Talk:Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Source unreliable[edit]

The introductory paragraph to this article ends with a sentence "The agreement is one of the largest prisoner exchange agreements Israel has ever made, given that as part of the agreement Israel agreed to release 1,027 prisoners for one captured Israeli soldier – the highest price Israel has ever paid for a single soldier."

That reference is a blog entry. While I don't disagree with the numbers or the sentiment, the blog clearly states in its subtitle that "Never before has Israel paid so high a price for a single soldier, while Hamas must have been pushed into a corner to have agreed to such a dramatic compromise." I'm left wondering what was the compromise Hamas had to make to secure this exchange?

Neither of these conflicting opinions belong in wikipedia (that one side was victorious over the other) regarding this exchange. I won't change the page, because I really don't know enough about it, but this smells funny. I would read the page as factual if the following were to be removed from the last sentence:

", given that as part of the agreement Israel agreed to release 1,027 prisoners for one captured Israeli soldier – the highest price Israel has ever paid for a single soldier.""97.87.1.230 (talk) 08:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename[edit]

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)[reply]

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:
  1. 2011 Israel–Hamas prisoner exchange
  2. Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange
  3. Gilad Shalit prisoner swap deal
TheCuriousGnome (talk) 10:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Unbiased list[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Restored your version though don't exactly understand how I violated 1RR. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tried a second form: [3] Fgnievinski (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Eh??? Committing a crime that meets WP notability criteria is a valid reason for inclusion. What someone may or may not do in the future seems a pretty half baked justification to me. 210.50.10.234 (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There was nothing specific about Gilad's capture. He was a random soldier - the one who happened to be on patrol that day. Also, you say that the information is not disclosed by official sources. So how can you prove it? Wikipedia is, as I understand it, based on sources. Galastel (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting.. after checking his IP number's location it turns out that the anonymous user 125.193.109.174 is from Akashi, Japan. I would not be surprised if he belongs to a Japanese company that competes with Amdocs and that he actually desired to use this opportunity purely to defame Amdocs with unfounded false accusations. Does anyone know if Amdocs have any Japanese competitors from the Akashi region? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's simpler than that. It's just a typical conspiratorial thinking: Hamas just knew half a year in advance when they set out to dig their tunnel under the border that on the set day of the attack a son of Amdocs employee will be stationed in a tank there (and I am not saying he is). It was a targeted operation you see. It's not a first time I see someone pushing this conspiracy theory either. WillNess (talk) 09:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm less interested in the baseless absurd conspiracy theory itself and more interested in the fact that a Japanese person from Akashi, Japan has raised this theory here. In my opinion, the possibility that an random average Japanese individual, whom most likely had never visited Israel, would have made up such a far-fetched theory is completely illogical. Therefore, in my opinion, there are most likely only two options - this is either a Palestinian expat or a person with a personal connection to Israel/Palestinian territories that lives in Japan, which continues to be updated about all the Middle East news and far-fetched theories on the new events from his home in Japan and is trying to spread false theories through Wikipedia, OR this is actually a Japanese employee of a company that competes with Amdocs and that he actually desired to use this opportunity purely to defame Amdocs with unfounded false accusations. I guess we would never know who this anonymous user really is but it is worth mentioning this here in case somebody recognizes the exact location of this IP number or in case somebody here would actually know of such a competing company in Akashi, Japan. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

'No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange → 2011 Israel–Hamas prisoner exchange –Relisted Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 06:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC) 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Support – In this case, I think we need to select the more informative name. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As per above as the exchange also involves prisoners in captive in addition to Shalit. YuMaNuMa (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. [Racist comment redacted] 83.253.252.51 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC) — 83.253.252.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Oppose. Per Biosketch. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The parties to the agreement are Israel and Hamas. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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) — Jeydehn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Apparently Hamas puts a 1/1000-th of a value on each their prisoner compared to Shalit's; neutral view would be to reflect this fact; trying to suppress it behind non-informative formulation is not neutral. Plus, 2011 is not over yet, the proposed name is not discerning enough. WillNess (talk) 09:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support Accuracy should be prioritised over alignment with mass media. Muzher (talk • contribs) 13:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support DarklyCute 02:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support With a redirect from the Gilad Shalit title. The proposed title is neutral and encyclopedic. The Gilad Shalit title, while virtually omnipresent, is an inaccurate and misleading representation of the event. Pinkville (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A total of 1028 prisoners were exchanged; Gilad Shalit was only one of them. A more informative name will help readers identify the action. +mt 06:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A total of 1027 prisoners were traded for 1 Gilad Shalit. Gilad Shalit was not one of them, he was one opposite them. There could be no more informative name for the article than the one already given to it. Plus, the proposed name is not discerning enough - 2011 is not over yet. WillNess (talk) 09:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support According to WP:POVTITLE, all three conditions seem to be at least partially violated, and a 'more encyclopedic' title is easily found. However, I would argue (and I'm not sure whether that would require another REQMOVE), that Israeli-Palestinian is appropriate: Hamas governs at least a share of the Palestinian state. It would be equally awkward to call it Likud-Palestinian prisoner exchange. Djupp (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wouldn't, actually, if Likud was governing Israel through a one-party government after a military takeover, had its own military wing, and would use it to capture a Palestinian soldier in cross-border raid. WillNess (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose changing the widespread name for anyone made up by wikipedia editors, Wikipedia is not a primary source. Do the supporters believe that the Jibril Agreement article should be renamed too?--Rataube (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per JoshuaZ - Shalit is the headline around the world and the article title should reflect that. Number 57 19:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Changing the name would create a moral equation between Gilad Shalit, one captured / kidnapped soldier, and 1000 Palestinian prisoners, serving terms for crimes, murder among them. Such an equation does not reflect the truth of the events. --Galastel (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We cannot make moral judgments either way. Neutrality and sources are what matter, not anyone's own moral feelings. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for reasons listed from above.
      – HonorTheKing (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per Biosketch, JoshuaZ, Rataube, et. al. WillNess (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the most common name should be used. See also WP:POVTITLE for why most of the support votes are not valid reasons to rename. The example of the Jibril Agreement given above is a good one. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, if putting Shalit in the title is good enough for Al Ahram, it's certainly good enough for Wikipedia. We don't need to be holier than the pope, sacrificing clarity for forced and imaginary neutrality. The alternative merely hides the article behind a meaningless title. Poliocretes (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"racist comment" vote[edit]

And I believe the vote with accompanying "racist comment" by 83.253.252.51 (talk) should be struck. Pinkville (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what policy? Besides, I believe that it was a badly worded sarcasm directed at Hamas, more than anything else. It doesn't say that "[controversial statement not quoted]", but rather that "everyone, including Hamas, agree that [controversial statement not quoted]" which I don't think a reasonable person could plausibly believe, even if believing that statement themselves. WillNess (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be excluded as a vote by anonymous IP without any edits behind it. WillNess (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Kidnapped vs. captured[edit]

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)[reply]

I agree that "captured" is more neutral than "kidnapped" in this context. Jenks24 (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.181.155 (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could use both? Everybody could write whatever way he thinks fit, and we would all agree not to change the way it is written originally. Just a suggestion, by way of compromise. Debresser (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muamar brothers[edit]

Inclusion of Cook as source is not UNDUE, Medialens is a completely acceptable source, and no, Hamas did not build the tunnel to capture Shalit. Regardless of anything else, inclusion of the Muamar abduction provides context. Pinkville (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Cook is blatant UNDUE, since it is an opinion piece by a highly partizan author, lacking any shred of support from any credible source. Your assersion that "Hamas did not build the tunnel to capture shalit" contradicts multiple sources (here's one from the New York Times) and suggests you are not quite familiar with the details of case. The Muamar "abduction" therefore does not provide context but is rather an attempt to suggest linkage without any supporting evidence - Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Poliocretes (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support poliocretes explanation. Jonathan Cook is in fact not an acceptable source. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You both assert that Cook is not RS (though he's a journalist for a mainstream newspaper - the Guardian) and provide no support for the assertion. As for the tunnel, I don't pretend the tunnel wasn't built, but there is nothing that says that it was built to capture Gilad Shalit (even the linked NYT article simply says that Sergeant Shalit had been captured in a surprise raid mounted by Hamas and two other militant groups on an Israeli military post at Kerem Shalom, after having dug a long tunnel beneath the Rafah sands under the border., without providing any time frame or context for the tunnel's construction. As for the Muamar brothers, several well known analysts have pointed out the connection between their capture and the subsequent capture of Shalit - these include Cook, Noam Chomsky and Caleb Carr [4]. I propose a rewrite in which the Muamar brothers' capture is noted as an incitement to the Palestinian attack, according to Carr and others. Can't see why this should be considered "contentious". Pinkville (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Chomsky. The plot thins. The very fact that you have to rely on such a partisan figure to support your assertion speaks volumes about the lack of proper sourcing for what is nothing but a highly biased opinion, by someone that is not an unbiased expert or "analyst", but a political operator. As for the Guardian, had Cook's piece appeared in the Guardian there would be somthing to talk about. The Guardian, however, also publishes articles by the Hamas leadership, so having been published in the Gruan obviously means nothing. Also, your suggestion that we cannot link the tunnel to the actual operation is disingenious, as it certainly predates your "abduction" and therefore puts the attempted linkage into further question. It seems like you're trying to have it both ways. We could, however, discuss a rewrite. Here's a BBC article that actually gives some context about said "abduction", showing that the Hamas operation was in planning long before it occured, and Israel's action was in fact fully justified in light of later events. Poliocretes (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You studiously avoid mentioning Caleb Carr, the source I suggested be included/named. And to digress, your evident dislike of Chomsky says nothing about his status as a much cited analyst of Middle East (and other) affairs. As for the tunnel, like any other (presumably) military infrastructure, it may be used at any time once it is operational. Having built the tunnel, the Palestinians chose to use it the very day after the first Israeli incursion into Gaza territory since their withdrawal the year before - hardly insignificant timing. It's the timing that is key. TheCuriousGnome below, refers to a Hamas bargaining chip policy. Again, the existence of such a tactic, and of the means to implement it, does nothing to diminish the significance of the timing of the Palestinians' capture of Shalit. It was a response to Israel's invasion of Gaza and capture of the Muamars. You can simply reverse the situation to see the truth of this... Israel then responded to the capture of Shalit by taking measures that are rather better known than their actions of the 24 June 2006 (albeit in keeping with greater strategic plans). My suggested rewrite will follow. Pinkville (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the linked BBC article supports my point by indicating that the timing of Hamas's attack was altered in response to Israel's actions. Pinkville (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Timing does not imply causality. Moreover, the decision to perform kidnap/capture operation predated the building of the tunnel, and the mere setting of the date of long-before decided upon operation is inconsequential. WillNess (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 2006 Hamas cross-border raid and the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier attack were not a spontaneous retaliation carried out in response to an event that happened a day before. There is no doubt about that. This attack was extremely well planned many months ahead with the ultimate goal being – to obtain a bargaining chip for the purpose of releasing hundreds of Palestinians prisoners from Israeli prisons. The definitive proof that this raid was planned for a long time is the 300-metre-long underground tunnel that was dug for a long period of time especially for this operation to succeed so that they would be able to surprise the IDF force from within Israel and use that advantage to kidnap an Israeli soldier (if they wanted just to kill Israeli soldiers they could have just used rocket launchers and not risk themselves like this). Also, some of the attackers actions during the raid indicate a fairly rigorous planning. I have to add that during the early 2000s and mid-2000s Hamas went to great lengths, and publicly encouraged its members, to do their utmost in order to kidnap IDF soldiers, long before Osama and Mustafa Muamar were detained - actually, one of the biggest supporters of the Israeli Bargaining chip tactic was the founder of Hamas Sheikh Ahmed Yassin whom was assassinated two years before Shalit was kidnapped. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested rewrite[edit]

I suggest...

Shalit's captors held him in a secret location in the Gaza Strip for a total of 1,934 days leading up to the prisoner swap deal.[9] While in captivity, Hamas refused to allow the International Red Cross access to Shalit, and the only indications that he was still alive were an audio tape, a video recording, and three letters.
Historian Caleb Carr, among other analysts, have written that the operation resulting in the capture of Gilad Shalit was undertaken in response to the Israeli Defence Forces' abduction of Gaza civilians Osama and Mustafe Muamar, conducted the day before.Carr

Thoughts? Pinkville (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is well poisoning and lending WP:Undue weight to a WP:fringe theory. Furthermore, this article is focusing on the prisoner exchange not on Shalit's actual capture. If you really want to have this fight you should be editing at 2006 Hamas cross-border raid. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't want a fight. I want inclusion of an observation made be well-established analysts and commentators (and hardly fringe, by WP or any other definition). Pinkville (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. One is not plural. You'd need more than one, objective and well-estalished non-partisans, and previously mentioned by you highly partisan (on ME issues) Chomsky won't cut it. WillNess (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would Israel release hundreds of dangerous criminals?[edit]

The article does not try to explain why Israel offered to release hundreds of convicted terrorists, kidnappers and murderers in exchange for one hostage. Prisoner exchanges are not normally one exchanged for over a thousand. Why are most Israelis in favour of this deal, which involves freeing prisoners who have murdered a large number of Israelis? 89.194.5.34 (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no explanation on the article simply because there is no explanation at all. This also doesn't make any sense to me, I suppose it doesn't to most people outside Israel 189.25.2.94 (talk) 07:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's related to the fact that there's draft in Israel. You always know that the next kidnapped soldier might be your brother or your son, and you'd want them to be ransomed as soon as possible. 85.64.35.235 (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another troubling reality, which the media seems to be neglecting, is the lack of any condemnations from the Palestinian Authority to the heinous crimes committed by hundreds of these released prisoners against innocent Israeli civilians, among them children. The Palestinian Authority (whom aspire to become a state), and controls the West Bank (Hamas controls the Gaza Strip), received 68 Palestinians prisoners as part of this deal (32 of them served life sentences for planning and perpetrating terror attacks), YET the PA did not explicitly condemn the crimes these people committed against innocent civilians, but instead praised their release and referred to them as fighters who fought a legitimate war against justified enemy targets. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kind reminder: this talkpage is to discuss the article. It is not a forum for discussion of the events described in the article. Debresser (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is proper to discuss issues as pertaining to their inclusion in the article. Here clearly a question rises in a casual reader's mind, brought up above. Since it is provoked by the article, and only naturally so, it should be somehow addressed in the article. First we need to establish the answer, then (or at the same time) find RS for it, then write-up a copy. I think.
So, why? The answer is multi-fold. First, there's no reliable polling on the issue[citation needed]. The validity of posts polls were contested by many well-respected figures,[citation needed] like Eyal Megged in Channel 1 newscast for instance. Many in Israel (from center to the right) argue[citation needed] the Shalit deal is part[citation needed] of a "left-leaning Israeli MSM"[citation needed] agenda. They would argue that this is a case of manufactured non-existent consensus. In fact many in Israeli MSM have since Shalit's release openly admitted to having an agenda in favor for the deal and as having acted on it, to influence the public's mind. But if not most, certainly many Israelis are in favor. One answer could be the "value of life" i.e. the Jewish sentimentality/sensibilities, especially after (pardon) the Holocaust and in the situation of decades long war draft, as discussed above. Pidyon Shvuyim is a value, although Halacha actually explicitly prohibits paying exorbitant price to redeem a prisoner. The gov't might have acted out of being cornered by the press[citation needed] (there was enormous coverage throughout all the last years, complete with days-counting and "people marches on PM's office" etc.[citation needed]), or out of a hidden agenda that one respected "Arab issues" political observer (Guy Bechor) on Channel 2 morning newscast suggested, to empower Hamas against PLO to weaken its cause for a state, hostile to Israel, - "they can't give a state to Hamas". The pro-Arab Israeli politicians might sincerely act on Hamas's behalf (i.e. out of anti-Israel motivation). The secular leftist ruling elites[citation needed] might do it to maintain their worldview of "peace around the corner"[citation needed]. As can be seen, it is a big topic, to say the least. Maybe the biggest is the nature of Israeli media and their ability to suppress discussion and stifle debate.[citation needed] There's no talk radio in Israel, much less "FOX" TV news. The many voices against the deal, both emotional and logical, both from humanities side and from the various retired security, intelligence and army officials, were only scantly heard if at all.[citation needed] Good luck finding RS for that, esp. in the Israeli media themselves (and even moreso in the world media where the centrist Likud[citation needed] is smeared as far-right, as a commonplace). (all the [citation needed] tags inserted by me) WillNess (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tag bombing[edit]

Somebody please remove DarklyCute's tag bombing here: [5]. Over the past few days, users have been bombarding this article with unexplained tags. If there is no corresponding and convincing talk page discussion that is based on Wikipedia policy rather than just WP:IDONTLIKEIT, these tags should be immediately removed. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the process of removing them, but a keen-eyed editor beat me to it. I would assume this article would fall under the Arab-Israeli conflict editing restrictions (i.e. zero tolerance for tendentious editing). Joefromrandb (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Interview[edit]

In addition to what is already said about this interview, some of the things Gilad says in Hebrew are mistranslated to English and Arabic, or omitted entirely, when what he says isn't what they want to display. For example, when asked about whether he thinks Palestinian prisoners in Israel should be released, Gilad answers that it would be good if they are released, on the condition that they never fight against Israel again. Only the first part of his words is translated. Source: HonestReporting. Galastel (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

569 Israeli deaths in the lead[edit]

There's a certain confusion here. Haaretz text says Jabari claimed the 41 deported among the released were responsible for the 569 deaths. As some were not deported but rather sent into Gaza, like Helena Rapp's murderer, this appears to be incomplete. Can someone with access to the Al-Hayat perhaps consult it and see what it was saying? WillNess (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Public reactions following approval of the agreement Bias unbalanced[edit]

The statements by the Ahlam Tamimi are generally removed from the subject. The entire section seems to feed the sensationalism of "Allah and terror". stabbing the enemies of Allah and Khalil Abu 'Elba who "drives a car, and crushes the enemies of Allah." He also praised Abd al-Hadi Rafa Ghanim. DId they say it?- yes, but This is selecting the most provocative views and statements to make/paint one picture only. It is not balanced. 100% negative selection, handpicked to shock. they would bring the Jews down, one after the other (oh the choice of extracts). I could find similar statements made by Israel and plaster them all over that section, but that section is all calm and peaceful and diplomatic. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Highest Price"[edit]

The statement the highest price Israel has ever paid for a single soldier" in the intro sounds a little POV to me, I was wondering if there was any consensus to change it and if so what wording would be better.Dhawk790 (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely what the source says: "Never before has Israel paid so high a price for a single soldier." — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the source seemed more like an opinion piece/analysis than reporting, which might not fit into the article's lead. I have no real opinion about it, I was just curious about what other people thought. I don't really know what the standards are. Thanks. Dhawk790 (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be wise to include something about the second part of the quote "while Hamas must have been pushed into a corner to have agreed to such a dramatic compromise"? Dhawk790 (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the opinion/analysis part of it. The part being Israel's largest prisoner exchange is a definite fact; if you're not happy with the ref being used, although I believe Haaretz analyses that write stuff as facts are RS (saying that Hamas "must have" is not necessarily a fact, it's an analysys), then it should be relatively easy to find another ref. Heck, here's one from NPR, although taken as something Hamas said. So here's one also from Christian Science Monitor. I'll go and put that ref in, while changing the sentence to reflect that it wasn't one of the largest, but rather the largest (which also removes contradiction from the sentence, as second sentence says it was the largest). --Jethro B 22:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fair, thanks for the other sources. Dhawk790 (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ref[edit]

"The first captured Israeli soldier to be released alive in 26 years" [6]. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done although feel free to be WP:BOLD --Jethro B 23:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are Khalil Al-Khayeh and Khalil al-Hayya the same person?[edit]

Just wondering, but I can't be sure from the pictures[7][8]. I've stubbed out a bio here. -- Kendrick7talk 17:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prisoners Israel refused to release[edit]

There was extensive news coverage of prisoners Israel declined to release, despite requests for their release by Palestinian negotiators. The first of these that I added to the page, Marwan Barghouti was deleted with the comment "wishing don't make it so -- sorry, but your attempt to make a section out of one man -- Barghouti -- and a wisp of an article -- the murder -- is POINTy and it's POV pushing". I believe that it should be restored, as material pertinent to the event - a prisoner exchange - that was the subject of substantive, extensive news coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for refusing to include in the deal and notable prisoners not released is impotant and was covered intensively both in Israeli and in Arab press. Coverage of this issue should be wider than just Barggouti of course.Icewhiz (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edits that add a single, well-sourced, notable fact can be valid, even though they fail to add other, similar notable facts. User:Malik Shabazz's justification for the removal, the accusation that this was an "attempt to make a section out of one man" was POV pushing since this edit was part of a section listing " Prominent prisoners Israel refused to release." Prisoners plural. Checking the sources of the edit he deleted would have shown Shabazz that other well-known prisoners in the category existed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilad_Shalit_prisoner_exchange&oldid=1207423089"