating (I'm not in that role atm) proved fairly definitively that "hostage" was the most used term post-abduction. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
No, sorry Xavexgoem, it didn't prove anything. It even showed the opposite (remember the Google news results? I don't recall anybody debunking them). I oped-out of the mediation because I had other work to do and because, well, it was not really being mediated at all. I challenged User:Jaakobou several times to provide sources stating explicitly that:
  • "hostage" is the preferred term over "captive", or
  • "hostage" is used more often.
Jaakobou failed at both and you kept on following his red herrings and straw men. If you think anything was proven in the mediation, then there must be sources, so feel free to present them.
Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 16.04.2008 08:21
Agreed. I to read the mediation, although I wasn't involved. The word hostage is not used at all in the majority of articles on Gilad Schalit 87.82.130.228 (talk) 08:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that as so often on these pages, editors google-search for favourite key words and then claim to have proved the issue definitively when they find some examples of their preferred phrasing or description on news websites. These links are then trumpeted on talk pages and/or posted as footnotes in articles. However of course there's never any unanimity in media or academic sources, and in the former descriptive words are often used fairly casually in order to create colour (or equally if they are following strict editorial guidelines on word usage, every outlet has different rules). As a result most of the time this selective sourcing proves absolutely nothing of course, and everyone's just back to square one again, however many times the first editor bleats "but I have sources". For example in response to the "high quality sources" using "hostage", here by contrast is a whole bunch of equally high quality sources that use "captive" (and sometimes other words such as "abducted" within the same piece, to add to the confusion). And no, they're not all liberal European media sources either -
Etc, etc. Once unblocked why can't the intro just say he is being "held", full stop, rather than specifying "captive" or "as a hostage". That seems pretty factual, uncontroversial and neutral. Apologies if this has already come up in any prior debate that I've missed. --Nickhh (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Completely agree with what you've said and I think that is a good idea. The section International Law still needs the first paragraph rewritting, and I suggest we go back to the version I wrote but was reverted, simply states that various terminology has been used and then going into paragraph 2 and 3 as they are 87.82.130.228 (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The word "captive" is not wrong. It is simply inaccurate. You'd find many occurances of this word in the context of the Gilad Schalit's issue, because writers and editors do not bother to be completely accurate in their terminology each and every time their write about a certain issue. You'd find many sources stating that the Gaza Strip lies south of Israel, but in fact it lies south-west of Israel, and while we're about it - would you require a source for the statement that the Gaza Stip lies south-west of Israel? Do I need to prove the proper use of this compound "south-west" in the English language, using reliable sources, in order to use it? This is not an ad-absurdum argument, this might as well be the next step after excluding the word "hostage" from the English commonly accepted lexicon. DrorK (talk) 07:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
That's a slightly odd analogy in that geographical location is not really a source of controversy in most debates. And I'm making the same point about relying on "sources" for descriptive terms - they don't prove anything both because words are used pretty loosely in such contexts, and also because there is no unanimity between all the sources. I appreciate that your specific argument is that he is a hostage by simple definition - but that is still your opinion and others feel, rightly or wrongly, that it is a loaded word. Wouldn't it be easier to just avoid the word in the lead? I don't see anyone arguing here that he isn't referred to as a hostage, or that demands aren't being made for his release, and that these points shouldn't be covered in the body of the article. --Nickhh (talk) 07:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Your judgement of which word is accurate or innacurate is irrelevent and there are many here who would disagree with it. By the way none of the dictionary definitions I have seen for the word captive mention anything that would make it inaccurate for Gilad Shalit. But either way, it is irrelevent as such analysis is Original Research. In the case of your analogy there would be more reliable sources for the geographical location of the Gaza Strip than articles in the press and so even if all reporters said it was south of Israel we could safely cite the more reliable sources. In this case we have only media reports to go on, so I agree that we can't take what individual reports say as gospel, we need to look at them as a whole. This is why I suggested the mention of the differing terminology in the Internation Law section. 82.33.1.131 (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Just for the uninformed, the above issues are the subject of a Request for Mediation here.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 17.04.2008 16:08

[edit] Rank

According to the press, as well as the Hebrew Wikipedia page, GS's rank is today SSgt (Staff Sergeant, or "Samal Rishon" in Hebrew). The English page still lists him as "Corporal." Someone should see to it that this be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.226.34 (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)