Select Page

Talk:Gaza war

Arrest warrants mention in lead

As I stated in my edit, no Hamas leaders have an outstanding arrest warrant. That's why it doesn't make sense to state that "...the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli and Hamas leaders indicted for war crimes." The only leaders that the ICC has issued arrest warrants for are Israeli leaders. The minor information that the ICC briefly issued an arrest warrant for Muhammad Deif but later retracted it after confirming his death is not important enough to be included in the lead. But even if somehow that was important enough to be included in the lead, it's singular, so it's incorrect to state that the ICC has issued arrest warrants for Hamas leaders. So the phrase (prior to my removal of "and Hamas") is inaccurate. I do think that the way the information is presented in the "war crimes" section is okay. JasonMacker (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:GordonGlottal has reverted my removal of "and Hamas" without explanation or even any notation of the change. Please make your argument as to why it should be included in the lead. JasonMacker (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JasonMacker: Language you use is like "shattering". Achmad Rachmani (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jason. I did attempt to explain in the edit summary—but I had missed this on talk. I don't think it retroactively becomes untrue that they "issued arrest warrants" just because Deif later died. There's also a WP:RECENTISM in assuming that, because Netanyahu and Gallant are alive and Sinwar and Haniyeh are dead as of March 2025, that will effect the long-term evaluation of their conduct, even though the ICC prosecutor did not distinguish them in life. It has bearing on the application of this article to current politics, but IMO probably not to encyclopedic evaluation of historical events. GordonGlottal (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sinwar and Haniyeh never had arrest warrants. As International_Criminal_Court_investigation_in_Palestine#Arrest_warrant_requests states, Karim Khan announced that he intended to request arrest warrants for Sinwar, Deif, and Haniyeh. However, the requests for Haniyeh and Sinwar were withdrawn after Israel killed them. Ultimately, only 1 arrest warrant was issued for a Hamas leader, Muhammad Deif, which was ultimately retracted after Israel killed him too.
So, to recap:
Request for arrest warrants: Netanyahu, Gallant, Deif, Sinwar, Haniyeh
Arrest warrants issued: Netanyahu, Gallant, Deif
Arrest warrants issued that are currently outstanding: Netanyahu and Gallant.
So, with the phrasing in the sentence being "...the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants...", the correct continuation of the phrase is "for Israeli leaders..." because the ICC does not currently have any arrest warrants for Hamas leaders. If you want to really insist that Muhammad Deif be mentioned in the lead, then the sentence would have to become much longer to explain that the ICC had (not "has") issued an arrest warrant for Hamas leader (singular) Deif, but he no longer has an outstanding arrest warrant because he is dead. Again, I don't see why that's so important to include in the lead. JasonMacker (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current wording ("issued arrest warrants for Israeli and Hamas leaders") seems alright. Alaexis¿question? 22:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/11/1157406
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/icc-press-release-arrest-warrant-deif-21nov24/
it does look like arrest warrant was issued. Cinaroot (talk) 05:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

The infobox features casualty figures for the spillover in the West Bank, Lebanon, and Syria, but these portions of the conflict are not listed in the Location field or in the list of combatants. For the sake of consistency, shouldn't these be aligned one way or another? As it currently as, it could imply to a reader unfamiliar with the conflict that the Palestinian groups are the ones operating in Lebanon and Syria.

Apologies if this is something that has already been discussed recently - searching through the archives of the talk page, I was only able to find stuff from 2023. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation for FAQ banner

Could help answer FAQs like "why is this article named XYZ", or "why does(n't) this article mention XYZ". w.i.k.i.w.a.r.r.i.o.r9919 17:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For such a controversial topic, I too am surprised that it does not have a FAQ. Then again, this talk page is ECP'd as well. DotesConks (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would it say? Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would have the results of past RFCs or other discussions that have developed clear consensus. Searching the archive for "RFC", the two things that jump out is who to include as belligerents and maybe inclusion of Hamas sexual violence & rape in lead. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard-of-Earth Its important to note however that this talk page is Extended-Confirmed. And a user who has EC status generally knows Wikipedia basic norms and wont post obvious stuff. DotesConks (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was thinking while looking at the past RfCs that for a controversial page, there are not that many. Perhaps it is pretty clear cut what should and should not be on the page. The people who do not know that will not know to read the FAQ. I did not particularly favor a FAQ, I was just saying what would be on it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will the Gaza war territorial control image be updated?

With the war resuming since the ceasefire, numerous reports have released claiming at least 50% of the gaza strip is occupied by Israel. Yet, the map displaying Israeli control of territory has yet to update since february. Will the map ever be updated? Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, it will have to be updated. GeoffreyA (talk) 06:26, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]