1. The word "hostage" is too inflammatory and
   WP:UNDUE
   for the lead.
2. If the issue is notable enough and there are enough
   reliable sources, Gilad Shalit
   's status as a hostage can be brought up elsewhere in the article, i.e. in a section regarding legal issues in general (there are much more interesting issues then just nomenclature, mind you).

Cheers and thanks for mediating, pedro gonnet - talk - 29.01.2008 09:13

Sources

User:Jaakobou, the sources you cite are only anecdotal evidence. To make a case, you'd have to show that for these sources, the term "hostage" is the preferred term, not just some minority opinion, as per my initial statements. Here's a breakdown of the terminology habits of the sources you quote:

So, yes, you could make a case for

Comments by parties/mediators:

I agree with Steve below that it's probably wise to not compare "Gilad Shilat" with "Gilad Shilat" & "hostage", and instead compare "hostage" with "captive" and "prisoner" to get a broader perspective.

Xavexgoem (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree and will add those numbers when I find the time... My point remains though, that User:Jaakobou's quotes are just anecdotal evidence. To make a point, he'd have to show that this is indeed the preferred term in the majority of the media. On Talk:Gilad Shalit (if I remember correctly) I compared search results for each term on Google News, to cover all sources and not just those favoured by User:Jaakobou. I'll cross-post those results as soon as I find them. pedro gonnet - talk - 30.01.2008 16:24

Comments by others: (this section can be further divided by sub-topic, if desired).

Pedro, i feel it is not relevant to compare the occurences of "Gilad Shalit" with the occurrences of the term "hostage". the real question is how often "hostage" occurs in comparison with other terms which might be used. I do notice that some of your sources do use the word "captive," so i understand that some of your sources here do support the point which you are trying to make. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Steve. Feel free to try the same method with "captive" and/or "prisoner" -- they beat "hostage" by a long shot. I'll add the numbers as soon as I find the time... Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 30.01.2008 16:24

General comments on evidence

comments by sm8900

Pedro, so far i agree completely with Jaakobou. The fact that several objective news sources use the term "hostage", as well as independet groups like B'Tselem, as well as notable groups like the Israeli MFA, provides plenty of basis for using the term "hostage". i feel it is not enough to claim that some articles only use it in the lead. if they use it at all, that seem like plenty of proof that it has some valid basis. Furthermore, it seems a bit overdone to claim that we cannot use terms here which seem inflammatory. If the term has general consensus among notable sources, that seems like pretty strong validity, regardless of the content or tone of the term used. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, the question is -- or should be -- if this is the preferred term. If not, then it's a minority view and it does not belong in the lead. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 30.01.2008 16:26

Hi. what does "preferred" mean? i'm not even looking at media or journalistic sources. the fact that it's used by governmental sources like the US Congress, or the Israeli MFA, or expert sources like B'Tselem, is what seems to me like the strongest evidence. Official or semi-official sources like that don't use terms based on colloquial use, but rather based on what usage is most supported by facts. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, here's a quote from one relevant reuters article. so maybe pedro gonnet has a point too. here is the quote, below. thanks.

JERUSALEM, April 18 (Reuters) - Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Wednesday Israel was not prepared to meet all of the demands of Palestinian militants to secure the release of a captive Israeli soldier.

Hamas, which leads the Palestinian government, has handed over the names of Palestinian prisoners it wants Israel to free in exchange for soldier Gilad Shalit, who has been held by militants in Gaza for 10 months.

"The list is disappointing and creates expectations that are impossible to live up to," Olmert told a parliamentary committee at a closed-door hearing, according to a parliamentary official.

"It has to be within proper proportions," Olmert said of the list, which reportedly includes up to 1,400 Palestinian prisoners.

Israeli media quoted Olmert as saying: "Israel cannot pay any price asked by (soldier) Gilad Shalit's captors". He did not say what he would consider an appropriate exchange.

thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, "captive" is simply a generic term. the fact that reuters uses :"hostage" at all makes it a valid term.

anyway, here's one suggestion for resolution. perhaps we could use a standard techinique which is often used around here, and simply create a new section which would detail the debate over which term to use, with views presented from both sides? does that sound ok? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good.

Xavexgoem (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm off to bed right now. Very tired.

Xavexgoem (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

No problem. thanks for your help. appreciate you alerting us about your current online/offline status. your ideas on resolution are pretty good. don't worry, this can wait. :-) thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comments by Xavexgoem:

Here's the essential problem I'm seeing, now: Jaakabou (with Steve supporting) has introduced evidence as to the use of "hostage" as a generally acceptable term; Pedro has introduced evidence as to the proportion that "hostage" is used (or will be). Both of these are completely acceptable as evidence. But the evidence lies within two domains: one over general practice of terminology (a policy matter), and one over frequency of terminology (a citation matter). I believe that avoiding the terminology altogether and devoting a section to it is entirely reasonable, as this sections off these domains and resolves part of the dispute (edit: imho). Having seen the evidence, I'd much rather editors took their time making proposals concerning the content of the article, until an agreement can be made thereof; an agreement will likely not be made concerning two rather separate and completely defensible positions concerning the merit of any content introduced.

1. Definitions of 'Hostage' - [33] - shows that 'Shalit is "being held hostage [with demands]"' is the proper dictionary description. Intentional avoidance of the (per definition)
   strong opinion
   that can't be helpful to the encyclopedia's objectivity.
2. The dictionary meanings of the other terms -- 'Captive', 'Kidnapped' and/or 'Abducted' -- would make for a high probability that they would appear more often than 'Hostage', since proper English is "Captured / Kidnapped / Abducted and held hostage" (or a variation of this). Ignoring this input and accepting a
   a 'google search' is a clear misuse of statistics
   by misinterpertation of context and correlation.
3. A large chunk of very high quality sources - [34] - use "Hostage" where it is suited -- both editorially and linguistically speaking. They sometimes use it within the body of the article, and sometimes within the lead. Denying the term from the lead in Wikipedia -- based on the issues mentioned above -- a location where it is repeatedly used by these sources; seems like an editorial decision wiki-editors should not promote.
4. We can be fair to the party kidnapping shalit and add a paragraph noting that Palestinians use the term "missing soldier" instead. [35]

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to support Jaakobou's assertion that counting the number of Internet search hits is only partly relevant. It is more important to specifically evaluate individually the specifc role, significance and weight of some of the different terms which are used in various articles and other sources. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an 'outsider' in this debate I would also like to support Jaakobou in this matter. It seems quite clear to me that Gilad Shalit is a hostage as captives/prisoners of war have access to outside agencies to check on their well being. This does not seem to be the case concerning Mr Shalit so, ipso facto, he is a hostage. Jack1956 (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xavexgoem's other proposal

Use the term "captive" as a generic term, but point out that certain organizations consider Shalit a "hostage" (Particularly Israel, Geneva and/or HRW, maybe France). The lead could read something like this:

Gilad Shalit (

I'm glad to see we're moving in the right direction. I'm thinking that because its not a list of who designates Hamas to be a terrorist organization (just a basic well defined and acceptable English term), and because we have numerous dictionary and high quality sources explaining/using the word. We could certainly clarify for the less informed readers that, "he is being held, since his kidnapping/abduction, without basic human rights as a hostage due to Hamas demands from the Israeli government." with the demands explained on their own subsection later in the article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Egads, can you rewrite/clarify that second sentence? :p

Xavexgoem (talk) 10:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry. Basically, I'm following the dictionary and Reliable sources and suggest we write: "he is being held, since his abduction, without basic human rights as a hostage due to Hamas demands from the Israeli government.". Together with this, we should make a subsection which explains the Hamas demands and that they use the term "missing soldier". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for Pedro's input. Personally, I think placing "[basic] human rights" in the

Xavexgoem (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Here's another suggestion trying to consider your notes and avoiding the HR breaches, "he is being held, since his abduction, as a hostage due to Popular Resistance Committees (a Hamas affiliate) demands from the Israeli government.[cite][cite][cite]" Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas is significant, but it appears that the entirety of the PRC (dunno if it's acronym'd) is important enough not to single Hamas out. "Since his abduction by the

Xavexgoem (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

To be honest, I don't follow all the fuss around the English meaning of 'Hostage'. Israeli law certainly does not define the term for the rest of the world; and international law doesn't either - It's a word that's well established into the English language. I'd really appreciate an explanation on this. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I was proposing: use "captive" first, since it's general and requires no explanation. Then declare other facts. Lastly, "hostage", by putting both the ransom demands and the legal status straight into the lead: not only are both topics important to the article later on, they define "hostage" as well (ransom demands and legal status). It allows room for hostage to be less contentious (that's what I was thinking, at any rate) by rebuilding the lead to give the word context.

Xavexgoem (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

(to your suggestion:) The legal status is "war crime", I don't see a big possibility for achieving consensus on that one.

(In general:) I believe that Pedro's 'evidence' based on

WP:OR and that sticking to what the reliable sources say -- and I have not seen a single reliable source (yet) that disputes the term -- we should just write it down in relation to proper terminology without attempting to create new shades of meaning for clearly defined English words. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think it's

Xavexgoem (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

(on original research:) I'm honestly not following your argument. Please explain to me how a statistics research made by a wikipedian is not

WP:V

applies here to say something different than what I'm saying.

(on statistics:) I've explained that there is a misuse of statistics, because there is the false initial assumption that hostage, a word dealing with the hostage demands/situation should appear more often than abducted/kidnapped which discuss the initial aggressive act. In reality, it's almost impossible to start the story with the hostage demands without explaining about the abduction first. I hope that explains my statistics related comment.

(on reliable sources:) Has there been reliable sources saying that he's not a hostage? (I have not seen them yet).

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, now. I think Pedro's argument would remain that "hostage" is still the minority term after the abduction, to which

Xavexgoem (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

We have 18 different reliable sources [*above*]. Is there any reliable source disputing the term hostage? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the two terms are disputed so there is not point in arguing that position. Both terms can be found to be used in articles, but neither of you are willing to use the other so next best thing is to use neither. If either of you arn't willing to consider this then this mediation is pointless without the cooperation of both parties. Seddon69 (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem of using a prisoner/captive/abducted/kidnapped here and there where it fits; I'm against denial of the most proper English terminology (person held under ransom demands) under inaccurate claims. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. not all narratives are accurate - I believe the evidence has weight in this one. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Due to work and other reasons, I'll be off-line until February 18th. I hope we can pause the discussion until then.

In the meantime, there is one major point I'd like to make:

• WP:LEAD
  .

Again, it is User:Jaakobou who wants to introduce this language, so it is up to him to show that this is indeed the preferred term in the media. I have made a reasonable effort to show that this is not the case, which User:Jaakobou conveniently ignored, along with all my other arguments...

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 05.02.2008 15:17

Thank you for the update. I won't be closing the case. Again, thank you.

Xavexgoem (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Xavexgoem and/or Pedro Gonnet, any idea on what part of

WP:LEAD

is supposed to support the anti-'hostage' theory?

Pedro Gonnet, what terms did you notice to be more prevalent when discussing the hostage situation? (not the kidnapping)

cheers. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no answer, except

WP:LEAD

is only a style guideline :)

I'm pausing discussion on the case page. I think talk page is probably better, now.

Xavexgoem (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Xavexgoem,

I'm back online -- sorry for taking so long to get in touch. I am against closing this mediation since the core issue has not been resolved. I admit, I have successively backed out of it but this was out of frustration. Frustration wherewith?

• No Structure. The discussion here is insanely unstructured. I have been very careful to address every point made by User:Jaakobou in his argumentation and to state my concerns as clearly as possible. Unfortunately, this has not been reciprocal. User:Jaakobou has yet to directly address any of the reasons why the word "hostage" has no place in the lead. Every time I answer him on one point, he ignores the reply and jumps to the next argument. When he runs out of arguments, he just takes it back from the top again... I would consider this -- i.e. maintaining a structured discussion, as in argument, counter-argument, synthesis, compromise, etc... -- to be the job of the mediator (that would be you), but somehow, it just doesn't seem to work.
• Burden of Proof. For some very odd reason, I find myself in the rather odd position of having to supply proof as to the term "hostage" not being the preferred term in the media. Beyond the fact that it would be much simpler to prove the positive (i.e. that "hostage" is the preferred term), which no-one has bothered doing, I don't understand why I should be the one gathering proof since it is User:Jaakobou who is intent on inserting this wording to the article. Seriously, logic and policy state that it is User:Jaakobou that has to show that the word is the preferred term, and not me who has to show that it is not. Despite this I have gone to great lengths to show that the term is only used in a minority of media reports and usually not in the context User:Jaakobou implies, yet these arguments have suffered the fate detailed in the paragraph above.

Therefore, far from closing this Mediation, I would prefer, as you have suggested on my talk page, to take this to the next-higher level where it can hopefully be addressed in a more serious, no-bullshit kind of way.

Cheers and many thanks for handling this delicate issue

Pedro Gonnet

Alright, not closing.

I admit that the layout has been a major detriment to the mediation. I think IRC would be a good option. We can address your points there. We'll have to set a date, if Jaakobou agrees.

My IRC rules: what goes on off-wiki stays off-wiki. I request that any other editors follow that.

Also, I realize this has been very stressful for both parties. Please keep a level head.

I need Jaakobou's input first, though.

Xavexgoem (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I feel I've answered all the points but I don't mind further mediation. I'll be on IRC most of the day today, but I may not notice if a discussion has started if I'm on the other computer... still, feel free to catch me. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've set up a channel. I'm on IRC between 06:00 and 18:00 UTC, at least for the moment. Can we set up a time to talk (not counting today)?

Xavexgoem (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]