Talk:March 2025 Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip/Archive 1

Archive 1

Proposed merge of Israel's March 2025 Airstrikes on Gaza into March 2025 Israeli strikes on Gaza

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This newly created article covers the same topics. TheDragonFire (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Support SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Speedy Support: It's a shorter version of the pre-existing page, with some details that could be merged in. Yes I am a nerd -XCBRO172 (How could you tell?) 05:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended protection request

Due to the sensitive topic being discussed, I propose raising the edit protection status of the page in order to prevent vandalism and emotion-based impulsive edits, especially since its edit protection is quite low for such a topic and ongoing event. GabMen20 (talk) 06:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2025

The article is full of politicization of an article Liad1456 (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 07:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible to remove the part where it is stated that the "genocide in Gaza" has been resumed?  This hurt the principles of neutrality (and this information has no source) ס.ג'יבלי (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Cannolis ס.ג'יבלי (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh sorry, Now I see it has already been removed ס.ג'יבלי (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Ceasefire Violations Change

The article blames Israel for violating the ceasefire ("However, the Israel Defense Forces violated the ceasefire hundreds of times..."), but cites many allegations from Palestinian officials. It should be mentioned that these "hundreds" of violations are at least in part alleged.

Missing also Hamas ceasefire violations, both alleged and admitted (e.g.: [3][4][5]). These should be added. אקעגן (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to submit an edit request and wait for someone more experienced in CTOPs than me to respond. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I've BOLDly added a sentence with regards to Source 1 (the edit might get reverted). Source 2 isn't loading for me, and per WP:RSP, "The Jerusalem Post should be used as a source for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict only to cite basic facts or if its reporting is validated by additional reporting from another source not similarly limited", which I don't believe is the case here. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hundreds of Palestinians were killed by Israel in Gaza during the ceasefire. The only Israelis killed were those felled by friendly fire. The idea that it was Hamas that broke the ceasefire is not credible. Rafe87 (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure if that is true. In any event, no one is making that claim. אקעגן (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

It is true, and many people have made the claim that Israel violated the "ceasefire" all throughout. Rafe87 (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Read the cited articles and linked pages, in which numerous claims that Hamas violated the ceasefire are made.

Your claim that "The only Israelis killed were those felled by friendly fire" is made without citation, and is irrelevant. אקעגן (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Israel claimed Hamas beheaded babies and that Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields, but the only true pictures of beheaded babies out of this genocide depicts Palestinians, and the only videos of Palestinians being used as shields show Israeli perpetrators. Israel makes many claims to justify barbarity. These claims are generally not credible. And that the only two Israelis killed during the "ceasefire" were contractors downed by the IDF itself is absolutely relevant in evaluating how Palestinians observed the ceasefire (better than Israel). Rafe87 (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hamas makes claims which are dubious, and Israel makes claims that are dubious. Neither of them should necessarily be taken at their word. For this reason, their claims should be included, as well as where they are disputed. All your claims, at any rate, remain unsourced. אקעגן (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Reliable sources are admitting it was Israel that ended the ceasefire. Here's an article about one of the Israelis killed by Israel itself; the article notes no Israel had been killed in Gaza in the weeks before: https://archive.ph/JRnJv Rafe87 (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure which dubious statements by Hamas you mean, but if this is in reference to statements about the 150 Palestinians that were killed by Israel during the "ceasefire", these are generally based on information given by health officials whose work is non-political and seen as reliable by international actors. Rafe87 (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey אקעגן, keep in mind that "You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)". EC access requirement is 500 edits and 30 days account age. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, this is (or was) an edit request. I can stop responding if that is considered to be "discussion," but I don't enjoy having my requests hijacked. אקעגן (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL

Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL we shouldn't have extensive lists of casualties, even if those have been mentioned in reliable sources. Generally, as a rule of thumb, we should mention WP:NOTABLE casualties by name, and the rest should be enumerated, not listed. Hence I'm removing the casualty list.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Then why where several importend Commanders Removed? Here are also two new ones:

Yasser Mohammed Harb Musa, a member of Hamas's politburo who headed the defense portfolio and ministry of development.

Mohammed Jamasi, the chief of the terror group's so-called emergency committee.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/israel-names-2-more-senior-hamas-members-killed-in-recent-gaza-strikes/

Mgfdhsrhe (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

The Killing of these comanders is one of the offical reasons for the attacks so all of them should be listed as none where just some Footsoldiers Mgfdhsrhe (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Do we have any independent sources on whether these even existed?VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, your bias is obvious, but that doesn't change that these terrorists died.

1: https://www.mizanonline.ir/en/news/733/abu-hamza-spokesman-for-the-al-quds-brigade-was-martyred

2: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202503/1330405.shtml

For you extra in English, not even the dead poster from Hamas themselves. Mgfdhsrhe (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

All those sources seem to be talking about different individuals. For example, neither of the two new sources you presented mention "Yasser Mohammed Harb Musa". One of them mentions "Abu Obeida al-Jamasi", but not sure if that's the same as "Mohammed Jamasi". Do note that the killing of Issam al-Daalis is already in the article.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Previously a closer found that "There is also consensus that an exhaustive list of every civilian casualty is not encyclopedic"[6].VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Please Yasser Harb = Yasser Mohammed Harb Musa and Abu Obeida al-Jamasi = Mohammed Jamasi

And what's the point of talking about civilians, they are all high officials or commanders in the various groups. Mgfdhsrhe (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I was about to use source #2 but turns out its deprecated. Can you find a better source? Also can you find an independent source for Yasser Harb? I can't find it in above sources.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

For Yasser Harb you can use the first one, he is in the bottom paragraph and It's a pro-Hamas Iranian newspaper. The problem with Mohammed Jamasi is that you have to use either the Chinese one or the Israeli one as the deceased posters from that group can't really get in here.

Here is another similar one: https://english.news.cn/20250318/8787a18d2a584ff691e922edada03458/c.html for Jamasi Mgfdhsrhe (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I think this should be moved to Operation Might and Sword

As this would be the official name, designated by the Israel Defense Forces I also think this should be called it because of the fact that various operations within the last 100 years have been called the name that was designated by the forces themselves. Shaneapickle (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I can't find RS calling it "Operation Might and Sword" so this may be a COMMONNAME scenario. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

We should pick a commonly recognizable name, and "Operation Might and Sword" is not commonly recognizable at all.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I think these cringe-worthy, narcissistic appellations should be avoided on Wikipedia entry titles, especially when crafted by an army accused of genocide at international courts. Rafe87 (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done Not moved. Family27390 (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 19 March 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Early closure per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

---

March 2025 Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip → Operation Might and Sword – official name designated by the IDF. Family27390 (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Just wanted to link WP:COMMONNAME for anyone unaware. Not making any accusations, just felt it might streamline discussion. Gracen (they/them) 18:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: I don't see why Wikipedia should follow these clearly propagandistic and self-congratulatory labels. The title itself is also in poor taste for an attack that killed nearly 200 children. Rafe87 (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Operation Barbarrossa isn't called "1941 Invasion of the Soviet Union". I don't see how doing changing it would be non-impartial. Meme scholar0 (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)non ECP strike

• Oppose - minimal/no RS describing it as that, WP:COMMONNAME Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't believe anyone is calling it this apart from official Israeli sources, certainly not major news outlets. Angusgtw (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

This article does not need to concede any narrative or political spin to the Israeli government, its military, or its allies. The State of Israel is the more powerful party in this context. If anything, its actions and diplomatic behavior should be carefully recorded. Make it known that Israel calls this action Operation Might and Sword, but otherwise record it as what it is: a ruthless attack on an occupied population. 162.234.45.21 (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC) (non ECP strike)

• Oppose - Current title is clearer ProudWatermelon (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - Show me sources that use this name + what other wiki pages in the A-I conflict use this naming convention? Thepharoah17 (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. RAIHAN ⚡ Got something to say? 19:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: these "operation" titles are almost never neutral, and most of the time are unnecessary. It is not a common name and, as mentioned above, is less clear than the current title. Nythar (💬-🍀) 19:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: clearly not the common name nor NPOV compliant. Mason7512 (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, per others. See WP:OFFICIAL; many military operations' code names are not generally recognizable to readers, and this is one such case. ArkHyena (it/its) 00:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV

Waleed (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose, concur with everyone above, the October 7 attack isn't called Operation Al-Aqsa Flood so I don't see why it should be different here. CherrySoda 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. No major outlets call the airstrikes as "Operation Might and Sword". Also the whole war was codenamed as "Operation Iron Swords", and no outlets one use the codename. RealStanger43286 (Let's talk!) 03:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request 19 March 2025

Description of suggested change: Add Chilean and Colombia official condemnation of the attack. Erosiva (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Done. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Edit Request

In the lede, change "Israel... shut off electricity" to "Israel stopped supplying electricity". The former implies Israel may have ended the electricity consumption capabilities or destroyed electricity infrastructure (which may have happened during the war but isn't what happened to the desalination plant) while the latter is more accurate. Fyukfy5 (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I changed it to "cut off electricity supply". That's also the wording used by CNN too[7].VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

NYT uses "cuts off electricity" so "cut off electricity supply" works. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/09/world/middleeast/israel-electricity-gaza.html Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 20 March 2025

It isnt "the deadliest day for Palestinians in the Gaza war", the source says it is "one of the deadliest days.

Diff:

−

the deadliest day for Palestinians in the Gaza war

+

one of the deadliest days...

ס.ג'יבלי (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done Iseult ^Δx talk to me 06:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Israeli Accusations of Ceasefire Violations

There were many times that Israel accused Hamas of violating the ceasefire, not just one instance.

−

Netanyahu and Israeli officials have claimed that Hamas violated the ceasefire during a body release. Hamas claims that a mix-up may have occurred.

+

Netanyahu and Israeli officials have claimed that [[2025_Gaza_war_ceasefire#Violations_and_deviations_by_Palestinian_militant_groups|Hamas violated the ceasefire]] numerous times, which Hamas disputes.

References

אקעגן (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Changed a little bit. (Now how do I close this edit request again?) Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Is the "them" in the revision ("Hamas violated the ceasefire several times by using them for rituals and propaganda.") meant to be hostages? I also note that the Reuters article I cited quotes Saar accusing Hamas of violating the "agreement to allow aid into Gaza by seizing most of the supplies itself." אקעגן (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Added with slight changes + denial (because mentioned in source). Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! אקעגן (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Include counterstrikes in responses?

I've added a couple counter-strikes from Hamas and a missile from Yemen in the responses section. Is that appropriate to have in this article, and if so, is the responses section the right place to put it? Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

At some point we have to limit the scope of this article, as the violence shows no sign of stopping. I would propose limiting this to the March 18 attacks, maybe Mar 19 too. But if this becomes a continuous war, the information should be covered at Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip, not here.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Mentioning women and children casualties

I don't understand why mention of women and children casualties was repeatedly removed from the lead here[8][9] by E6400. It is given significant coverage by reliable sources.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

It should be included, yes, but we should also point out that Hamas has routinely used civilians as shields, typically storing weapons and war supplies in schools, hospitals and civilian neighborhoods so in the event these civilians are killed they use the tragedy for propaganda value, which should also be included for context. Our 'fair and unbiased' media always leaves these important details out of the picture -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Everything you mention is not established fact, but allegations, mainly coming from Israel. They also have no place in this article, as there are no claims nor evidence that these deaths specifically were a result of the supposed activities you list. Mason7512 (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

• Hamas operates in the middle of a civilian infrastructure, which is an established fact. Allegations of using human shields, including hospitals, schools, etc, is nothing new and is a common practice among terrorists groups like Hamas. There is a WP article dedicated to this practice: Use of human shields by Hamas. Of course many of the allegations are coming from Israel -- do we really expect Hamas to be making such statements? Israel always targets military objectives which are in the middle of the small Gaza strip with civilians everywhere. Hamas has no official military headquarters or any overt military installations. Are we to assume that Israel is just bombing civilians for the heck of it, with no military objective in mind? To simply say women and children were killed, period, with no context to the war situation, raises serious neutrality issues. For the sake of neutrality we can say that Israel claims Hamas is using human shields and that Hamas denies it, which has been covered by RS. Otherwise this article will be begging for a neutrality tag. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

• There are plenty of sources to support a neutral statement, that Israel claims Hamas is using human shields while Hamas is denying it: Here is just a sampling: Finding more would just be a matter of routine. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

— CNN: White House says intelligence shows Hamas using al-Shifa hospital for command node, storing weapons]

— American University -- Hamas isn’t the First Military Group to Hide Behind Civilians as a Way to Wage War

— National Library of Medicine -- Importance of a broader view of the Hamas–Israel war

— NYT -- Israel Displays Tunnel Shaft at Gaza Hospital and Says It Will Let In Some Fuel

— PBS -- In wars, hospitals have special protection under international law. How does that apply in Gaza?

To clarify, I removed "women and children" from the lead because it was mentioned far too many times, making it sound repetitive and redundant. I still left the phrase where it was the most relevant. E6400 (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

That's fair, and I haven't reverted your edits. But can we agree to mention it at least in the infobox? Since that is supposed to have easily accessible information.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but mentioning it more than once in the introduction would be excessive. E6400 (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

"and resuming the Gaza genocide."

Hello, I've come here to say that this is an incredibly inappropriate (not to mention factually incorrect) thing to include in this article. Please immediately remove it in keeping with all relevant policies on Wikipedia. Thnak you. Dr John Carter from ER (the TV show) (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Further to the comment above...This statement is inappropriate and incorrect...

Missing references

There seems to be a few references missing (cite error), I have gone ahead and gather them here from a previous revision:

• <ref name=btselem>{{Cite web |date=18 March 2025 |title=Israel resumes its campaign of killing and destruction in Gaza |url=https://www.btselem.org/press_releases/20250318_israel_resumes_its_campaign_of_killing_and_destruction_in_gaza}}</ref>
• <ref name=AlJazeera20250318>{{Cite web |title=World reaction to Israel’s wave of deadly attacks on Gaza |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/3/18/world-reaction-to-israels-wave-of-deadly-attacks-on-gaza |access-date=2025-03-20 |website=Al Jazeera |language=en}}</ref>
• <ref name=colombia1>{{Cite web |date=2025-03-18 |title=Colombia rejects Israel’s unilateral actions against Gaza - Prensa Latina |url=https://www.plenglish.com/news/2025/03/18/colombia-rejects-israels-unilateral-actions-against-gaza/ |access-date=2025-03-20 |language=en-US}}</ref>

Syn73 (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

== "and resuming the Gaza genocide." == Surely, a more accurate summation would be "and resuming the attempts to rescue the hostages" or at worst "resuming what some have claimed is genocide."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydney59 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I've removed it.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 09:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

"resuming the attempts to rescue the hostages" is just a violation of WP:NPOV.. if "resuming genocide is inappropriate, then "attempting to rescue the hostages" is more inaccurate... RAIHAN ⚡ Got something to say? 09:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Edit Request - WHO Reaction Typo

Under the Reactions section the WHO sentence says "out lives at risk" instead of "put lives at risk" Fyukfy5 (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done Gotitbro (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Remove excessive use of "according to Gaza's Health Ministry" from the text.

The Gaza Health Ministry is a non-political institution, and its tallies of deaths in Gaza conflicts have historically been treated as credible in international forums and mainstream media outlets. There has never been a serious attempt to attack the Ministry’s work on a scientific basis; the only attacks on its reputation since October 2023 have come from political actors, such as the Israeli military and former President Joe Biden, who had every interest in undermining Palestinian officials’ information in order to maintain political support for the war (it is worth remembering that Biden has been accused by his own subordinates in the State Department and the diplomatic corps of spreading misinformation about the conflict). The UN itself, however, estimates that the casualty toll is, if anything, higher than that reported by the Ministry, and Israeli sources, when not engaged in some propaganda effort, generally take the Ministry’s figures at face value.

It is notable that the excessive use of attribution never hits information coming from Israeli officials about Israeli casualties, despite the fact that they have previously spread misinformation and half-truths on this subject; Le Monde notes, for example, that communication from Israel's National Center of Forensic Medicine about alleged beheadings of Israelis by Hamas on October 7 is vague and designed to maximize confusion around the issue rather than shed light on it.

I had previously removed a few instances of the use of “according to Gaza Health’s Ministry” from the text of the article, but they have been put back exactly where they were, perhaps because some editors want to signal to readers who come across the article that this data is unreliable and not credible. But there is no basis either in Wikipedia policy or in the Ministry’s track record of doing serious and internationally credible work for this skepticism and abuse of this phrase. I urge other editors to revert the reinsertions. Rafe87 (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: request not of X-to-Y form. This is better suited for general discussion or an RfC, not an edit request. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 21:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

The intro says now: The attacks killed more than 404 people, mostly women and children, according to Gaza Health Ministry. This could be changed to: The attacks killed more than 404 people, mostly women and children, just removing the phrase I mentioned above. Rafe87 (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

It should be mentioned at least one in the article, preferable once every section. But it doesn't need to be mentioned more than once in any given section even if we repeatedly use GHM figures in that section.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

The Gaza Health Ministry is a non-political institution, and its tallies of deaths in Gaza conflicts have historically been treated as credible in international forums and mainstream media outlets.

If this is correct, our readers can recognize that or work it out for themselves, and mentioning it's from the Gaza Health Ministry bolsters the reliability of the claims. (If we don't mention the source, readers will tend to draw adverse inferences from that.) If you think there's cases where it would be relevant to attribute statements about Israeli health officials to those officials, I wouldn't have any objections to that. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

The Gaza Health Ministry is a non-political institution, and its tallies of deaths in Gaza conflicts have historically been treated as credible in international forums and mainstream media outlets.

If this is correct, our readers can recognize that or work it out for themselves, and mentioning it's from the Gaza Health Ministry bolsters the reliability of the claims. (If we don't mention the source, readers will tend to draw adverse inferences from that.) If you think there's cases where it would be relevant to attribute statements about Israeli health officials to those officials, I wouldn't have any objections to that. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Edit Request

Change "Netanyahu agreed to a 3 phase ceasefire deal" from the second paragraph of the lede. The agreement was for the first phase which happened, and for negotiations to take place regarding the second phase. Not for all 3 phases to simply take place as many details hadn't been agreed to. Going by the source listed it says that negotiations for the second phase stalled out, please change it to the wording. Fyukfy5 (talk) 11:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that say Israel agreed to the three-phase ceasefire: "Both sides agreed to a three-phase treaty in late January, with the details of each subsequent phase set to be negotiated during the proceeding period."NBC News In fact, you can read the entire deal that Israel agreed to at Times of Israel.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I think I wasn't clear, I just think saying "agreed to a 3 phase deal" makes it sound like everything was ironed out and the entire deal was ready from beginning to end, when in reality only the details of the first phase were and that's a big reason why the ceasefire collapsed. Fyukfy5 (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Flag salad "Reactions" section

As many of you know, most editors despise list-formatted (and quotefarm) "Reactions" sections, especially the flag icons. These sections should be converted into prose—not a bulleted (flagged) list. Abductive (reasoning) 05:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't attempt to speak for "most editors". I've seen this sort of debate several times before, and it always goes nowhere in terms of removing these items, usually because the reasons for doing so really amount to little more than "I don't like them". Flag icons are commonplace and serve as a quick visual reference in numerous history and related articles involving several countries and military branches. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)