Talk:Gilad Shalit/Archive 1

message: Being kidnapped doesn't make anyone notable, as sad as it can be. Has this guy done anything else? --euyyn 15:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jennifer Wilbanks wasn't even kidnapped at all, and the rescue efforts put forth to find her were nowhere near this extent, but she's still notable enough to have an article. Kafziel 16:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could as well think she's not notable enough, couldn't I? Indeed, I got to know her because of your link. Anyway, hers is an article which tells what did she do to become famous there in the US. Not quite the same --euyyn 08:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Some people become famous by accident, some even against their will.  Perhaps a passing reference of Shalit's name or short section in the Operation Summer Rain article might suffice.  But what convinced me to originally  write this article is that Shalit, by accident of history, become the motivating force for a large military operation, political strain and drama, international discourse and major news coverage.  So while Shalit himself, as far as we know, may not have done anything extroidinary, what happened to him and the aftermath, and what he has come to represent to both sides, is extroidinary, now embedded into Middle-east history. Rest 22:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree he's famous for now. At least in countries where people remember his name. My concern is whether we will ever be able to write an article about him which were more than "This guy was kidnapped by ... leading to .... Well... eh... here we have some trivia about him: ..." --euyyn 08:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron Arad is notable; so it he.  Jon513 03:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a powerful argument, yours. It's your opinion that Ron Arad is notable enough. Additionaly, if I argue that being kidnapped doesn't make anyone notable (and so, if the only "reason" for his notability is that, this guy isn't notable), stating that some other guy is notable because of being kidnapped, doesn't prove this one is (your conclusion): It only says you disagree with my premise (i.e. "being kidnapped doesn't give notability"). --euyyn 23:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability? 

message: All uniformed Israelis and Palestinians are legitimate target for killing/kidnapping anywhere in Israel and Palestinian territories .This is allowed under International law. This situation has been blown out of proportion by the Israel and the International media. Soldiers are killed/kidnapped around the world every day and they are reported normally as statistics of war. Customs of war allow Palestinians to hold the soldier as a POW until the war ends, but they are also obligated to treat him humanely.That's all there is to the story!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferick (talk • contribs) 15:53, 3 July 2006
:What's so legal about war anyway, professor?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.169.205.192 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 3 July 2006
::"All uniformed Israelis and Palestinians are legitimate target" that must be a well kept secret ... I'm sure if Israel knew, they'd stop forcing their soldiers to wear uniforms ;)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.146.88.37 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 3 July 2006
::: capturing a an enemy soldier is an act of war. Now all uniformed palestinians are legitimate targets for kidnapping and killing. This includes the leaders of Hamas who gave the orders, and should be held accountable. The capturing was done in the middle of peace talks, which borders on a criminal act. 128.139.226.37 14:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some perspective about the customs of war 

message: "Shalit's abduction has widely been reported to be the incident that triggered the current crisis, although other sources have pointed out that the day before, 24 June, two Palestinian civilians, a doctor and his brother were abducted by the IDF in Al Shouka, near Rafah.[8]" 
Unless the implication is that the previous incident triggered this one?  Which would be strange if the operation was planned for two months. Rich Farmbrough 00:05 29  July 2006 (GMT).
:The 'attack' was being planned for 2 months (according to one source). The kidnapping could have been something that wasn't initially planned as part of the attack but was added to the plan because of the earlier incident (according to another source). Neither are stated as fact, so both can happily co exist as what has been said by different sources. Timb0h 22:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erm, sentance doesn't make sense 

message: There was a comment alleging that the "real" start of the conflict was an alleged abduction of two palestinians the day before. I removed it for two reasons.
First, and most importantly, I couldn't verify it. It came with a footnote. But, checking the citation given as a footnote did not reveal any information on this allegation. Instead, the link led to an advertisement/flyer calling on people to criticize Israel's actions.
Second, the entire issue of where to identify the start/finish of conflict (aka the "punctuation") is difficult. Israel pulled out of Gaza. They were met with over a thousand rocket attacks. Are those properly seen as the "start?"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.50.99 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 31 July 2006
: I don't think there is a problem with the article how it is at the moment. It mentions that most reports cite Shalits capture as the trigger, whilst a minority cite these other kidnappings. With the advertisement that was taken out by the group in the link, I think it is certainly worth a mention. Timb0h 22:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  comment on earlier taking 

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

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

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

message: would appreciate an explanation on why Nachshon Wachsman and gilad's rank are important to the introduction. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mentions of Nachshon aren't really relevent and make the introduction overly long. His rank and unit along with his D.O.B. (and hence age) are relevent details to describe who he is. Timb0h (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: so what part of the edit are you contesting exactly that you reverted it? JaakobouChalk Talk 21:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said multiple times, Trivia sections are bad style and should be avoided. Wikipedia:Trivia sections. Keeping it in the header is better than adding a trivia section. It may be found a better place in the body of the article or deleted altogether. Timb0h (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the lead should be an introduction to the article, not a collection of trivia WP:LEAD. please go carefully over the policy reference you're linking for me, since there's nothing there regarding the point of conflict we're having; it is rather a note to avoid unimportant/undue references from clamoring articles. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which point of conflict are you talking about? using the word hostage? I agree that has nothing to do with this. If you want to remove the reference to Nachshon, then do it without creating a trivia section. The policy is clear on avoiding trivia sections. Move the reference to lower down in the article if you don't want to delete it from the article completely.  If you do either of those things, I wont revert that change.  Timb0h (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nachshon Wachsman 

message: Please stop edit warring. Multiple reversions on BLP articles is a serious problem and could result in protection of the article. Personally, I prefer Timb0h's version as more encyclopedic. AvruchTalk 18:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The last version that I reverted still needs a lot of improvement I think. If we can just agree on which words should and should not be used then I think together we can come up with a much better reading article. Timb0h (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Warring 

message: If there are no objections, I will help mediate this discussion. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not object and actually like your proposal ("and possibly held for ransom"). Thanks for getting involved, pedro gonnet - talk - 22.01.2008 07:04
Pedro and Jaakobou have agreed on the term "abduction", so far as I can tell; discussion on the use of "hostage" can be discussed here, but preferably (for the moment) under the "Discussion" header on the case page, noting my ... uhh, notes (mediator notes). I apologize in advance if any other party had not been warned (and the party list was expanded), but I thought it'd be ok not to link the case page from here after that dispute had been settled between those two users. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Scratch that! Sorry. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: when the mediation is officially over and done with, we can probably choose the best ones and narrow it down - until then, it was a precautionary step. JaakobouChalk Talk 22:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehh...well, OK. I recommend you find the best sources now, though; someone is going to call that overkill. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have 15 sources on the MedCab, I'm open to hear which others feel are best. JaakobouChalk Talk 08:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: Apparently, to some editors, 6 is not enough. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: Do you have any problems with my name added to the list of mediators? Seddon69 (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: when the mediation is officially over and done with, we can probably choose the best ones and narrow it down - until then, it was a precautionary step. JaakobouChalk Talk 22:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehh...well, OK. I recommend you find the best sources now, though; someone is going to call that overkill. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have 15 sources on the MedCab, I'm open to hear which others feel are best. JaakobouChalk Talk 08:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: Apparently, to some editors, 6 is not enough. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional Mediator

message: Concerned editors who are interested in presenting evidence into the mediation are welcome to. JaakobouChalk Talk 18:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: mediation

message: Please refrain from editing controversial material regarding the medcab case when no outcome has been reached. It is simply good courtesy not to make edits while such a disagreement and discussion occurs. The hostage will remain there for now. But if there are more reverts then ill report this page to the Admin notice board and request the page be locked on whatever version its on. Seddon69 (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing hostage/captive 

message: While Shalit is a French citizen, a fact that made France and the EU somewhat involved in the efforts to release him, he was not a French soldiers, but an Israeli one, and according to what I know he never lived in France. While his French citizenship is a significant fact about him, his first affiliation is to the State of Israel, as an Israeli citizen, a resident of Israel, and an Israeli soldier performing his compulsory service. DrorK (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, just to let the IP know that the reversions of his Israeli-French is purely to reduce ambiguity (Israeli qualifies soldier in that sentence, more than it does Shalit's citizenship). If he does it again, just leave a message on his talk page. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A French citizen 

message: According to the press, as well as the Hebrew Wikipedia page, GS's rank is today SSgt (Staff Sergeant, or "Samal Rishon" in Hebrew). The English page still lists him as "Corporal." Someone should see to it that this be updated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.139.226.34 (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rank 

message: Just as a trial balloon, what do people think about mentioning that thousands of Palestinians are held captive by Israel in articles on the one or two Israelis held by Palestinians? Tinguat (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would violate WP:NPOV, for starters. IronDuke 15:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Even if it is somewhat relevant to the topic of quid-pro-quo kidnappings (etc; I'm not entirely too knowledgeable, so I can't think of a better term atm), it doesn't serve the article well, since although this article is in the scope of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it isn't about the I-P conflict. That's where Wikipedia:Neutral point of view fits in, since that policy (NPOV) also covers balance and due weight. So long story short: it's a relevant piece of information, but not here (and even then, making quantitative comparisons for the sake of supporting X has done Z n times, but Y has does Z n times more, therefore X > Y, violates the neutral point of view and looks like soapboxing (which isn't allowed)). Hope that clarifies :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Xavexgoem. That explanation was orders of magnitude better than mine. IronDuke 16:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance? 

message: A couple of the urls cited in the lead don't work anymore. 
 Sean.hoyland - talk 16:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken refs 

message: Folks, I added info from JPost on the Israeli Army Radio report to the Capture section for 2 reasons
* It's obviously notable
* It explicitly makes a connection between the raid into Gaza the previous day and his capture. The fact that this article didn't mention the raid the previous day except via a context-free see also link just seems silly. This source makes it clear that the 2 events were connected from the IDF perspective.
Note that I've deliberately used the term 'kidnapped' for both Shalit and the Muamar brothers as per the source. I'm not interested in getting involved in the terminology issue which seems to have been a problem here so I've just left it as per the source. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Army Radio report 

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