Talk:Gilad Shalit/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Photo

That same badly-lit photo of Gilad Shalit in uniform seems to be everywhere. Here's another (family) photo of him from a Yahoo news article: http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20060628/capt.7c98e1da06db41199f2285c915c3ee8d.mideast_israel_palestinians_jrl818.jpg?x=380&y=259&sig=GvQemex27hbdA2gQHcX8ag-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.111.187 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 29 June 2006

The present photo is perhaps more relevant to this article, as it shows him in a military situation. Rest 22:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The photo is fine so shut up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.126.250 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 30 June 2006

I came to the talk page in part 'cause I was looking to see if there was any talk about the bad photo. I don't know if there's a better one, but it's worth talking about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.196.96 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 15 July 2006

issue

Perhaps I'm wildly out of balance in this discussion (mostly over terminology). But doesn't it seem slightly ridiculous? Is no one, absolutly no one, questioning the motivations behind Isreal claiming that it will risk the security of some half a dozen nations by invading (or whatever you want to call it), bombing, killing and destroying towns over this single individual?

Kidnapping is not exaclty honorable, and theres no degree sanctioning the action as idiocy that can do it justice. But, come on...Isreal is going to invade and use 500 bombs, threaten to assisinate a prime minister, (as i was just reading in rueters) and god knows what else...becuase a kid was taken hostage? How many people die regulary over these issues?

Are these two countries just really that dumb? or are all of us for buying this? Can someone help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.115.176.42 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 1 July 2006

I'll take a shot. One of the most sensitive issues in Israel (and in any other country) are missing soldiers. There is an enormous pressure on the government in this case. In Israel, military service is obligatory, and so almost any parent can imagine himself in this situation. That's why Israel has a very strict policy in scenarios involving hostages. There's no negotiation whatsoever in these cases, and Israel's response is very harsh, and without proportion to the kidnapping. The Israeli and the Palestinian people are interwoven. It is quite easy for say three Palestinian terrorists to kidnap a teenager on a daily basis. If the Israeli response wouldn't be extreme, Israel might lose this war. On the Israeli's side —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.178.114.234 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 2 July 2006

Every single person in Israel knows someone who is serving in the army. In addition Israel gave control over the Gaza strip to the Palestinians and was rewarded with Qassam rockets over the border. I should imagine the completely unprovoked kidnapping caused Israel to lose patience, particularly as every news report I have heard and seen has had no Palestinian saying the kidnapping was wrong, they are all supportive, shout about destroying Israel and then whine about how they have no food. I can't feel sympathetic towards people who condone terrorism, elect terrorists, and then act surprised when the rest of the world doesn't react positively.

Unless Gilad is given back, Gaza will be taken apart piece by piece. All the Palestinians have to do is give him back and then Israel must withdraw or face international condemnation. No negotiations will be offered, as it shouldn't be, or terrorists would kidnap every Israeli they can find and hold Israel to ransom; this is why Israel goes so over the top when they have someone kidnapped.

Either Gilad Shalit is returned in one piece or Gaza will be reduced to rubble. Dev920 12:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely a valid subject for discussion (the particular attention being paid to the fate of this individual), and perhaps something which should be mentioned in the article. An 18 year-old Israeli settler from the West Bank was kidnapped and murdered in the same time period as the Shalit case, the buried body was found - this did not lead to any major escalation in tension as far as I can see. Is it the uncertainty of the fate of a "hostage" or "prisoner" which makes it such a hot-button issue? Is Gilad Shalit more important to the Israeli authorities for some as yet undisclosed reason? Not trying to get into wild speculation here but it is something people are talking about. Riddley 23:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I see your point Riddley, but how much worse could the tension have got? tanks were rolling into Gaza, planes launching strikes; the settler, Lord rest his soul, was dead - what can you do about that? Destroy some more buildings? Dev920 00:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dev920. Once Asheri (the kidnapped settler) was executed, all Israel can do is punish the murderers. However, the Israeli government escalates the pressure on the Palestinians (kidnaps some Palestinians officials, bombs the Palestinian prime-minister's office), in order the save the life that can be saved. On the Israeli's side

Terminology

I've returned the section title to "Gaza Invasion". The invasion of the territory previously ceded to the PA is an observable event; the rescue operation is a claim made by the IDF to explain the invasion, and thus POV. — JEREMY 15:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

But the problem with this is that the only aspect for which is pertinent to Gilad Shalit is the rescue operation, which is indeed taking place. The whole operation should be detailed at its namespace, the pertinent information to Shalit should be placed here. Perhaps "Rescue Attempt" would better describe it? Rangeley 16:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I am no friend to Israel, but I agree with Rangeley. The action isn't an invasion anyway, since the intent is not to remove the established Palestinian government from power (at least, this is what Israel claims for the time being). Even if it the objectives should change in the future, the operation is a rescue mission as it pertains to Shalit. Kafziel 16:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with you befriending Israel or being objective. When a foreign army enters into foreign land, without the permission of the sovereign leader - its routinely referred to as an invasion. Irrespective of the mission and its objective, the proper authorities were vacated, or forced to vacate leaving the region without representation and security. Due to foreign factors, i.e invasion. The line should properly read that it was indeed an invasion. Frantz Fanon 16:32 June 28, 2006

it was not. because Gaza Strip is not a sovereign territory. In case you didn't know. -- tasc ^words_deeds 20:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter whether it’s a sovereign or not. Africa wasn’t sovereign either, but Europe occupied it. So, your logic is absurd.

At what point did "Europe" occupy Africa? Kafziel 02:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not your tutor.

You know Europe and Africa aren't countries, right? They're continents. Kafziel 10:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"Invasion" doesn't require that the invaded area have an established or recognized government. It's just a term that describes (in one definition) the act of "entering and permeating, especially harmfully." That seems to apply, regardless of the purpose. --Hrodulf 21:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

---

What matters is the international recognition of a "Palestinian State". If we're talking about sovereignty we can't say that Israel "invaded" Gaza Strip, because Palestinian sovereignty is not properly honored through the recognition of Palestinian independence by the United Nations. IMHO this should be regarded merely as a military operation. If we are to call this "an invasion", we should call the Israeli military overflight that took place above Al-Assad's house in Syria an invasion as that too lacks permission of the sovereign leader and involves violation of foreign territory. --kutukagan 21:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say this, too: Israel has frequently gone into Gaza in the past and will probably do so again. Calling each one of these "Gaza invasion" will only lead to confusion, i.e., which Gaza invasion? IronDuke 21:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically it is an invasion. Even though PA is not considered to be sovereign by UN, Israel too has no sovereignty over Gaza. It is not the jurisdiction of the State of Israel. But for the reason, stated above, I would refrain using the term invasion every time Israeli forces have an operation within Gaza or West Bank. Invasion, as many people undertand, would refer to a longer term commitment to stay in certain area. If this one turns out to be such, then there will be no problem with properly calling it an invasion. --TimBits 02:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If Israel changes course and decides to retake Gaza or do away with the Palestinian authority, then it will be an invasion. Not yet. Kafziel 02:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No. of Israeli soldiers killed

Were 3 soldiers killed or 2?

I reckon 2. Maybe someone died in hospital. But I haven't heard about it. -- tasc ^words_deeds 06:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Only two were killed. I have made the neccesary change. Cymruisrael 07:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

But what about the civilian who was kidnapped and killed on the West Bank?

He wasn't killed in an operation. He wasn't soldier. He was killed after beginning of the operation. -- tasc ^words_deeds 07:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Militant or Terrorist?

Although the capture/kidnapping of Gilad Shalit is probably not a terrorist act in the true technical sense of the word, it still doesn't alter the fact that those who committed it were terrorists and not militants. I think that the terminology should be reverted to my original change. Cymruisrael 07:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually a terrorist is someone whose victim is an innocent noncombatant. If the person is in uniform and earning a paycheck for military services, it is hard to fit them into the definition even "technically". Particularly since many innocent Palestinians were killed in the weeks prior by the Israeli military and that wasn't classified as terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.239.111.66 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 30 June 2006

The question is whether Israel is technically at war with the Palestinean Authority of Hamas. It's rather confusing. If there's a war going on, then yes, this wouldn't really be terrorism, it'd be warfare. The problem is that the palestineans don't have the resourses to actually defeat Israel in a conventional war, so they're doing the bombings and kidnappings instead, apparently for political reasons as well as to get prisoners released and other concessions. In this regard, terrorism has proven a profitable path for getting more powerful entities to give concessions (see, for instance, the Wikipedia article on the Irish_War_of_Independence and the Anglo-Irish Treaty, or, more topically, the King_David_Hotel_Bombing. It all depends on whether you consider terrorism a "valid" warfare tactic or not, and that comes down to semantics and perhaps an unavoidable POV problem: there is no neutral term that describes whether the kidnapping is terrorism or not; each way of describing its nature makes a point of view statement about whether terrorism is a valid military tactic or not. The article on the Iraq resistance/insurgency/whatever has the same problem, and it's probably an unsolvable problem.

There are three elements in my opinion to be taken into account at the same time: (1) what is the status of the person who is taken prisoner/abducted/detained; (2) what is the status of the person(s) taking him; and (3) are the two parties at war. Shalit is a soldier, and those keeping him prisoner are militiamen closed to the Palestinian ruling party. Therefore the first question to be asked is whether those militiamen are mere combatants or soldiers (i.e. wearing uniforms and prominently carrying weapons). If they are regular soldiers and we consider Palestine to be at war with Israel the Shalit case is not terrorism. If they are combatants but not soldiers, then their action is terrorism, as they were not entitled to legally carry out it: civilians can not take part in warfare. In both cases the Israeli reaction is legally justified (we can disagree on the political evaluation of the Israeli decision to react, though): if the militiamen are to be ragarded as soldiers then the Israeli reaction is war; if they are not then their actions are reason for war, in view of their closenness to the Palestinian ruling party. And if Palestine is *not* at war with Israel, then the prisoner taking was not under the auspices or guidance or in the interests of the Palestinian government, and the Palestinians who carried it out should be prosecuted by the very Palestinian legal authorities. 193.205.125.2 09:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

--Hrodulf 21:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed someone changed "terrorist" to "militant" again. The reasoning behind their edit was "BBC says so." Folks, the BBC is not the standard for the use of legal terms such as terrorist. The BBC has been questioned in the press numerous times for refusing to use the word "terrorist", and has stated that it is BBC policy to not use "terrorist" to refer to any person in international news (yet it continues to do so anyway). The BBC has also stated that it discourages the use of the word "terror" and "terrorist" because it alienates many readers. Instead of looking to a source that refuses to use words accurately due to a desire for media success, it would be better to look to a legal source for definitions of this legal term. Virtually all states contain "illegal violence" as part of their definition of terrorism. What occured to Shalit was illegal under international law as well (since hostage taking is illegal). Unless someone can justify the change from terrorist to militant with something stronger than "the BBC says so" it needs to be changed back. The major governments of the world have all defined this as a terrorist act, and it is illegal under international law.--ARoyal 13:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The sentence uses as its reference a BBC article. That article does not use the word "terrorist." The word it uses is "militant." Javadane 17:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

In a larger context--labelling this a "terrorist" attack is certainly an ethnocentric POV. Palestinian soldiers attacked Israeli soldiers and took a POW. Israel might call it a "terrorist" attack, but most of the world wouldn't. THe Palestinian POV would likely label them "patriots." The press uses the more neutral term "militant" or "fighter." See this article from Ha'aretz [1] or this one from the NY Times [2] . Javadane 22:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't know who the individual people are or their past history of actions, do we? So we should only call them "terrorist" if this is itself a terrorist act. Since no-one seems to think this is technically a terrorist act (anyone?), we should not use the word "terrorist". —Ashley Y 01:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

All attempts to portray all Palestinians as terrorists will be treated as vandalism. — JEREMY 02:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not helpful; please read Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not. In any case, we're not talking about all Palestinians, we're talking about the specific individuals who captured Shalit. —Ashley Y 05:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think at this point we do know who the groups are that carried out the act. The Army of Islam article stated that it was a coalition of various Palestinian terror groups. The Israeli government stated that Hamas was responsible.[3] The groups accused are listed as terror groups by the US and the EU. The entire world is calling this a terrorist action. The only ones that aren't calling it a terrorist action are the BBC, the Guardian, (due to their pseudo-PC policies) and Arab newspapers. Of course Israeli media believes it is a terrorist action, as we can see in this YNet article[4], NY Sun says it is Hamas terrorists[5], World Net Daily refers to them as terrorists[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50793], ABC Online in Australia [6], etc. The fact is, we can find as many media sources that refer to Shalit's kidnappers as terrorists, and that identify them as Hamas members, as we can that say they are "militants" and pretend as if we don't actually know who kidnapped him. Likewise, we can find as many media sources (if not more) that use the term "kidnapped" rather than "captured", but no one has seemed to pay attention to that due to picking the termonology of a far-left media source based in a country that has a long history of anti-Semitism. The terms used in this wikipedia entry so far represent a far left-wing POV, not a neutral one accepted by the entire world or one recognized by anyone except those on the left in specific media outlets. The choice of termonology also attempts to morally equate the actions of Hamas (and others), an illegal terrorist group, with groups that are not terrorist and are not illegal, like the military of a soverign state. In short, changing terms like "kidnapped" to "captured" or "terrorist" to "militant", reflects a biased POV represented in certain sectors of left-wing thought and in the left-wing media. --ARoyal 13:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Irgun bombed the King David hotel against the British also. 90 people died. "Terrorist" is just a word you use if the killers aren't on your side. Think about that for awhile. --Hrodulf 02:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The Irgun used terror tactics and the bombing of the King David hotel was a terrorist action. The Irgun was also forcefully disbanded by the Israeli government once the State of Israel achieved independence for that very reason. In addition, comparing the Irgun to modern day Palestinian terror is rather nonsensical and fallacious, because the methods used by modern day Palestinian terrorists are not comparable to those used by the Irgun. For example, suicide attacks on sandwich stands in Israel are not comparable to the Irgun attacking the King David hotel, which was being used as a British military stronghold. Likewise, unannounced attacks on Israeli locations are not equivalent to the bombing of the King David hotel which was warned an hour ahead of time by telephone to evacuate.

Its this type of moral subjectivism that the media sources that abound in this article have to cater to (for example, the BBC has stated it will not use the word "terrorist" not due to accuracy, but due to the fact that it doesn't want to offend its readers), but not something that the academic world should have to cater to. This is why it pains me to see the moral subjectivism in the media reiterated in something like wikipedia that attempts to market itself as an academic venue. --ARoyal 09:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The IRA also commonly gave short notice warnings. Didn't stop them being a terrorist organisation however. Timb0h 11:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, and as I stated, the Irgun was a terrorist group and was disbanded. This much is recognized by the State of Israel today. However, the point is that all types of terrorism are not morally equivalent. A terrorist attack on infrastructure is not morally equivalent to a terrorist attack on people. And a terrorist attack that intentionally kills people is not morally equivalent to a terrorist attack that kills people by accident (such as with the King David hotel). In any case, terrorist is mostly a legal term. What we call terrorist should be defined by legal standards, not by the liberal media.

The Reference Guide to the Geneva Conventions [7] under the heading "terrorism" states, "Civilians who commit an offense against an occupying power which does not include an attempt against the lives of members of the occupying force or administration, pose a grave collective danger, or seriously damage property or installations of the occupying power may only be punished by internment or imprisonment. (Convention IV, Art. 68)." The kidnapping of Shalit constitutes terrorism by this definition. Because capture or kidnapping is not an attempt on the life of the person then it does not fall into the exception of those things that "do(es) not include an attempt against the lives of members of the occupying force." In addition, those who captured Shalit are civilians by definition, as they are not members of the military of a soverign state. The US Dept of Defense defines terrorism as, "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."[8] Instead of relying on the liberal media for the term used, it would be in the better interest of academic honesty to rely upon a legal source for a legal term.--ARoyal 15:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Another quick note, the Terrorism Research Center has consistently referred to the kidnapping of of Shalit as a terrorist action in addition to consistently linking to external news sources as part of its research on terrorist groups and actions such as this[9] one.--ARoyal 15:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Members of the IDF were killed in the attack which resulted in the capturing of Gilad Shalit. Thus an attempt on life was made. Timb0h 15:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually hostage taking is covered in the Geneva Conventions, as well. Its also against international law. No matter how you slice it, an attempt on the life of Shilat was not made. Because others died in the incident does not infer that the intent of the incident was to take a life. In fact, its already been covered that the intent of the operation was to take hostages to bargin for the release of prisoners. Its a terrorist action, by definition. Its also agaisnt international law. --ARoyal 11:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to see a definitive source declaring the intent of the operation. You can not know what the intent of the operation was, unless you talk to the people who carried it out. No-one even knows exactly who carried it out. And by the way, the text of the geneva convention as you linked it "Civilians who commit an offense against an occupying power which does not include an attempt against the lives of members of the occupying force or administration," makes no distinction between the target of the action and others. The action has to be against the occupying power, and it has to include an attempt against the lives of members of the occupying force. It doesn't say you have to make an attempt against the lives of all the occupying forces that are present. I don't know how you claim to know whether they made an attempt on his life or not anyway. He ended up with a broken hand and a shoulder wound. I doubt in the fighting that took place he was singled out as someone who was not shot at. Timb0h 11:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, the only reason we're discussing all this is that Arabs don't like the term "terrorist" applied to anything they do. They figure it's a dirty word and an insult rather than a specific dictionary term that describes a specific type of act. To their way of thinking, attacks such as Maalot or airplane hijackings aren't terrorist attacks because it's something they do. Shooting back, now that's terrorism. Frankly, it sounds very childing to me, sort of "so's your old man" kind of namecalling and denial.

I'm not sure that what happened to Cpl Shalit is specifically definable as a terrorist attack becuase it was all strictly military, but it is a war crime -- Hamas crossed the border and kidnapped him. The people of Gaza voted for Hamas, they knew what Hamas wanted to do. They can live with the result of having voted for war criminals.Scott Adler 19:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

All very interesting. Are Israel and Hamas at war? There's been no declaration of war, but there wasn't one when the US/UK attacked Iraq, and that's widely recognised as a war, though many people, particularly in the UK, believe it was an illegal act. Israel has been assassinating Hamas politicians and militants for a while now - if it isn't a war, then how can this be justified legally? Members of the security services arbitrarily killing citizens (even bad ones) of a land they occupy would be classed as a war crime. If Gaza isn't classed as an occupied land, then the security services would be killing citizens of an independent territory, which is an act of war. Unless Gaza was legally part of Israel, but clearly this can't be the case or its citizens would have Israeli citizenship. If there is a war, then attacking enemy soldiers and taking prisoners of war would be a valid legal military action.

The reason the BBC don't use the term "terrorist" anymore is because it's controversial and POV - remember "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". And it's complex to apply in many cases; "a person or group who uses violence and the fear of violence to further political, idealogical, and economic aims". There are many countries which use violence in order to further regime change. Are they terrorist nations? Because they fall under the definition. And sometimes the terrorists are "good guys" like the French resistance, or the US founding fathers, because they certainly used violence to further their aims. So in the end, the label "terrorist" tells us absolutely nothing about the actions, motivations, or justifications of a person or group of people, so why use it?

172.203.235.207 09:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the phrase "in a terrorist act" for the reasons given above - it wasn't a terrorist act. I also removed 72.85.17.139's additions of "terrorist" because it's incorrect, that's not what was demanded and wasn't mentioned in the linked article. Thrapper 21:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability?

Being kidnapped doesn't make anyone notable, as sad as it can be. Has this guy done anything else? --euyyn 15:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Jennifer Wilbanks wasn't even kidnapped at all, and the rescue efforts put forth to find her were nowhere near this extent, but she's still notable enough to have an article. Kafziel 16:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I could as well think she's not notable enough, couldn't I? Indeed, I got to know her because of your link. Anyway, hers is an article which tells what did she do to become famous there in the US. Not quite the same --euyyn 08:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Some people become famous by accident, some even against their will. Perhaps a passing reference of Shalit's name or short section in the Operation Summer Rain article might suffice. But what convinced me to originally write this article is that Shalit, by accident of history, become the motivating force for a large military operation, political strain and drama, international discourse and major news coverage. So while Shalit himself, as far as we know, may not have done anything extroidinary, what happened to him and the aftermath, and what he has come to represent to both sides, is extroidinary, now embedded into Middle-east history. Rest 22:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree he's famous for now. At least in countries where people remember his name. My concern is whether we will ever be able to write an article about him which were more than "This guy was kidnapped by ... leading to .... Well... eh... here we have some trivia about him: ..." --euyyn 08:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ron Arad is notable; so it he. Jon513 03:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a powerful argument, yours. It's your opinion that Ron Arad is notable enough. Additionaly, if I argue that being kidnapped doesn't make anyone notable (and so, if the only "reason" for his notability is that, this guy isn't notable), stating that some other guy is notable because of being kidnapped, doesn't prove this one is (your conclusion): It only says you disagree with my premise (i.e. "being kidnapped doesn't give notability"). --euyyn 23:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

External Link- Prayer for Shalit

I am not familiar with the policy for external links, but I am curious to hear from others what thought should go into including the external link for the prayer for Shalit. (e.g. does it provide any substantive information or special insight that is not already in the article, particularly since it is in hebrew? is it seen to represent a particular POV). Rest 22:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia but I think it's relevant as Jews may want to say this prayer. I do think there should be adequate warning that this is both a Hebrew prayer and a pdf file.

I think the only POV in a prayer for somebody's safe return home is a humanitarian POV. --kutukagan 09:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

These are both great points. Thanks! Rest 12:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"Kidnapped" vs. "captured"

The BBC prefers "captured"[10], and I think it makes sense:

So we try to stick to the facts - civilians are "kidnapped", Cpl Shalit was "captured";

—Ashley Y 20:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If Cpl. Shalit was captured, then he should be considered and treated as a POW. This is not happening; there has been no access to the Red Cross, no access to a neutral diplomat and he is not being held in a suitable facility. Also, sovereign states in a state of war do NOT bargain for the return of POWs. At the end of the conflict, both sides return their POWs with no regard to numbers. Faced with these facts, the only conclusion must be that he was kidnapped/abducted for the purpose of acheiving political gains. In which case, those who performed the deed are terrorists and NOT militants. Also, since when was the BBC's choice of language regarded as being the undisputed truth? Please update the article accordingly. Cymruisrael 14:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Not all armed forces follow the laws for the fair treatment of POWs. That doesn't change anything. North Vietnam didn't provide Red Cross access or access to diplomats. Does that mean they were kidnappers instead of combatants? No. Kafziel 15:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

He is neither a kid nor a civilian, he wasn't napped either. He is a soldier who didnt come back from combat yet. I suppose no one gave him chocolate to hop into a car. Was he so naive to trust the stranger? No. He was abducted in combat, that's horrible enough for anybody. -- .tilde. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.169.205.192 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 3 July 2006

This is kidnapping according to the Geneva Conventions. The reasons for this are that Shalit has been used as a bargining tool. Being a civilian or a soldier does not, under international law, weigh in as a factor in what is a "capture" or what is a hostage/kidnapping situation. Rather, the treatment of the soldier does. If the person is used as a bargining chip, as Shalit has been, then it is kidnapping/hostage taking as defined in Article 3 of Convention I, Article 4 of Protocol II, Article 34 of Convention IV, and Article 75 of Protocol I. Remember folks, kidnapping is a legal term, not a moral term. It is not defined by the BBC or other media sources. Under international law as outlined in the Geneva Conventions, this was kidnapping/hostage taking. --ARoyal 14:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

On the note of what the BBC prefers, it should also be noted that other major news media sources have used the term kidnapped:

Palestinian militants kidnapped Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit and killed two other soldiers during a raid in Israeli territory near its border with Egypt and Gaza.[11]

In fact most media sources are using the term kidnapped. The BBC seems to be the exception, rather than the rule. And the BBC is not the gold standard for things such as this. Again, as I stated above, it would be best to check the legal definition of the word. And according to that legal definition, he was kidnapped. I havn't reverted this term though, I'll let someone else make the call. --ARoyal 14:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The Geneva Conventions refer to taking of hostages, not kidnapping. He was captured (as a soldier), now he is being held hostage. —Ashley Y 17:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ashley, are you being deliberately dishonest or innocently misinformed? The references I listed from the Geneva Conventions explicitly state kidnapping. Kidnapping is the term used. --ARoyal 18:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no use of the word "kidnapping" in Article 3 of Convention I, Article 4 of Protocol II, Article 34 of Convention IV or Article 75 of Protocol I. —Ashley Y 19:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's also worth mentioning that the capturers are not party to the Geneva Conventions (though this does not morally justify the act of holding hostages). —Ashley Y 19:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, it doesn't actually use the word kidnapping in the text of the Conventions. I was using a cross-reference for the word kidnapping at genevaconventions.org and it threw me off.

--ARoyal 19:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Number of prisoners

According to the CNN article they want the release of women and children under 18. According to some reports however, they want the release of 1000 persons. Both can be true at the same time. But it is a matter of perspective of what demand one to report. A 1000:1 ratio can be considered unbalanced whereas demanding the release of women and children can be seen as humanitarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.37.20.20 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 3 July 2006

Some perspective about the customs of war

All uniformed Israelis and Palestinians are legitimate target for killing/kidnapping anywhere in Israel and Palestinian territories .This is allowed under International law. This situation has been blown out of proportion by the Israel and the International media. Soldiers are killed/kidnapped around the world every day and they are reported normally as statistics of war. Customs of war allow Palestinians to hold the soldier as a POW until the war ends, but they are also obligated to treat him humanely.That's all there is to the story! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferick (talk • contribs) 15:53, 3 July 2006

What's so legal about war anyway, professor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.169.205.192 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 3 July 2006

"All uniformed Israelis and Palestinians are legitimate target" that must be a well kept secret ... I'm sure if Israel knew, they'd stop forcing their soldiers to wear uniforms ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.146.88.37 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 3 July 2006

capturing a an enemy soldier is an act of war. Now all uniformed palestinians are legitimate targets for kidnapping and killing. This includes the leaders of Hamas who gave the orders, and should be held accountable. The capturing was done in the middle of peace talks, which borders on a criminal act. 128.139.226.37 14:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"The Palestinians"

The repeated use of the term "the Palestinians" within this article must be fixed immediately. Lumping together all Palestinians here is unnacceptably vague and, frankly, offensive.I'm fixing a few of the ones with obvious alternatives, but someone better briefed in this should find specific terms for the following sentences:

• "The Palestinians issued a statement..."
• "On the 1st of July, the Palestinians issued another demand..."
• "This has been subsequently denied by other Palestinians."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.153.182.110 (talk • contribs)

I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.27.240 (talk) 19:27, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Erm, sentance doesn't make sense

"Shalit's abduction has widely been reported to be the incident that triggered the current crisis, although other sources have pointed out that the day before, 24 June, two Palestinian civilians, a doctor and his brother were abducted by the IDF in Al Shouka, near Rafah.[8]" Unless the implication is that the previous incident triggered this one? Which would be strange if the operation was planned for two months. Rich Farmbrough 00:05 29 July 2006 (GMT).

The 'attack' was being planned for 2 months (according to one source). The kidnapping could have been something that wasn't initially planned as part of the attack but was added to the plan because of the earlier incident (according to another source). Neither are stated as fact, so both can happily co exist as what has been said by different sources. Timb0h 22:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

comment on earlier taking

There was a comment alleging that the "real" start of the conflict was an alleged abduction of two palestinians the day before. I removed it for two reasons.

First, and most importantly, I couldn't verify it. It came with a footnote. But, checking the citation given as a footnote did not reveal any information on this allegation. Instead, the link led to an advertisement/flyer calling on people to criticize Israel's actions.

Second, the entire issue of where to identify the start/finish of conflict (aka the "punctuation") is difficult. Israel pulled out of Gaza. They were met with over a thousand rocket attacks. Are those properly seen as the "start?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.50.99 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 31 July 2006

I don't think there is a problem with the article how it is at the moment. It mentions that most reports cite Shalits capture as the trigger, whilst a minority cite these other kidnappings. With the advertisement that was taken out by the group in the link, I think it is certainly worth a mention. Timb0h 22:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

Someone is trying to add a link to http://linux.coconia.net/politics/fake-provocation.htm, which is just a bunch of speculation with no real grounding in reality. I am removing it. If someone thinks a conspiracy theory is worth a mention, then they should add it to the main article with properly cited sources. Timb0h 10:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Start of war?

I don't consider Shalit's kidnapping as the beginning of the second Lebanese war. It happened a month before the war. The second Lebanon war started when three soldiers were killed and 2 more captured on the Lebanese border, along with the barrage of missiles on the North. I propose that the first paragraph of the article be changed to reflect this. Dotancohen 01:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

International Law

I deleted the section that referenced "Islamic Law" in the International Law section. While the reference to an opposing perspective would appear to offer balance, Islamic Law has no standing internationally, and hence is irrelevant to a discussion of whether Shalit's detention complies with international law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.124.21 (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

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. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Take your pick: [12]. 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. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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? [13] 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: [14]. 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. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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". [15]

(2) is Ynet who supports "kidnapping" [16]

(3) is haaretz who supports "abduction" (betzelem support "abduction" and "hostage") [17]

(4) JTA support both "kidnapped" and "abducted" [18]

(5) washington post support "abduction" [19]

as far as i'm concerned, this issue is finished. if you still insist, i'm willing to open an RfC regarding this issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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? Jaakobou^{Chalk 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 [20] [21] 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. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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 [22], 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. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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. Avruch^Talk 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)

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, [23]). 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 [24], 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" [25], "abduction" [26] and "hostage" [27]. 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 [28] - 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. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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
      • I see. You are simply trolling now. I'll WP:DENY. *plonk* Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please leave the original wording (i.e. the wording before User:Jaakobou disrupted this article to make a point on Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict) until this RfC concludes. Thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 07.12.2007 15:27

• 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.. Daniel^C/_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. Daniel^C/_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 [29] [30]. 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. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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 [31]. 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 [32]

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)

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)

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'. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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)

Nachshon Wachsman

would appreciate an explanation on why Nachshon Wachsman and gilad's rank are important to the introduction. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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? Jaakobou^{Chalk 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. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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)

The reference in the introduction to Wachsman may not be accurate anyway. IDF soldier Sharon Edri disappeared in 1996; Hamas may have claimed responsibility for this at the time. His body was found in 1997. (see http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3154157,00.html) Tamarenda (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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. Avruch^Talk 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)

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. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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 [33]?

shame. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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 [34][35]. 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. Daniel^C/_T+ 00:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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. :) Daniel^C/_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. Daniel^C/_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. Daniel^C/_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. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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? Jaakobou^{Chalk 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)

Continued

Per this diff - [36].

Can someone involved please assort the diffs of each RfC comment before we take this through dispute resolution? Jaakobou^{Chalk 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. Daniel^C/_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)

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)

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. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Apparently, to some editors, 6 is not enough. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

mediation

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

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)

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)

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:

• Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-01-21_Gilad_Shalit#Reliable_sources_using_.22Hostage.22:.
• Xavexgoem edit

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk 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.

• 6 February 2008, Pedro Gonnet
• 6 February 2008
• 20 March 2008
• 7 April 2008
• 9 April 2008

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk 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. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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. Jaakobou^{Chalk 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 -

• MFA -http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry/Foreign+Minister+Livni/Speeches+interviews/FM+Livni+addresses+the+Diplomatic+Corps+at+Gilad+Shalit+exhibition+in+Ashdod+10-Apr-2008.htm
• Arutz Sheva - http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124895
• AP/MSNBC - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13504830/
• BBC - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5221710.stm
• Ynet - http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3299804,00.html
• Time - http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1211595,00.html
• Haaretz - http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/898254.html
• JTA - http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/107661.html

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)

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)

Balance?

Just as a trial balloon, what do people think about mentioning that thousands of Palestinians are held captive by Israel in articles on the one or two Israelis held by Palestinians? Tinguat (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would violate WP:NPOV, for starters. IronDuke 15:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if it is somewhat relevant to the topic of quid-pro-quo kidnappings (etc; I'm not entirely too knowledgeable, so I can't think of a better term atm), it doesn't serve the article well, since although this article is in the scope of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it isn't about the I-P conflict. That's where Wikipedia:Neutral point of view fits in, since that policy (NPOV) also covers balance and due weight. So long story short: it's a relevant piece of information, but not here (and even then, making quantitative comparisons for the sake of supporting X has done Z n times, but Y has does Z n times more, therefore X > Y, violates the neutral point of view and looks like soapboxing (which isn't allowed)). Hope that clarifies :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Xavexgoem. That explanation was orders of magnitude better than mine. IronDuke 16:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hamas

Is Hamas holding Salit? or another groupe, Hamas is only the defacto controller of Gaza.....saying Hamas is therefore POVAshley kennedy3 (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hamas are the people running the negotiations and the abduction was conducted along with several Hamas operatives. You raised an interesting concern with the defacto version but their control over the territory isn't part of the issue. Reviewing the source again, I agree with the fact tagging and it seems we should validate this tid-bit with a source or two.

Would this soucre work for you? How about this one?

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Original Research

Please read Wikipedia:No_original_research.

You can NOT do this in a wikipedia article:

A) Says this B) Says this

HENCE C) is true.

When A) says something, if they are a credible reliable source, summarise what they ACTUALLY say. The same goes for B). You can NOT use them to insert your own statements C). If you want C) you have to find a credible reliable source for it. Even then you can't state it as FACT unless it is the majority opinion. If there is only one source for something then it can be mentioned as what that source has said, but can't be stated as fact. If there are no sources then it must be left out.

The edits that I have made to the Internation Law section comply with the rule Wikipedia:No_original_research. My version contains the same sources as the previous version and summarises the terms used by both of the sources. So please do not try to accuse me of removing well sourced material. The same FACTUAL information is there.

92.232.36.159 (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC) edit: 92.232.36.159 (talk) 10:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea on what you're talking about. There's absolutely no original research or synthesis in the contested paragraph.

p.s. would you mind logging in? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

← fixed it - it only needs to be backed up my one ref; the fact that Shalit is held hostage had been explained above, so no need for that other source. Also, don't need to log in to contribute :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's the problem:

You are quoting a B'Tselem statement:

On 25 June, 2007, the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem issued a statement saying, "international humanitarian law absolutely prohibits taking and holding a person by force in order to compel the enemy to meet certain demands, while threatening to harm or kill the person if the demands are not met,"

And then you stop quoting them and insert this as a statement of fact.

and thus holding Gilad Shalit as a hostage to their demands is a war crime.[43]

The word thus makes it your original research. You are using that quote to justify making this statement. When it is not a statement of fact but just an opinion of B'Tselem.

My version is a lot more succinct and does not try to construct facts but simply summarises what B'Tselem have said on the matter. To try and use their statement in the manner you have is giving them undue weight. If you want to state as a fact that it was a war crime then you're going to need a statement by the UN or an indictment by a war crime tribune or some kind of consenssus across all reliable media sources and not just one human rights organisation.

10:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.36.159 (talk)

Hi 92.232,

The sentence is quite clear to be part of Betzelem's notation rather than a general "OR" assertion even though it is an undisputed fact. As for Abu Mujahid and his fringe perspective, I've allowed it's listing as a form of compromise.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If we disagree on how it reads then it is ambiguous and should be rewritten. What exactly is your objection to the version I wrote which was unambiguous? It contained exactly the same terms, linked to exactly the same reference.

By the way I have included Abu Mujahid because he is a member of one of the parties directly involved in this situation, I don't think that counts as a minority view, it is just one of them. I don't see his inclusion as having anything to do with the problems with the preceding paragraph, so I don't really accept it as a compromise. I think we should include a summary of all relevent parties positions on the matter. 92.232.36.159 (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Broken refs

A couple of the urls cited in the lead don't work anymore. [37][38] Sean.hoyland - talk 16:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed these with what I think are equivalent stories at NYT (parent of IHT..I assume it's the same story) and CNN (no exact match but seems close enough). Sean.hoyland - talk 04:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Army Radio report

Folks, I added info from JPost on the Israeli Army Radio report to the Capture section for 2 reasons

• It's obviously notable
• It explicitly makes a connection between the raid into Gaza the previous day and his capture. The fact that this article didn't mention the raid the previous day except via a context-free see also link just seems silly. This source makes it clear that the 2 events were connected from the IDF perspective.

Note that I've deliberately used the term 'kidnapped' for both Shalit and the Muamar brothers as per the source. I'm not interested in getting involved in the terminology issue which seems to have been a problem here so I've just left it as per the source. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

several points to add to the article

Several points, raised on Gaza war talk page and relevant here:

1. International humanitarian law was enacted to guarantee the rights and protections of prisoners of war. The Third Geneva Convention lays out these rights unequivocally: the right to humane treatment (article 13); the right to have knowledge of a POW's location (article 23); the right to send and receive letters and cards on a monthly basis (article 71); the right to unfettered access to the Red Cross (article 126), and others. Hamas has flouted each of these provisions
2. Mock-Schalit paraded in Hamas rally - this is btw violation of Art. 13 of 3rd Geneva Convention.
3. At the start of the Israeli offensive, Hamas claimed that Shalit had been wounded by Israeli fire. The message was clear: If Israel wanted to see Shalit return alive, it should stop the war. Then, last Sunday, the Gaza Islamists claimed that Schalit's health was no longer important. "He may be wounded or he may be fine. This question is no longer of any interest to us," said Hamas politburo member Mussa Abu Marsuk. - also breach of Art. 13. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Finally a statement from HRW: Three Years of Incommunicado Detention Is Cruel and Inhumane. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Noam Schalit, father of captive IDF soldier Gilad Schalit, appeared before the UN fact-finding mission on Operation Cast Lead on Monday. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Hamas taunts Israel with Gilad Shalit cartoon. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Hamas' children show

While admitting that shots in the JPost article are misleading, I kindly ask other editors from refraining to make edits incompatible with both WP policies and good faith. JPost is RS and needs no attribution, or speculations around their reports, or elaborations on what and how they report. If anyone has other RS (or simply notable source) that questions the JPost article - do please, and if convinced that indeed their report was erroneous, I might consider to remove it completely. Anyway, the place to mock the JPost report is here, in the talk page, not in the main article. Until then I request not to turn this article into farce. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic your revert is in my view entirely inappropriate. We cannot state something Katz writes as a fact. There must be attribution, some kind of explanation of what he is talking about and a description of the evidence provided to support the claim. Maybe the way it's there now isn't ideal but we simply can't state it as a fact and we have no way of knowing whether it's erroneous or not because they didn't publish unambiguous evidence to support the statements. I would actually favour complete removal on the grounds that this is not something that is verifiably true or distinguishable from propaganda. Maybe there are other sources that can back it up or statements from Hamas. I don't know. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

..and for interest this is not an attempt to mock Katz. It is an attempt to inform the reader. It didn't even occur to me to question the report until I saw Jim Fitzgerald's edits which highlighted a mismatch between the text and the images, something we can't just ignore. I attempted, possibly unsuccessfully, to rewrite Jim's edit to provide contextual information in a neutral way without drawing any conclusions. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sean.hoyland, for your edits! I agree with you that Sceptic's reverts are inappropriate. Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 07:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No Gentlemen. You are wrong. JPost is RS. No attribution required, not to JPost, not to Katz. The say "pictures" - not two pictures or something. They didn't publish the most successful? Maybe, but this means nothing. If anyone will find any notable source that disproves the news - fine, it will be reexamined (as I did when we discussed BBC misquoting words of IRC, I hope you remember Sean that I was right). Until then - I ask for the second time, to stop speculations, attributions, POV approach and unnecessary descriptions of the news reported. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 10:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, Sean. Taking into consideration the fact that Hamas intrumentalized Shalit recently in similar manner (see Hamas rally, or animated movie stuff in the section), this piece of news is nothing extraordinary, and please leave this propaganda speculations. I did my job - backed my words with RS. If you want to challenge it - go ahead, do your job, find any notable source that says JPost reported it wrong. I assure you that if it will be substantiated, I will be reasonable and cooperative. Until then - please don't aggravate it. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 15:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I have inserted 'dubious' tag at the end of the disputed sentence. The issue will be brought for accuracy resolution in accordance with WP:AD. Wiki is not a place to use inaccurate and misleading images and statements under the excuse of referencing to RS.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Good luck. Don't forget to ask third opinion about this edit: "However, the picture to which the allegation is referred displays, two children in IDF coumuflage, one points a toy gun at a child laying down in civil cloth, while another kicking a toy aside of the scene". --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

<- Sceptic, you seem to misunderstand your responsibilities. You added the info. It's your job to ensure compliance with NPOV. It's your job to use your common sense to distinguish between a genuine verified fact from a neutral RS and an interpretation of photographic evidence (that apparently hasn't been provided) presented by a non-neutral RS based in a country that is a belligerent in the conflict. It is not my or anyone else's job to follow editors around fixing their edits so that they comply with NPOV and ensure that potentially non-neutral interpretations are attributed to sources. Seriously, read WP:V andWP:NPOV again. It's blindingly obvious that this information needs to be attributed to the source. The fact that you have a problem with this is bizarre. What are you thinking ? Attribution is an absolute necessity here. As to what else is needed, I don't know but the mismatch between the Katz's statements and the evidence provided cannot just be ignored. This again should be blindingly obvious to anyone who is looking at this from a truly neutral perspective. This isn't about whether Hamas did or did not in fact arrange a children's show based on Shalit's abduction. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were true but it's not the point. The point is that Wikipedia simply cannot present this information as if it is a verifiable fact like Shalit is male, he's in the IDF etc. We can only say that according to so and so etc. You must be able to see this ? The blind faith Jpost is an RS blanket statement flies in the face if common sense. If you are unable or unwilling to make this information comply with the mandatory policies then I suggest you let others do it for you. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I do understand my responsibilities, Sean. I think I complied with them, and I still disagree on everything you wrote. That said, I'm only human - go ahead, prove me wrong. So far you failed though. JPost is a 'non-neutral RS based in a country that is a belligerent in the conflict' - I'm not aware of the fact that it disqualifies JPost from RS list, actually I think it still complies with every rule applicable to RS. I would even argue that press in Israel is free, and many self-critical publications including JPost demonstrate this point. But again, JF and you desire 3rd party arbitrator - no problem. Just don't forget to mention that JF's edit, as well as yours entire paragraph, almost an article, where you detail in scrupulosity who reported, what reported, how reported, what was the posture of the teddy bear and what are your personal views of that Katz guy. What next? We'll start to write like "According to JPost, Israeli-based ultra-right neo-conservative Zionist-propaganda machine..." or "Haaretz (liberal-extremist anti-Zionist Palestinian-loving paper)...". Maybe this is the right thing to do, but I think there should be broad consensus on this, not merely this single incident. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 08:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha. Well, I don't think i'm helping much here so I'll see if Nab is interested in giving a third opinion. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

He is not. But Sceptic, you insulted my second favorite living Israeli up there (as well as writing something in violation of WP:BLP which is in force on every page on wiki) so you need to remove the personal analysis of Levy. If both of you ask I'll look this over, but my views are well known so Sceptic may want somebody slightly more impartial than me. nableezy - 04:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Normal procedure is outlined at WP:3O, but that is for disputes between 2 and only 2 people. If it is 2-1 (dont know if Jim is still involving himself here or not) try an RfC, instructions here. nableezy - 04:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Gideon Levi is your second favorite living Israeli? I am puzzled then who whould be the first. Amira? But she's currently living in Gaza if I'm not mistaken. And yes, I admit, I should have also included something nasty about Katz from JPost.

Jim is definitely a party, he placed the tag yesterday. And I'm inclined to keep things simple. So, as long as I'm concerned, Nableezy as arbitrator is fine with me. But you have to see the diffs from Jim vs me and Sean vs me, as well as the JPost original report, and to read this discussion (it is not too long yet). --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 04:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I am party to this issue and I am on one side with Sean. I agree with his stance on the issue.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

First, and I already told Sceptic this, I dont see why this is included at all. In fact most of the things in the section have no place in an encyclopedia. This isnt supposed to be a chronicle of everything the press publishes about Shalit, trivial things shouldnt be included in an encyclopedia. The only things that should be included in my opinion are these lines:

Hamas' refusal to negotiate about the status of Shalit or even to provide further information about his status strained the temporary Israel-Hamas cease-fire enacted in June 2008.[49]
At the start of the Gaza War, Hamas claimed that Shalit had been wounded by Israeli fire.[50] On 11 January 2009, Abu Marzuk, Deputy Chief of the Hamas Political Ministry, told the London-based Arabic daily, Al-Hayat that "Shalit may have been wounded, and he may not have been. The subject no longer interests us. We are not interested in his well-being at all, and we are not giving him any special guard since he is as good as a cat or less."[51]
On 22 January 2009, Israel indicated that it wanted to swap Palestinians held in Israeli jails for Shalit as part of a longer-term truce after the three week military operation in Gaza.[52] On 26 January 2009, it was reported that Israel is offering to free 1,000 prisoners in exchange for Shalit.[53] On 16 March 2009, it was reported that a prisoner swap deal to gain Shalit's release was close, and the negotiation team was urged to wrap up the deal. Israel has agreed to release more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners, but there were still disagreements over a number of prisoners.[54] The negotiation team however deadlocked over the release of 450 "heavyweight" prisoners. According to a senior source in the PM's Office, "a deal cannot be finalized on such terms, and there's nothing to vote on (in the government session) Tuesday".[55]
In May 2009, President Shimon Peres invited Shalit's family to meet Pope Benedict XVI at the President's Residence in Jerusalem on Monday.[56]

and parts of that should be expanded, specifically more on the negotiations following the Gaza war and what has been holding them up. Those are the things that actually matter and what an encyclopedia should cover. Imagine when this is no longer "news" but rather "history", do you think this topic would be discussed at all in a reference on Shalit? That is what we should be aiming to write, not just a collection of news stories.

But, as that is likely not a popular idea, if this is needed to be included then I would say there are problems with all 3 versions I have seen. Sceptic is right that we do not need to attribute this to the author, but we do need to attribute it to the JPost. The JPost says "according to pictures obtained by The Jerusalem Post." They consistently qualify the statements with something along those lines, such as: "In one picture, obtained by the Post, Mazini is seen standing next to Ahmad Bahar, the acting speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, distributing Korans to camp counselors." If this is going to be reported we need to phrase it as

The Jerusalem Post reported that they obtained photographs showing children performing a reenactment of the abduction^{this is what the source says, I aint dealing with semantics} during a graduation ceremony of a Hamas run summer camp.(orig JPost source) The photos received by the Jerusalem Post were reported to show Osama Mazini, a senior Hamas political official in charge of the negotiations with Israel regarding Shalit, attending the play.(heres a source for that)

But, again, I dont think this should be included at all. But as I am not going to stay around to argue that point or try to make any changes to the article you need not pay any attention to that. If you all think what I wrote above is acceptable put it in, if not follow the steps in WP:DR to get other opinions. Any concerns I'll respond for a bit, but this aint staying on my watchlist for too many days. nableezy - 21:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The encyclopedic significance of this news was not in the scope of the discussion (should this be started, I'll defend it).

I'm ready to endorse the recommendations above, pending the opinion of others. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 10:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for spending the time doing that Nableezy. Okay, I'm only going to comment on this summer camp issue.

• I agree that it doesn't really merit attention in this article but if it stays in then so be it. I won't object.
• Attribution to Jpost is fine by me. I was only concerned about there being no attribution and I attributed to Katz by name for the same reasons that I would tend to attribute to Fisk by name.
• I'm fine with the proposed text or something along those lines given the use of 'were reported'. It pains me not to mention the photos mismatch but I can live with it.

I will say that if Katz publishs an article titled 'Aliens land in Ashdod' with a picture of a small plastic ET toy, a 1950s robot and an over-turned plate I won't be so agreeable. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

With that I say bye. Yall seem like you can fine tune anything that needs it. nableezy - 16:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said I join Sean's standing on this issue. Saying that I will try to find more details about this topic. I will keep you posted. Thanks everyone for productive discussion --Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I edited the article in accordance with the agreement. Slight wording changes could be done at will. Major edits would be asked to discuss first. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 09:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

From the first glance it seems to be semantic, but what you tried to do, Jim, is shifting the emphasis from the "photos" to attribution to JPost. This is not what we agreed to. I don't want to start this all over again and I hope you do too. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 16:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's seek Nableezy's help about it once more.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

nableezy, SA suggested the following wording for the statement: "The Jerusalem Post reported that they obtained photographs, showing..." I suggest: "According to the Jerusalem Post it obtained photographs, showing..." Which version you would recommend?--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 11:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I would avoid "according to". I think the first version is better. The JPost is a RS and if they say they received these photos we can say that as a fact. nableezy - 14:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Settled. --Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)