Talk:Gilad Shalit/Archive 2

Legal status of Shalit - hostage or POW
I am sorry to raise the issue of status of Gilad again here, but I am still confused what was the final decision about his status? In above discussions it seems that Shalit was called hostage rather than POW. Article International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict states that "Israel does not recognize enemy Palestinian combatants as soldiers and prosecutes them under Israeli criminal law." Would that mean that Shalit is hostage? If yes, then technically Hamas cannot be accused of war crime, but rather accused as criminal element. What are you opinion about it? --Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Jim, you are asking the wrong question at the wrong place. You're trying to introduce your own views to the article, citing general statement of the ICRC from 2005, even though in the same section there are words of ICRC itself, from 2009, who says that his priveleges under Int-Law are violated. If you find any RS that would address Shalit specifically and would say that he is not entitled to a,b,c because 1,2,3 - then it will be eligible to the article. Israeli treatmnent of Palestinian prisoners is irrelevant, and Wiki is not RS. To sum it up, B'Tselem and Monitor accused Hamas of war crime regarding Shalit, ICRC and HRW noted that his maltreatment is violation of Int-Law - so the only way for you to question this is by any RS or notable source referring to this specific issue. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want my personal view, he is definitely hostage (because excessive demands are made as a condition for his release); it is arguable if he is POW or not, but it doesn't mean that some (if not all) provisions of IHL are not applicable to his condition. And it also doesn't mean that denying ICRC access to him can not be qualified as a war crime. Another thing - while the detention of some of the Palestinians in Israel is questionable and their status is inconclusive, those provisions of IHL mentioned above are not breached. ICRC is granted access to them and they are entitled to letter exchange with families. I could easily show you that the only ICRC criticism of Israel regarding this matter was denial of visits of the family members themselves to some prisoners - but this is, again, not a right embedded in any provisions regarding detainees of any sort. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sceptic from Ashdod (talk), I am just trying to clarify the issue. Why you are dismissing my question as a 'wrong' one from the very beginning? This is not, simply the right approach, I believe. Let's be constructive. Anyways, did I understand you correctly, that Shalit is legally viewed as a hostage rather than POW? -- Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am constructive, otherwise I wouldn't be answering this in the first place. But seems like you didn't get the point - wiki is not about the truth, you know. Your question is suitable in some forum or in academic institute. It is irrelevant to wiki whether in fact Shalit is a hostage/POW. What is relevant is the sources that say this or that. My personal opinion is irrelevant too, and I shared you with it just to show my inhostility. And even though I consider myself indeed competent in the Int-Law matters, I find it hard to determine decisively could he be formally considered as POW or not, even though it is clear that he is a hostage and it is also clear that many provisions of IHL are violated, regardless of the fact whether he is indeed POW or not. Once more, even if we (I mean you and me) conclude that he is not POW, it doesn't necessarily mean that the words "war crime" are inapplicable to the situation. But again, this is not relevant, what is relevant is verifiability. If you can find notable or reliable source that is related to topic discussed that says this or that, and it has encyclopedic value - it might be included if we reach the consensus. And anyway, your personal conclusions and views of the info there must not be included. This is why I ask you yet again, better to start editing from the talk page. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to make it simple and avoid needless discussion - JCPA, which is the authority (at least for me) on the matters of Int-Law, regard Shalit as POW: A consortium of Palestinian terrorist groups have held Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit incommunicado and out of reach of the International Committee of the Red Cross since 2006. This is a clear violation of international law concerning prisoners of war. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

<- Incidentally, this AI press release may be a useful source for the broader context together with some quotes from both sides that may be of interest. Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Very deep sigh. Amnesty levels the terms of Shalit captivity with that of Palestinians in Israel. As I said before, the legality of detaining some of the Pakestinian prisoners is questionable. However, nowhere in Int-Law is there a provision that detainee is allowed family visits. I can easliy show that the requirements are: human treatment (all the reports that Nableezy objected to be included above violate this, this is why I insist on keeping them), access by ICRC and regular contact with family by letter exchange. All of this Shalit is denied. All of this Palestinian detainees are granted. Apart of purely humanitarian considerations, Amnesty's demand to permit the immediate resumption of family visits for Palestinian detainees from Gaza has no legal bases. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 07:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * um..okay, let me put it another way. Incidentally, this AI press release may be a useful source for the broader context together with some quotes from both sides that may be of interest.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sean and Ashdod for clarifications and references--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Either way you put it, Sean, the sigh remains. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood but my only point was that there's a source. I'm not endorsing it's contents.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do not we reference the both versions of the international law status of Shalit into the relevant section of the article? I think it is worth giving the readers the idea of different approaches in this issue, what you think?--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, Sean, I know. The sigh is for the incompetence of Amnesty...
 * Jim, I'd rather not complicate further the matter which is a) complicated b)contributes little to the encyclopedic contents. That said, if you present us concrete wording based on concrete source - we'll examine it impartially ("we" is reserved for Sean too). --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I am starting to compile the references for creation of new section on "Legal status of Gilad Shalit":

Public Committee Against Torture v. State of Israel /HCJ 769/02/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Fitzgerald (talk • contribs) 09:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 'In the framework of the existing law, terrorists and their organizations are not to be categorized as "combatants", rather as "civilians"' - a quote from the concurring opinion of President D. Beinisch with the judgment of President Barak. Case


 * 1) 10 Ways to Kill Fatah by Uri Avnery --Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm curious Jim, why do you think the status of Palestinian militants is relevant to this issue ? A soldier's (i.e. a legal combatant's) privileges aren't dependant on the people detaining him. Shalit's status is dependant on attributes that relate to Shalit i.e. is he a legal combatant etc. To clarify, your quote is a bit misleading. The HCJ classify militants as civilians engaged in hostilities which is entirely different from civilians not engaged in hostilities. Civilians are entitled to fight of course but they forfeit their protection as civilians. The HCJ classification means that militants='civilians engaged in hostilities' can be attacked (the details of when is debatable) and not given POW=legal combatant status if captured.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, Sean, I am justing compiling the references. We will dicuss the "would-be-section" when I/we have enough citations from the RS references, and when I/we draft a text. Do not you agree with me, we have little to discuss yet?--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 09:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I was just curious. :)  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me help

 * 1) By their own admission, Israeli HCJ "are not experts in military affairs".
 * 2) Hamas confirmed one of its casualties was a high-ranking commander, Abu Jibril Shimali, whom Israel said orchestrated the capture three years ago of Shalit, who is still being held by Hamas.
 * 3) ICRC has published this summer the "Interpretive Guidance on the notion of direct participation in hostilities under IHL," which aims to clarify the meaning and consequences of direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law (IHL). Take a look at page 22: "Thus, while members of irregular armed forces failing to fulfil the four requirements may not be entitled to combatant privilege and prisoner-of-war status after capture,15 it does not follow that any such person must necessarily be excluded from the category of armed forces and regarded as a civilian for the purposes of the conduct of hostilities.16 On the contrary, it would contradict the logic of the principle of distinction to place irregular armed forces under the more protective legal regime afforded to the civilian population merely because they fail to distinguish themselves from that population, to carry their arms openly, or to conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Therefore, even under the terms of the Hague Regulations and the Geneva Conventions, all armed actors showing a sufficient degree of military organization and belonging to a party to the conflict must be regarded as part of the armed forces of that party.17" --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 11:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

A pro-Palestinian webcomic
I believe that every image used have to illustrate something. This image so far fails to do so - there's no complementary text in the article. Besides, its size and placement are bad. Jim, try to find proper text and construct a section if required. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 02:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This image, and the huge caption laboriously explaining it, is really a waste of readers' time. Why should anyone care that some unread webcomic mentioned Shalit in 2006?  It's also against wikipedia's copyright policies since the image is copyrighted and there's no fair use rationale.  I'm removing it.Prezbo (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * AS, you have a valid point, and thanks for this. The purpose for putting the pro-Palestinian webcomic is Gilad Shalit article is primeraly motivated and based on the editorial article Prisoners Dilemma published by JPost on 25 March 2009. The article discusses Controversial issues in Gilad Shalit case. Accoring to the Jpost "public in Israel is divided into three camps regarding the issue of negotiating the release of Gilad Shalit in exchange of a large number of Palestinians prisoners jailed in Israel (number varies from 450 to 1,000 prisoners).

Shalit Camp-release Shalit on Hamas conditions. 69 percent of Israelis favors this deal even if it would include the release "of hundreds of terrorist-murderers"

Right-wing Camp - headed mainly by "Terror Victims' Association" declares not to release Shalid on Hamas conditions, the right decision in this issue should be seen from the point of protecting the hundreds of Israelis who might be murdered and wounded if the terrorists are released."

Third Camp (Palestinian) - defends that it asks to release only the political prisoners, women and children jailed by Israel. (this camp's views are underrepresented in the media.)

Also the current article already has several dispersed sentences about "Gilad versus ? of Palestinian prisoners". Here they are:

Hamas has barred the International Red Cross from seeing him, and demands the release of 450 Palestinian prisoners.[15][16][17]

Shalit's captors issued a statement on Monday, 26 June 2006, offering information on Shalit if Israel agreed to release all female Palestinian prisoners and all Palestinian prisoners under the age of 18.

On the same day, Shalit's captors issued another demand to the Israelis, asking them to free 1,000 Palestinian prisoners (in addition to all women and young prisoners as previously demanded) and to end Israel's incursions into Gaza.

On 8 March 2007, The Jerusalem Post reported that an agreement has been reached with Hamas over the number of prisoners Israel will release in return for Shalit.

''On 7 April 2007, It was reported that the captors of Gilad Shalit have transferred to Israel, via Egyptian mediators, a list of Palestinian prisoners they want freed. The list includes approximately 1300 names some of which are high ranking Fatah members.''

"On 20 August 2008, in his briefing to the Security Council, the Under-Secretary-General of the UN appeared to link the decision to release 200 Palestinian prisoners to the case..."

''On 26 January 2009, it was reported that Israel is offering to free 1,000 prisoners in exchange for Shalit.[54] 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.[55] The negotiation team however deadlocked over the release of 450 "heavyweight" prisoners.''

On the issue of the copyright license of the webcomic raised by Prezbo - is duly acknowledged under "fair use license" acknowledged by Wikipedia, since "there no free alternative exists or can be created." Also the image was never disputed on its legitimacy since the image was posted 22 April 2008. Prezbo, please re-read Wiki rules again. P.S. This webcomic claims in its caption that while discussing Shalit, the media pays or no little attention to the identity of those Palestinian prisoners. While pro-Israeli media claim that they are terrorist, the pro-Palestinian side alledge that they are the human rights activists (pol. prisoners), women and children.

SD, here what I suggest: creat section Controversial issues, and present there the viewes of all three camps. When the section will have a reasonably good content, we might post three images (one from each camp if needed) that will unequivocally illusrate the text of the section. I think this arrangement will best serve to and comply with Wiki's 'balanced and neutrality' principles.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Non-free use rationale guideline: " A separate, specific rationale must be provided each time the image is used in an article. The name of the article the image is used in must be included in the rationale." If you re-add this, can you please not have such a long caption when the argument being made by the cartoon is already obvious from the cartoon itself.Prezbo (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) The JPost article was interesting, Jim, and I accept the challenge of creating a section exploring the debates within the Israeli society. I guess it will take me some couple of days, but I'm on it.
 * 2) Regarding the image, all the sentences you pointed to are still not relevant. What I meant was - if you have a sentence, a well-sourced sentence that says something like 'many neutral and pro-palestinian observes don't like the fact that so much time is devoted to one Israeli soldier, while many hundreds of anonymous Palestinians are detained in Israel with zero media attention dedicated to them', then this image would illustrate this. Otherwise, this image is not related to anything. Especially not the place you put it. Frankly, I don't think such text and the image are the best contribution to this article. On the other hand, I can't ignore the fact that media, in Israel and maybe worldwide too, harms with unproportional coverage of the issue. But a comparison to Palestinian detainees? It's like comparing apples to oranges, both are fruit, but... The terms of detention, the charges of IHL violations - are different, so again, showing one bias would require to balance it with reverse bias that is already in the article... Are you sure you want to start this? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As a comment, I also think this is quite an interesting topic that merits something in the article.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sean, what do you mean by "this", the inner debates in Israeli society or the webcomic? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 09:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant both the Israeli and not-Israeli debates about this issue. Comics/posters etc are great to illustrate the issues wherever they come from too.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's just so far we do not have any sources about non-Israeli debates - if you occasionally come over such info - place it here. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 09:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all of you for feedbacks, I think we first develope a well sounded section and then we will see if the webcomic will be appropriete for the text or we may include another image/s. As an editor and as a reader of Wiki I prefer that each considerable section in any Wiki article has (if appropriete) an image/illustration which makes the article more interesting.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 09:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 10:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead section grows a bit too much
Sean, I am just wondering if you could shorten a bit your recent edit. The lead section has already grown too "fat". I also not quite happy with some wording used such as "repeatedly". On whole your edit seems to be a bit out of balance. Pls also see about my several would-be edits which I suggest in above to include in the new section. I welcome any discussion to make sure that wiki-readers will not be mislead by the lead section. BTW how do you like my new signature? Jim Fitzgerald  post  07:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Did the edit I just made help at all ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to explain, I was drawn here by Jaakobou's "and released very little evidence for such a thing" here which confused me a bit as the subject wasn't clear (evidence of life vs evidence to support not allowing access) so I added/clarified some things that seemed important. Feel free to change anything.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your edit is very good, but can we opt to changing "including ones that have been charged with multiple terrorist attacks on Israeli civilian" into " including those who were involved in deadly terrorist attacks in Israel." ? Would that sound a bit more NPOV? What do you think?  Jim Fitzgerald   post  08:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That part is Jaakobou's I think. I doubt that "deadly terrorist attacks" complies with either NPOV or WP:TERRORIST. I'm not a fan of using the language of the Israeli press without attribution or direct quoting because they're not neutral and they tend to use a particular kind of language to describe these issues. I'd rather it used something like "multiple attacks on Israeli civilians". If anyone insists on using the term "terrorist attacks" then I think it should be in quotes or something should be done to make sure that it's clear that this is the Israeli courts/media speaking not Wikipedia. I don't really mind either way though.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Content thing
I can't say I'm following this edit. Do explain.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  21:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed that for 2 reasons, 1. it's talking about other abducted soldiers and the associated consequences rather than Shalit (i.e. the 'His abduction' refers to Nachshon Wachsman) and 2. it's makes room for important things in the lede that are directly related to Shalit. I personally have no problem with it being put back in the lede but I was trying to address concerns raised by Jim that the lede had eaten too many cakes provided by you and I and was becoming fat. I'll leave it to you guys to figure out. I just wanted to make sure that both the lack of ICRC access and human rights groups opinions appear in the lede.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 02:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I put that removed info from the lede in the Capture section. Is that okay ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 02:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I figure the Wachsman note is not that important for the lead, but the notes about Godvasser and Regev are very much connected with him and should be in the lead. Hezbollah made its operation to try and force Israel to stop its assault into Gaza following Shalit's abduction so both instances are intertwined. There is actually room to elaborate on this a little bit to explain the chain of events to the casual reader. Also, it merits mention that there were only few (forgot the word) evidence that Shalit could (supposedly) be alive but the media reports it as though he is (just like Goldwasser and Regev). Anyawys, the point that Hamas gave out just a couple samples of his handwriting and voice should be mentioned along with their refusal to give access to the Red Cross.
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  10:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

starting new section
based so far on JF source from JPost. Whenever we'll find more articles discovering the issue, it will be inserted too. There is a lot of pro-Shalit activism inside Israel, including demonstrations, facebook/twitter events. I think they all could be mentioned shortly here. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * SA, as a start the section seems ok, except that quotes are too long, can we shorten them?--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed it to indirect speech. If there's more relevant stuff, it might be shortened further to due weight. Right now I think these 3 paragraphs represent fairly well the spectrum of attitudes of the Israeli public towards the issue, and trust me Israeli public is not indifferent on this one (unlike many many other matters). --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I propose to include my earlier drafted remarks into the beginning of the subsection. I think that 2nd and 3d paragraphs are somewhat similar, except for that it is my impression that the 3d para is a bit too philosophical, I think we can sqeeze it with the 2 para, here is my suggested version of the section for our further discussion.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Israeli public is divided regarding the issue of negotiating the release of Gilad Shalit in exchange of a large number of Palestinians prisoners jailed in Israel. There are can be distinguished two opposing camps. Shalit camp One camp stands for the release of Shalit on Hamas conditions. According to the Dahaf Polling Institute, 69 percent of Israelis favors this deal even if it would include the release "of hundreds of terrorist-murderers" and the deportation of some of them outside the territory of the Palestinian Authority. Right-wing camp Another camp headed mainly by "Terror Victims' Association" defends that Shalid should be released but not on Hamas conditions. They argue that the right decision in this issue should be seen from the point of protecting the hundreds of Israelis who might be murdered and wounded if the terrorists are released. According to the Dahaf Polling Institute, 22 percent of public in Israel support the second camp.

Daniel Bar-Tal, a professor at Tel Aviv University, says that the differences between two approaches do not represent a dichotomy but rather should be seen as the two sides of a terrible dilemma of victim pitted against victim, in which there is no right or wrong: one side says that Shalit is a victim who was violently kidnapped and therefore should be returned at any price, while the families of those killed and wounded in terrorist attacks are victims too who say that no price should be paid to the "murderers". Others believe that the disagreements among the Israeli public represent rifts and changes within Israeli society. Attorney Dalia Gavriely-Nur, a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University, says that the camp opposing the prisoners deal is holding on a view of collectivist society, in which the individual was expected to sacrifice himself for the good of society; the camp supporting the prisoner release is expressing, however, a high value on the sanctity of life, that symbolizes shift to a more privatized society in which the individual is at the center and the relationship with society is more complex

There can also be loosely distinguished a so-called Third Camp (pro-Palestinian) that argues that Hamas only asks the release of its "political prisoners", women and children jailed by Israel, but not "militants".


 * OK, generally it looks good to me, but of course there are some reservations. I'd rather not go into details right now, I simply stroke words and phrases that amount to original research or simply inconsistent with the encyclopedian language and added here and there minor additions. Btw, I'm not even aware that 3rd camp even exists, and you'll definitely need a source for that. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 08:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead. As soon as we get sources for the third camp, we will discuss.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 08:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll incorporate it later today.
 * I hope you don't mind that in separate paragraphs I'll add these (because that what I meant when naming the section "...activities"): (1) Twitter users drove Schalit's name to the second highest trend by including the tag "GiladSchalit" to their "tweets"; (2) thousands of people attended a prayer rally for Gilad at the Western Wall, and dozens of activists protested outside Defense Ministry headquarters in Tel Aviv. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 05:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, pls do. Good edits.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll wait for another day with Tweet4Shalit sentence - Igor Berger was the first to spot this news and I wanted to give him credit for this. Apparently he's on some sort of mentorship and if he won't be allowed to do it, than I will. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * SA, what do you think about adding the following passage at the bottom of the new section? You may adjust it for NPOV or even shorten it, if you wish.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

In August the leaders of the campaign to free Shalit demonstrated at the Megiddo prison preventing visits by Palestinian prisoners' families, earlier they also demonstrated at the Erez crossing on the Gaza border and blocked the passage of food and medicine to the besieged Strip. According to some commentators about 7,700 Palestinians are imprisoned in Israel, including about 450 without the benefit of a trial. Minors are also imprisoned at the Megiddo prison, and not in a separate facility as required.[http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1110967.html Haaretz. "Return Gilad Shalit, but not at any price." by Gideon Levy.] 30 Aug. 2009. Retrieved: 30 August 2009.


 * First sentence - definitely yes, with more help from here. 2nd and 3rd sentence do not qualify and I'll tell you why: 'some commentators' - who? the matter is compicated and before even thinking of using it anywhere in the encyclopedia I'd do check, recheck and cross-check of the figures; 'as required' - by whom? by IHL? I do not think this is the case (but I may be wrong). by domestic law? likely, but you see that clarification is needed because otherwise it may be misleading. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 09:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * More from Israeli press: Protesters block security prisoners' visits at Sharon Prison. I'll construct a paragraph later this week. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have included the first sentence into the section.--  Jim Fitzgerald   post  10:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have also deleted the following sentence as the section has already grown too big "According to the JIDF Web site, dozens of organizations - including Lubavitch and the Zionist Federation of the UK - joined its campaign."  Jim Fitzgerald   post  11:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * GH, see if we include this sentence into the new section. It is from the same source Haaretz. "Return Gilad Shalit, but not at any price." by Gideon Levy. 30 Aug. 2009. Retrieved: 30 August 2009.  Jim Fitzgerald   post  19:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

According to Haaretz commentator people who want prisoner visits to be prevented are "equating Israel and Hamas; they are saying cruelty must be met with cruelty - inhumane treatment for everyone."
 * No, JF, this does not withstand both encyclopedic test and common sense. I hope you'll agree that this is not a fact but an opinion, an opinion of a journalist Mr. Levy himself (and not a commentator). Even though Gideon is very notable journalist, I don't see fit to insert opinions of journalists; would it be an opinion of any notable figure, like politician or human rights activist, we could have discussed it. So far was my analyses of encyclopedic value. As for common sense, Gideon falls into inaccuracy. Those people do not ask to prevent visits by ICRC representatives to the prisoners, but rather visits from their families. This detail is crucial - as I told you before, International Humanitarian Law demands that ICRC are granted visits and the link with family is kept via regular correspondence. So, indeed the desire of those protesters is controversial, but it does not amount for inhumanity - this is why I consider this opinion as misleading. Again, it could have been considered anyway if it was an opinion of any notable figure other than a journalist. Another side note - all those prisoners we're talking about are not Israeli citizens, so demanding that they have the same rigts as Israeli citizen's prisoners inside Israel is very noble, but has no lawful grounds. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC) The last side note - complicated and not necessarily true, forget it. All the rest is vaild. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 07:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi AS. As you have noticed, I am not making any edit without prior consultation with you. I think, this is a great inter-wiki-editors' achievment of joining into team in order to improve the article. And I feel the same incentives from your side.

SA, as you know I am not making any edits without your prior consultations. I appreciate that kind of cooperation. But let me still very much disagree with your interpretation about "pro-Shalit team preventing access of Palestinian families to visit their family members kept in Israeli military prison and their recent action to prevent the humantarian aid arrive to Gaza. I personally agree with the author of the article, that what the pro-Shalit compaign has done equals absolutely to what the terrorist Hamas do now. And this is not the way to that society need to react, I think you understand what I am talking about. But this is only my opinion. Anyways: SA, I would have liked to make a few other "critical" remarks, but I would trust your judgement and your substantial wiki experience in this matter.

Pls let me know if you have any other articles where we can work out together and make it perfect.--  Jim Fitzgerald   post  18:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank u, I appreciate the approach too.
 * Well I said their goal is controversial, didn't I? Okay, we might disagree on the judgement, but let's leave it for a while. Pls reread 1st half of my previous post and tell me do you agree that from encyclopedic perspective this sentence does not qualify?
 * I wish I had time to reach every single article I feel I am competent to contribute (and this do not end with I-P matters)... but unfortunately Gaza War still remains my major effort. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 01:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Note to IPs
Note to the IPs changing the lead. We've had multiple discussions and two meditations on the "kidnapped/hostage/captured/prisoner of war" thing. Please avoid making this change yet again without at least initiating some type of discussion. Warm regards,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  21:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, I note the IP editor that we've had multiple discussions and that sources use the decided upon terms. I'm open to go over the discussions again, but you can't deny that UPI and Haaretz, for example, use "kidnapped" and not "captured".  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  15:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is this so called consensus in regards to the word "kidnapped"? I remember a consensus on the word "hostage" but that is clearly different than the word "captured"? I believe Hamas is a terrorist group and I want Gilad freed but the fact is he was captured in battle. He's a soldier, NOT a civilian kidnapped off the street. I'll stop putting the word captured if you provide a link to this so called consensus in regards to the word "kidnapped". This page had the word captured for like a month until you changed it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.98.163 (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can agree that there is room for a clarification on the quality of English phrasing within the article. He was captured during a cross border raid, kidnapped into the Gaza Strip, and has been held hostage since. I can either put this phrasing into the article or wait and see if you have a better suggestion. In any event, the word kidnapped is definately more applicable than "captured" since this was not a "battle", but a raid by an unrecognized militia body and not by an army.
 * p.s. if you're a banned editor, I trust that you would avoid the subject matter that you were blocked from. Please clarify your usual username and why you're not using it.
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  00:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not a banned editor. I don't even have an account. I'm trying to eliminate bias. You are biased. Gilad is a soldier. He was on patrol in a tank and captured in battle. Whether you like it or not, that's a fact. Why you and the other Jewish editors (I'm Hispanic by the way) can't get that through your head is still a mystery to me. Anyway, I like your compromise. I'll add it. Thank you and good night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.98.163 (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent developments
The papers are once again flooded with rumors. Don't know what to do with these yet, meanwhile I'll place it here. Report: Shalit deal by end of August, 'Significant progress in Schalit talks', Hamas: Israel will cave in on Schalit. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, by end of August, we would have a wrap-up section written in this article.--Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Latest news: According to Arab media reports, Ahmed Ja'abri, commander of Hamas's military wing, traveled to Cairo on Wednesday to join the Hamas delegation headed by Mahmoud Zahar for talks expected to center on an upcoming prisoner swap agreement. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 08:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

In an interview with a German news agency cited by Israel Radio, Hamdan said that Hamas had faith in the German mediation effort. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The London-based newspaper al-Hayat reported that the Damascus-based Hamas leader is expected to leave Jordan for Cairo next week, allegedly to give the final seal of approval to a prisoner exchange deal with Israel. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hamas legislator Salah Bardaweel cautioned against "excessive optimism," saying only limited progress has been achieved so far.

The UK Zionist Federation held a vigil outside the offices of the British Red Cross in central London on Friday to mark Gilad Schalit's 23rd birthday and called on the humanitarian organization to do more to secure information about the captive soldier. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Germany's foreign intelligence service, the BND, has put forward a concrete proposal in negotiations for the release of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. According to information obtained by SPIEGEL, Israel would release at least 450 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Shalit. After his release, the Israeli government has expressed a willingness to release further prisoners. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal is scheduled to visit Cairo on Saturday for talks with Egyptian government officials on the possibility of reaching a prisoner exchange agreement with Israel and ending the power struggle between the Islamic movement and Fatah. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 10:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Allah is on the side of those who are patient.

Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal headed to Egypt for a rare visit Saturday, fueling some speculation of possible progress in protracted negotiations between the Islamist group and Israel on a prisoner swap.

The sources said that Muhammad Sinwar, who was directly involved in the abduction of IDF soldier Gilad Schalit in 2006, had threatened to harm him if his brother were not included in a prisoner exchange. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Speaking to reporters in Cairo, Mashaal said that ere was "still not a short path to go" before negotiations would come to fruition, despite the new addition of German mediation. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

while 35% of the other groups polled stressed the importance of releasing captive IDF soldier Gilad Schalit, an overwhelming two-thirds of Gazans said the same. The poll had a margin of error of +/- 3.5%. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Salam al-Hoziel, from Rahat...pressed on, as his campaign for Schalit took him to the North, back down through Tel Aviv, and to numerous stops in and around Jerusalem. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

kidnapped and latest revert
if the justification for using this term in relation to shalit is "its used in RS" then be consistent, jaakabou.

this is the word used for the two palestinian men as reported by the source.

your edit summary was, "thinking it over, the proper terminology in this instance is "apprehend" since they are taken by a legal authority which takes them into questioning."

if you now take the position that we should use the "proper terminology" for each situation, then kidnapped needs to be replaced with captured for shalit. "captured" is used in most of the sources discussing shalit that i have read.

"apprehended" is OR, and not used in the cited source, but if there is different, sourced terminology for the palestinians, then we should use what the preponderance of sources say there, as well. untwirl (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Heyo Untwirl,
 * I'm not sure on where you're taking the position that "captured" is the proper terminology for Gilad Shalit but, in any event, I thought me and the anon. editor had that thing sorted out where both captured and kidnapped are used, and in accordance to proper English usage to boot. As with the situation of Israeli security activity in Palestinian villages, it mostly comes down to bias of sources versus the proper English terminology. Originally, I considered "abducted" as a close replacement for kidnap, in relation to the Palestinians but, after some serious thought, this is not an instance of an attempt to extract ransom (see "kidnap" link), but rather a "legal authority" (subjective term, I know), apprehending a terrorism suspect and putting them to questioning. I actually haven't even noticed the used source since I didn't expect this to become a matter of contention but, I guess, we can make a list of the sources reporting on this incident and review the language used. If non of them use "apprehend", then I will willfully change my mind on this issue, but I honestly don't think I'm wrong about the English usage here.
 * p.s. had Israel taken these people from Lebanese territory, for example, then you'd be absolutely right about using the term kidnapped, though I would prefer abducted - considering the slight difference in subtext of the intentions of the perpetrators.
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  19:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC) +clarify 19:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I gave an extra look towards the sources and noticed that JPOST use kidnapped as their sole descriptive for both types, while BBC use "seized" and "abducted", which are more accurate English descriptives considering the situation and attached sub-context. For a moment I had to reflect on my comment above, since the two men were taken from the Gaza strip, where legality is very debatable, but considering this was performed after the Hamas violent coup, it would seem that there is no clear legal authority there and, just as I would not use "kidnapped" to describe Hamas taking a Jaish Al-Islam member into custody, I would not apply it to Israel. Both have some type of authority in Gaza in the discussed time period.
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  20:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * from reviewing previous discussions, "abducted" and "captured" appeared to have the most consensus. if there is agreement not to use "kidnapped" when discussing either case, i can live with that.  untwirl (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Jaakobou, I reverted your edit here. I have a number of concerns (which don't include kidnapped vs captured, either is fine by me). The previous wording seems better to me in the sense that it doesn't state the Israeli version of events as a fact. It attributes the version to an Israeli report. This is important. It also makes it clear that the people were transferred across an international border. Obviously the Gaza Strip is not Israeli territory so arresting people suspected of something and forcibly transferring them across an international border is not a trivial matter. Simply saying 'apprehended two Hamas members' seems inappropriate. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Heyo Sean,
 * I've no idea on where you came up with the 'International border' thing but it seems like something that requires some sourcing, since I believe you are wrong there. Also, it would seem that regardless of the so-called border issue, that both Israel and Hamas had some type of "legal" authority in the Gaza strip and, I would like you to please review my note about Hamas above. I'm open, off-course, to rephrase suggestions that would be acceptable to you - but lets try to move the article forward rather than backwards. Anyways, I hope we can at least agree that the names of the two brothers is immaterial to this article. Yes?
 * p.s. I'm not following the problem with the change in regards to the "Israeli version of events". Are there any reasons to suspect a different version of events? If an Israeli reports that there's a celebration at the part, are we going to attribute all the details 3-4+ times in the same paragraph to the cited source in "the report said that..." fashion?
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  13:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't come up with it. I'm not a lawyer. See this for example from B'Tselem regarding transferring prisoners and the Forth Geneva Convention. Specifically "Prohibition on transfer of civilians to outside the occupied territory" i.e. non-POWs. There are many more sources on the detainee transfer issue. I'm not sure what you are referring to specifically by "my note about Hamas above" but if it's about terminology I'll support anything that doesn't cause pointless edit warring. I guess the names of the brothers aren't necessarily important here as long as the link to the Muamar_family_detention_incident article is preserved. Regarding "Are there any reasons to suspect a different version of events?", it's about telling people who is saying what. "apprehended two Hamas members" is wikipedia saying that they were Hamas members when in fact wikipedia has no idea whether they were or they weren't. All we know is that the Israel Army Radio report said they were. Yes, I suggest we attribute all the details as many times as it takes to make sure that there is an absolutely clear separation between the voice of Israel Army Radio and the voice of Wikipedia. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is actually what I was saying, we're citing an Israeli report for saying Israel captured/kidnapped/(in discussion) two Hamas members. We're not just saying Israel captured two Hamas members. It just feels overly apologetic for the Israeli source since we're already reporting the source and now we're just repeating again and again with "so the report says" which just makes us sound like an amateurish news outlet rather than an encyclopedic source. We don't do this with other sources either - esp. when there is no special reason to believe the information was incorrect. Is there a special reason here that I'm unaware of?
 * p.s. I'll review the B'Tselem thing tomorrow probably (a bit of a long day).
 * p.p.s. feel free to rephrase the brother thing in a way that you like or I'll give it a try tomorrow.
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  17:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wading in with untwirl's suggestion above (agreement not to use "kidnapped" when discussing either case), support language being as neutral as we can get it, particularly in the lead. RomaC (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for wading in RomaC, but I'm afraid that it is inherently incorrect to write that Giald Shalit was "apprehended" by a cross border raid perpetrated my militants who kidnapped him with ransom demands.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  13:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Heyo Sean,
 * I thought the edit you made was fine and only made a slight change that I hope is agreeable.
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  13:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A word on capture vs kidnap. Capture simply means to take captive. It's neutral and contains no information about intent. Kidnap is much more complicated. See here for example from a legal dictionary. It says for example "Generally, kidnapping occurs when a person, without lawful authority, physically asports (i.e., moves) another person without that other person's consent, with the intent to use the abduction in connection with some other nefarious objective". From an NPOV perspective that applies equally to Palestinian militants operating without lawful authority in Israel and IDF soldiers operating without lawful authority in Gaza. However, it's based on intent (ransom/intelligence) which seems far more problematic than simply saying captured. Whichever word is used I think NPOV would suggest that we use the same one for both situations. Just a thought. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You really can't equate a situation where an established army which adheres (for the most part) with international law takes someone from a "no man's zone" to questioning with a situation where Jund al-Islam, a "Hamula", makes a cross border raid into a globally recognized country (if we discount Iran) and takes someone with the intent of getting cash money or court convicted terrorists out of custody. As such, the terminology is applied equally based on the level of international recognition of the territory and the perpetrating body. In that respect, was my edit, which dealt with the intentions of militants, disagreeable?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  18:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, as I've said before I don't really care much about the terminology but I think it's this kind of use of different words based on different POVs that causes the problem. I'm just trying to be completely neutral and keep it simple hence my preference for 'captured'. I know it probably seems an odd way of looking at it but I think it makes sense from a strictly NPOV perspective. From a completely neutral perspective there is no difference between an IDF soldier and a Palestinian militant, the capture/kidnapping of Israelis or the capture/kidnapping of Palestinians, the crossing into Israel or the crossing into the Palestinian Territories. Neither side is acting in accordance with international law. This probably looks like nonsense to you but to me it looks neutral. No, your edit wasn't disagreeable to me but it will be to someone at some point. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Untwirl it's not writing from a neutral point of view if we make relative assessments regarding intent, and so if the Israeli soldier was "kidnapped" in a cross border raid then the Palestinian brothers were as well. Jaak, the edit summary "just figured the militants want to kidnap for hostage taking and not just capture" does just that, it attempts to surmise intent. Therefore prefer avoiding this word altogether, "captured" is what happened in the event, we can agree? As for adding the "terrorist" label to qualify Hamas I think the trend these days is to avoid labeling per WP:Terrorist. So we specify what happened without ascribing a general classification which can affect perception. I agree with Sean this can seem awkward in the text but it avoids the problem of one "side" striving to advance their POV over the other, a problem which often seems to escalate. RomaC (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Heyo RomaC,
 * Don't know why you're bringing in untwirl since he's hardly active on the discussion. Anyways, while we're avoiding labels, Hamas is on the designated terrorist organizations list and this should be written somewhere in the article. I'm open to suggestion on a phrasing that will keep you satisfied.
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  11:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (i think he's referring to me because (a) i started this section and (b) i made the suggestion that equivalent wording should be used). the consensus seems to be for "captured" here.   regarding the "terrorist organization" label, pov descriptors shouldn't be used, especially this one, in tangential articles where there is no room for opposing pov - per romac and WP:TERRORIST.  untwirl (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Sean, A cross into Israel or Lebanon or Jordan or any other established, recognized state is not of equal meaning as a cross into Gaza. I hope we can agree on this. I'm not arguing the value of a soldier vs. a militant but rather the suggested intentions of a military of a recognized state vs. a few people from an unrecognized Hamula. Anyways, my change, if you notice, only spoke of what the Israeli report was saying. i.e. that the report says the militants plan is to kidnap soldiers. I have no qualms about the rest of the text. Can we agree on the version both of us achieved? Warm regards,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  11:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Still waiting patiently :) From previous comments though, I gathered that it is acceptable.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  18:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Jaak, Why start a new section to continue discussion on the same point? Please review the discussion above, specific opinions have been expressed, I think succinctly and in accordance with policy. RomaC (talk) 03:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, RomaC, but I'm not following you. Where have I started a new section? How am I discussing the same point for which this thread was started exactly? I'm just not sure you've followed the small points of this conversation. The issue right now is of usage of the work kidnapped as the opinion of the Israeli report about tunnel-militants. It's not about neutrality since it's the perspective of the Israelis that the intention is kidnapping for the sake of making gains. I hope all is clear now but let me know if you think I've missed anything.
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  03:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ummm ... the same source says the muamars were kidnapped. we've already established consensus on captured and abducted.  please move on.  untwirl (talk) 04:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies Jaak but I've been busy trying to stop hoards of NGO Monitor fans/fringe extremists defaming the reputation of a highly respected human right researcher and US defence intel vet with unparalled knowledge in military matters by implying that he is a nazi and violating BLP at a frequency I have never seen before while amusingly trying to distract me by filing a hilarious edit warring report for removing BLP violations. Of course the fact that much of this happened 8 years to the day after the gentleman was in the Pentagon when it got hit by a plane flown by lunatics makes it all the more shameful. Charming behavior all around. To answer your question, I am listing my views in order of importance/priority.
 * The same word should be used in both cases. This is essential in my view and the only way to settle this matter once and for all. Also in the case of 'kidnap' it is per the sources in both cases as has been pointed out many times.
 * Captured is the simplest most neutral word because it does not involve subjective assessments of the righteousness, morality or legality of either parties intentions.
 * If not captured then anything is fine by me as long as the same word is used in both cases.
 * <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm only talking about this change. An Israeli intelligence report was thinking the tunnel militants wanted to kidnap soldiers. It seems like a ridiculous point to contest but I'm willing to open up this issue to RfC if necessary. It just seems ridiculous (no offense intended) that militants intend on abducting soldiers with the idea of demanding ransom and the word "kidnapped" is contested. I would, on the same level, would full well accept the same word used if Israel plans to kidnap, for example, Hassan Nasrallah. I would esp. accept this word it it is noted as a belief of a Lebanese report and here we have the belief of an Israeli one. I hope my point is clear. If untwirl/Sean disagree, I'll take it to RfC since I gave it my best efforts to persuade that there's no NPOV issues here. Let me know.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  09:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, agree with untwirl and Sean and regard "captured" and "abducted" as neutrally reflecting both events. Or, as per sources "kidnapped" for both events. Flexible but want to avoid differentially interpretive edits. You are of course free to take your arguments to RfC. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Would the word "abduct" be acceptable instead of "kidnap" in the same location?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  17:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd accept either kidnap or abduct for this case. IronDuke  22:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Query
Since when do we use the word partisans to describe Palestinian militants?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  16:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't that a kind of cheese ? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, cheese, but 'Gaudameau' is better and cheaper cheese. cheese --  Jim Fitzgerald   post  08:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

For Shamir1
Hi Shamir1, it doesn't matter how many sources you provide, Wikipedia doesn't take sides in a conflict and call someone a terrorist or a freedom fighter. You need to attribute labels if you want to use them so that it is clear that it is the source speaking and not wikipedia. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided in the sentence where it appears."

Read the sentence carefully. It says "convicted of terrorist..." meaning they were convicted by an Israeli court--or in simple terms for you, in Israeli court considers them terrorist acts.

And there are by the way NUMEROUS actions and individuals called terrorist on Wikipedia per the rule above. --Shamir1 (talk) 10:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hostage
Regarding this edit which changed "has been held as a prisoner" -> "was retained as hostage". The sources cited don't support the wording. His status as a hostage is an opinion rather than something that should be said in Wikipedia's neutral narrative voice in my view. There are several notable sources such as B'Tselem and Amnesty that do regard him as being held hostage so we can include their opinions attributed to them. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 12:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Most sources consider that Shalit is a hostage. Not only B'Tselem and Amnesty, but also France(Sarkozy) and the ICRC. A simple Google search will show that this is indeed the case. Ishpashout (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Show that it is indeed the case by providing evidence that it is indeed the case. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look at the top of this talk page you will see a section that says "This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia general sanctions. See discretionary sanctions for details." If you read the "Editors reminded" section of the discretionary sanction you will see that it says "it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as...writing with a neutral point of view...utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions" etc. Editors have spent years discussing/edit warring over single words like 'kidnap', 'capture' etc in this article believe it or not. If you would like to say something/change something in the article you just need to ensure that you can demonstrate that it complies with policy or it will be reverted by someone at some point. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
 * NY times
 * Washington Post
 * Google search on Washington Post
 * Google search on NY Times
 * Sarkozy :"Gilad is not a prisoner of war, as prisoners of war have rights. He received a visit from humanitarian organizations, the exchange of letters with their relatives. Gilad did not have these rights because Gilad - we have to say this-is a hostage, " in Le Nouvel Observateur, Ishpashout (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a french contributor. I know what is the policy of WP: NPOV. Thanks Ishpashout (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

@Sean. I agree with Ishpashout. I also don't know why he has the burden of proving "hostage" any more then you have the burden of proving "prisoner."-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Ishpashout (talk) 08:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ishpashout. Brewcrewer, prisoner was in the sources cited, hostage wasn't. Pretend I'm a bot, my approach might make make more sense to you that way. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing as if it is a matter of fact. I don't know what all of the sources say on the issue so I don't have a view that is based on evidence. I know that some sources use the term hostage and others don't. I know what the NPOV policy says. I don't think we should use hostage without attribution as it's an opinion and one of several. I would prefer to say "has been held captive in the Gaza Strip by Hamas since then" and deal with who has said that he's being held hostage as a separate issue/statement. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A minority view is that Shalit has a prisoner of war, the majority view said that Shalit is an hostage. Prisoner is an intermediate view, which is opposite to the NPOV. Ishpashout (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "prisoner" and "prisoner of war" are not the same thing and prisoner is not intermediate between hostage and POW. Prisoner is a generic neutral term that could be applied to all sorts of situations which is probably why many sources use it, POW is a term with legal implications. No doubt some sources regard him as POW. Some sources regard him as a hostage. They're opinions with different degrees of support rather than statements of fact. Opinions can't be stated as unattributed facts in Wikipedia's narrative voice. There are many views about and different terms used to describe Shalit's status in the sources. We should describe those views and say who holds them. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with with Sean.hoyland : "Prisoner is a generic neutral term that could be applied to all sorts of situations which is probably why many sources use it".
 * If we don't use this word, both points of view must be reported and attributed. That's the basis of NPoV. Noisetier (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Sean.hoyland : "Prisoner is a generic neutral term that could be applied to all sorts of situations which is probably why many sources use it". But not when this generic replace hostage or POW. Indeed the two views must be provided, but a minority Pov (POW) don't have to be in introduction. Ishpashout (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources give 3 views : "prisonner" (majority), "hostage" (much) and "pow" (few).
 * So, a solution is "held as prisonner, sometimes described as hostage or pow".
 * Noisetier (talk) 07:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NPPOV says :"While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world."
 * I'm tired of this edit war and I see that so far this talk page hasn't officially objected to the word "captured" so I want to point something. Shalit was not kidnapped. Civilians are kidnapped. Shalit is a soldier. He was captured in a battle. Just so you know. I'm not Palestinian. I'm just saying that armed soldiers that are in a battle are captured. Unarmed aid workers or tourists are kidnapped. Honestly, even news organizations use the word "captured". What's the frigging problem? ::::::::--189.17.136.67 (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Shalit was, in all probability, abducted in order to use as a bargaining counter to secure the release of Arabs interned or otherwise imprisoned by the Israelis, which, in plain-speaking, is a form of hostage taking. If we are going to use plain-speaking to describe one side, though, we should use it for the other too. Among Israel's responses, we should perhaps speak of the taking of counter-hostages, the taking of reprisals and the imposition of collective punishment. We could extend that to talking about the context in which Shalit was abducted, that is, Israel's record of using concentration camps (a plain-speaking way of talking about the large scale use of detentions without trial) to help support its theft and colonisation (a plain-speaking way of describing Practical Zionism) of neighbouring territory.
 * Perhaps, though, not addressing anyone in particular, it might be better to adopt Sean's suggestion of referring to Gilat Shalit as being held captive by Hamas (or just held) and then to describe in slightly less value-laden words the purpose that his captivity is being used for?
 * <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  22:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't say anything about concentration camps. I don't even care about that. Hamas is a terrorist group. --200.137.163.10 (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

He's a POW. Hcobb (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I know. Yet the editors from Israel refuse to admit that. They blocked the page for a week just because I used the word "captured". I'm not race baiting. I'm just speaking the truth. All of the editors that complain about the word "captured" have edited other articles about Israel, hence they are "Jewish". --200.137.163.10 (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * He is a solider drafted by one government and held by another. Hamas has more or less admitted to having the power to hold or release him.  If Bebe was smart he'd be pushing the violation of POW rights angles full ahead. http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/06/2010628132553801841.html Hcobb (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying Shalit should be in captivity. I do feel sorry for him and I wish he was released. Unfortunately, Israel doesn't care about Shalit. I don't think Hamas will kill him any time soon but Shalit will probably rot in captivity for years to come. --98.221.196.38 (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * So can we just label him as a pawn in a political game that he was given no choice about? Hcobb (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What? That's not what I meant. Gilad is a prisoner of war. That's a fact. I'm just saying it sucks that Israel won't agree to a prisoner exchange. --98.221.196.38 (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * He's not a prisoner of war. Hamas is not a recognized government that supports the laws of war.  Shalit has not received the benefits of POW status.  The people who support or sympathize with Hamas haven't cared at all about the requirements for POW status under the Geneva Conventions.
 * Clearly, Shalit is qualified to receive POW status but it has not happened, and we should not act as though it has.
 * I come at this recalling the way the Bush administration was severely, albeit wrongly, criticized for not giving POW status to terrorists in Guantanamo. The rules for all of this have been clarified over the last nine years.  It's too late for people to say Shalit is a POW.  He's not.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Shalit is whatever the sources say he is. That's it. There's no point discussing anything at all without sources to back it up. Our opinion's don't matter. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Then speaking of sources, let's examine this one http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/06/2010628132553801841.html linked above.
 * Ali Abunimah writes, "Notably, however, the ICRC did not say that holding Shalit as a prisoner, or even denying the ICRC the right to visit him are violations of international law, which appears to indicate that the ICRC considers Shalit to be a prisoner of war (POW)."
 * In reality, the lack of direct criticism from the ICRC doesn't mean anything. The ICRC only handles complaints confidentially and directly with the parties.
 * Most of Abunimah's points in that piece are like that. He's perfectly correct when he says it would be understandable that Shalit isn't given an ICRC visit, only by itself.  There are more requirements that Hamas can't meet for standing in the Geneva Conventions, and they're not even serious about trying to meet them.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Gilad is not a prisoner of war, he has been abducted by terrorists. I can understand why the pro-Palestinian faction that controls Wikipedia does not want the truth told. 81.148.220.46 (talk) 09:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Editors cite pro-terrorist sources and ignore more npov sources. 81.148.220.46 (talk) 09:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's the nature of the beast, but there are good things to be gained from many sources. Pro-terrorist sources (such as the one I just discussed above) should be included simply because they should never be forgotten.  Those who defend fascism should be remembered for all time.
 * You should find more NPOV sources and work them in.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The word "prisoner" implies that the person has certain rights, that there may have been some legal process that led to their imprisonment, or that they may be resident in a recognised prison. Since none of the preceding applies to Gilad Shalit, the term "prisoner" is inappropriate. If you don't have the guts to use the word "hostage", then you should use the word "captive" or "abductee". — Preceding unsigned comment added by FCallen (talk • contribs) 13:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The shark and the litte fish


Hi! A friend translated the details from the he: article reffering to http://www.librarything.com/work/details/68787771. Gilad wrote a story in school. It was published and the title is in Hebrew "The shark and the litte fish". Is this book translated so far? In what languages? Regards ‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 09:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Since yesterday we habe a copy of the book in Munich. Regards ‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 11:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is an English translation and some details about the book. Regards ‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 16:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * more links "When the Shark and the Fish First Met" Regards ‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 11:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

San Francisco honors
Although the Bay Area Jewish Community Federation reported that Shalit would be named an honorary citizen of San Francisco (http://www.jewishfed.org/event/gilad-shalit-honorary-citizen-san-francisco-0), I was unable to find any confirmation that he actually did receive that honor. Instead, as the San Francisco Israeli Consulate reports, San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee did declare August 28, 2011, to be "Gilad Shilat Day." (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.israeliconsulate.org/index.php/en/latest-news/493-sf-mayor-ed-lee-declares-aug-28-gilad-shalit-day-). Consequently, I deleted the SF citizenship statement from the article. Because it's late, I didn't try to balance the deletion with info about SF Gilad Shilat Day, but I'll try to later on (if you'd like to do it first, please, please,please). Lahaun (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggested page move
"Gilad Shalit" > "Kidnapping of Gilad Shalit". It seems to me obvious and better. LoveUxoxo (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Sorry saying something is obvious is a lame thing I do a lot here. My reasons are: this article is really about the kidnapping and subsequent confinement of Gilad Shalit by Hamas, not about Gilad Shalit the person. After he is released, it's possible he will write books, there is a movie made, etc., all stuff that make a bio of him potentially appropriate. But if you look at the article right now, it's not about him, it's the kidnapping and being held hostage that we discuss. Mmmm, OK? LoveUxoxo (talk) 05:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If you have a look at this page and the talk page archives you will see that there have been lengthy discussions about the use of terminology like "kidnapping" and "hostage" in Wikipedia's voice without attribution versus terms like "captured" etc. A page move will reopen all of these completely lame and probably unsolvable issues. I suggest leaving the title as it is. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Copy that. My fault for looking at an I-P Conflict article and and then thinking of working on it. LoveUxoxo (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Phrasing
I would argue that the word 'abducted' or 'kidnapped' is more appropriate than 'captured'. 'Captured' either implies seizing someone wanted, or for a POW more appropriate for an action in which the POW surrendered or an area was captured with the individual. Shalit was essentially kidnapped or abducted, and now is held hostage for a ransom. Ozeuss (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have no problem with a change, though I think this was discussed earlier.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 23:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it wasn't. I'm tired of this edit war and I see that so far this talk page hasn't officially objected to the word "captured" so I want to point something. Shalit was not kidnapped. Civilians are kidnapped. Shalit is a soldier. He was captured in a battle. Just so you know. I'm not Palestinian. I'm just saying that armed soldiers that are in a battle are captured. Unarmed aid workers or tourists are kidnapped. Honestly, even news organizations use the word "captured". What's the frigging problem? --189.17.136.67 (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * When sources use a term we must stick with their term. (Which would be kidnapped on one side and captured on the other mostly.) When we are making general statements I think abducted would be best.  Kidnapped implies some selection about the target, while Shalit was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.  It wasn't anything special about him that selected him to be the target. Hcobb (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The word abducted should be used. Gilad is member of the IDF who has been adducted by terrorists. 81.148.220.46 (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

"Abducted" is the appropriate term. The purpose of the operation was to seize an Israeli soldier to use as a bargaining chip; it was not an incidental "capture". — Preceding unsigned comment added by FCallen (talk • contribs) 13:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The article refers to the 1000 or so released Palestinians as "terrorists with blood on their hands". The article doesn't say that Israel CLAIMS that these people are terrorists or whatnot but just says so as if it's a fact. Should be fixed, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.47.169 (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Tag-bomb
I would suggest that someone boldly remove the POV tag. No need to tag bomb the article. If there is an issue to be discussed (and none was identified -- the article was simply bombed), it can be discussed here.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good catch. The template was added here with no accompanying explanation. I've removed it.—Biosketch (talk) 09:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And ... the same editor keeps on restoring it. Still with no explanation.  And despite the 1RR restrictions.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI. reverting an IP is not considered a revert for 1rr purposes. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Gilad Shalit 18.10.2011 Channel 2 israel alive footage
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adar55 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That is probably a copyright violation isn't it ? It probably shouldn't be in commons. I would imagine that a good case could be made for fair use in Wikipedia if it were loaded to Wikipedia. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Tenses

 * Now that Shalit has been freed, I have fixed many of the present tenses to past tense ie. "is" to "was". I have probably missed some, so perhaps other editors could take a look too?
 * It seems to me that the current sections "4.1.1 Release deal reached" and "6.1 Gilad Shalit prisoner swap deal" could/should be merged? - 220.101.30  talk \edits (aka 220.101) 10:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Allegiance
Allegiance is not the same as nationality or citizenship. If you are in service of any army you are liege to it. He is not in the French army is he? The military service template is for that context. His allegiance is to Israel. Citizenship is separate. Obotlig (talk) 04:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Untrue. They are typically one and the same.  For example, the citizenship oath in the U.S. is the Oath of Allegiance (United States).  Same with Canada -- see Oath of Citizenship (Canada).--Epeefleche (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The only time I ever took an oath of allegiance to my country was when I joined the military. Of course I am a citizen by natural right (i.e. birth). Do you have a citation for Gilad taking an oath of allegiance to France? I would welcome its insertion at the proper place in the template. Even then, we are ignoring that this template is to identify what side someone is fighting for in a conflict. Perhaps we should look at the instructions for the template. Inserting France here may imply that he is or was fighting for France in this war. Allegiance has a specific meaning in a military sense.Obotlig (talk) 05:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As the wp article indicates, citizenship "status, under social contract theory, carries with it both rights and responsibilities." That's why we strip people of citizenship when they violate those responsibilities of allegiance -- we call them traitors.  That's whether they take the oath or not.  And, of course, whether they are a soldier or not ... it is their failure vis-a-vis their allegiance responsibilities, as a citizen.  Article 411-1 [10] of the French Penal Code defines treason (the act of being a traitor) as follows: "The acts defined by articles 411-2 to 411-11 constitute treason where they are committed by a French national or a soldier in the service of France, and constitute espionage where they are committed by any other person."  The French statute lumps in citizens of France and soldiers of France together for these purposes.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Failing to have been convicted of criminal violation of any duties of allegiance is not evidence of allegiance. Proof of a positive assertion by lack of evidence against it is shoddy logic. Again this template is for describing what side of a war a soldier is fighting on. I was confused by a statement that seemed contradictory and misleading. If it is very important to those to whom this article is important that it read differently I invite them to resolve the issue here. Obotlig (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You miss my point. As I point out above, citizenship as a general matter involves a bundle of obligations which include allegiance.  And duties of allegiance of a citizen in France specifically are the same for the indicated purposes as those of a soldier, as reflected in the statutory provision I cite above.  In any event, please revert your second reversion, to avoid a 1RR block.  Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Egyptian TV interview
Why is there yet no mention of his forced interview on Egyptian TV?-- RM ( Be my friend ) 05:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

1RR
This is a violation of the 1RR rules on this article.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you are using (I hope this won't be seen as insensitive in the light of the circumstances of Gilad's return) some funny math. That is at best one revert and in fact I didn't realise the page had even changed, I was trying to correct my own mistake moments after making the first edit. I am not here to engage in whatever nonsense goes on in these articles to earn them a 1RR. I saw it pop up in the news section and as someone interested in military topics saw something that didn't make sense. I thought maybe my use of the ampersand was making the template not work and went back (I hit back in the browser) to replace it with "and". There was no knowledge of your change or intent to revert it. Count it as one reversion if it makes you happy. Obotlig (talk) 06:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It was your second revert. Within three minutes.  You made the precise same revert--deleting the precise same content--three minutes earlier, here.  Since it was inadvertent, kindly revert yourself to put it back as it was prior to your second revert.  Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm happy for the 1RR block not to be applied, because you say your second revert was inadvertent, if you revert yourself. But I see you've continued to edit, without doing so for some reason.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am somewat new to wikipedia. I do not see how the first edit at 4:18 is a reversion since I have never edited or looked at the article before now. So the first is an "edit" since to my knowledge it was not an effort to return the article to a prior state I (or anyone else for that matter) had placed it in today or any other day. Then I hit back in my browser to fix a mistake and accidentally reverted what you had reverted. So taking an uncharitable view, I have made one reversion and you have made one reversion. In fact I meant to make only one edit at all but at most I see one "reversion". I am now afraid of this and any related article and do not wish to participate further in its editing. Obotlig (talk) 06:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You deleted material. That deletion reverted the article to where it was before you deleted the material.  Three minutes later, after the material was restored, you deleted it a second time.  That second deletion of the same material is a second revert.  It violates the notice at the top of the page.  Please undo your second revert (restoring the material you deleted a second time), to avoid a block that is handed out to those who violate the 1RR restriction that is explained at the top of the page.  Thanks.  If you prefer, let me know if you would like me to do it on your behalf.  Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your patience. Deleting material is not a reversion it is an edit. A reversion is undoing the actions of another editor, which I did once, accidentally. You however how made two reversions on this article during this discussion, one of me and one of another editor. If you feel you will be acting in policy by doing so you are free to make any further changes to this article as you wish. I made one reversion today. The first was a simple edit. I did not to my knowledge undo the actions of any other editor in the past 24 hours with my first edit. If I did it was an accident, please provide the four diffs showing the insertion of what I deleted in the past 24 hours, my deletion of it, your reversion of my edit, and then my second edit. If that is the case you need not pursue a block if you feel you can make another reversion within the 1RR. Otherwise I insist I have made only one reversion. I undi the edit of another edito today one time. Accidentally at that. Obotlig (talk) 07:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 1RR applies to reverts of non-IP editors. You reverted twice.  Please read the definition of revert set forth in the warning at the top of this page, by clicking through.  "Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part."  When you deleted the material the first time, that was a revert.  When you repeated that action the second time, that was a second revert, three minutes later.  I am suggesting that you revert your second revert -- your second deletion of the same material, within a 3-minute period.  Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

From Arab descent?
It was not mentioned where he descends from, is he from Arab descent as his name sounds so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.252.255.97 (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

afaik, his parents are of european decsent (he also has French citizenship) both parts of his name are hebrew; moreover, like many modern hebrew names, both are biblical words. (if you are curious, shalit = ruler, and Gil'ad apears as both a personal name and a location) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.117.103.21 (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Updates on prisoner swap
I have some useful info for anyone wishing to expand the section on the prisoner swap. According to these sources, of the 1,027 security prisoners to be released, 450 prisoners will be immediately exchanged for Shalit, including 280 serving one or more life sentences, all female prisoners, six Israeli-Arabs, and fourteen residents of east Jerusalem. Of those, 178 are to either be deported to other countries, or if they previously lived in the West Bank or east Jerusalem, to the Gaza Strip. Two months after the exchange, Israel will release another 577 prisoners of its choosing.-- RM ( Be my friend ) 03:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

According to a list distributed to journalists by the Israeli Government Press Office, 1,027 Arab security prisoners are to be released for Gilad Shalit. Many of the prisoners listed are (were) serving life sentences; some of them are (were) serving multiple life sentences. Additional reference is at Ynet. Avi Gordon (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Do we cover the protests against the deal?

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/jewish-terror-victims-group-to-petition-israel-high-court-against-prisoner-exchange-1.389791?localLinksEnabled=false


 * Or does that go in a different article? Hcobb (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think we have any other articles specifically on this case (although it's mentioned in Israeli prisoner exchanges) so I'd say yes, the protests can be mentioned here. Robofish (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky quote
At the end of the very first paragraph: "Noam Chomsky commented on the prisoner releases, 'we don’t know...whether the release includes the elected Palestinian officials who were kidnapped and imprisoned by Israel in 2007.'" Is this at all relevant? It seems to be an underhanded way to get around NPOV by quoting a celebrity. In any event, it certainly doesn't belong in the opening paragraph. If anything, it might possibly belong under a new "reactions" section. I was going to remove it myself, but being a highly sensitive subject and a current event article, I figured I'd bring it up here first. Klopek007 (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Semi Protection
I have semi-protected the article to suppress edit warring by IPs. Disputed edits should be discussed. It is not appropriate to repeat a disputed edit without any discussion, such as the repeated addition of the unexplained "POV" tag. Jehochman Talk 13:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Negotiations for release - wiretaps
The second paragaph of the Negotiations for release section contains the following statement:

One of the less publicised reasonings behind the specific capture of Schalit was the connection to Amdocs, an Israeli telecoms company involved in international illegal wiretapping. The position of Hamas on the role of illegal Israeli operations abroad targeting Palestinians for assassination or surveillance may have been one of many factors in the capture of Schalit.

These two statements are made without a citation or even a hint of proof.

One rather suspects that the bit about amdocs is a fabrication. Amdocs creates software for billing systems, not wiretapping. The claim that Hamas considered amdocs in its reasoning for the kidnapping seems unlikely.

The second sentence could possibly be true; however, it is presented w/o proof. If true a citation might be nice.--89.138.49.115 (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Inviting review of my self-revert
I invite fellow editors to review my self-revert here.

I have just self-reverted, to a form of the article I think was the result of vandalism. But I did so to make it clear, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that no violation of 1RR is involved. So I invite others to review my self-revert, and edit it (or not) as they see fit.

My original edit had reverted the deletion of RS-supported material. By a first-edit-ever editor. Who made his deletion without providing any edit summary.

However, at a noticeboard discussion, at least one editor is of the impression that the above 1RR restriction may apply to a situation where 1 edit is as indicated above. And the other edit is wholly unrelated to the first revert (simply, the addition of the word "French"). And wholly unrelated to the I-P conflict.

The discussion is at the noticeboard here. Please note -- under that interpretation, any 2 edits to this article that result in deletions of one or more words within a 24 hour period might be viewed as a 1RR violation.

Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Money etc.
Hi. This might seem a little heartless of me, but I would like to know whether Gilad received pay while he was captured, whether he will receive a pension, compensation or a testimonial of some type. I'd like it if someone could add this to the article. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Any comments from his interview?
A lot of text but what about What he had to say about his captivity and interviews? How about starting with this statement - When asked whether he would campaign for the release of 5,000 Palestinians in Israeli jails, Shalit replied:

No point me adding it because it will be removed, so hence why the talk page hoping someone (other than me) will discuss its merit of inclusion.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The above statment is one of the most important statements in this entire article as it shows the compassion Gilad shows for the prisoners & the empathy towards their own plight in light of his own. This is one of the few statements Gilad has been recordered speaking so it must be included. There are many reputable references to it as here --124.149.37.224 (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Sentence regarding "Negotiations for Release"
A particular sentence under "Negotiations for Release" saying that the terrorists being released in exchange for Shalit have "blood on their hands" - a true statement - is continually being removed. The first time it was taken out, the editor only deleted half of the sentence, leaving it a fragment, and I undid it. However, my edit has repeatedly been undone. Is there any particular reason? The material is cited. Why is it being removed? --96.60.171.236 (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You need to site direct references. Simply stating 'blood on their hands' is opinion. It is important to separate fact from opinion in order to keep this emotional topic objective. Next time, site rererences of prisoners found guilty of specific crimes. These must be upheld by trial verdicts in a court of law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.37.224 (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

"Abduct" vs. "Capture"
We have an edit war on our hands, and I among others have violated the rule of this page regarding one revert per 24 hours. The issue is whether we can, from NPOV, call Hamas's taking of Shalit an "abduction" or simply a "capture." News organizations use the words interchangeably, which means using a news article as reference is insufficient. Shalit was taken in a combat engagement, but there was no battle during which he was taken. The combat engagement during which Hamas took possession of him was the initiation of hostilities in this case. Shalit was further not treated as a POW in compliance with the Geneva Conventions. Therefore, I think the term "abduction" is more suitable.

Please also remember to assume good faith on the part of editors in this discussion. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  14:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * LOL, there was no battle? Two Israeli soldiers were killed when Shalit was captured. You even use the word "captured" in the first sentence of this page.

"Gilad Shalit, born 28 August 1986) is an Israeli soldier of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) who was captured inside Israel by Hamas militants in a cross-border raid via underground tunnels near the Israeli border with Gaza on 25 June 2006. "

Stop being a hypocrite. You can't say he was captured in one part and abducted in another. Some editors always have problems with the word "captured". This is ridiculous. --68.45.180.34 (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, the word "captured" in the lead is not my language. Don't group that in with me. Second, you don't understand the point I'm making. There was no ongoing war when Shalit was taken. The engagement in question was not a battle; it was a standalone incident.


 * Furthermore, you continue to violate the rules on this page regarding reversions. I am going to request administrator assistance with this matter. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  17:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've protected the article for 3 days, and I've also blocked 68.45.180.34 for 48 hours due to 1RR violations. Remember to use this talk page for discussion, and that just because you're having a discussion here, it doesn't give you a license to edit war on the article itself.--Slon02 (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Guys, I understand the recent abuses by 180.34, but isn't an upfront Full Protection going a bit too far when the abusive annonymous IP user and others, given their rights level, would had still been effectively blocked if a much lower level of protection -- such as Semi-Protection -- had been used instead? Semi-Protection would had still allowed responsible, established editors with reviewer and auto-patrolled rights the opportunity to contribute. Appears to be a case where the innocent many are paying for the actions of the one single guilty party. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.


 * Aww! You're stalking me. You check my edit history every day. I'm touched. You're one to talk. You insist that Oscar Lopez is a freedom fighter even though he plotted a violent escape from prison involving explosives and assault rifles. I bet you were devastated when he was denied parole. Oh, and I'm of Puerto Rican descent by the way. I just don't consider Lopez to be a freedom fighter. He's a militant. And learn how to spell. The correct word is "anonymous". As for Shalit, he was captured in a tank while in uniform and while holding an assault rifle. He wasn't kidnapped while walking down the streeet unarmed and in civilian clothes like Eliyahu Asheri. Every editor who has a problem with the word "captured" is from Israel. I understand that Israel considers him to have been "kidnapped" or "abducted" but that doesn't matter. The international news media has referred to him and numerous American soldiers in Iraq as "captured" multiple times. If you have a problem with that, then you might as well revamp this entire article by removing every reference to the word "captured". No point in referring to him as "captured" in the beginning of the article and referring to him as "abducted" in his infobox. Hypocrites! --68.45.180.34 (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * apparently 180.34 doesn't care....and continues to edit war without discussion. Soosim (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Another biased Jewish editor. What a surprise. Do you know how to read? I am discussing this right now. Also, where is this so called "consensus" on the word "abducted" that I keep reading about? As I said, if you have a problem with the word "captured", then you might as well revamp the whole article. --68.45.180.34 (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * not sure "Another biased Jewish editor. What a surprise! Do you know how to read? I am discussing this right now." qualifies as actual discussion, but in any case, you have violated the 1 (one) revert rule for this article, again. it is always best to discuss it here - with facts, opinions, reliable sources, pros and cons, etc. before making changes to the actual article.


 * in my opinion, since there are numerous RS that use the various terms interchangeably, we need to be careful as which term best covers the situation at hand. let's discuss it and see....i think 'abducted' applies since it happened in shalit's own country, by an enemy force, without a war going on around it. Soosim (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't. He was captured in uniform, inside a tank, while armed with an assault rifle. He wasn't a civilian kidnapped while walking down the street. Two Israeli soldiers and two Hamas militants were killed in the incident. Regardless, I'm surrounded by countless biased Jewish editors who are the only ones who have a problem with the word "captured" so I have revamped the entire article myself. All references to the word "captured" have been removed. Are you happy now, biased editors? You win! Sheesh Louise! Thank goodness you aren't involved in Bowe Bergdahl's article. There was no way I was going to win. As I said before, I was surrounded. All of you cried like little babies to the administrators begging and pleading for the article to be locked and for me to be blocked. Hypocrites! --68.45.180.34 (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The "captured vs. abducted" problem is actually easy to solve, is to use/follow the exact wording as in the source. E.g. if the sourced BBC article says "captured" then the referenced sentence should say "captured", and accordingly if words "abducted" or "kidnapped" used in the sources.

Are GS's own views notable?
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/in-first-televised-interview-gilad-shalit-says-it-will-be-hard-for-me-to-send-my-children-to-the-army.premium-1.470619?localLinksEnabled=false


 * Should this be included? Do his own views rise to the notability standard? Hcobb (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

No, his words are not notable, becuse it would be very biased. There are one million people in gaza. they are held captive by israel, they are besieged by israel, and the UN does nothing to gave the people of Gaza their rights. When the UN comes to give  GS his rights, then they  must have first come to give Gaza its rights.

60.242.170.18 (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Article's main problem
Listen folk, this article's main problem is that many references/sources do not even support the words to which they are referenced. Take this example: "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." There is nothing in the source about Hamas' refusal to negotiate. Exactly because of this reason the article sounds really biased. Jim Fitzgerald  post  19:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Should the lead sentence have the word "captured"?
It's been in place for years and is sourced. Now two editors have removed it. --217.79.176.158 (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because something has been in place for a certain amount of time does not mean it is correct. Do you have a link to a previous conversation on this talk page where consensus was established to use that wording? That is what you claimed in your edit summary. If not, I suggest you self-revert because you are violating WP:UNDUE and actually misrepresenting the source. While the source does use the word captured, it also calls it an abduction. Here are just a few more sources I found from the first page of google results about Gilad Shalit that call it an abduction. Several of them also call it a kidnapping, so if you feel that is appropriate we could add it as well.     Also, if you look at the body of the article, you see that the trend is to call it an abduction. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the body. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, here you go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Shalit&diff=454733845&oldid=454731241

This has been in place since last year. No one has had a problem before. Also, Shalit was not kidnapped. He was a soldier. Not a civilian. The mainstream media doesn't call him that. Only the Israeli media does. --217.79.176.158 (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant and frankly I couldn't care less what you think because I don't know you. At Wikipedia we care about WP:RS. I linked you several above which used the term kidnapped. But that doesn't matter, because we are talking about captured vs abducted right now. The sources support abducted, so I suggest you self revert yourself (and if you'd like, you can add the sources that I provided above). And just an added note, you are again misrepresenting the sources which is a serious infraction of Wikipedia policies. I linked you to several WP:RS above, including for example France 24, which called it a kidnapping. France 24 is not an Israeli source. And even if it were, being Israel does not make a source any less reliable. Your personal biases do not make the rules on Wikipedia. Nowhere does WP:RS say "Reliable sources cannot be Israeli". 99.237.236.218 (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I will do no such thing. Shalit was captured. Not abducted or kidnapped. The link I posted shows numerous articles which use the word "captured".

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-06-25-israeli-palestinian_N.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/30/germany-israel-gilad-shalit

http://articles.cnn.com/2007-08-24/world/hamas.soldier_1_hamas-fighters-hamas-militants-palestinian-prisoners?_s=PM:WORLD

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/4961627/Hamas-puts-captured-Israeli-soldier-on-video-tape.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/world/middleeast/after-shalit-israel-changing-prisoner-exchange-rules.html

If you'd like, you can add the sources that I provided above. All of them are reliable international news media outlets. And I'm glad I don't know you. You seem to be a real piece of work. --217.79.176.158 (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 2 of your sources here called him abducted, in addition to the source already in the article. I will be reinserting the policy-compliant wording to the article along with WP:RS backing it up. The lede is a summary of the article and must comply with WP:UNDUE. That's all. Btw, if you continue with the personal attacks, I will notify an administrator that you are not only violating WP:UNDUE, but also WP:NPA. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * And I will revert your edit and add my sources which use the word "captured". You are biased. You insist on calling him "abducted". You also have a history of edit warring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A99.237.236.218

--217.79.176.158 (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/hamas_militants_release_captured_clsUIMUdIgJe1dHGdgKneK

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/11/us-israel-palestinians-shalit-idUSTRE79A58R20111011

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/hamas-militants-release-captured-israeli-soldier

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ia2gIWaty1WyIuTQYTMNK6mr-uBw?docId=CNG.ed3fb8b4aaf6fe4065c6bbf0031f2bf4.361

More sources using the word "captured". --217.79.176.158 (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I now noticed that there was in fact a discussion about this right above us on the talk page, and you are now edit warring against the consensus established there. Multiple other editors gave their reasons for supporting the abducted wording. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. According to a quick survey, reliable sources mostly use the word "abducted", "kidnapped", "taken hostage". The word "captured" is usually used in context of a legal operation, not in a cross-border raid. In my opinion, the words "abducted" or "taken hostage" are the most neutral . Marokwitz (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Mistakes on How Gilad Shalit was treated
Gilad Shalit was not treated well by his captors and that is well known, yet Wikipedia states, "On March 2013, the Jerusalem Post released information that Shalit told IDF investigators after being released.[107] He stated that he was treated well, that he watched all the World Cup games on television, and that he sat on the roof of the family he was with and looked at the Mediterranean."

This statement is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.51.44 (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Gilad Shalit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060628025602/http://edition.cnn.com:80/2006/WORLD/meast/06/26/israel.soldier/index.html to http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/26/israel.soldier/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090125132612/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20090122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 13:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Gilad Shalit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091013115822/http://www.news.com.au:80/story/0,10117,20418523-401,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,20418523-401,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 15:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gilad Shalit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080130164641/http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3268747,00.html to http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3268747,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gilad Shalit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C7340%2CL-3268747%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C10117%2C20418523-401%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100222043935/http://www.shalomlife.com/eng/6153/Father_Blames_US_for_Blocking_Shalit_Deal/ to http://www.shalomlife.com/eng/6153/Father_Blames_US_for_Blocking_Shalit_Deal/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)