Talk:Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
A news item involving Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 18 October 2011. |
Rename
The edit summary "per 2008 Israel-Hezbollah prisoner exchange"[1] doesn't validate renaming the article "2011 Israel–Hamas prisoner exchange." In the first place, reliable sources – and by no means just Israeli ones – highlight the Shalit component of the deal, both in their headlines and elsewhere where they refer to the deal, as well as in the body of the articles themselves, where Shalit is apportioned significantly more attention than other aspects are. Secondly, the consistency argument doesn't work: there's a Jibril Agreement article – presumably so named because Ahmed Jibril was the most notable figure involved in the exchange. I'm partial-reverting the rename (leaving out the word "deal" and retaining "exchange" in lieu of "swap"). If editors feel an impulse to rename the article, a formal REQMOVE should be initiated.—Biosketch (talk) 06:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- In my opinion, in this case it would be better to choose the most informative name. Anyway I suggest that we let more Wikipedians participate in this discussion and help determine consensus for the article's name:
- 2011 Israel–Hamas prisoner exchange
- Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange
- Gilad Shalit prisoner swap deal
- TheCuriousGnome (talk) 10:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I would say rename the article to 2011 Israeli-Palestinian prisoner exchange. Though Hamas did indeed broker the deal, it is not strictly an exchange of Hamas prisoners. -asad (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- I would retain the current title or as a second choice, swap it for "2011 Israel–Hamas prisoner exchange." I would reject "2011 Israeli-Palestinian prisoner exchange" because the title should reflect the two parties which negotiated and accepted the deal - Israel and Hamas. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- I support "2011 Israel–Hamas prisoner exchange". Israel and Hamas are the parties to the exchange. My second choice would be "Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- I support "2011 Israel–Hamas prisoner exchange" since that's who's involved, for whatever reason. I'd say give Shalit a break and don't use his name, though do have redirections from relevant search terms. CarolMooreDC 03:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- I support "2011 Israel–Hamas prisoner exchange" upon further reflection. It doesn't seem as if there are any objections to the name change. -asad (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Check again. Also, this isn't a vote. Arguments should be evaluated with reference to established conventions. Specifically, what is the title most frequently used in reliably English sources? The sources cited in the article favor "Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange/swap (deal)." Since the rename is contested, the REQMOVE procedure is advised. An uninvolved editor can then consider the merits of each editor's argument and determine consensus.—Biosketch (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'd also favour the "2011 Israel-Hamas prisoner exchange". This article has been nominated for and looks like it will imminently be put up in ITN on the front page so its best that an accurate title is posted. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Makes sense. Two days from now you'll never hear the name Gilad Shalit again, but you'll almost certainly be linking future articles to the Hamas ex-prisoners listed here. Pedantrician (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Unbiased list
I've tagged the list of prisoners as unrepresentative: [2] I understand this might be a contentions edit, so please discuss it here if you have objections. Thanks for keeping a civil tone and my respect for the parts involved. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- You don't explain why it's unrepresentative so removing the tag and please don't re-add until you have a solid explanation. The list compiled is based on reliable sources that detail prominent and controversial individuals being released. None of the reliable sources I've read talk about prominent "innocent" people being released. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Reliable sources don't trump WP:NPOV. A statement that suggests all the prominent prisoners are murderers is (a) POV and (b) probably a BLP violation. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry that's what the reliable sources indicate. The prominent -- and controversial -- prisoners in dispute are those individuals that have been convicted of involvement in terrorist acts. Nobody is saying that all the prisoners are "terrorists". Let's not split hairs and pretend this has anything to do with BLP issues until proven otherwise by reliable sources. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- I recommend you undo that second revert before you get reported for violating 1RR. We can talk about RS and BLP afterwards. Or after your block expires. Your choice. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Restored your version though don't exactly understand how I violated 1RR. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- I recommend you undo that second revert before you get reported for violating 1RR. We can talk about RS and BLP afterwards. Or after your block expires. Your choice. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry that's what the reliable sources indicate. The prominent -- and controversial -- prisoners in dispute are those individuals that have been convicted of involvement in terrorist acts. Nobody is saying that all the prisoners are "terrorists". Let's not split hairs and pretend this has anything to do with BLP issues until proven otherwise by reliable sources. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Reliable sources don't trump WP:NPOV. A statement that suggests all the prominent prisoners are murderers is (a) POV and (b) probably a BLP violation. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- I tried a second form: [3] Fgnievinski (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Its unclear why the particular prisoners listed are there. Surely wikipedia would require either A - all known prisoners to be listed, or B - all notable prisoners to be listed (ie those that have their own pages or are in imprisoned for notable actions) or C - No prisoners are listed. There is no way to meet objectivity requirements if there is choice over who is in or out. Until the list is complete, I'd be inclined to go for B or C. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- They're there because, as you would know if you had any access to news from an Israeli perspective, there is a good deal of controversy about these people. As you can imagine from the details of their crimes, they have left many dead, and even more survivors, who are understandably upset that someone who was sentenced to multiple life sentences is going free. There were attempts, futile as usual, to block some or all of the releases in the Israeli courts. There is also the fact that these people make no secret of their plans to return to terrorism (I beg your pardon, I meant "militancy"), so these are the names that you will be apologizing for in future Wikipedia articles. Pedantrician (talk) 02:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Also, its unclear to me; how is determined that the listed people are on the list? - I didn't manage to find a link listing them. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Look at the references following the given individuals (refs 15-19). Includes list from the Associated Press, Jerusalem Post, YnetNews and others. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! (Apologies for asking - its not a reference I could read) - I'd just noticed that some of the people are named in this article but not as the perpetrator in the wikilinked events Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Gilad Schalit was a particularly CONTROVERSIAL choice for capture, as he had family working in Amdocs. Such information is not disclosed by most so-called authorities or sources on the matter.
One of the less publicised reasonings behind the specific capture of Schalit was the connection to Amdocs, an Israeli telecoms company involved in international illegal wiretapping. The position of Hamas on the role of illegal Israeli operations abroad targeting Palestinians for assassination or surveillance may have been one of many factors in the capture of Schalit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.193.109.174 (talk) 10:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Requested move
It has been proposed in this section that Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange be renamed and moved to 2011 Israel–Hamas prisoner exchange. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange → 2011 Israel–Hamas prisoner exchange – Editors argue that the title should reflect that the deal was between Israel and Hamas. Others insist that the title conform to the manner in which reliable English sources refer to the event.—Biosketch (talk) 10:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. Reliable secondary sources give prominence to the Gilad Shalid dimension of the prisoner exchange over the Israel–Hamas aspect.—Biosketch (talk) 10:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support – In this case, I think we need to select the more informative name. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support - As per above as the exchange also involves prisoners in captive in addition to Shalit. YuMaNuMa (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. [Racist comment redacted] 83.253.252.51 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
- Oppose. Per Biosketch. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support The parties to the agreement are Israel and Hamas. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. As a political strategy, a diplomatic exchange, and in terms of leverage, Shalit was the only central asset. Both sides refer to Shalit explicitly. Jeydehn (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
- Support: Shalit is the primary asset, yes - from the Israeli perspective. For the other side, it would be prisoners who were detained in Israel. The neutral term for the deal would be to refer to the parties to the prisoner swap deal, i.e. Israel and Hamas. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose: We should use the widely known term in the international media - Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange. Flags-Chaser (talk) 09:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support Accuracy should be prioritised over alignment with mass media. Muzher (talk • contribs) 13:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- oppose Sources clearly emphasize Shalit. There are a few rare examples where he isn't in the title. See for example this Al Jazeera article. But even there the subtitle is "Gilad Shalit handed over to Israel as 477 Palestinian prisoners return in first phase of agreed swap deal." And other articles have Shalit explicitly in the title. So the media everywhere, not just in Western or Israelis sources, is emphasiing Shalit to a significant extent. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Kidnapped vs. Captured
According to User:Debresser, "kidnapped" is an appropriate word for Wikipedia to use because the lede of Gilad Shalit says the media used the word. I disagree. NPOV doesn't apply to the media, but it applies to what is said in "the encyclopedia's voice". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that "captured" is more neutral than "kidnapped" in this context. Jenks24 (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it is sourced, and that is a strong argument to use "kidnapped". And there are two arguments there, that point out the difference between "kidnapped" and "captured", and applying the definition of these words, he was indeed "kidnapped". Debresser (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- The line "soldiers are captured, not kidnapped" sound deceivingly correct. You have to have a look at the facts, to understand what happened here. See the lede of Gilad Shalit for sources and the differences. Sorry, but every word has its definition, and it should be applied rigorously. If you do so, you will find that he was kidnapped. Debresser (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ingrid Betancourt is an unarmed civilian who ran for president of Colombia. She was KIDNAPPED by the FARC. Gilad Shalit is a soldier who was armed and in a tank. He was CAPTURED while in a battle. By the way, the Israeli media use the word "kidnapped" all the time. Debresser fails to point out that a lot of other neutral media outlets from other countries (e.g. USA Today, BBC) use the word "captured". If you read their articles, you will find that he was captured. --98.221.192.218 (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it is sourced, and that is a strong argument to use "kidnapped". And there are two arguments there, that point out the difference between "kidnapped" and "captured", and applying the definition of these words, he was indeed "kidnapped". Debresser (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, this Article uses the word Kidnapped, and theres a big talk about it there and its been decided that its kidnapped - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilad_Shalit
- Start-Class Israel-related articles
- Mid-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- Start-Class Palestine-related articles
- Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- Requested moves