Talk:Gilad Shalit

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. [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)

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)

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/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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)