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

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

Who are the involved parties?

 * Comment 1: excluding editors who's made a single comment to the issue.
 * Comment 2: Other users who commented on the subject at Israeli-Palestinian conflict might be interested in joining the discussions.
 * Mediator's comment: Edited down to people who have contributed. Others who were named are commented. If you were involved before and join, I'll add you to the list


 * (contributing)
 * (contributing)
 * (contributing)

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

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

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

Comment: (Crossposted from Talk:Gilad Shalit) There seems to be some confusion about my involvement here, so I should point out that I have not in any way advocated the inclusion of a section detailing the so-called controversy about the terminology used - I introduced that section on the talk page as an argument against a section that was being inserted by another editor. I strongly disagree with this approach because it adds undue weight to a minor topic that, to my knowledge, is confined almost entirely to Wikipedia. I would much prefer to see this resolved by simply settling on a term and using it in the article, although this seems a bit optimistic at the moment. Any term is fine with me, as long as it's been used in a reliable source. Daniel C/T+ 14:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

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

This is an article that needs for the editors to re-commit to the WP good-faith consensus policy. Those who are not able to follow this policy likely will need to be banned permenently. During my short tenure with this article it was clear that this Policy is not being adhered to, and that progress requires this. Raggz (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand the dilemma (although "being held captive" sounds fine to my ears, but that might be American English and/or Too Many Bad Movies and Video Games). Because the details are vague, I suggest "...and possibly being held for ransom(cite,cite,cite)" or some wording thereof; imho, if someone were held against their will while up for ransom, the need for "hostage" is removed as it's implicit. I know this isn't RfC, but consider it a potential compromise. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I propose that the language of the Geneva Conventions be followed, since the GCs are the international consensus about captured soldiers. Israel has signed GCs I&II, so these apply. GCs III&V also apply in regard to what words the international community uses. My proposal is to first agree that the language of the GCs applies in regard to captured soldiers. THEN the language of the GCs will prevail. Raggz (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the use of the terminology used by the GC is probably the best choice on the basis that their terminology is clear and precise; however, because ransom hasn't been established, we'd still be stuck between "hostage" and "prisoner". Because sources are conflicting and Shalib's condition is not entirely known, I think it's best we avoid this particular discussion until we reach an agreement on how the use of the general term (whether it be hostage or prisoner, etc) be handled in the article. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, I understand the use of the terminology as it stands is still up in the air. But I think that a looser usage of definitions (i.e., not conforming strictly to GC) renders "hostage" and "prisoner" synonyms. (edit: maybe not logically, but emotionally? further edit: and by that I mean, between those two conditions, no-one wants to be in that situation, if you didn't get my meaning :) ) Xavexgoem (talk) 09:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?
As mentioned, get a final decision on whether we should use the word "hostage" in the lead or not.

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


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


 * are you saying that we have full agreement on use of 'abduction'? if yes, then we will refine this discussion to 'hostage' only (per CNN and B'Tselem).  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  18:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He said no such thing, Jaakobou :). Both the RfC and this medcab request were filed over the use of "hostage" and if/where to put it in the article. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * what matters for this discussion (in my opinion) is that we find a long term solution for the entire discussion/dispute as seen by both sides. It was my understanding that 'abducted', 'kidnapped' and 'held hostage' were rejected and replaced with 'captured'. If Pedro agrees on the use of abducted and/or kidnapped, then I'm willing to limit the current discussion for the word 'hostage' alone.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  20:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * i.e. all pedro needs to say is that he accepts the word 'abducted'.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  20:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Pedro, your thoughts? Xavexgoem (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the term "abducted" as this is the language that was in use in the article before this whole debate started and is also the language used by most sources. "Kidnapped", however, I strongly object to.
 * I guess this would close the debate on the verb. What about the noun?
 * Cheers, pedro gonnet  - talk  - 22.01.2008 22:12
 * I'm glad we're in agreement here, and will say so in the talk page. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * considering this statement by Pedro Gonnet, I'd be happy enough to confine the discussion to the word 'hostage'. where do we begin placing statements/references/etc. ?  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  12:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How about in the section below? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Mediator notes
'''Note: Discussion on the case page is paused until Pedro gets back, or something exceptional happens. Talk page is open, though.''' Mediators: Xavexgoem (talk) & Seddon69 (talk) Basically: Pedro says "hostage" is a minority view, and Jaakabou says its definition alone warrants inclusion. What to do: A proposal has been made by me that edits the lead. The evidence has not been seen through to its conclusion, which will need to happen.

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

Reliable sources using "Hostage":
--  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  14:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC) fix wikilink 14:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC) extra sources.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  06:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC) extra sources  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  11:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC) minor 15:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Der Spiegel - - "PARENTS OF ISRAELI HOSTAGE GILAD SCHALIT".
 * Human Rights Watch - + Definition. - "Palestinian armed groups... are currently holding Israeli soldier Corporal Gilad Shalit hostage".
 * Jerusalem Post - - "Hamas gunmen... Cpl. Gilad Shalit hostage".
 * CNN - - "Militants issue Israel hostage demands... statement... by the militants in the negotiations for the release of Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit, whom the flier referred to as "missing" rather than "kidnapped"... Hamas spokesman Ghazi Hamad told CNN that members of the Hamas military wing are among those holding Shalit... abducted Sunday morning".
 * Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - - "Hamas militants... took a third, Cpl. Gilad Shalit, hostage".
 * Haaretz - - "Kidnappers blame Israel for impasse in Shalit hostage talks".
 * United States House of Representatives+Jewish Virtual Library (per USHoR) -, - "completely unprovoked attack... in undisputed Israeli territory... Gilad Shalit was kidnapped and is being held hostage in Gaza by a Palestinian terrorist group which includes members of Hamas; ... Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal... acknowledged the role of Hamas in holding Corporal Shalit hostage;"
 * Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs - - "Hamas... continues to hold Gilad Shalit hostage"
 * B'Tselem - - "Holding Gilad Shalit as a hostage is a war crime"
 * The Daily Telegraph - - "Gaza on brink over hostage soldier".
 * BBC - - "hostage crisis" ;  - "Hostage's father tells of his fears"
 * The Washington Times - - "Hostage's childhood essay to raise awareness".
 * Reuters - - "SOUNDBITE Gilad Shalit, hostage Israeli soldier".
 * The Times - - "Fatah party claimed that they had seized a third Israeli hostage" (e.g. Gilad Shalit, Eliahu Asheri and Noah Moskowitz).
 * Tony Blair (UK Prime Minister) - - "Mr Blair said he was sorry they were both still hostages" (e.g. Alan Johnston, Gilad Shalit)
 * TIME - - "Having secured the release of kidnapped BBC correspondent Alan Johnston on July 4th, Hamas officials are now moving discreetly to negotiate freedom for another Gaza hostage — Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit."
 * USA Today - - "the 19-year-old hostage captured Sunday." (e.g. Gilad Shalit)
 * Le Monde - - "soldat Shalit, otage à Gaza" (e.g. Otage - hostage., )
 * United Press International - - "Some families are asking for their sons to be exchanged with Israeli hostage Gilad Shalit."
 * U.S. State Department spokesman - - "the Hamas-run Palestinian Authority is complicit in hostage taking and Israel has the right to defend itself."
 * National Post - - "even the Palestinian Authority... has acknowledged that taking Israeli hostages... the terrorists, confident of receiving live prisoners for dead Israelis, will be more likely to kill their hostages... Gilad Shalit, kidnapped by Hamas two years ago and held for ransom ever since." (e.c. held for ransom = hostage)

Definitions of term:
--  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  14:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC), added Merriam-Webster. 00:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "A hostage is a person held in the power of an adversary in order to obtain specific actions, such as the release of prisoners, from the other party to the conflict. Holding persons as hostages and the summary execution of anyone held captive are war crimes." - Human Rights Watch -.
 * "hostage [ˈhostidʒ] noun - a person who is held prisoner in order to ensure that the captor's demands etc will be carried out Example: The terrorists took three people with them as hostages; They took / were holding three people hostage." - Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (APA), (CMS), (MLA) -
 * "hos·tage \ˈhäs-tij\ noun - 1 a: a person held by one party in a conflict as a pledge pending the fulfillment of an agreement b: a person taken by force to secure the taker's demands" - Merriam-Webster -

Comments

 * Comments by parties/mediators:


 * Comments by others:

Main Arguments
Sorry for the delay in weighing-in, I have been rather busy in real life. I guess I've already said everything there is to say on Talk:Gilad Shalit, but none the less, here's a summary: There, I guess that's all... To sum things up further, here's my standpoint or starting point for a compromise: Ok, now it's back to work for me :)
 * Inflamatory language: In general, Wikipedia frowns upon the use of inflated and/or inflammatory language. The term hostage implies criminal activity, yet all actors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict state that they are at War, for which other rules apply -- i.e. capturing an enemy soldier while on active military duty in a conflict zone is not a crime.
 * Reciprocity: Interestingly enough, the term "hostage" is not applied when referring to Palestinian Prisoners, i.e. 2007–2008 Israel-Gaza conflict, which are held in military prisons, under administrative detention (no trial), are subject to harsh interrogation techniques considered torture by the United Nations and are used as bargaining chips in peace negotiations. Seriously, could any of the parties here imagine Wikipedia using the term "hostage" when referring to these captives? I think not.
 * Sources/Media: User:Jaakobou's favourite source, the CNN-article, uses the term hostage only in the lead. A quick check on Google News shows that only 18 of 242 articles on Gilad Shalit use the term "hostage" (131 use the term "prisoner", 47 the term "abducted"). In general, the media try to avoid inflated or inflamatory language, as is best exemplified by the BBC's World News editor, Jon Williams.
 * Geneva Conventions: A lot is being said about the Geneva Conventions and how they apply to this issue, but few sources have been presented. Again, searching Google News for "Gilad Shalit" and "Geneva Conventions" brings up only two articles, both using the term "Geneva Conventions" to reprimand the Israeli Government. If there is a good source around and the issue is notable enough, then it could be included as a minority view.
 * Undue weight: Of course a case can be made that some people consider Gilad Shalit to be a hostage and that this may be notable enough to merit mention as a minority view, yet using the term prominently in the lead is a somewhat gross violation of NPOV, as discussed in Reliable sources and undue weight.
 * 1) The word "hostage" is too inflammatory and WP:UNDUE for the lead.
 * 2) If the issue is notable enough and there are enough reliable sources, Gilad Shalit's status as a hostage can be brought up elsewhere in the article, i.e. in a section regarding legal issues in general (there are much more interesting issues then just nomenclature, mind you).

Cheers and thanks for mediating, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">pedro gonnet  - <font color="#000">talk  - 29.01.2008 09:13

Comments

 * Comments by parties/mediators:
 * I agree with Steve below that it's probably wise to not compare "Gilad Shilat" with "Gilad Shilat" & "hostage", and instead compare "hostage" with "captive" and "prisoner" to get a broader perspective. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree and will add those numbers when I find the time... My point remains though, that User:Jaakobou's quotes are just anecdotal evidence. To make a point, he'd have to show that this is indeed the preferred term in the majority of the media. On Talk:Gilad Shalit (if I remember correctly) I compared search results for each term on Google News, to cover all sources and not just those favoured by User:Jaakobou. I'll cross-post those results as soon as I find them. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">pedro gonnet  - <font color="#000">talk  - 30.01.2008 16:24


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


 * Pedro, i feel it is not relevant to compare the occurences of "Gilad Shalit" with the occurrences of the term "hostage". the real question is how often "hostage" occurs in comparison with other terms which might be used. I do notice that some of your sources do use the word "captive," so i understand that some of your sources here do support the point which you are trying to make. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point, Steve. Feel free to try the same method with "captive" and/or "prisoner" -- they beat "hostage" by a long shot. I'll add the numbers as soon as I find the time... Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">pedro gonnet  - <font color="#000">talk  - 30.01.2008 16:24

comments by sm8900
Pedro, so far i agree completely with Jaakobou. The fact that several objective news sources use the term "hostage", as well as independet groups like B'Tselem, as well as notable groups like the Israeli MFA, provides plenty of basis for using the term "hostage". i feel it is not enough to claim that some articles only use it in the lead. if they use it at all, that seem like plenty of proof that it has some valid basis. Furthermore, it seems a bit overdone to claim that we cannot use terms here which seem inflammatory. If the term has general consensus among notable sources, that seems like pretty strong validity, regardless of the content or tone of the term used. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Steve, the question is -- or should be -- if this is the preferred term. If not, then it's a minority view and it does not belong in the lead. Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">pedro gonnet  - <font color="#000">talk  - 30.01.2008 16:26
 * Hi. what does "preferred" mean? i'm not even looking at media or journalistic sources. the fact that it's used by governmental sources like the US Congress, or the Israeli MFA, or expert sources like B'Tselem, is what seems to me like the strongest evidence. Official or semi-official sources like that don't use terms based on colloquial use, but rather based on what usage is most supported by facts. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, "captive" is simply a generic term. the fact that reuters uses :"hostage" at all makes it a valid term.


 * anyway, here's one suggestion for resolution. perhaps we could use a standard techinique which is often used around here, and simply create a new section which would detail the debate over which term to use, with views presented from both sides? does that sound ok? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm off to bed right now. Very tired. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. thanks for your help. appreciate you alerting us about your current online/offline status. your ideas on resolution are pretty good. don't worry, this can wait. :-) thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Because this is a citation issue, we need to work towards WP:RS/WP:V. I'll be pooling the sources together later. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

comments by Jaakobou:
--  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  00:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Definitions of 'Hostage' -  - shows that 'Shalit is "being held hostage [with demands]"' is the proper dictionary description. Intentional avoidance of the (per definition) most suitable term that is used by a multitude of highly reliable sources -- based on the belief that "[only] some people consider Gilad Shalit to be a hostage" -- is a strong opinion that can't be helpful to the encyclopedia's objectivity.
 * 2) The dictionary meanings of the other terms -- 'Captive', 'Kidnapped' and/or 'Abducted' -- would make for a high probability that they would appear more often than 'Hostage', since proper English is "Captured / Kidnapped / Abducted and held hostage" (or a variation of this). Ignoring this input and accepting a 'given interpretation' made before making a 'google search' is a clear misuse of statistics by misinterpertation of context and correlation.
 * 3) A large chunk of very high quality sources -  - use "Hostage" where it is suited -- both editorially and linguistically speaking. They sometimes use it within the body of the article, and sometimes within the lead. Denying the term from the lead in Wikipedia -- based on the issues mentioned above -- a location where it is repeatedly used by these sources; seems like an editorial decision wiki-editors should not promote.
 * 4) We can be fair to the party kidnapping shalit and add a paragraph noting that Palestinians use the term "missing soldier" instead.
 * I would like to support Jaakobou's assertion that counting the number of Internet search hits is only partly relevant. It is more important to specifically evaluate individually the specifc role, significance and weight of some of the different terms which are used in various articles and other sources. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As an 'outsider' in this debate I would also like to support Jaakobou in this matter. It seems quite clear to me that Gilad Shalit is a hostage as captives/prisoners of war have access to outside agencies to check on their well being. This does not seem to be the case concerning Mr Shalit so, ipso facto, he is a hostage. Jack1956 (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Xavexgoem's other proposal
Use the term "captive" as a generic term, but point out that certain organizations consider Shalit a "hostage" (Particularly Israel, Geneva and/or HRW, maybe France). The lead could read something like this:

Gilad Shalit (Hebrew: גלעד שליט‎; born August 28, 1986) is an Israeli soldier who was abducted in a cross border raid by Palestinian militants on June 25, 2006, and has been held captive since[cite, cite, cite]. Shalit, a member of the IDF's Armor Corps, holds the rank of corporal and is the first Israeli soldier captured[cite] by militant Palestinian forces since Nachshon Wachsman in 1994.[cite] Although the exact details of his condition are unknown[cite,cite,cite], ransom demands have been made[cite,cite,cite]; he is therefore considered a hostage by Israeli[cite,cite,cite] and international law.[cite,cite,cite]

A little clumsy for a lead, but it's an idea. "His abduction and the following cross border raid by Hezbollah, resulting in the abduction of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev into Lebanon, were key events leading up to the conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon during summer 2006" isn't sourced or explained further on in the article, so I'm not sure what should be done about that.

I like it. It explicitly states why he is considered a hostage, and explains the further sections a little better (like ransom). Xavexgoem (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments
I'm glad to see we're moving in the right direction. I'm thinking that because its not a list of who designates Hamas to be a terrorist organization (just a basic well defined and acceptable English term), and because we have numerous dictionary and high quality sources explaining/using the word. We could certainly clarify for the less informed readers that, "he is being held, since his kidnapping/abduction, without basic human rights as a hostage due to Hamas demands from the Israeli government." with the demands explained on their own subsection later in the article.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  20:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Egads, can you rewrite/clarify that second sentence? :p Xavexgoem (talk) 10:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Basically, I'm following the dictionary and Reliable sources and suggest we write: "he is being held, since his abduction, without basic human rights as a hostage due to Hamas demands from the Israeli government.". Together with this, we should make a subsection which explains the Hamas demands and that they use the term "missing soldier".  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  19:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for Pedro's input. Personally, I think placing "[basic] human rights" in the lead detracts from the article, in no small part because it needs explicit definition (unbalancing the lead in the process; not so much politically as a lack of focus). I think it's fair to let the facts speak for themselves, especially per the definition of "hostage" you vouched for. I think it's a good idea to mention who was making the demands straight into the lead, although probably Popular Resistance Committees would be more clear, as that's the organization Hamas is said to be affiliated with in the article. Their record also speaks to human rights violations, further lessening the need for the new terminology. Just 2c. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's another suggestion trying to consider your notes and avoiding the HR breaches, "he is being held, since his abduction, as a hostage due to Popular Resistance Committees (a Hamas affiliate) demands from the Israeli government.[cite][cite][cite]"  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  23:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hamas is significant, but it appears that the entirety of the PRC (dunno if it's acronym'd) is important enough not to single Hamas out. "Since his abduction by the Popular Resistance Committees, he has been held as a hostage according to Israeli and international law, and ransom demands have been made." I think that the international law bits give the use of "hostage" credibility, and I think that could be part of the compromise. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't follow all the fuss around the English meaning of 'Hostage'. Israeli law certainly does not define the term for the rest of the world; and international law doesn't either - It's a word that's well established into the English language. I'd really appreciate an explanation on this.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  13:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is what I was proposing: use "captive" first, since it's general and requires no explanation. Then declare other facts. Lastly, "hostage", by putting both the ransom demands and the legal status straight into the lead: not only are both topics important to the article later on, they define "hostage" as well (ransom demands and legal status). It allows room for hostage to be less contentious (that's what I was thinking, at any rate) by rebuilding the lead to give the word context. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (to your suggestion:) The legal status is "war crime", I don't see a big possibility for achieving consensus on that one.
 * (In general:) I believe that Pedro's 'evidence' based on misuse of statistics is WP:OR and that sticking to what the reliable sources say -- and I have not seen a single reliable source (yet) that disputes the term -- we should just write it down in relation to proper terminology without attempting to create new shades of meaning for clearly defined English words.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  10:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's WP:OR; a misuse of statistics? Perhaps, but I doubt it. If you can think of a better way to check all sources, please say so. WP:V still applies. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (on original research:) I'm honestly not following your argument. Please explain to me how a statistics research made by a wikipedian is not WP:OR and where does WP:V applies here to say something different than what I'm saying.
 * (on statistics:) I've explained that there is a misuse of statistics, because there is the false initial assumption that hostage, a word dealing with the hostage demands/situation should appear more often than abducted/kidnapped which discuss the initial aggressive act. In reality, it's almost impossible to start the story with the hostage demands without explaining about the abduction first. I hope that explains my statistics related comment.
 * (on reliable sources:) Has there been reliable sources saying that he's not a hostage? (I have not seen them yet).
 * --  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  21:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, now. I think Pedro's argument would remain that "hostage" is still the minority term after the abduction, to which WP:V still applies. Reliable sources saying he isn't a hostage would certainly be a minority item, and so I cite again WP:V. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Prisoner
Use the word prisoner, its neutral word and so follows WP:NPOV and complies with policy, both words have prisoner as a Synonym in nearly every thesaurus. We are starting to run out of alternatives. Seddon69 (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We have 18 different reliable sources [*above*]. Is there any reliable source disputing the term hostage?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  09:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither of the two terms are disputed so there is not point in arguing that position. Both terms can be found to be used in articles, but neither of you are willing to use the other so next best thing is to use neither. If either of you arn't willing to consider this then this mediation is pointless without the cooperation of both parties. Seddon69 (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem of using a prisoner/captive/abducted/kidnapped here and there where it fits; I'm against denial of the most proper English terminology (person held under ransom demands) under inaccurate claims.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  21:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * p.s. not all narratives are accurate - I believe the evidence has weight in this one.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  21:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Pause
Due to work and other reasons, I'll be off-line until February 18th. I hope we can pause the discussion until then.

In the meantime, there is one major point I'd like to make: Again, it is User:Jaakobou who wants to introduce this language, so it is up to him to show that this is indeed the preferred term in the media. I have made a reasonable effort to show that this is not the case, which User:Jaakobou conveniently ignored, along with all my other arguments...
 * User:Jaakobou wants to introduce the word "hostage" in the lead. In order to avoid undue weight, he must show that this term is the preferred term. It is up to him to show this, not up to me to prove a negative. If User:Jaakobou cannot show that this is the preferred term, then the term "hostage" will not be used in the introduction as per WP:LEAD.

Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">pedro gonnet  - <font color="#000">talk  - 05.02.2008 15:17
 * Thank you for the update. I won't be closing the case. Again, thank you. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Xavexgoem and/or Pedro Gonnet, any idea on what part of WP:LEAD is supposed to support the anti-'hostage' theory?
 * Pedro Gonnet, what terms did you notice to be more prevalent when discussing the hostage situation? (not the kidnapping)
 * cheers.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  17:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no answer, except WP:LEAD is only a style guideline :)
 * I'm pausing discussion on the case page. I think talk page is probably better, now. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Close?
I'll be closing this by Feb 29 if neither Jaakabou or Pedro objects. Partly, because participation has been slow, and partly to mention Feb 29, which I get to do only so often. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Xavexgoem,
 * I'm back online -- sorry for taking so long to get in touch. I am against closing this mediation since the core issue has not been resolved. I admit, I have successively backed out of it but this was out of frustration. Frustration wherewith?
 * No Structure. The discussion here is insanely unstructured. I have been very careful to address every point made by User:Jaakobou in his argumentation and to state my concerns as clearly as possible. Unfortunately, this has not been reciprocal. User:Jaakobou has yet to directly address any of the reasons why the word "hostage" has no place in the lead. Every time I answer him on one point, he ignores the reply and jumps to the next argument. When he runs out of arguments, he just takes it back from the top again... I would consider this -- i.e. maintaining a structured discussion, as in argument, counter-argument, synthesis, compromise, etc... -- to be the job of the mediator (that would be you), but somehow, it just doesn't seem to work.
 * Burden of Proof. For some very odd reason, I find myself in the rather odd position of having to supply proof as to the term "hostage" not being the preferred term in the media. Beyond the fact that it would be much simpler to prove the positive (i.e. that "hostage" is the preferred term), which no-one has bothered doing, I don't understand why I should be the one gathering proof since it is User:Jaakobou who is intent on inserting this wording to the article. Seriously, logic and policy state that it is User:Jaakobou that has to show that the word is the preferred term, and not me who has to show that it is not. Despite this I have gone to great lengths to show that the term is only used in a minority of media reports and usually not in the context User:Jaakobou implies, yet these arguments have suffered the fate detailed in the paragraph above.
 * Therefore, far from closing this Mediation, I would prefer, as you have suggested on my talk page, to take this to the next-higher level where it can hopefully be addressed in a more serious, no-bullshit kind of way.


 * Cheers and many thanks for handling this delicate issue
 * Pedro Gonnet
 * Alright, not closing.
 * I admit that the layout has been a major detriment to the mediation. I think IRC would be a good option. We can address your points there. We'll have to set a date, if Jaakobou agrees.
 * My IRC rules: what goes on off-wiki stays off-wiki. I request that any other editors follow that.
 * Also, I realize this has been very stressful for both parties. Please keep a level head.
 * I need Jaakobou's input first, though. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel I've answered all the points but I don't mind further mediation. I'll be on IRC most of the day today, but I may not notice if a discussion has started if I'm on the other computer... still, feel free to catch me.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  15:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've set up a channel. I'm on IRC between 06:00 and 18:00 UTC, at least for the moment. Can we set up a time to talk (not counting today)? Xavexgoem (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

= Final comment = It is March 5th, and this case was opened in late January. I wish you two would come to terms, but I do not believe this will be resolved with mediation. The romantic side of me really wishes the two of you will come to terms at some point in the future. I think a cup of tea and a sit-down would be a good place to start, and then work it out between the two of you from there. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)