Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Ceasefire proposal for Israel–Hamas war (May 5)

< Template:Did you know nominations
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)

DYK toolbox

Ceasefire proposal for Israel–Hamas war (May 5)

(
)
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:

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)
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:
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)
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."

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Ceasefire_proposal_for_Israel–Hamas_war_(May_5)&oldid=1236566429"