Jump to content

Talk:Gilad Shalit: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 133: Line 133:
It is possible that the later source is mistaken due to a mistranslation of sorts.
It is possible that the later source is mistaken due to a mistranslation of sorts.


Therefore i suggest changeing the rank description back to "Sergeant First Class" a.k.a "Rav Samal" and "Rasal" (רב-סמל, רס"ל).
Therefore, i suggest changeing the rank description back to "Sergeant First Class" a.k.a "Rav Samal" and "Rasal" (רב-סמל, רס"ל).


[[File:IDF Ranks Rasal.svg|20px|frameless|center|The accurate rank]]
[[File:IDF Ranks Rasal.svg|20px|frameless|center|The accurate rank]]

Revision as of 16:39, 17 May 2014

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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[1] 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)[reply]

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


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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] 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)[reply]
Sure, here you go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A99.237.236.218

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

BIAS

The ENTIRE ARTICLE is EXTREMELY BIASED. When the UN comes to give Israel , or any Israeli its or his or her rights, then they must have first come to give Gaza and any Gazian its , his, her rights, first. If the Israeli infringement of UN treaties is a nuclear bomb, the Hamas infringement of UN treaties is a burning ciggarette.

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

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.[2]

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)[reply]

Accurate rank upon dischargement

According to most israeli news sources, such as this one, Gilad Shalit was dischareged from the I.D.F with the rank of Sergeant First Class (רב-סמל) and not Seargent Major (רב-סמל מתקדם) like this source states.
It is possible that the later source is mistaken due to a mistranslation of sorts.

Therefore, i suggest changeing the rank description back to "Sergeant First Class" a.k.a "Rav Samal" and "Rasal" (רב-סמל, רס"ל).

The accurate rank
The accurate rank
  1. ^ "Hamas releases audio of captured Israeli". USA Today. 25 June 2007.
  2. ^ Gaza Truce May Be Revived by Necessity. By Ethan Bronner. The New York Times. 19 December 2008.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilad_Shalit&oldid=608978134"