The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish Women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish WomenWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish WomenTemplate:WikiProject Jewish WomenJewish Women articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: No consensus: "Capture" being NPOV was not supported and the debate of Hostage/Kidnapping vs Prisoner of war/Capture didnt lead to consensus to move.(non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk11:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Most of the examples you've given are of military leaders rather than regular troops. I think that the current name is more consistent with the other Israeli hostages, which are all Kidnapping or Killing of FOO. Mason (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scholarly sources seem to prefer "capture" over "kidnapping" even for regular troops. Note "corporal" is the lowest rank of soldiers.
Oppose. If we were to take nom's assertion that it should be "capture" because the incident was an act of war upon a military target, we would assume that the captive would be treated as a POW under International Human Rights Law, which we unfortunately know is not the case. In addition, WP:RS overwhelmingly refer to Levy as a "hostage" rather a POW, strengthening the case for kidnapping (or abduction). In this context "capture" is a POV term, rather than "kidnapped", which is the overwhelming WP:COMMONNAME in WP:RS. Finally, per Smasongarrison, "kidnapped" is the WP:Consistent here. Longhornsg (talk) 04:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show that "kidnapped" and not "captured" is WP:COMMONNAME? I did not find that to be the case. Can you also explain what is POV about "capture"?VR(Please ping on reply)16:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The abduction and killing of Nachshon Wachsman was a 1994 incident in which Palestinian Hamas abducted Israeli soldier Nachshon Wachsman from the Bnei Atarot junction in central Israel, and held him hostage for six days. The incident ended in a failed Israeli rescue attempt, during which Wachsman, three of his captors and an Israeli officer were killed.
Note that the situation is described using language, like abduction and hostage, and not as prisoner of war.
Here were all the Israeli soldiers(plus a border police person) that I could dig up.
So I don't think capture fits with this list either. I think that either Abduction or Kidnapping are consistent with wikipedia naming, not so much capture. Mason (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are incidents going back 30 years. And perhaps the wording there should be examined. In any case, policy is to follow RS, not be consistent with old, different incidents. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first is interesting in that Arafat, president of the Palestinian National Authority at the time, arrested 200 Hamas members for the incident. My point is that RS trumps. Times change, circumstances change, reporting changes. I think consistency with reliable sources trumps the hobgoblin consistency of article titles from different events in different time periods. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is pretty interesting how the responses have changed. You're welcome to point to a policy that says RS trumps Article Title Policy's like consistent. Personally, I think both lead to towards Kidnapping, but I'm not opposed to Abduction as a comprise, given that it exists on other pages that are more similar than the examples given in the nom. Mason (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:COMMONNAME, which says that RS usage absolutely trumps all. Also those articles may have been improperly named. Finally, keep in mind those events were before Hamas became the de facto government of Gaza (and de jure in the sense that it won the 2006 elections).VR(Please ping on reply)18:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't show it would be inconsistent; they just show that capture is not consistent in either interpretation. I already provided a long list of other hamas hostages all of which use the term kidnapping. I think that this nom is not going to have a clear cut result, and the end close will be no consensus to move. Mason (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are not (yet) a lot of scholarly sources on Naama Levy, but their case is quite similar to Gilad Shalit: both are IDF soldiers who were taken from Israel into Gaza and held by Hamas. I found a survey of scholarly sources shows capture to be more commonly used than kidnapping, albeit not by much. However, "capture" is more WP:NPOV than kidnapping, which carries a moral implication.
Support This is a grown adult soldier of a belligerent military. Calling this a "kidnapping" is intelligence-insulting. JDiala (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This is a descriptive title, and the proposed wording is the correct way to describe a solder captured at a military base in an enemy operation. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Civilians and soldiers alike were dragged away into captivity as hostages, often raped and murdered in the process, not by a military organization but by a band of terrorists and their civilian supporters. No distinction was made between civilians and service people, except that a higher price is being extorted for the latter. "Kidnapping" is correct. "Capture" does not reflect what actually happened. Kidnapped, as in the similar articles, is a reflection of reality. Coretheapple (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Terrorists", as well you know, is a POV, not NPOV characterisation, just as "resistance fighters" would be POV, per MOS:TERRORIST. And yes, by a military organisation – regardless of its POV or NPOV characterisation. In targeted strikes, militant special forces raided military positions and captured soldiers. That component of events alone on that day – the taking of POWs for exchange with other POWs is a common thread throughout military history. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that's not factually correct. During World War II, Allied prisoners of war were not referred to as "hostages." In this conflict, the RS sources do indeed say that hostages were only taken by one side. RS sources do not describe prisoners taken by Israel as hostages, or as having been kidnapped. As I said below, it is not our job to rectify what we may see as imbalance or poor work by the sources. Coretheapple (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed - The guidelines for the naming conventions for violence and deaths advise to use the name of the crime that was committed according to a particular jurisdiction's laws, which is "kidnapping", because this person was both abducted by and is being held hostage by forces that invaded and are opposed to the jurisdiction concerned. The term "capture" is normally used in cases where the person was lawfully detained by a particular jurisdiction's authorised authorities or agents. This naming is also consistent with other article that describe others who were kidnapped in similar circumstances. All the "Capture of ..." articles cited in the proposal are for people who were considered criminals by the jurisdictions that captured them. In the case of the biography of Gilad Shalit, his capture is also called a kidnapping by many sources, and which term one uses will also depend on one's point of view. The term "capture" is used in that article to bring balance to the biography, it is not describing the crime that was committed by him being captured, which is the case with this article. This article is about a criminal event as victims of crimes do not normally have their own biographies. Part of the purpose of the WP:NPOV policy is to give due weight to the range of sources that may be inherently biased and reflect that bias in a balanced way. Using the term "Capture" in the title of this article is a false balance because it assumes a particular viewpoint that ignores the full facts of this case and is not even supported by Wikipedia's own guidelines. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must have missed the trial. Sorry if that sounds snarky. But our job is simpler than some people think. We don't have to make determinations like this. We just say what the reliable sources say. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Objective3000: If you follow the flowchart, you will see no trial is required. A conviction is only required in the case of murder, and that is because murder has a mens rea or criminal intent, component to the crime and involves the subjective determination of a court trial. Other crimes only require the criminal act (or actus reus) to determine the crime committed, and that can be done, objectively, based on the documented facts in reliable sources. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not interested in your legal conclusions. This is called a "war" by RS. Wars have different rules and definitions and different sides in a war look at these differently. So rather than using our own legal constructions; we just use what RS say, not our determinations/conclusions based on facts in RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, and the RS sources overwhelmingly say that all of the people, military and civilian, abducted by Hamas and its allies on Oct. 7 are hostages, not prisoners of war captured in battle. That is certainly the case in the coverage of the video released yesterday showing female soldiers after their capture by Hamas. They are referred to as hostages by the RS sources. Note too, re another conflict, use of "kidnap" in Operation Gaff. Coretheapple (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think the Palestinian civilians the IDF has been rounding up (resulting in some amputations according to Haaretz) are just called "prisoners" -- awaiting trade. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not our job to rectify problems in the reliable sources. The reliable sources do not say that the prisoners in Israel were hostages or were kidnapped. That's why WP:RGW applies here. It's not our job to "set the record straight". It's not our job to "create balance" by calling kidnapped hostages "captives" in an effort to create balance with what other prisoners are called in other articles. Coretheapple (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And btw my reference to WP:RGW was intended to describe what we're not supposed to do. I didn't say you are in breach of that. I am suggesting that editors shouldn't do that, and should be careful not to do that if we perceive that the sources are not "balanced" or whatever. Coretheapple (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made no suggested change to the article whatsoever. My !vote in this RM was "Whatever RS say". How can you get more neutral than that? O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the RS sources don't refer to the prisoners in Israel as hostages. They say that too, so therefore I don't think that observation is pertinent to this article. Coretheapple (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Objective3000: What the IDF call the Palestinian civilians it rounds up is the subject of a different article that need not concern us here, because the article we are discussing is not about them. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Other folks can bring this up; but I can't respond. Got it and won't edit in this thread again, other than the ironic edit below saying that what "prisoners are called in Israel is of no relevance" while calling them something.:) Hey, better than yesterday when several of us here were called castrated eunuchs. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: There is a sentence in the lead of the article about Gilad Shalit that says: "Many sources have categorized Shalit's capture as both a kidnapping and an abduction.", followed by 5 sources. One source headline calls it a "capture...", while the other two each use "abduct..." or "kidnap...". If one looks at the frequency of the remaining sources in that article, the term "capture..." is used more often, but Shalit was held "captive" as a "prisoner" for five years, so more time has elapsed to accumulate sources that might use those terms, rather than describe the circumstances of how he came to be in such a state. Besides, the article about Shalit is a biography, so it uses a commonly recognizable name for a biography. This article about the Kidnapping of Naama Levy is about a crime of violence against a person and different criteria apply to naming the article. Wikipedia does not normally write biographies about victims of crime, instead it writes about the crime against the person, instead. Consequently, I do not believe Shalit's biography is applicable to this article about Naama Levy and one needs to confine oneself to sources that reliably describe precisely what happened to Levy. Unfortunately, reporters are not lawyers and often do not describe the crimes that they discuss in their reports in concise legal terms, so some degree of synthesis of their reporting is required of good Wikipedia editors in interpreting what crimes those written words are actually describing. Seizing on just one word and willfully ignoring the totality of the circumstances is a form of cherrypicking, which leads to biased wording in the article or a mis-representative title. Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so some degree of synthesis of their reporting is required of good Wikipedia editors Any Wikipedia editor that does this is NOT a good Wikipedia editor. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cameron Dewe did you see the 100s of search results I provided above from JSTOR, Taylor & Francis etc? Shalits wikipedia article is not a reliable source but most (if not all) the sources at JSTOR and TF should be reliable. We don't yet have many scholarly sources for Levy, so Shalit was the closest example I could find. VR(Please ping on reply)17:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: I notice you do not provide a similar analysis for the scholarly sources that do exist for Naama Levy's situation. Could it be that those reliable sources do not support your argument? Frankly, Shalit's Wikipedia article, which is a biography, cannot be compared to this one about Levy's situation, which is about a crime. Trying to make that comparison is therefore not valid. Perhaps if we all wait for five years so that Naama Levy has her own biography about being held captive for that long, we can review the situation. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. You argue that, for consistency, we should treat Levy's abduction similarly to the capture of Saddam Hussein. Why? There is no legitimate point of comparison between Saddam Hussein and Naama Levy — Hussein was a dictator who was subsequently tried and executed for crimes against humanity, while Levy was a teenage peace activist and new recruit on observation duty. These are two entirely different cases, and thus there is no need for "consistency" between them. Additionally, calling her kidnapping a "capture" legitimizes her abduction, beating, and presumed rape in a manner that is morally repugnant. Selfgyrus (talk) 08:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not for evidence of RS for Levy. Also you did not explain why the comparison of Saddam Hussein is more relevant that all the other people kidnapped by Hamas. Mason (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Look at all these Kidnapped and Missing Persons posters. I don’t see a “Captured” poster, plus “captured” is not exactly NPOV - it could be negative as you can capture a criminal. It would be silly to see a Captured poster in the midst of Missing and Kidnapped persons as Levy is not a wanted criminal nor a notorious pirate with a bounty. Levy was not even a combatant. The Wikipedia article says “During the 7 October attacks, Levy was acting as an IDF observer”. She is wearing sweatpants and is not in IDF uniform. I don’t think she was armed if she was just an observer. Iron Swords 141023 Kirya Bring The Home 01Wafflefrites (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kidnapping is POV, as its definition implies a value judgement. The Cambridge dictionarydefines it as act of "taking a person away illegally by force, usually in order to demand money in exchange for releasing them". The "illegal" is obviously a value judgement. By contrast capture is defined as "to take someone as a prisoner, or to take something into your possession, especially by force". There is no value judgement.VR(Please ping on reply)20:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of reliable sources have described at least some of those Hamas took as "prisoners of war" instead (Forbes, Al-Jazeera, The Nation etc.). IDF spokesperson himself said Hamas had taken "hostages and prisoners of war". El Pais also makes the distinction that Hamas "kidnapped civilians and taken soldiers as prisoners of war". Wikipedia should not be taking sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.VR(Please ping on reply)00:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RfC above should not have been closed
Was closed within just over a week which is insane despite non-unanimous consensus. Wasn't properly advertised either. JDiala (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.png){kind=small}
My thoughts expressed here. Kvwiki1234 (talk) 01:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
