Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Gilad Shalit

Anonymous editor

Excuse me, but this will not fly. I will not be part of a mediation in which one of the principal editors involved is excluded on a whim.

User:Jaakobou, unless you can cite some form of policy forbidding User:87.82.130.228 from participating, his name stays in.

pedro gonnet - talk - 17.04.2008 16:05

Pedro Gonnet,

Are you trying to deliberately sabotage the mediation before it has begun by including someone who "participated" with only 1 talk page comment in 5 months (Nickhh in December 2007), and including an IP editor who has made fewer than 20 edits in his entire editing history? [1]

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me that - in addition to commenting yesterday, before the mediation was requested - I had actually participated in discussions briefly back in December as well (with two comments as it happens). Hence my post on the main project page is slightly inaccurate. I'm curious as well to uncover what you mean by suggesting that the addition of my name amounts to deliberate "sabotage" on Pedro's part. --Nickhh (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh,

1. You've made 1 comment five months ago and another 2 yesterday and already you're trying to turn the mediation into a WP:BATTLE and help Pedro Gonnet derail discussions.
2. You've clearly not been seriously involved in this mediation and the word 'sabotage' comes up when both uninvolved editors and an anon. IP with less than 20 edits are added into the mediation by the one person insisting on a WP:POINT for a full 5 months.
3. I prefer resolving the content issue than play games with Pedro Gonnet and whichever method he decides could make the mediation less productive (as occurred in the previous MEDCAB).

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC) clarify 17:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

All of these accusations are way off beam and don't suggest that you are taking on mediation in the right spirit. To add to accusations of "sabotage", you're now accusing me of starting a "battle" over this and helping the "derailment" of discussions. Where? In what way have I done any of these things, either on the article talk page or here? I hope the mediator knows what they're taking on. --Nickhh (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't see the addition of anon. IPs with 20 edits as "the right spirit" to resolving 5 months of conversations.
Is there any special reason you believe this is helpful?
Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Will it make you all happy if I (82.33.1.131) decide to log in? I was involved before christmas, but then went away whilst I was moving house. Hello again. Timb0h (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Action?

So, is, like, anything going to happen on this mediation?

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 29.04.2008 06:32

Begin mediation

Thank you for approving me as mediator in the Gilad Shalit case. I would like to begin with a short summary from each of you as to your views of the situation. Be as brief as possible, but it is important to get your current views down.

Suggested groundrules for discussion

The following have proved useful in past mediations:

• be brief:
• use “I” messages (I think, I feel…)
• avoid criticism (“you” messages);
• when responding to another participant, speak directly to them. It is a good idea to paraphrase what they have just said to show that you have understood them;
• Use diffs, where they would be useful to support statements;
• follow WP behavioural policies, especially WP:CIV, WP:NPA and WP:CON.
• Try to assume good faith; relax and enjoy the discussion.

Each of you may open with a new heading, below. Remember, this can be a valuable learning experience if we put some effort into it. Sunray (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Xavexgoem

My part to play in this is rather small. The article Gilad Shalit was the first case I ever picked up at the mediation cabal, so I apologize to the two parties (Jaakobou and Pedrito) for my sub-par performance; I had not realized that I-P articles had many conflicts, just to prove my naivete. I am a bit hurt that Pedrito said the medcab case was handled poorly and off-track: after asking him to join IRC alongside Jaakobou, and waiting 2 weeks for Pedrito to contribute, I had to close the case. On the other hand, my understanding of certain policies and guidelines was not what it should have been to take on such a case. I agree entirely that the discussion was ridiculously unstructured, but didn't look that way (to me) since it was, after all, my structure ;-) But medcab is volunteer driven, mind, so we get a lot of newcomers who make mistakes

The dispute, at first, appeared to be over the use of "hostage" or "captive" to describe Schalit's status in the lead of the article. Pedrito contended that "captive" was the word most used in sources, and Jaakabou contended it was "hostage". This was the core of the content dispute (the real core, I believe, was assumptions of bad faith. I did not know how to work that angle, and wish that I could have). Both had evidence to back up each claim. Jaakobou contended that Pedrito's research on reliable sources using "captive" amounted to original research, and (to paraphrase) besides, most news agencies would call him a "hostage" after the abduction and demands. I came up with a compromise, which was built upon by Jaakobou. Pedrito was not there to offer his opinions (he had stuff to take care of off-wiki), so I put the case on hold and eventually closed it (compromise offer wasn't taken - in part because I was getting a little too involved myself with the offer). Edit wars had not broken out since I closed, though; it's a low-traffic area to begin with.

A little while ago (wiki-relative), the Schalit article was the focus of various kinds of edit-warring and talking-past-each-other-talk-page-talk. I did very little there, but it wasn't soon after that Jaakobou told me about the medcom request, and suspected meats/socks were pursuing him. I have no doubt that others suspect Jaak is somehow a puppetmaster, too, though. I believe neither. This is very heavy POV (emotionally, etc) territory, so I tend not to over-worry about meatpuppets. It's hard to tell who actually shares the same interest, and who's recruited to share it.

I apologize that most of what I observe is behavioral (POV on both sides, ABF, yadayadayada), but I was very new and that was all, relatively speaking, a long time ago.

Thank you for a frank and, evidently, heart-felt statement. Is it reasonable to conclude that you have learned a great deal from your experience? I was interested in your observation about a lack of good faith. That would certainly hinder collaboration. It will be interesting to hear what others have to say about this. Perhaps they could pick up on the question: How can we turn it around so that participants are able to AGF? Sunray (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I fear both editors are waiting for the other to release their statement before they release theirs. Almost like a game of chess, except whoever plays white feels they'll be at a disadvantage, because black will attack the piece instead of contributing to the game... Xavexgoem (talk) 11:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

My counterparts claimed that 'Prisoner of War' is of equal value to 'hostage'. I was hoping they will come up with something other than Sunray's finding of Abu Mujahid to support this statment. Anyways, I'll post some notes on the weekend for sure. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Nickhh

As noted on the main page I do not really want to get involved in a long debate on this, but would like to reiterate a quick couple of points at the outset and leave it at that. I will accept whatever decision is made further down the line. Although it is frustrating to participants (and will often appear farcical to outsiders) when disputes break out over single words, at the same time language can be very loaded. Individual words can confer legitimacy onto actions, or equally connote disapproval. My view would be that in this case, as in all others, the lead paragraph at least should avoid any words such as arrested, abducted or kidnapped; or prisoner of war, hostage or whatever, and stick to the most obviously neutral language - that is, Gilad Shalit was "captured" or "taken" and is "being held". Further discussion, about the precise status afforded to a soldier in a conflict zone being held by a non-state group can be held further down if necessary. References to the media don't help either, as everyone can no doubt find examples of news media using their preferred terminology or descriptive phrase. Unless there's clear consensus across a range of mainstream media, official and academic sources about any of the more loaded terminology, it shouldn't go in the lead. --Nickhh (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Summary thus far

Here are some things I would like to check out:

1. As only two participants have spoken above, it seems reasonable to conclude that folks believe that they have pretty much stated their case in the RfC and the MedCab case. Would it also be correct to assume that participants are somewhat burnt out with the discussion?
2. Despite much discussion and review of sources, consensus does not exist for the use of the term "hostage" in the lead.
3. Nickhh has suggested that relatively neutral words be used in the lead. How does this strike you?
4. Some editing of the section on International Law within the past ten days has begun to address the synthesis problem. However, the first paragraph of that section is lacking in citations. How could this section be improved?

Are there other observations that should be mentioned? One thing that may surprise participants is that there seem to be real areas of agreement in the discussions thus far. Also, despite some flare-ups and edit waring, participants have generally shown a resolve to discuss things reasonably. Comments? Sunray (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sunray! Sorry for not having participated yet. Your assumption regarding burn-out is correct -- this issue is somewhat low on my priorities list, since so far it has only been a source of aggravation. I have been preparing a statement along the lines of what I said in the MedCab case, but have been too busy to wrap it up and post it. If all goes well, it should appear here sometime soon. After today, though, I will be unavailable until Tuesday. Cheers and thanks! pedrito - talk - 30.05.2008 07:49

It has been over a month since this went to MedCab, so another few days, probably won't hurt. However, to get this done, we will need some people who agree to work on it. Let's just assume that we know (from RfC and MedCab) what the issues are. Check out my summary, above. What else needs to be added? I've also suggested some areas of agreement, below. Perhaps you (I mean all participants) could begin there. What can we work on together? How about starting with an agenda? Sunray (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Areas of agreement

Here are what seem to be areas of agreement:

• Participants agree that the words "captive" and "hostage" can be used in the article (though with conditions and sparingly).
• Despite lack of agreement regarding use of "hostage" in the lead, no one seems to disagree with the possibility of a section on terminology that discusses the use of terms such as "hostage" and "prisoner of war." (The International Law section has begun to address this).
• Each of the participants has agreed (at one point or another) that it is o.k. to say that Shalit was abducted.

Sunray (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Agenda

How about this as an agenda:

1. Discussion on the use of the terms "hostage," captive" “abducted,” "prisoner," "prisoner of war" and so forth, in the article.
2. Assess and agree on improvements to the Int Law section.
3. Either use this section, or a new section, to discuss the above terms.
4. Determine changes to the lead to ensure that it is a neutral and comprehensive summary.

What do we need to add or subtract to/from this list? Sunray (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Sounds ok to me. I will post a statement as soon as possible (extremely busy these days), although, in the meantime - I would like to see a collection of the sources that use POW in regard to Gilad Shalit. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidently each of these expressions has an ideological connotation. "Prisoner of war" was used by Hamas [2] and has been used to discuss the ideological aspects of the incident. [3]. In the RfC, Drork discussed POW status under International Law. Subsequently the "International Law" section was added to the article. Sunray (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Anybody other than Abu Mujahid? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that the term be used (beyond the current discussion in the Int Law section of the article)—only that it is a term for discussion in this mediation (since it has been discussed by participants). Sunray (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I Was only inquiring to who else used the term other tha Abu Mujahid. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus to use the term POW generally in the article except in a section that discusses the various terms and how they might be used. The term appears twice in the article: Once, in the "Diplomatic efforts" section as a report that Abu Mujahed, spokesman for the captors, said:"He is being treated in accordance with Islamic values regulating the treatment of prisoners of war." The second use is in the International Law section and discusses Geneva Conventions. What are the concerns, if any, regarding these two uses? Sunray (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Small comment - Mujahid's definition of "Islamic Prisoner of War" is not nearly the same as the international definition of the term. Still, at no point did I raise an objection to adding his position into the article. However, the comparison made by Nickhh to 'hostage' seems false as long as the only source for the comparison is Mr. Mujahid vs. 15 reliable sources. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hostage

Perhaps we should discuss the use of the term "hostage" now. Jaakobou and Drork have spoken in favour of its use. Timboh, Nickh and Pedrito have expressed some concerns about its general use. Simply put, what are the arguments for or against its use? Sunray (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Argument for 1: Only concise term to describe the hostage situation. i.e. a person taken by force to secure the taker's demands - Merriam-Webster.

Argument for 2: Used by the highest quality of sources Der Spiegel, Human Rights Watch, Jerusalem Post, CNN, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Haaretz, United States House of Representatives, Jewish Virtual Library, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, B'Tselem, The Daily Telegraph, BBC, The Washington Times, Reuters, The Times.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Pedrito's statement

Sorry for the rather long delay. My arguments here are pretty-much a re-cap of what I had to say on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-21 Gilad Shalit#Pedro Gonnet evidence, most of it even verbatim since it was not addressed in that discussion:

• Preferred term: User:Jaakobou has presented a number of sources using the word "hostage" in several different contexts, yet he has been unable to show, as of yet, that this term is in fact the preferred term. I don't deny that some -- even serious -- media have used the term. What I do deny, however, is that this is the preferred language.
• Inflammatory language: In general, Wikipedia frowns upon the use of inflated and/or inflammatory language. The term hostage implies criminal activity, yet all actors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict state that they are at War, for which other rules apply -- i.e. capturing an enemy soldier while on active military duty in a conflict zone is not a crime.
• Reciprocity: Interestingly enough, the term "hostage" is not applied when referring to Palestinian Prisoners, i.e. 2007–2008 Israel-Gaza conflict#Arrest of Hamas government members, which are held in military prisons, under administrative detention (no trial), are subject to harsh interrogation techniques considered torture by the United Nations and are used as bargaining chips in peace negotiations. Seriously, could any of the parties here imagine Wikipedia using the term "hostage" when referring to these captives? I think not.
• Sources/Media: User:Jaakobou's favourite source, the CNN-article [4], uses the term hostage only in the lead. A quick check on Google News shows that only 18 of 242 articles on Gilad Shalit use the term "hostage" (131 use the term "prisoner", 47 the term "abducted"). In general, the media try to avoid inflated or inflammatory language, as is best exemplified by the BBC's World News editor, Jon Williams [5].
• Undue weight: Of course a case can be made that some people consider Gilad Shalit to be a hostage and that this may be notable enough to merit mention as a minority view, yet using the term prominently in the lead is a somewhat gross violation of NPOV, as discussed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight.
• Burden of proof: For some incredibly odd reason I have found myself in the strange position of having to prove the negative of User:Jaakobou's claims. As a reminder to everybody here, this dispute started when, in a discussion on Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict regarding the same terminology, User:Jaakobou went to Gilad Shalit and inserted the term "hostage" to score in a discussion there (see [6], [7]). Since it is he who inserted the term "hostage" over "POW", it is up to him to prove that the former term is in fact preferred (i.e. not just used in some sources, but in most sources), and not up to me to prove the opposite.

In the MedCab case, these issues all got blurred, especially the burden-of-proof issue. I hope that in this mediation, the discussion will be more focussed, addressing these points one by one.

As already stated in the MedCab case, my standing on this issue is:

1. The word "hostage" is too inflammatory and WP:UNDUE for the lead.
2. If the issue is notable enough and there are enough reliable sources, Gilad Shalit's status as a hostage can be brought up elsewhere in the article, i.e. in a section regarding legal issues in general (there are much more interesting issues then just nomenclature, mind you).

So, may the case begin :) Cheers, pedrito - talk - 10.06.2008 06:45

Very nice summaries! I would like to try something that has been used in outside dispute resolution sessions. Would each of you now, please, summarize the other's argument? Sunray (talk) 06:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, good idea. I will reduce myself to summarizing User:Jaakobou's statements alone:

1. "hostage", per its definition, fits the description of Gilad Shalit,
2. Some news sources use this term.

Both are correct, however none really make a case... "Hostage" may be correct, but it is inflammatory (as per User:Nickhh's comments above and in the spirit of WP:NPOV and WP:WTA) and "some" reputable sources using it in headlines does not make it a preferred term (as per WP:UNDUE).

Did I miss anything? Cheers, pedrito - talk - 10.06.2008 07:36

Your summary seems to encompass two major points that have been raised by Jaakabou. I would suggest that you need not counter it right now (Let's get his summary of what you have said first). What do you think J's interest is? Sunray (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jaakobou

Arguments for inclusion of "Hostage"

• Argument for 1: Only concise term to describe the hostage situation. i.e. a person taken by force to secure the taker's demands - Merriam-Webster. There are no other English terms I'm aware of to accurately describe the "kidnapping for ransom" situation.
• Argument for 2: Used by the highest quality of sources both in body and lead. Der Spiegel, Human Rights Watch, Jerusalem Post, CNN, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Haaretz, United States House of Representatives, Jewish Virtual Library, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, B'Tselem, The Daily Telegraph, BBC, The Washington Times, Reuters, The Times.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Notes regarding statement by Nickhh

Link to Nickhh (talk · contribs) statement - #Statement by User:Nickhh

The term POW is not a "loaded point of view" equivalent for Hostage. The first was only used, best I'm aware, by Abu Mujahid of Hamas, while the latter is used by a plethora of high-quality reliable sources. (see also #Arguments for inclusion of "Hostage" above) However, I am willing to compromise writing down the fringe Hamas perspective -- with reasonable weight -- in the article, adding that Hamas uses the "POW" term in relation their war with Israel while using Palestinian militants imprisoned by Israel as a point of reference (possibly on the Gilad_Shalit#Capture section). I think that is a fair compromise suggestion regarding the concern that "hostage" could confer illegitimacy onto the kidnapping activity.
With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Notes regarding statement by Pedrito

Link to Pedrito (talk · contribs) statement - #Pedrito's statement

The term "hostage" is the only one to refer to the "kidnapping for ransom" situation and is used by a plethora of high-quality reliable sources both in body and lead. (see also #Arguments for inclusion of "Hostage" above)

• It is the "Preferred" term as it is the only correct English term for the hostage situation. I fail to see the only descriptive as "Inflammatory" since it describes the situation without embellishing it. The term derives it's "criminal activity" implication because it is a tactic used predominantly by criminal bodies - legitimate bodies usually resort to other methods of persuasion where needed (such as diplomacy). However, there are no special apprehensions from using the term when legitimate bodies apply it.
• There is, best I'm aware, no "Reciprocity" in comparison with the Palestinian militants imprisoned in Israel. Israel imprisons, without any demands from the Palestinian Authority, Palestinian militants so that they won't commit acts of violence against Israeli civilians -- a large chunk of them taken into custody after harming/killing Israelis. Shalit was not in pursuit of harming Palestinian civilians but was rather on guard duty and was taken with ransom demands. i.e. taken hostage. There is no room for "Reciprocity" because Israel does not take Palestinian militants pushing the Palestinian Authority to accept it's hostage demands.

I am willing consider any other terminology that might be suggested to describe the hostage situation. I believe this is a fair compromise suggestion in regards to the concern that "hostage" is not a preferred term.
With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• 'Burden of proof' side note: There seems to be no reliable sources which support the POW phrasing which would automatically suggest the term "hostage", which can be cited to many high quality sources, is preferable to it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou's summary of Pedro's arguments - per Mediator's request

The following is a summary on Pedrito's arguments, registered by Jaakobou - per the mediator's request (see 23:39, 10 June 2008)

• Preferred term: Jaakobou is unable to show "hostage" is preferred. I deny that this is the preferred language.
• Inflammatory language: The term hostage implies criminal activity while Hamas is at war with Israel. i.e. capturing active enemy soldiers in a conflict zone is not a crime.
• Reciprocity: The term "hostage" is not applied when referring to heavily tortured Palestinian Prisoners who are used as bargaining chips.
• Sources/Media: Jaakobou's favourite source uses the term hostage only in the lead. A Google News check shows "prisoner" and "abducted" are used more often than "hostage". The media tries to avoid inflated or inflammatory language as did Jon Williams while explaining that "kidnapped" is a term used for civilians and "captured" is a term used by the BBC to describe Shalit's cross border abduction.
• Undue weight: Saying Gilad Shalit to be a hostage merits mention as a minority view and should not be used prominently in the lead.
• Burden of proof: This dispute started when Jaakobou inserted the term "hostage". Since it is he who inserted the term "hostage" over "POW", it is up to him to prove that the former term is in fact preferred.

e.c. I disagree with a large chunk of these arguments and claims, but believe I avoided misrepresenting them. -- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Room for mediator questions

Jaakobou: Would you be able to summarize what Pedrito is saying? Sunray (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I've addressed Pedrito's statement as much as possible on my notes above (i.e. #Notes regarding statement by Pedrito), taking a summerised look into his points and also giving a response. Is there a point which Pedrito raised as concern that you believe I have missed in my notes?

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see your summary of his views. It seems to me that you are not summarizing, but rather disputing what he says. The reason for asking for this summary is to see whether you clearly understand each other's perspective. Then if we can discuss the underlying interests you both have, we may be able to find some common ground. It is not easy to paraphrase what someone is saying when you disagree, but if you both can do it, I think it might be helpful. Would you be willing to write a brief summary of P's views (without a rejoinder? Sunray (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not my place to comment on Pedrito's interests. However, I believe the raised arguments and the representation of my arguments are primarily false which would certainly lead to conflict without a third party either agreeing that they are false or suggesting I am incorrect in my assessment and noting that they are correct. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediator's notes

• The participants have each made summary of how they see the dispute. These summaries will be useful as we move forward.
• One obstacle to a negotiated agreement is the fact that they have each honed their position to a fine point. They are articulate and have done considerable research. We need to look for ways for them to collaborate.
• I had hoped for a summary from each of what the other is saying. They seem to be having a hard time doing that without, at the same time advancing their own point of view (which is entirely understandable under the circumstances, given the length of time they have been discussing it).
• I will wait for a bit longer to see if they are willing to work on that some more (I've asked a specific question of each).
• I will then summarize, what I see as common interests. Sunray (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)