Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gilad Shalit

This Request for Mediation has been closed. This case was closed at 06:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC). The reason given for closure was: no will to continue. Parties: If you wish to resume this mediation, please file a new request.

1. Jaakobou (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Pedrito (talk · contribs)
3. Drork (talk · contribs) Withdrawn from mediation. 07:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Xavexgoem (talk · contribs)
5. Nickhh (talk · contribs)
6. Timb0h (talk · contribs)

• Gilad Shalit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• WP:RfC - Talk:Gilad_Shalit#RfC:_Use_of_the_term_.22hostage.22_regarding_Gilad_Shalit
• WP:MEDCAB - Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-21 Gilad Shalit

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• The use of the word "hostage" in the article.

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.

• Additional issue 1 - I've not been listed and haven't been involved in the debate until yesterday, although have been aware of it [in fact as I've been reminded now, I was involved in discussions about sources for the word "hostage" back in Decemeber 2007 Nickhh (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)]. In my view though the issue is a bit more subtle than whether the word hostage in used in the article - it's about using the word "hostage", as a definitive description of his status, in the lead to the article. I haven't seen anyone objecting to the use of the word elsewhere in the page, although presumably the involved parties will clarify that themselves. --Nickhh (talk) 07:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:SYNTH in the section "International Law". pedro gonnet - talk - 17.04.2008 15:17
• Additional issue 2 - The possible addition of a section citing the different terminology that has been used by different articles in the media. Possibly as a replacement to terms that are not the preferred terminology from being used in the lead in paragraph Timb0h (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

1. Agree. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree Xavexgoem (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC) (I was the medcabalist for that case; I doubt I have much to contribute)[reply]
3. Agree. DrorK (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree. --Nickhh (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree, reluctantly, hoping that it will be better mediated then the derailed MedCab case. pedro gonnet - talk - 17.04.2008 15:51
6. Agree, I guess Timb0h (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunray (talk · contribs), a trusted editor, has expressed an offer to take this case during his application to join the Mediation Committee, to assist the Committee both with our backlog and our assessment of his nomination. However, as Sunray is not a member of the Committee, it is a generally accepted practice that the parties must consent to a non-Committee member mediating a RfM.

As such, can I ask that all parties to the mediation please list whether they "agree" or "disagree" to Sunray mediating below, in much the same format as the initial agreement above. For the Mediation Committee, Anthøny 19:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Agree or Disagree. Anthøny 19:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. Would be good to have someone from the committee observe a little though. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree! Xavexgoem (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree. Although having done that, can I now opt out of the actual process without derailing it? My view, for what it's worth, is simply that the lead should not use any words such as POW, hostage or such-like. It doesn't need to - it can simply say he was "captured" and is "being held". Other terms can be elaborated on in the main body of the article. I really don't want to get sucked in to a long debate beyond that. --Nickhh (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree, hoping that this mediation will be more on-track and productive than the MedCab case. pedrito - talk - 26.05.2008 11:20
6. Agree DrorK (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, parties, for your prompt agreement. The mediation of this case may now continue, under the wing of Sunray.

Good luck, Anthøny 17:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.

Accept.

For the Mediation Committee, Anthøny 17:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]