Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-21 Gilad Shalit

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Gilad Shalit
Status	Open
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	User:Pedro Gonnet, User:Jaakobou, User:Timb0h, User:Kyaa the Catlord
Mediator(s)	Xavexgoem (talk) and Doug (talk · contribs)
Comment	Discussing.

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab active cases|Gilad Shalit]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Gilad Shalit]]

Request details

There is an ongoing dispute regarding the use of the term "hostage" when referring to Gilad Shalit. After a lengthy RfC, a compromise solution was suggested and implemented (i.e. not using the word "hostage" in the lead, but adding a section discussing the issue), yet some editors consider the RfC to have been a vote they won, and re-introduced the "hostage"-terminology.

Who are the involved parties?

Comment 1: excluding editors who's made a single comment to the issue.

Comment 2: Other users who commented on the subject at Israeli-Palestinian conflict might be interested in joining the discussions.

• AlainFarhi (talk · contribs)
• Avruch (talk · contribs)
• Dbratton (talk · contribs)
• Drork (talk · contribs)
• IronDuke (talk · contribs)
• Itsmejudith (talk · contribs)
• Jaakobou (talk · contribs) (contributing)
• Kyaa the Catlord (talk · contribs)
• Nickhh (talk · contribs)
• Pedro Gonnet (talk · contribs) (contributing)
• Raggz (talk · contribs) (contributing)
• Sm8900 (talk · contribs) (contributing)
• Soman (talk · contribs)
• Threeafterthree (talk · contribs)
• Timb0h (talk · contribs)

Comment

Just to clear things up, my original list included only the most active participants to the discussion (the ones in the box at the top of this page). The additional names were supplemented by User:Jaakobou. pedro gonnet - talk - 22.01.2008 07:08

Noted. I won't edit it down if Jaakobou feels them relevant, but I don't want anyone who wasn't initially listed to take it too personal that there name is listed here :) Xavexgoem (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sorted alphabetically

What's going on?

The RfC led to a compromise that is now being ignored. I would like this issue settled once and for all so that we can all get on with productive editing.

Most of the arguments have already been made on the talk page.

comment by Jaakobou: It is my understanding that there was a +5 !votes (p.s. pedro, !vote = not vote) RfC advantage for allowing the use of 'hostage' -- per sources such as CNN [1] and B'Tselem [2] and his isolated conditions -- and User:Pedro Gonnet believes otherwise. All the related discussions are currently spread on the talk page in different sub-sections. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC) added source 10:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: (Crossposted from Talk:Gilad Shalit) 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+ 14:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I'm surprised to find myself listed because I just "dropped in" once for RfC input. I did offer the section "International Law" as a compromise, but I am not concerned which side prevails. The key issues are the actual definitions of the words. Captive most often refers to animals and is less commonly used for people. Have we ever heard of a "captive of war"? There were ransom claims. If this is true, then there is a word for the prisoner and this word is hostage. Military forces do not hold people for ransom, (although they do swap prisoners). Military forces take prisoners. If is established by a reliable source that the prisoner is being held for ransom, then the WP Weasle Words Policy applies and he should be called a hostage. If ransom is not established, then he is a prisoner, and because Israel has signed Geneva Conventions I&II, he is either a prisoner of war or he is a hostage. Captive is really not an option, because he is not a pet frog.

This is an article that needs for the editors to re-commit to the WP good-faith consensus policy. Those who are not able to follow this policy likely will need to be banned permenently. During my short tenure with this article it was clear that this Policy is not being adhered to, and that progress requires this. Raggz (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand the dilemma (although "being held captive" sounds fine to my ears, but that might be American English and/or Too Many Bad Movies and Video Games). 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) 22:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I propose that the language of the Geneva Conventions be followed, since the GCs are the international consensus about captured soldiers. Israel has signed GCs I&II, so these apply. GCs III&V also apply in regard to what words the international community uses. My proposal is to first agree that the language of the GCs applies in regard to captured soldiers. THEN the language of the GCs will prevail. Raggz (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the use of the terminology used by the GC is probably the best choice on the basis that their terminology is clear and precise; however, because ransom hasn't been established, we'd still be stuck between "hostage" and "prisoner". Because sources are conflicting and Shalib's condition is not entirely known, I think it's best we avoid this particular discussion until we reach an agreement on how the use of the general term (whether it be hostage or prisoner, etc) be handled in the article. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, I understand the use of the terminology as it stands is still up in the air. But I think that a looser usage of definitions (i.e., not conforming strictly to GC) renders "hostage" and "prisoner" synonyms. (edit: maybe not logically, but emotionally? further edit: and by that I mean, between those two conditions, no-one wants to be in that situation, if you didn't get my meaning :) ) Xavexgoem (talk) 09:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?

As mentioned, get a final decision on whether we should use the word "hostage" in the lead or not.

Comment by Jaakobou: words to add into the discussion are 'abduction' and 'kidnapping', since the original argument started over at Israeli-Palestinian conflict and spilled into the Gilad Shalit article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep it short, sweet and to the point. "Abducted" was never the issue (see the discussion on Talk:Gilad Shalit), but somehow keeps getting waved around as a red herring. pedro gonnet - talk - 22.01.2008 10:53

are you saying that we have full agreement on use of 'abduction'? if yes, then we will refine this discussion to 'hostage' only (per CNN and B'Tselem). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

He said no such thing, Jaakobou :). Both the RfC and this medcab request were filed over the use of "hostage" and if/where to put it in the article. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

what matters for this discussion (in my opinion) is that we find a long term solution for the entire discussion/dispute as seen by both sides. It was my understanding that 'abducted', 'kidnapped' and 'held hostage' were rejected and replaced with 'captured'. If Pedro agrees on the use of abducted and/or kidnapped, then I'm willing to limit the current discussion for the word 'hostage' alone. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

i.e. all pedro needs to say is that he accepts the word 'abducted'. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Pedro, your thoughts? Xavexgoem (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the term "abducted" as this is the language that was in use in the article before this whole debate started and is also the language used by most sources. "Kidnapped", however, I strongly object to.

I guess this would close the debate on the verb. What about the noun?

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 22.01.2008 22:12

I'm glad we're in agreement here, and will say so in the talk page. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

considering this statement by Pedro Gonnet, I'd be happy enough to confine the discussion to the word 'hostage'. where do we begin placing statements/references/etc. ? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

How about in the section below? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I asked Raggz to start out the GC notes, waiting to see if he notes the relevant input. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources and evidence, re usage of "Hostage" and other terms proposed

Reliable sources using "Hostage":

• Der Spiegel - [3] - "PARENTS OF ISRAELI HOSTAGE GILAD SCHALIT".
• Human Rights Watch - [4] + Definition. - "Palestinian armed groups... are currently holding Israeli soldier Corporal Gilad Shalit hostage".
• Jerusalem Post - [5] - "Hamas gunmen... Cpl. Gilad Shalit hostage".
• CNN - [6] - "Militants issue Israel hostage demands... statement... by the militants in the negotiations for the release of Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit, whom the flier referred to as "missing" rather than "kidnapped"... Hamas spokesman Ghazi Hamad told CNN that members of the Hamas military wing are among those holding Shalit... abducted Sunday morning".
• Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - [7] - "Hamas militants... took a third, Cpl. Gilad Shalit, hostage".
• Haaretz - [8] - "Kidnappers blame Israel for impasse in Shalit hostage talks".
• United States House of Representatives+Jewish Virtual Library (per USHoR) - [9], [10] - "completely unprovoked attack... in undisputed Israeli territory... Gilad Shalit was kidnapped and is being held hostage in Gaza by a Palestinian terrorist group which includes members of Hamas; ... Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal... acknowledged the role of Hamas in holding Corporal Shalit hostage;"
• Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs - [11] - "Hamas... continues to hold Gilad Shalit hostage"
• B'Tselem - [12] - "Holding Gilad Shalit as a hostage is a war crime"
• The Daily Telegraph - [13] - "Gaza on brink over hostage soldier".
• BBC - [14] - "hostage crisis"
• The Washington Times - [15] - "Hostage's childhood essay to raise awareness".
• Reuters - [16] - "SOUNDBITE Gilad Shalit, hostage Israeli soldier".
• The Times - [17] - "Fatah party claimed that they had seized a third Israeli hostage" (e.g. Gilad Shalit, Eliahu Asheri and Noah Moskowitz).

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC) fix wikilink 14:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Definitions of term:

• "A hostage is a person held in the power of an adversary in order to obtain specific actions, such as the release of prisoners, from the other party to the conflict. Holding persons as hostages and the summary execution of anyone held captive are war crimes." - Human Rights Watch - [18].
• "hostage [ˈhostidʒ] noun - a person who is held prisoner in order to ensure that the captor's demands etc will be carried out Example: The terrorists took three people with them as hostages; They took / were holding three people hostage." - Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (APA), (CMS), (MLA) - [19]

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediator notes

The result of the RfC are vague, and can be interpreted either way by both parties. If possible, I would like to keep this discussion narrowed down to to use of "hostage" within the article, unless the use of "abduction", "kidnapping", etc, within the citations warrants their inclusion for the use of the word hostage. I've made my suggestion, and would like to hear others opinions on it, and encourage other editors to make suggestions as well, and hold debate per suggestion until a later time. Just my two cents atm. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC) EDIT: pending pedro's opinion on "abduction" first. (done) Xavexgoem (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: Some of the parties here are also parties in Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-01-09_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Above, a user, presumably the requesting party, stated the result he or she was looking for was: As mentioned, get a final decision on whether we should use the word "hostage" in the lead or not. - Quaere: Does the requesting party understand that by the very nature of Mediation any decision would have to be one agreed on by all the parties - and if everyone doesn't participate it would only be an agreement by those who do - in other words, although mediators may choose to suggest what they believe to the be the right answer, the mediators are not able to decide the matter?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• This appears partially resolved based on the discussion above - is only the specific word hostage still at issue? --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• The parties who take issue with it have not _done_ anything about the article. I wouldn't say it's partially resolved more than it is partially stalled, atm. Pending evidence on use of GC terminology.Xavexgoem (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Waiting for input from Jaakobou on Pedro's comment Xavexgoem (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• All edits to the lead over the use of "hostage" et al will likely cause reverts, since the only consensus reached has been between two editors, for the most part. 3RR is still applicable, of course, and me nor medcab can stipulate that what was agreed on here has any binding effect. Because reversions are likely to happen, 1RR might be a good practice. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(Of course, no reversions would be best, and I have no clue what'll happen ;) Xavexgoem (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion and Suggestions

Discuss! Xavexgoem (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Xavexgoem's proposal: Remove "has been held hostage since" in lead, and replace with "has held against his will since". Shalib's condition as someone being held for ransom by his captors is unknown. Make a note that ransom demands have been made in the lead ("..held against his will. Ransom demands have been made by an unknown party", or something like this). This proposal has the advantage of keeping hostage an implicit option but explicitly moving it out of the lead. It also clears up meta-info (the dispute) under the "International Law" header that would otherwise be kept on the talk page. Pedro has agreed on the use of abduction, Jaakobou has agreed on limiting the use of hostage, and Daniel has said that putting the dispute into the article isn't a good idea. However, Raggz wishes to discuss the usage of Geneva Convention terminology, which this proposal could conflict with. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely pleased with the suggestion (although I very much appreciate the effort). "Held against his will" neglects the possibility that GC prisoner codes are being violated. Other phrasings, esp, with a link to the hostage demands via CNN article [20] - allow a more accurate position. Held against his will is of equal value as POW or prisoner, and is missing a key element on his status... which is the reason for the medcab.

I asked Raggz to help out with registering the GC notes since I'm a tad busy for the next week and don't quite have the time to plunge deeply into the matter. Seeing that he's been taking his time, I may request another one of the named parties to help out with this input. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"held against his will under unknown conditions" works too. Anything that avoids the use of the contested terms, really. At any rate, I'll wait for Raggz or someone else to include evidence on the use of GC terminology. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to fill this case with the related GC input before we close it, but for now I'm stating that your latest suggestion could pass as far as I'm concerned. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that GC terminology should be introduced as evidence. So far as this dispute has been largely between you and Pedro, I'll wait for Pedro's opinion before I make any statements on consensus. Xavexgoem (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I consider this as consensus between you and Jaakabou to remove hostage out of the lead, at least until some evidence for GC comes about? Xavexgoem (talk) 11:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if we can agree that he will first present the material haere or on Talk:Gilad Shalit and discuss it before inserting it. Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 29.01.2008 12:00

You're free to edit the lead; there's no need for Jaakabou to do so. Or are you referring to GC? I think it's fair to assume that GC related disputes will happen here or on the article's talk page before editing in, or at any rate introduced, reverted, and brought to talk. In both cases, it may bring more people here so a broader consensus can be reached. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

My comment was regarding the GC-content. User:Jaakobou is somewhat notorious for purposely inserting controversial stuff and discussing to the death later. I'll make the edits in the lead. Cheers and thanks! pedro gonnet - talk - 29.01.2008 17:06

Just to be clear, and to avoid any confusion (partly my own): I have no say on what is added to an article. I didn't release anyone from the bonds of medcab to be let loose on wikipedia ;). With that said, please don't neglect WP:AGF regarding Jaakabou's subjective notoriety :) Xavexgoem (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Note by Jaakobou:

1. I don't believe that inserting one's version over the other (revert) during mediation is a trust-building move. [21] To remind, on that same day, I tried making a suggestion edit (not a revert) during regular discussions, and Pedro asked "how far can you stretch WP:AGF?" threatening to send me to WP:EA. [22]
2. Per WP:CIV and WP:NPA, Pedro Gonnet, please stick to article material and not your perceptions on other users. Thank you.
3. If the GC material won't be inserted until Friday, I'll maybe get started on it. I'm a bit behind on a couple of RL issues, but expecting more time next week.
4. For the record, regardless of GC, we have three RS using the term [23], [24], [25].

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

$\leftarrow$ Ok, there seems to be some confusion here regarding my edit and where this discussion is going. User:Xavexgoem said, a few posts farther up,

"Can I consider this as consensus between you and Jaakabou to remove hostage out of the lead, at least until some evidence for GC comes about?"

and

"You're free to edit the lead; there's no need for Jaakabou to do so."

Which I understood as exactly that: we agree that hostage does not go into the lead, at least until User:Jaakobou can make a convincing case for it.

As for WP:CIV and WP:NPA, ok, point taken, I won't touch the topic anymore.

Regarding your three sources,

1. The first source, Haaretz, uses the term only in the title, referring to the talks, not to Gilad Shalit.
2. The second source, CNN, is the same source I mentioned in my argument summary, which also uses the term only in the title and refers to the "demands".
3. The third source, B'Tselem is, finally, the only source that unequivocally refers to Gilad Shalit as a hostage. B'Tselem is also an excellent source of the use of the term "hostage" when referring to Palestinians in Israeli custody, e.g. here, here, here, etc... Would you accept B'Tselem as a reliable source were somebody to consistently refer to Palestinian prisoners as "hostages"?

Incidentally, for some odd reason you missed the principal B'Tselem document regarding Gilad Shalit and his status as a hostage, namely this one, which sums-up your arguments quite nicely. But again, would you accept (or have you ever accepted) B'Tselem as a reliable source regarding statements potentially critical of Israel?.

But this is going in circles... User:Jaakobou, I gave a concise list of my arguments a bit farther up. So far, I have tried to respond to each of you individual arguments in substance. Would you mind doing the same for mine? Even just for the sake of advancing this discussion?

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 30.01.2008 09:15

I'm afraid I have misunderstood Jaakabou's position on this matter, and I sincerely apologize. Jaakabou, I know you don't have much time at the moment, but could you clarify your position and what went wrong with Pedro's edit? It was my understanding that a sort of tacit agreement had been reached. Please inform me if I've been wrong in anyway, thanks :) Xavexgoem (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made some source collecting and while the Geneva Convention notes are not included, I feel there's plenty of reliable sources to make some type of decision. Pedro Gonnet, do you have any arguments to be made against Der Spiegel, Jerusalem Post, United States House of Representatives, Reuters and the others? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

p.s. Xavexgoem, there was no agreement on the deletion of 'hostage' and I have no idea on how you attained the belief that there was. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, that sounds totally fine. could you please post the specific sources for whatever it is you're referring to, in the new section below? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I conflated the abduction/hostage terminology agreement (that you would agree to limit use of "hostage" terminology if Pedro accepted "abducted") with my proposal (which removed "hostage" from the lead). Again, I apologize, although it was an easy mistake to make. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

speaking as an interested party, this argument is getting almost impossible to follow. we need a better structure here, similar to Arbcom. Jaakobou, and Pedro, maybe each of you should start a section of your own here. anyway, I'm going to take the liberty of making a subsection for documents and evidence. Could you please post some of your links there, just to provide a basic capsule overview? thanks so much. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this isn't the best layout, but wasn't sure what to do. I also suggest ungluing your l and k keys ;) Xavexgoem (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

good point! :-) I used an Exacto knife to get rid of the silicate cement on them. :-) thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Documents and evidence

Please post links here, to provide an overview. (all sections can be further divided into sub-sections by topic, if desired). thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou evidence

Jaakobou, your comment above (starting "I don't believe...") still leaves some lack of detail about the facts of your case here. your comments appear to remark on some others' comments here, which is totally ok of course, but it seems to not actually make clear the specific details of your current claims. could you please clarify what you are seeking, and the sources and documents for it? thanks.

Reliable sources using "Hostage":

• Der Spiegel - [26] - "PARENTS OF ISRAELI HOSTAGE GILAD SCHALIT".
• Human Rights Watch - [27] + Definition. - "Palestinian armed groups... are currently holding Israeli soldier Corporal Gilad Shalit hostage".
• Jerusalem Post - [28] - "Hamas gunmen... Cpl. Gilad Shalit hostage".
• CNN - [29] - "Militants issue Israel hostage demands... statement... by the militants in the negotiations for the release of Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit, whom the flier referred to as "missing" rather than "kidnapped"... Hamas spokesman Ghazi Hamad told CNN that members of the Hamas military wing are among those holding Shalit... abducted Sunday morning".
• Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - [30] - "Hamas militants... took a third, Cpl. Gilad Shalit, hostage".
• Haaretz - [31] - "Kidnappers blame Israel for impasse in Shalit hostage talks".
• United States House of Representatives+Jewish Virtual Library (per USHoR) - [32], [33] - "completely unprovoked attack... in undisputed Israeli territory... Gilad Shalit was kidnapped and is being held hostage in Gaza by a Palestinian terrorist group which includes members of Hamas; ... Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal... acknowledged the role of Hamas in holding Corporal Shalit hostage;"
• Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs - [34] - "Hamas... continues to hold Gilad Shalit hostage"
• B'Tselem - [35] - "Holding Gilad Shalit as a hostage is a war crime"
• The Daily Telegraph - [36] - "Gaza on brink over hostage soldier".
• BBC - [37] - "hostage crisis"
• The Washington Times - [38] - "Hostage's childhood essay to raise awareness".
• Reuters - [39] - "SOUNDBITE Gilad Shalit, hostage Israeli soldier".
• The Times - [40] - "Fatah party claimed that they had seized a third Israeli hostage" (e.g. Gilad Shalit, Eliahu Asheri and Noah Moskowitz).

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC) fix wikilink 14:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Definitions of term:

• "A hostage is a person held in the power of an adversary in order to obtain specific actions, such as the release of prisoners, from the other party to the conflict. Holding persons as hostages and the summary execution of anyone held captive are war crimes." - Human Rights Watch - [41].
• "hostage [ˈhostidʒ] noun - a person who is held prisoner in order to ensure that the captor's demands etc will be carried out Example: The terrorists took three people with them as hostages; They took / were holding three people hostage." - Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (APA), (CMS), (MLA) - [42]

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Comments by parties/mediators:

Comments by others:

Pedro Gonnet evidence

Pedro, your comments seem fairly specific about the documents you are trying to cite. however, once Jaakobou posts some evidence, perhaps a direct and concise response by you here might be useful in helping to make the various claims here more clear and understandable. thanks.

Main Arguments

Sorry for the delay in weighing-in, I have been rather busy in real life. I guess I've already said everything there is to say on Talk:Gilad Shalit, but none the less, here's a summary:

• Inflamatory 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 [43], 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 inflamatory language, as is best exemplified by the BBC's World News editor, Jon Williams [44].
• Geneva Conventions: A lot is being said about the Geneva Conventions and how they apply to this issue, but few sources have been presented. Again, searching Google News for "Gilad Shalit" and "Geneva Conventions" brings up only two articles, both using the term "Geneva Conventions" to reprimand the Israeli Government. If there is a good source around and the issue is notable enough, then it could be included as a minority view.
• 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.

There, I guess that's all... To sum things up further, here's my standpoint or starting point for a compromise:

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).

Ok, now it's back to work for me :)

Cheers and thanks for mediating, pedro gonnet - talk - 29.01.2008 09:13

Sources

User:Jaakobou, the sources you cite are only anecdotal evidence. To make a case, you'd have to show that for these sources, the term "hostage" is the preferred term, not just some minority opinion, as per my initial statements. Here's a breakdown of the terminology habits of the sources you quote:

Source	hits "Gilad Shalit"	GS + "hostage"	ratio
Der Spiegel	30	19	63.3%
Jerusalem Post	1770	126	7.12%
US House of Representatives	32	4	12.5%
Reuters	1350	32	2.37%

So, yes, you could make a case for Der Spiegel. For the others? No. That makes it a minority opinion and thus, per WP:UNDUE, it does not belong in the lead. This is, of course, a rather coarse measure, but the trends are clear. pedro gonnet - talk - 30.01.2008 16:08

Comments

Comments by parties/mediators:

I agree with Steve below that it's probably wise to not compare "Gilad Shilat" with "Gilad Shilat" & "hostage", and instead compare "hostage" with "captive" and "prisoner" to get a broader perspective. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree and will add those numbers when I find the time... My point remains though, that User:Jaakobou's quotes are just anecdotal evidence. To make a point, he'd have to show that this is indeed the preferred term in the majority of the media. On Talk:Gilad Shalit (if I remember correctly) I compared search results for each term on Google News, to cover all sources and not just those favoured by User:Jaakobou. I'll cross-post those results as soon as I find them. pedro gonnet - talk - 30.01.2008 16:24

Comments by others: (this section can be further divided by sub-topic, if desired).

Pedro, i feel it is not relevant to compare the occurences of "Gilad Shalit" with the occurrences of the term "hostage". the real question is how often "hostage" occurs in comparison with other terms which might be used. I do notice that some of your sources do use the word "captive," so i understand that some of your sources here do support the point which you are trying to make. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Steve. Feel free to try the same method with "captive" and/or "prisoner" -- they beat "hostage" by a long shot. I'll add the numbers as soon as I find the time... Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 30.01.2008 16:24

Expressions of overall views on positions

(This section can serve as a means of informally polling others' thoughts on the overall positions and case.)

comments by Sm8900:

Pedro, so far i agree completely with Jaakobou. The fact that several objective news sources use the term "hostage", as well as independet groups like B'Tselem, as well as notable groups like the Israeli MFA, provides plenty of basis for using the term "hostage". i feel it is not enough to claim that some articles only use it in the lead. if they use it at all, that seem like plenty of proof that it has some valid basis. Furthermore, it seems a bit overdone to claim that we cannot use terms here which seem inflammatory. If the term has general consensus among notable sources, that seems like pretty strong validity, regardless of the content or tone of the term used. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve, the question is -- or should be -- if this is the preferred term. If not, then it's a minority view and it does not belong in the lead. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 30.01.2008 16:26

Hi. what does "preferred" mean? i'm not even looking at media or journalistic sources. the fact that it's used by governmental sources like the US Congress, or the Israeli MFA, or expert sources like B'Tselem, is what seems to me like the strongest evidence. Official or semi-official sources like that don't use terms based on colloquial use, but rather based on what usage is most supported by facts. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Source	hits "Gilad Shalit"	GS + specific term	ratio
Jerusalem Post	1770	"Hostage": 126	7.12%
Jerusalem Post	1770	"Kidnapping": 424	over 20%
Jerusalem Post	1770	"Captive": 107	under 7.12%
US House of Representatives	32	"Hostage": 4	12.5%
US House of Representatives	32	"Kidnapping": 15	approx. 50%
Reuters	1350	"Hostage": 32	2.37%
Reuters	1350	"Abducted": 299	over 20%
Reuters	1350	"Captured": 693 (trying to be fair here)	over 50%

By the way, here's a quote from one relevant reuters article. so maybe pedro gonnet has a point too. here is the quote, below. thanks.

JERUSALEM, April 18 (Reuters) - Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Wednesday Israel was not prepared to meet all of the demands of Palestinian militants to secure the release of a captive Israeli soldier.

Hamas, which leads the Palestinian government, has handed over the names of Palestinian prisoners it wants Israel to free in exchange for soldier Gilad Shalit, who has been held by militants in Gaza for 10 months.

"The list is disappointing and creates expectations that are impossible to live up to," Olmert told a parliamentary committee at a closed-door hearing, according to a parliamentary official.

"It has to be within proper proportions," Olmert said of the list, which reportedly includes up to 1,400 Palestinian prisoners.

Israeli media quoted Olmert as saying: "Israel cannot pay any price asked by (soldier) Gilad Shalit's captors". He did not say what he would consider an appropriate exchange.

thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, "captive" is simply a generic term. the fact that reuters uses :"hostage" at all makes it a valid term.

anyway, here's one suggestion for resolution. perhaps we could use a standard techinique which is often used around here, and simply create a new section which would detail the debate over which term to use, with views presented from both sides? does that sound ok? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm off to bed right now. Very tired. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

comments by Xavexgoem:

Here's the essential problem I'm seeing, now: Jaakabou (with Steve supporting) has introduced evidence as to the use of "hostage" as a generally acceptable term; Pedro has introduced evidence as to the proportion that "hostage" is used (or will be). Both of these are completely acceptable as evidence. But the evidence lies within two domains: one over general practice of terminology (a policy matter), and one over frequency of terminology (a citation matter). I believe that avoiding the terminology altogether and devoting a section to it is entirely reasonable, as this sections off these domains and resolves part of the dispute (edit: imho). Having seen the evidence, I'd much rather editors took their time making proposals concerning the content of the article, until an agreement can be made thereof; an agreement will likely not be made concerning two rather separate and completely defensible positions concerning the merit of any content introduced. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposals

Add and discuss proposals here.