Talk:Three-phase Israel–Hamas war ceasefire proposal

Feedback

@Makeandtoss: we can continue our conversation here. Feel free to edit the article.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Consider WP:DYK. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Done, please see Template:Did you know nominations/Ceasefire proposal for Israel–Hamas war (May 5). VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that celebrations happened in the Gaza Strip after Hamas accepted an Egyptian-Qatari ceasefire proposal?

• Source: [1], [2]

• ALT1: ... that Hamas accepted an Egyptian-Qatari ceasefire proposal under which it would agree not to rebuild its military arsenal? Source: [3]
• ALT2: ... that CIA Director William J. Burns played a key role in drafting an Egyptian-Qatari ceasefire proposal that Hamas accepted? Source: [4] [5]
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Julius Welschof

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).

• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)

FortunateSons here is another suggestion:

• • ALT3: ... on May 31, Joe Biden presented a three-phase ceasefire proposal that was welcomed by Hamas but opposed by some members of the Israeli cabinet? Source: [6][7]

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)

@Vice regent: Article attributes, hook doesn't. This should be changed.--Launchballer 12:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• ALT5: ... that a ceasefire proposal to the Israel-Hamas war presented by Egypt and Qatar on May 5 would consist of three stages? Source: [9]
  • @Launchballer: this hook should be pretty uncontroversial and should not need any attribution.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

@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)

@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:

• ALT6:that a three-stage ceasefire proposal to the Israel-Hamas war presented by Egypt and Qatar on May 5 would envisioned the release of all hostages by stage 2?
• ALT7:that the CIA was involved in the negotiations that lead to a ceasefire proposal to the Israel-Hamas war presented by Egypt and Qatar on May 5?
• ALT8:a ceasefire proposal to the Israel-Hamas war presented by Egypt and Qatar on May 5 was accepted the next day by Hamas?

Do any of those sound interesting? Can provide sources if interest is there.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@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)

I think any hook involving the CIA should mention the word 'director' for precision.--Launchballer 12:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• ALT9:that the CIA director, Egyptians, Qataris and Hamas were all involved in the talks that lead to a ceasefire proposal for the Israel-Hamas war presented on May 5?

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)

@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)

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."

• ALT10: that the talks that resulted in the May 5 ceasefire proposal for the Israel-Hamas war, had involved Egyptians, Qataris, Hamas and CIA Director William Burns?

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

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

add the 3 disagreed points of the proposal

right after the sentence:

"Hamas said it disagreed with three points in that proposal"

add: "the 3 points that they disagreed in that proposal:

• a permanent ceasefire
• withdrawal of what the source called “occupation forces” – that is, Israeli troops – from the Gaza Strip
• the return of displaced people from the south to the north."

the citation could be from the same cnn article https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/03/middleeast/isreal-delegation-cairo-gaza-hostages-intl/index.html 79.180.47.77 (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

clarification regarding the living Israeli hostage

in the wikipedia article is regarding the 1st stage of the deal

"In this stage, Hamas would release 33 Israeli captives. It would start with releasing all living Israeli children (under 19), all living civilian women, all living elderly (over age 50) Israelis, and all living female Israeli soldiers"

but in the aljazeera article its written:

"During the first phase, Hamas shall release 33 Israeli captives (alive or dead), including women (civilians and soldiers), children (under the age of 19 who are not soldiers), those over the age of 50, and the sick, in exchange for a number of prisoners in Israeli prisons and detention centres, according to the following [criteria]:

.....

If there are fewer than 33 living Israeli detainees to be released, a number of bodies from the same categories shall be released to complete this stage. In return, Israel will release all women and children who were arrested from the Gaza Strip after October 7, 2023 – provided this is done in the fifth week of this stage."

can we address possibility of fewer then 33 hostages alive in the summery of the first step of the deal? 79.180.47.77 (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

To be added: Egyptian intelligence may have changed term

Link

Thoughts? FortunateSons (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

And now they are saying the same thing about Joe Biden. I think Egyptian response to the allegations against it is quite apt: "Some parties play a game of accusing the mediators, blaming and accusing them of bias in order to evade making the required decisions." VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

AfD?

I'm not sure that every proposal that anyone suggests during a long process of negotiations deserves a wikipedia article Vegan416 (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Its worth noting that Joe Biden just announced a proposal that reliable sources are saying is almost "identical" to the ceasefire proposal this article is about:

• On May 6, Hamas said it had agreed to a ceasefire proposal by Egypt and Qatar that appears to be almost identical to the one Biden announced on Friday. Israeli leaders rejected that initiative. Al-Jazeera
• "This deal to stop the war is nearly identical to Hamas, its own proposals, of only a few weeks ago" Washington Post quotes a Biden administration official.
• "The proposal Biden outlined in great detail appeared nearly identical to the one Hamas agreed to in early May. The main exception appeared to be no reference to the complete lifting of Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip." Middle East Eye

almost identical" to the proposal this article is about.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

"almost identical" is not identical. Vegan416 (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Article replacement

This edit completely replaces the article by deleting almost everything that was there previously, and replacing it with an entirely different article. I understand the topics are strongly connected. And I wouldn't have objected if the edit merely added the material without removing the previous material. Hence I will undo this edit. I will also undo the undiscussed move. Please start a move request.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@ElijahPepe: by the time I found the "In use" template there had been no edits for nearly 15 hours. Once you're done with edits, please remove the in use template.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Great, I can clear this article off my "to write" list. Feel free to do the work yourself. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 June 2024

This page currently identifies Greg Casar as a US senator. It should be updated to reflect that he is actually a member of the House of Representatives. Arcturus95 (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 June 2024 (2)

Should Details of the March 5 proposal and Reactions to March 5 proposal both be May 5?

There does not seem to be any mention of March anywhere else, so this seems like a typo to me. Arcturus95 (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Fix redundance

It’s redundant to say “female soldiers” after you already said “women” in “the total number of alive children, women, elderly and female soldiers”. 82.36.70.81 (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 June 2024

I request that we change "all Israeli being held in Gaza" to "all *Israelis* being held in Gaza." As in, change the singular to a plural. Zoozoor (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2024

The third sentence of the third paragraph in the Negotiations Process, April: Initial discussions, Antony Blinken is referred to as Blinked. The sentence should be changed from "Blinked said Israel's offer was "extraordinarily generous" and blamed Hamas for not accepting it." to "Blinken said Israel's offer was "extraordinarily generous" and blamed Hamas for not accept it." Hennyd245 (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: the original grammar is more correct Bunnypranav (talk) 06:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I mistakenly retyped the end of the second sentence. I was trying to say "Blinked said" should be changed to "Blinken said" because it is a name of a person. Hennyd245 (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)