Jump to content

Talk:2025 Gaza war ceasefire

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


Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by AirshipJungleman29 talk 11:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Created by Vice regent (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 10 past nominations.

VR (Please ping on reply) 03:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • The notability of the article is questionable. If the proposal is not implemented and is replaced by another proposal (which seems to be the case at the moment) do you think anyone will be remotely interested in this article a year from now? Vegan416 (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do think it’s a significant proposal that will continue to be mentioned years from now. For example, consider the Palestinian proposal at Camp David, which was eventually replaced by an Israeli proposal. Initial media coverage was mainly focused on the Israeli proposal, but as the years passed by academic literature began to pick up on the Palestinian proposal and we can see evidence of WP:SIGCOV in 2003, 2006, 2007, 2012, 2017 etc.VR (Please ping on reply) 04:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issue with all 3 hooks: lack sufficient clarity that Israel did not agree (both before and after). Do you have an alternative suggestion? FortunateSons (talk) 06:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FortunateSons here is another suggestion:

VR (Please ping on reply) 16:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vice regent This is definitely better, but I would like an uninvolved person to evaluate it. Thank you :) FortunateSons (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issue with hook 2 (and maybe hook 3 as well): The claim may be factually incorrect or misleading. Another reliable source claims that Hamas is not ready to give up its weapons: ""Hamas will not surrender its guns or sign a proposal that asks for that,” Arab mediators said Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar told them in a brief message they received Thursday, as two top U.S. officials, including Central Intelligence Agency Director William Burns, hold talks in the region aimed at jump-starting long-stalled negotiations." Vegan416 (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the proposal is not asking for Hamas to give up its guns? In any case, joining two reliably sourced statements to come to a conclusion is WP:SYNTH. Do you have any reliable sources that directly state that Hamas has rejected this proposal? VR (Please ping on reply) 04:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT4: ...that a ceasefire proposal to the Israel-Hamas war presented by Joe Biden on May 31 was nearly identical to the one presented by Egypt and Qatar on May 5?Source: [8]

Alt4 should be interesting and uncontroversial.VR (Please ping on reply) 05:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: Article attributes, hook doesn't. This should be changed.--Launchballer 12:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is in the first bit of 'Proposals' and is a summary of that section's three subsections. Fine by me, an actual reviewer can adjudicate. Full review needed.--Launchballer 14:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is currently the oldest fully unreviewed nomination and I need a QPQ, so I'm reviewing. Long enough, new enough. Hook checks out per my comment above. QPQ done. Earwig has no valid complaints. There were a few single-sentence WP:PARAGRAPHs and some content bordering on WP:PROSELINE; due to the age of this nom, I've fixed it myself. Let's roll.--Launchballer 09:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Under discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Israel–Palestine hook. Please continue that discussion here. Schwede66 01:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: Continuing the thread from WT:DYK:
why is it relevant that ""article has changed considerably between the original nomination on 18 May and promotion to prep on 5 July""? @User:Launchballer reviewed it on 09:20, 5 July 2024 and presumably did not find any issues with it. – What had me concerned is the possibility of the political situation evolving such that the hook no longer reflects current events (per WP:DYKG). However, it does seem that the original proposal is still on the table [10], so that should be solvable by adding a source published more recently.
As for catchiness, I guess that's subjective. – I stand by my original comment, since I feel having three phases alone isn't a particularly unusual aspect of a plan, but I welcome alternative phrasings or opinions. Complex/Rational 14:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ComplexRational: that's exactly why I chose ALT5. It is a historical fact that simply can't change due to any political developments. Even if the original proposal is no longer on the table, or this entire diplomatic process fails, I think this is still very much an encyclopedic article, for example consider the failed Camp David Summit (see the proposals listed there). As for catchiness, sure we can work on that. Some ideas, all of which are based on historic events that can't be changed:
Do any of those sound interesting? Can provide sources if interest is there.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: The most interesting and workable of these IMO is ALT7, with the small correction of "to the Israel-Hamas War" to "for the Israel–Hamas War".
I'm not as sure about the others. ALT8 might be confusing to some readers since the article later talks about yet-to-be-accepted proposals and could give a false impression that an end to the war is imminent. The idea behind ALT6 is good, though "by stage 2" contradicts the statement that hostages would be released during stage 2 (lead section, second paragraph), and "would envisioned" should be changed to "envision" (grammar, and better to say "the proposal envisions" because the proposal itself is not hypothetical). Complex/Rational 21:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think any hook involving the CIA should mention the word 'director' for precision.--Launchballer 12:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source: "Israel did not even send a delegation to the talks over the weekend, which, in addition to Hamas, included the Egyptians, Qataris, and a US delegation led by CIA director William Burns. (The US does not negotiate directly with Hamas, which it considers a terrorist organization, but communicates its positions and proposals to the group through the intermediaries.) "
Rationale: fairly interesting hook because, as the source itself explains, the US and Hamas don't often see eye to eye.VR (Please ping on reply) 05:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: Where is it in the article? For what it's worth, I think the hook should be reworded to begin "that a ceasefire proposal for the Israel-Hamas war presented on May 5" and end "director of the CIA".--Launchballer 10:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The text was there but was (likely accidentally) removed during editing. I've restored it: "On May 4 and May 5, talks were hosted in Cairo, which were attended by Egyptians, Qataris, Hamas, and a US delegation led by CIA director William Burns. Although Hamas also sent a delegation, the Americans don't directly talk to Hamas, but communicate their proposals through intermediaries."

Its slightly different from your suggestion, but I think well worded? VR (Please ping on reply) 18:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more along the lines of ALT10a: ... that the negotiations for a ceasefire proposal for the Israel-Hamas war presented on May 5, 2024 involved Egyptians, Qataris, Hamas, and the director of the CIA?.--Launchballer 14:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Contentious topics are incredibly difficult to DYK, for the simple reason that contentious topics require all the nuance and verbosity they can get and DYK doesn't do that. Finding a hook that's neutral and not completely banal for a CTOP DYK is difficult under the best of circumstances, and I think this one has gone on quite long enough. All of the outstanding proposed hooks are not intriguing, and as we enter two months of this DYK being open, I'm afraid this one needs to be marked for closure. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron, Launchballer, and AirshipJungleman29:. Not sure why this was closed. It seemed that the main reviewer (Launchballer) and the nominator (myself) finally agreed on a concise and neutral hook that was also interesting. I understand this process has taken long, but most of the time was spent waiting for a reviewer. We have spent quite a lot of effort in getting this done. I appreciate your patience.VR (Please ping on reply) 03:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading Theleekycauldron's comment correctly, then her beef was that she didn't find the hook either, and given the age of the nomination I think she has a point.--Launchballer 09:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, unapproved nominations are routinely rejected once they have passed the two month limit. This nomination is two months old and has not produced a viable hook. I'm closing this again, please don't reopen it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for adding a table/list of prisoner/hostage exchange.

[edit]

There is a long section named "Ceasefire and hostages/prisoners exchange". Just plain text. I suggest adding table with number of prisoner/hostage exchanged, when and where. A picture for each exchange can be added on the table too. Also if possible add name of the prisoners/hostage (atleast some of them).

This table can be a separate section under lead section for quick view. Dark1618 (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done per WP:BLPNAME. I think it's fair to assume some kind of presumption of privacy, and including the names of these individuals doesn't substantially add or remove anything to the article. Originalcola (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

[edit]


  • What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}): Addition of section: Israeli Army Attacks on Civilians after the Ceasefire Deal was announced

In the few days between when the deal was announced and when it went into effect on Sunday morning, Israeli military attacked and killed at least 142 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s Civil Defense, including dozens of women and children. Among them were members of 3-year-old Assad Khalifa’s family. Less than 24 hours after the ceasefire deal was announced, an Israeli airstrike targeted his home. Assad survived, but in an instant, he became an orphan. His mother, father and sister were killed in the strike. His next-door neighbor Moutasem Dallou told CNN the strike happened in the middle of the night and “shook the ground beneath.” Pieces of shrapnel had reached Dallou’s home and terrified his young children. Dallou knew the family as they had been displaced by the war at the same time. He went searching for them under the rubble with other neighbors. Using basic equipment and their bare hands, they were able to uncover and retrieve the dead bodies of the mother and father but the children remained missing. Before they gave up, they heard the cries of a child and began frantically throwing aside blocks of cement until they reached the source. They found a small hand reaching out amid the rubble and gripping the air. They were able to pull the child – Assad – out, roughed up and covered in dust – but alive. His little sister was found dead next to him.

  • Why it should be changed: In order to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the matter at hand, it is imperative that additional context and timeline around the ceasefire be provided. This would not only clarify the circumstances surrounding the ceasefire but also offer a more accurate portrayal of the relevant facts. A detailed examination of the event’s origins, and key developments are presented, but there is a lack in the representation of the facts between announcing the ceasefire deal and when the ceasefire came into implementation. By including such context, the integrity of the representation is preserved, and the potential for misinterpretation or bias is minimized. Moreover, an in-depth review of past events and their impact on the present situation will serve to contextualize the actions and decisions of the parties involved, further ensuring that a fair and balanced representation is achieved.
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/24/middleeast/gaza-israel-dead-ceasefire-child-intl/index.html

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/1/16/israeli-attacks-kill-30-palestinians-in-gaza-after-ceasefire-deal-announced

Publicusername1234 (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Publicusername1234: It seems like the article already mentions violations of the ceasefire by both parties, under the header Violations. I believe the specific incident you mention is included there, albeit with less detail than in this request. Does this solve the issue? QuicoleJR (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@QuicoleJR Not at all. The proposition is for additional section "Israeli Army Attacks on Civilians after the Ceasefire Deal was announced". To clarify, this is for the time between agreeing and signing on the ceasefire and the ceasefire actually coming into effect. Publicusername1234 (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I don't think an entire section is needed, but what if we added that information to the Negotiation History section and renamed it to just History? Would that be an acceptable compromise? QuicoleJR (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

Move

[edit]

@Miminity: See the requested move at Talk:Gaza war#Requested move 17 January 2025. It is not specifically for this page, but I highly doubt that its outcome was intended exclusively for the Gaza war article rather than all articles with titles that included "Israel-Hamas war". Other moves based on this result have already performed per WP:CONSISTENT, such as at the Environmental impact of the Gaza war article. –Gluonz talk contribs 03:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just move it as I don't see any move request in the talk page so... yeah you can move it again I guess... Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 04:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Next release

[edit]

The kidnapped ones to be released - and the price;

For Berger Lake - Israel will release 30 life prisoners with blood on their hands and another 20 prisoners who were imprisoned for various terms of imprisonment. For Arbel Yehud - Israel will release 30 minors and women. For Gadi Mozes - Israel will release 30 prisoners, including 3 who are sentenced to life imprisonment. For the 5 Thai kidnapped ones - no terrorists will be released. In the overall calculation: 33 life prisoners, 47 prisoners sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and another 30 minors and women will be released. https://mobile.mako.co.il/news-military/2025_q1/Article-c9902b95d72b491026.htm?sCh=31750a2610f26110&pId=173113802&main_article=1 2.55.5.247 (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/bysmv1d00ke 87.70.6.108 (talk) 07:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading Information on Phase 3

[edit]

The article states that "Israel would end the blockade of the Gaza Strip and Hamas would not rebuild its military capabilities", as if this has already been agreed to by both sides. When the source article clearly implies that this is what each side would like to get out of negotiations. 184.148.46.141 (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_Gaza_war_ceasefire&oldid=1272818361"