Talk:Kidnapping of Naama Levy

Requested move 20 May 2024

Kidnapping of Naama Levy → Capture of Naama Levy – Naama Levy is not a civilian but rather an Israeli soldier. She was taken by militants from the Gaza Strip, making this an international incident and part of an act of war. It is more WP:CONSISTENT to use capture based on these examples: Capture of Saddam Hussein, Che Guevara#Capture, Manuel Noriega#Capture, Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed#Capture, interrogation, and torture, Capture of Manuel Briones etc. The article on Gilad Shalit says "was captured by Palestinian militants". The word "capture" is more WP:NPOV and doesn't imply a value judgement like "kidnapping" does. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Scholarly sources seem to prefer "capture" over "kidnapping" even for regular troops. Note "corporal" is the lowest rank of soldiers.

Caption text

Text	JSTOR hits
"capture of soldiers"	24
"kidnapping of soldiers"	17
"soldier captured"	322
"soldier kidnapped"	25
"capture of corporal"	13
"kidnapping of corporal"	3
"corporal captured"	6
"corporal kidnapped"	1

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

The pages related to the other hostages in Category:Israel–Hamas war hostage crisis are named:

• Rescue of Ori Megidish
• Kidnapping of Hersh Goldberg-Polin
• Kidnapping of Naama Levy
• Kidnapping of Noa Argamani
• Kidnapping of the Bibas family
• Kidnapping of Yarden Roman-Gat
• Kidnapping of Mia Schem
• Killing of Alon Shamriz, Yotam Haim, and Samer Talalka
• Killing of Shani Louk

Mason (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Update: I found a page that describes a much more similar situation than Gilad Shalit: Abduction_and_killing_of_Nachshon_Wachsman. Here's the lead of the article.

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.

• Abduction and killing of Nachshon Wachsman (soldier)
• Abduction and killing of Nissim Toledano (border police)
• Killing of Avi Sasportas and Ilan Saadon (soldiers)
• Abduction and killing of Yaron Chen (soldiers)

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)

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)

My point was that there are other more cases/examples than just the one the nominator used. WP:Consistent is also policy.Mason (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

But none of those articles are called "kidnapping". Those article show it would be not WP:CONSISTENT to call this article "Kidnapping". VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

OPPOSE. Y My thoughts expressed here. Kvwiki1234 (talk) 01:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

oppose. Term “capture” is loaded. Language legitimizes the act of taking her. SecretName101 (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• 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.

Caption text

Header text	"gilad shalit" "kidnapped"	"gilad shalit" "kidnapping"	Total (kidnapping)	"gilad shalit" "captured"	"gilad shalit" "capture"	Total (capture)
JSTOR	187	157	344	249	215	464
Taylor & Francis	103	86	189	156	133	289
Google scholar	585	611	1,196	844	689	1,533

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Or the title of the page could be just changed to Naama Levy, like in the page for Gilad Shalit. --78.208.128.133 (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

She's only known for the one event, which typically means that the person doesn't get a biography. Mason (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

“Abduction” would be the best term, IMO SecretName101 (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

  "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)

  They were taken as hostages. Hostages are kidnapped. POWs are captured. Coretheapple (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  It goes both ways.[1] O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, if the IDF took hostages, they would be considered kidnapped. That article doesn't say the IDF took hostages. Coretheapple (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  In war, the other side takes hostages and your side captures. That's the language of both sides. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  The IDF had literally taken thousands of "hostages" since the conflict began. It's classic WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• Whatever RS say O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• 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)

  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)

  @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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  WP:RGW Coretheapple (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  WP:CIV Do not throw around false accusations like that. WP:NPOV I believe both sides are guilty of great wrongs. I am just trying to create balance. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  Well, I'm just responding to what others said here. Which appears to be a waste of time. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  I am happy to hear your clarification on this. Coretheapple (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  @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)

  I'm not the one who brought them up. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  But you are commenting on them. I just don't think it is relevant. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  I am glad we are in agreement that what prisoners are called in Israel is of no relevancy to this article. Coretheapple (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Cameron Dewe can you explain why more reliable sources use "capture" (as opposed to "kidnapped") for Gilad Shalit? Should we not be following WP:COMMONNAME? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  @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)

  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)