This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
A news item involving Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 14 August 2020. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
@ Bloom6132: per your last edit comment, that is not true. Both Egypt and Jordan were party to the 1949 Armistice Agreements. Armistice precedes Peace Treaties. Jordan and Israel were still technically at war (post the 1973 ceasefire following UNSCR 340). This is not the case for the UAE. Onceinawhile ( talk) 18:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
"it is the content of the agreement, not its name, which makes it a treaty"As such, war is not the precondition for a peace treaty. A legally binding agreement is. — Bloom6132 ( talk) 18:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
“The fact that the current international law system avoids the use of the term 'war' also avoids the conclusion of a peace treaty based on the existence of war.”— Bloom6132 ( talk) 19:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
@
Anthony Appleyard: unfortunately @
Bloom6132: misused
WP:RM/TR when he asked you to move this page per
[1]. Whether this is correctly described as a peace treaty is a contested matter.
Onceinawhile (
talk)
06:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
For the little my opinion worth, the agreements have been commonly referred to as peace deals or agreements in their reporting:
Trump on Twitter,
BBC,
ABC,
Times of Israel,
SBS,
Fox News. Claiming that the
common name is wrong, or that there is a significant perspective from a number of authoritative sources that these aren't "peace agreements" in the broadest terms, lies dangerously close to
original research and almost a
fringe perspectives as far as I see it. While a technical move may not have been the best avenue to institute the move, I think there is a policy basis for such - i.e. I don't think the administrator was misled.
ItsPugle (please use {{
ping|ItsPugle}}
on reply)
07:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
The result of the move request was: Move: The discussion supports moving the page to drop 'peace' in the title. While Abraham Accords was floated as a new name, there was not consensus on that. That can be pursued down the line in another discussion | MK17b | ( talk) 23:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement →
Israel–United Arab Emirates agreement (or deal / accords / pact) – Per
WP:COMMONNAME and
WP:CONCISE, the title should not include the word "peace". Most sources do not refer to this as a "
peace treaty", because that is not what it is. The normal definition of peace treaty requires a prior state of war, which these two states have never had. There is an element of stereotyping in assuming that because the country is Arab, it must have previously been an enemy of Israel. See
International recognition of Israel - would people call an agreement between Israel and Venezuela a "peace agreement"?! Of course a number of media outlets, and the US President on Twitter, have called this a peace treaty – perhaps because it is more catchy / politically impactful. But most media outlets have not made that mistake – the vast majority of sources for this topic call it simply an "agreement", and it is technically an "accord".
Onceinawhile (
talk) 08:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC) —Relisting.
Steel1943 (
talk)
02:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Just a few moments ago, I hosted a very special call with two friends, prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and crown prince Mohamed bin Zayed of United Arab Emirates where they agreed to finalize a historical peace agreement.The direct quote is from the press conference later that afternoon in the press briefing room. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 08:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC) BBC also uses "peace deal" only when paraphrasing Trump:
n a surprise statement by US President Donald Trump, who helped broker it, the countries called the accord "historic" and a breakthrough toward peace.as do CNN (
The deal was announced by ... Trump, who told reporters in the Oval Office that he had a "very special call" with leaders from both countries, ..., and that they had agreed to a peace agreement.) and Haaretz
Trump, in a tweet, called the agreement a "HUGE breakthrough," describing it as a "historic peace agreement between our two GREAT friends."Haaretz also quotes Netanyahu using the term:
Annexation still on the table, Netanyahu says, but U.S. asked Israel to 'temporarily postpone' applying sovereignty to parts of West Bank in order to advance the peace agreementExcept for France24, none of the sources use "peace deal" or "peace agreement" to describe the agreement in their own words. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 09:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
It could reorder the long stalemate in the region, potentially leading other Arab nations to follow suit in forging an increasingly explicit alliance with Israel against their mutual enemy in Iran.Peter Baker, Isabel Kershner, David D. Kirkpatrick and Ronen Bergman, Israel and United Arab Emirates Strike Major Diplomatic Agreement, New York Times 13 August 2020
{{
ping|ItsPugle}}
on reply)
11:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)no one familiar with this encyclopedia should be mentionning). Northern Moonlight 18:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
The agreement revealed Thursday stipulates that Israel will "suspend" annexation as a prerequisite to gaining full diplomatic relations with the UAE.( [4]) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
It is regarded by the signatories and observers as ...-- few quotes for this, and obviously the authors did not even name it as such. And a lot of observers say different. I prefer the analysis by OP: sources, COMMONNAME, etc. Variant names can be mentioned in the body text. - DePiep ( talk) 07:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add editnotice about this notice in the article per other Arab-Israeli articles: {{ ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} and please adding editnotice about using American English in the article
This article is written in American English, and some terms used in it are different or absent from British English and other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
180.245.101.217 ( talk) 14:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I believe this should be a prominent separate part of the article as it's internationally disputed and the most controversial conversation here in the middle east. Some information: Sheik Zayed of the UAE and the Trump administration: are claiming the treaty avoids the annexation of the west bank. Netanyahu of Israel on national television said: “I am still committed to annexing parts of the West Bank to Israel, it's not off the table, but can only happen in coordination with the US.," Netanyahu said.
Anyhow, I believe this should be researched and written about in the main article in a separate section.
The Article I believe must also include what's likely the benefits brought about to both parties from the treaty, i.e., the UAE's political stance on the international arena is highly damaged by its controversial role in Yemen's civil war and the proxy conflict in Libya, and that there's an expected weapon boost to the UAE from the US especially advanced drones, i.e., talk about alleged the military gain for the UAE brought about by the treaty. As well as, talking about the pre-electoral boost the trump administration is hoping to get from the treaty, and research whether the west bank annexation was truly ever going to occur or as one news agency put it as "trading an imaginary annexation for a peace treaty" since the plan was halted and never occurred on the previously stated date their date anyhow Thank you. I am new to Wikipedia editing so apologize if I am breaking any protocol. -- Dr.EbrahimSaadawi ( talk) 17:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
[1]
[2]
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-in-uae-deal-netanyahu-trades-imaginary-annexation-for-real-life-diplomacy-win-1.9071474
There is a quote from the US ambassador describing the agreement as a "'a huge win' for President Trump". As I read the article there is no mention of the role the US played in this. Given the prominence of this quote, should some mention of what the US contributed be worked in? 199.46.251.140 ( talk) 19:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
“During a call with President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu, an agreement was reached to stop further Israeli annexation of Palestinian territories,” [1]
The three referenced sources are articles in The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and MSNBC online. I also added another source crediting Kushner with playing a key role in the agreement from The Atlantic. It is a gross omission not to include some mention of Kushner. In fact, the article as it reads now, is not factually consistent with The New York Times news article. I suggest having a look at the sources which are available in the Kushner BLP, and updating this article as other editors deem appropriate.-- FeralOink ( talk) 22:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)"six weeks of indirect talks through Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, culminated in Thursday’s phone call between Mr. Trump, Mr. Netanyahu and Mohammed bin Zayed, the crown prince of Abu Dhabi and de facto ruler of the United Arab Emirates."[117]
References
This
edit request to
Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
We normally speak of the UAE in the singular, right, like the United States? "The UAE is doing X" not "The UAE are doing X"? If so, please change the second sentence from "to formally normalize their relationship with Israel," to "to formally normalize its relationship with Israel," 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:C505:548F:CCD:B5F9 ( talk) 22:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Unrelated: since we're summarizing Jared Kushner's words, not quoting them, please change "less" to "fewer" because "less" pertains to non-count nouns like rice and water, and "fewer" to count nouns like soldiers. 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:C505:548F:CCD:B5F9 ( talk) 22:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
fewer, and it looks like another editor (thank you whoever you are) already fixed the lead :) ItsPugle (please use
{{
ping|ItsPugle}}
on reply)
11:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)I recommend to add a link to Israel–United Arab Emirates relations, which has a stronger connection to this article's subject than the older agreements of Israel with Jordan and Egypt. Ofek ( talk) 10:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Currently, Iran supports different factions in proxy wars from Syria to Yemen, where the UAE has supported the Saudi-led coalition against the Iran-aligned forces fighting there
This is a gross violation of NPOV. Iran is isolated as a state actor uniquely engaged in proxy wars in the area. Together with Iran, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Israel, the United States, Russia and Turkey, to name the major 'actors', all have continued to participate in wars, siding with, financing or providing arms to one or another of the political factors or terror groups from Afghanistan to Lebanon. If Iran, as a major regional actor, does what any other nation does when its immediate geostrategic interests are threatened, i.e., chooses sides and, in doing so, can be defined as engaging in a proxy war, so do all of the above states, particularly the UAE and Saudi Arabia.
To single it out is to assume that Iran is the only one of the dozen or so that 'instigates' wars, or intervenes in the region, which is nonsense. Nishidani ( talk) 14:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Others" section, I would like to add Malaysia's reaction to this peace agreement. I would like to add as written below:
Malaysian Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein said that Malaysia's position on the Israel-Palestine issue has always been the same, whereby it rejects the illegal and unilateral action by Israel to implement its plan to annex parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the West Bank.
Source: https://www.thesundaily.my/local/malaysia-firm-on-two-state-solution-for-israel-palestinian-conflict-hishammuddin-CN3492455 GinormousBuildings ( talk) 01:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
May I draw attention to a problem in the article? In the first sentence in the section Background it says, "As early as 1971, the year in which the UAE became an independent country, the first president of the UAE Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan had referred to Israel as "the enemy.
In the next section Agreement it says, "A joint statement issued by Trump, Netanyahu, and Zayed, read: "This historic diplomatic breakthrough will advance peace in the Middle East region and is a testament to the bold diplomacy and vision of the three leaders and the courage of the United Arab Emirates and Israel to chart a new path that will unlock the great potential in the region."
Now with just the usage Zayed it would be a reference to the first UAE Sheik. But it is not. Here we are talking about Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the curren Crown Prince of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi. But there is no full reference to him before the mention of "Zayed" in the agreement section.
Could this be fixed up please? Andyjourn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyjourn ( talk • contribs) 14:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
It’s not an opinion piece, it’s reporting by the NYT, perhaps the best single source for this kind of content, and the edit is simply an improvement over the edit it replaced. The edit should be restored. soibangla ( talk) 18:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I just came back to Wikipedia after nearly a year off, largely because I couldn't stand the barely-disguised personal and political biases of editors. Here, yet another thoughtful editor blanked the entire section on the United States reaction, referred to Donald Trump's spokesperson as a "sycophant" (clearly a subjective opinion), and now the section reads only a quote from Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. Unbelievable. Welcome back to Wikipedia, that great source of knowledge, written by unbiased editors, for whom I'm supposed to "assume good faith". Foreignshore ( talk) 00:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I defy anyone to show me a similar article about a foreign policy achievement by a president that cites not just one, but three members of the foreign policy apparatus of that president under “Reactions,” including the president’s son-in-law who was the primary administration participant in the talks. By contrast, this “political activist” editor added two positive reactions to the deal from uninvolved observers who would not typically be forthcoming with anything resembling praise for Trump. And anyone who thinks Trump does not surround himself with sycophants to an extraordinary degree, having repeatedly demonstrated that he values loyalty over competence by replacing career professionals with loyalists, is simply not paying attention. The reactions of his foreign policy advisors are virtually worthless. And the “courage“ of the editor to personally attack me behind an anon IP is duly noted. soibangla ( talk) 18:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
"anyone who thinks Trump does not surround himself with sycophants to an extraordinary degree, having repeatedly demonstrated that he values loyalty over competence by replacing career professionals with loyalists, is simply not paying attention."
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
I think they have no merit here and should be removed. The section should include only people outside the administration. Note: I added the Biden positive reaction. soibangla ( talk) 00:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Your diatribes and politically-motivated edits are unhelpful. Can you explain very simply and clearly why there is an issue with its inclusion? Alssa1 ( talk) 23:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
diatribes and politically-motivated editsfrom me. There are, however, several of my edits that you rolled back without explanation. Why did you do that? soibangla ( talk) 23:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Can you explain very simply and clearly why there is an issue with its inclusion?I clearly did. Kindly cut out rolling back several of my edits without explanation and still refusing to explain after three requests. soibangla ( talk) 00:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I have no interest in "picking a fight". You make an amendment, you're then told to take it to talk and seek consensus. Instead of engaging positively, you fail to explain your position and when challenged you behave passive-aggressively by responding with: "I simply cannot believe that this needs to be explained" and linking to an irrelevant google search. Your pattern of edits and way of engaging is simply not reasonable, and I would appreciate it if you would engage more positively in future. Alssa1 ( talk) 00:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Instead of engaging positively, you fail to explain your position. I removed content with explanation in the edit summary, it was reverted, I immediately took it to Talk, and in my second sentence I explained:
The section should include only people outside the administration. Then you asked for further explanation, I provided a link to extensive coverage of how Trump's cabinet members fawned over him as he basked in adulation, to show they obviously aren't going say anything to upset him. And this is why their comments shouldn't be under "Reactions." You accuse me of bias despite the two "Reactions" edits I added were from Biden and Friedman, both of whom praised the agreement. And then you went and rolled back several of my edits without explanation. soibangla ( talk) 00:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi! Uninvolved editor here, but I'd like to suggest a bit of a compromise with this. Personally, I think excluding these perspectives purely because they're Trump loyalists (I use that term in the least prejudicial way) goes directly against
WP:NPOV, however, the
WP:BALANCE of proponents and opponents with them being there is not just. Having two prominent Trump loyalists' opinions represented with larger proses each than Trump's main political opposition (and one of the most influential political figures in current-day United States) is not balanced. I think it's worth adding them back in a rewritten and shorter form (or adding more to Joe Biden's response), and seeking out any other significantly notably voices, particularly others aligned with Biden to help balance it out numerically.
ItsPugle (please use {{
ping|ItsPugle}}
on reply)
12:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Mohammad Bin Mazyad Al-Tuwaijri is a Saudi Arabian politician, a minister ranked advisor at the Royal Court when Asked about the issue during an online seminar on Monday, Saudi royal court adviser Mohammad al-Tuwaijri called the U.A.E.’s deal a “sovereign decision” and “entirely their call.” However he also said that Saudi Arabia stands behind a 2002 initiative that called for normalized relations only after Israel withdraws from territories occupied in the 1967 war and claimed by the Palestinians for a state. Dr. Mohmad ( talk) 07:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Yep, https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/saudi-fm-says-no-ties-with-israel-until-peace-with-palestinians-639205 Selfstudier ( talk) 13:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Because the article is protected, I propose here to add the image on international reaction that I have created in its corresponding paragraph. For the sources, it would be in the Catalan Wikipedia, where I usually edit. Greetings, KajenCAT ( talk) 15:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
The map needs to be updated. Mahadaalvi ( talk) 03:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Davefelmer if you look at the source, you will see it refers to economic “ collapse,” so I object to your characterization of the edit as “partisan.“
What seems partisan to me is your insistence on continuing to refer to “President” Trump long after it has been established he is president. This is not typical in any article about any person. I continue to insist that inclusion of comments by Trump foreign policy team members, especially Kushner, is inappropriate under “Reactions,” and further insisting on continuing to refer to Trump as “President” makes it even less appropriate, as it now smells like outright idolatry. There are a good number of Americans who insist that he be addressed as “President” at all times as a means of “triggering the libs.” If we’re not gonna remove the Trump team’s comments from the section, the least we can do is advise readers of their relationships to Trump.
I also believe that the reported incentive for UAE to acquire US weapons is appropriate under “Analysis.” We need to assess “what’s in it“ for the various parties. Both Trump and Bibi have domestic political motives, and UAE wants F-35s and drones. soibangla ( talk) 18:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
random speculationyou refer to is from the NYT, one of the most reliable sources on this planet, their reporters on such topics are experts, and it is sufficient to make the statement in the edit with that source alone, and I showed you a subsequent NYT story showing that the arms deals are proceeding.
I will unfortunately have to present the evidenceI look forward to that. Please remember to ping me. soibangla ( talk) 22:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Afiasengupta2020 ( talk) 06:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Please add in the first paragraph that this agreement is yet to be signed in order to make it clear.
It already says "If an agreement is signed..." Selfstudier ( talk) 09:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The image of a map under the “Reactions” subsection indicating which countries support or oppose the agreement needs to be updated. Pakistan has clarified its “opposition” stance as of August 18th, 2020. Mahadaalvi ( talk) 03:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
On the 11th September 2020, it was announced that Bahrain and Israel would establish full diplomatic relations. [1]
References
It was proposed in this section that
Israel–United Arab Emirates agreement be
renamed and moved to
Israel-United Arab Emirates normalization agreement.
result: This is template {{
subst:Requested move/end}} |
Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement → Israel-United Arab Emirates normalization agreement – WP:PRECISE Simply put, agreement or peace agreement is either somewhat incorrect or vague. While today it is clear that the Israel–United Arab Emirates (peace) agreement refers to this specific one, over time the name becomes less and less clear. We should seek precision in defining what actually happened, and what actually happened was the normalization of relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates. Also (partially) per WP:COMMONAME. See CNN, NBC, Reuters, Washington Post, and New York Times. The sources are far from unanimous, and there are plenty that say peace agreement or agreement, but this is just the most accurate and precise name. I've also proposed a similar change on the Bahrain-Israel peace agreement article, where the sources are much clearer. Zoozaz1 ( talk) 18:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "15 Spetember 2020" to "15 September 2020". 173.177.73.20 ( talk) 22:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
See also section: Bahrain–Israel normalization agreement, instead of deleted Bahrain–Israel peace agreement. 121.129.249.185 ( talk) 02:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC) 121.129.249.185 ( talk) 02:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
X= The UAE thus became the third Arab country, after Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994, to formally normalize its relationship with Israel,[1][2][3] as well as the first Persian Gulf country to do so.
Y= The UAE thus became the fourth Arab country, after Egypt in 1979 , Jordan in 1994 and Mauritania in 1999 to formally normalize its relationship with Israel, ,[1][2][3] as well as the first Persian Gulf country to do so. Alzohary6 ( talk) 20:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
According Hannu Juusola [fi] at the University of Helsinki,...
Add “to” —> According to Hannu.... Bradleybclark ( talk) 04:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please standardize abbreviation of the United States from US to U.S. or elsewhere because i found that there are inconsistencies regarding abbreviation of the country, in infobox there say "U.S." but in article body says "US". In addition this article needs to be written in American English. Thank you. 110.137.184.148 ( talk) 10:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
add Signatories in infobox: Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan Donald Trump Benjamin Netanyahu 110.77.166.77 ( talk) 11:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Done. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 15:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I added an explanatory note in the lead. It is a bit confusing, the initial tripartite statement in August re the UAE deal was called the "Abraham Accords" and is referred to as that in the recently signed agreement between the UAE and Israel. Later, Bahrain joined in, if we can say it like that, and is a signatory to a short statement entitled "The Abraham Accords Declaration:" which is undated but I assume was signed the other day. This paper does not specifically identify the four signatories but we know by inspection/comparison with the principal agreements. It seems very messy: if Oman were to agree to "normalize" tomorrow, would that then become an Abraham Accord as well? Selfstudier ( talk) 09:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
It was proposed in this section that
Israel–United Arab Emirates agreement be
renamed and moved to
Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement.
result: This is template {{
subst:Requested move/end}} |
Israel–United Arab Emirates agreement → Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement – WP:PRECISE Simply put, agreement is very vague. While today it is clear that the Israel–United Arab Emirates agreement refers to this specific one, over time the name becomes less and less clear. We should seek precision in defining what actually happened, and what actually happened was the normalization of relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates. Also (partially) per WP:COMMONAME. See CNN, NBC, Reuters, Washington Post, and New York Times. The sources are far from unanimous, and there are plenty that say peace agreement or agreement, but this is just the most accurate and precise name. Since the other one was closed on formalities, I would suggest that the closer note the opinions of those on the previous move discussion when closing this. Zoozaz1 ( talk) 12:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Israel–United Arab Emirates agreement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change all date formats that used in the article because i found the statement like this:
Because this treaty happens in America and watches by president Donald Trump, please change all formats to consistent MDY because if this treaty happened outside the USA, DMY is more correct format because used by their perspective countries. 118.96.188.179 ( talk) 08:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the infobox template
to the bottom of the page. TimeEngineer ( talk) 18:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "See also" section there should be a link to the articles:
The following relevant categories of the article should include:
The following templates at the bottom of the article should include:
72.229.44.69 ( talk) 16:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Done Shemtovca ( talk) 20:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Include Israel–Morocco normalization agreement in the "See Also" section. WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 20:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think this template is relevant as the U.S. brokered this deal:
WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 21:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are new updates about some agreements with UAE and Israel, please can I edit? There are also some grammar and spelling mistakes, I am a professional English writer! Mastereditorhacks123 ( talk) 04:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Looking at the sources for the article, no source is cited for the supposed primary title "Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement." This looks to be a made up name, and it is not referenced.
The name as cited by referenced sources is "Abraham Accords Peace Agreement: Treaty of Peace, Diplomatic Relations and Full Normalization Between the United Arab Emirates and the State of Israel." In fact, in the US Department of State that's what they call them: Abraham Accords between the UAE and I. [1]. I mean, sure, if you wanted to use a conventional shortened name, some journalists have used shorthand of one type or the other. But this wouldn't be cited on the article as the primary name, would it? Also, you still should provide referential proof of what the shortened WP:COMMONNAME is.
References
So I put a citation needed template for the made up name and this is the reversal I got from SoaringLL ( talk · contribs): "WP:BLUE. This is the article's name."
Circular thinking, much? We call "something" something because that's its title on WP? XavierItzm ( talk) 20:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Indonesia should be included in the "Reactions" Section and should be classified as "Neutral" on the reaction map. This is my source: https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2020/09/18/abraham-accords-wont-change-indonesias-position-foreign-ministry.html Dunutubble ( talk) 23:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Bashe Omar Awil to Bashe Awil Omar Jaberi20 ( talk) 15:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
A news item involving Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 14 August 2020. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
@ Bloom6132: per your last edit comment, that is not true. Both Egypt and Jordan were party to the 1949 Armistice Agreements. Armistice precedes Peace Treaties. Jordan and Israel were still technically at war (post the 1973 ceasefire following UNSCR 340). This is not the case for the UAE. Onceinawhile ( talk) 18:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
"it is the content of the agreement, not its name, which makes it a treaty"As such, war is not the precondition for a peace treaty. A legally binding agreement is. — Bloom6132 ( talk) 18:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
“The fact that the current international law system avoids the use of the term 'war' also avoids the conclusion of a peace treaty based on the existence of war.”— Bloom6132 ( talk) 19:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
@
Anthony Appleyard: unfortunately @
Bloom6132: misused
WP:RM/TR when he asked you to move this page per
[1]. Whether this is correctly described as a peace treaty is a contested matter.
Onceinawhile (
talk)
06:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
For the little my opinion worth, the agreements have been commonly referred to as peace deals or agreements in their reporting:
Trump on Twitter,
BBC,
ABC,
Times of Israel,
SBS,
Fox News. Claiming that the
common name is wrong, or that there is a significant perspective from a number of authoritative sources that these aren't "peace agreements" in the broadest terms, lies dangerously close to
original research and almost a
fringe perspectives as far as I see it. While a technical move may not have been the best avenue to institute the move, I think there is a policy basis for such - i.e. I don't think the administrator was misled.
ItsPugle (please use {{
ping|ItsPugle}}
on reply)
07:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
The result of the move request was: Move: The discussion supports moving the page to drop 'peace' in the title. While Abraham Accords was floated as a new name, there was not consensus on that. That can be pursued down the line in another discussion | MK17b | ( talk) 23:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement →
Israel–United Arab Emirates agreement (or deal / accords / pact) – Per
WP:COMMONNAME and
WP:CONCISE, the title should not include the word "peace". Most sources do not refer to this as a "
peace treaty", because that is not what it is. The normal definition of peace treaty requires a prior state of war, which these two states have never had. There is an element of stereotyping in assuming that because the country is Arab, it must have previously been an enemy of Israel. See
International recognition of Israel - would people call an agreement between Israel and Venezuela a "peace agreement"?! Of course a number of media outlets, and the US President on Twitter, have called this a peace treaty – perhaps because it is more catchy / politically impactful. But most media outlets have not made that mistake – the vast majority of sources for this topic call it simply an "agreement", and it is technically an "accord".
Onceinawhile (
talk) 08:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC) —Relisting.
Steel1943 (
talk)
02:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Just a few moments ago, I hosted a very special call with two friends, prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and crown prince Mohamed bin Zayed of United Arab Emirates where they agreed to finalize a historical peace agreement.The direct quote is from the press conference later that afternoon in the press briefing room. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 08:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC) BBC also uses "peace deal" only when paraphrasing Trump:
n a surprise statement by US President Donald Trump, who helped broker it, the countries called the accord "historic" and a breakthrough toward peace.as do CNN (
The deal was announced by ... Trump, who told reporters in the Oval Office that he had a "very special call" with leaders from both countries, ..., and that they had agreed to a peace agreement.) and Haaretz
Trump, in a tweet, called the agreement a "HUGE breakthrough," describing it as a "historic peace agreement between our two GREAT friends."Haaretz also quotes Netanyahu using the term:
Annexation still on the table, Netanyahu says, but U.S. asked Israel to 'temporarily postpone' applying sovereignty to parts of West Bank in order to advance the peace agreementExcept for France24, none of the sources use "peace deal" or "peace agreement" to describe the agreement in their own words. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 09:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
It could reorder the long stalemate in the region, potentially leading other Arab nations to follow suit in forging an increasingly explicit alliance with Israel against their mutual enemy in Iran.Peter Baker, Isabel Kershner, David D. Kirkpatrick and Ronen Bergman, Israel and United Arab Emirates Strike Major Diplomatic Agreement, New York Times 13 August 2020
{{
ping|ItsPugle}}
on reply)
11:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)no one familiar with this encyclopedia should be mentionning). Northern Moonlight 18:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
The agreement revealed Thursday stipulates that Israel will "suspend" annexation as a prerequisite to gaining full diplomatic relations with the UAE.( [4]) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
It is regarded by the signatories and observers as ...-- few quotes for this, and obviously the authors did not even name it as such. And a lot of observers say different. I prefer the analysis by OP: sources, COMMONNAME, etc. Variant names can be mentioned in the body text. - DePiep ( talk) 07:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add editnotice about this notice in the article per other Arab-Israeli articles: {{ ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} and please adding editnotice about using American English in the article
This article is written in American English, and some terms used in it are different or absent from British English and other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
180.245.101.217 ( talk) 14:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I believe this should be a prominent separate part of the article as it's internationally disputed and the most controversial conversation here in the middle east. Some information: Sheik Zayed of the UAE and the Trump administration: are claiming the treaty avoids the annexation of the west bank. Netanyahu of Israel on national television said: “I am still committed to annexing parts of the West Bank to Israel, it's not off the table, but can only happen in coordination with the US.," Netanyahu said.
Anyhow, I believe this should be researched and written about in the main article in a separate section.
The Article I believe must also include what's likely the benefits brought about to both parties from the treaty, i.e., the UAE's political stance on the international arena is highly damaged by its controversial role in Yemen's civil war and the proxy conflict in Libya, and that there's an expected weapon boost to the UAE from the US especially advanced drones, i.e., talk about alleged the military gain for the UAE brought about by the treaty. As well as, talking about the pre-electoral boost the trump administration is hoping to get from the treaty, and research whether the west bank annexation was truly ever going to occur or as one news agency put it as "trading an imaginary annexation for a peace treaty" since the plan was halted and never occurred on the previously stated date their date anyhow Thank you. I am new to Wikipedia editing so apologize if I am breaking any protocol. -- Dr.EbrahimSaadawi ( talk) 17:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
[1]
[2]
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-in-uae-deal-netanyahu-trades-imaginary-annexation-for-real-life-diplomacy-win-1.9071474
There is a quote from the US ambassador describing the agreement as a "'a huge win' for President Trump". As I read the article there is no mention of the role the US played in this. Given the prominence of this quote, should some mention of what the US contributed be worked in? 199.46.251.140 ( talk) 19:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
“During a call with President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu, an agreement was reached to stop further Israeli annexation of Palestinian territories,” [1]
The three referenced sources are articles in The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and MSNBC online. I also added another source crediting Kushner with playing a key role in the agreement from The Atlantic. It is a gross omission not to include some mention of Kushner. In fact, the article as it reads now, is not factually consistent with The New York Times news article. I suggest having a look at the sources which are available in the Kushner BLP, and updating this article as other editors deem appropriate.-- FeralOink ( talk) 22:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)"six weeks of indirect talks through Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, culminated in Thursday’s phone call between Mr. Trump, Mr. Netanyahu and Mohammed bin Zayed, the crown prince of Abu Dhabi and de facto ruler of the United Arab Emirates."[117]
References
This
edit request to
Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
We normally speak of the UAE in the singular, right, like the United States? "The UAE is doing X" not "The UAE are doing X"? If so, please change the second sentence from "to formally normalize their relationship with Israel," to "to formally normalize its relationship with Israel," 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:C505:548F:CCD:B5F9 ( talk) 22:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Unrelated: since we're summarizing Jared Kushner's words, not quoting them, please change "less" to "fewer" because "less" pertains to non-count nouns like rice and water, and "fewer" to count nouns like soldiers. 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:C505:548F:CCD:B5F9 ( talk) 22:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
fewer, and it looks like another editor (thank you whoever you are) already fixed the lead :) ItsPugle (please use
{{
ping|ItsPugle}}
on reply)
11:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)I recommend to add a link to Israel–United Arab Emirates relations, which has a stronger connection to this article's subject than the older agreements of Israel with Jordan and Egypt. Ofek ( talk) 10:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Currently, Iran supports different factions in proxy wars from Syria to Yemen, where the UAE has supported the Saudi-led coalition against the Iran-aligned forces fighting there
This is a gross violation of NPOV. Iran is isolated as a state actor uniquely engaged in proxy wars in the area. Together with Iran, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Israel, the United States, Russia and Turkey, to name the major 'actors', all have continued to participate in wars, siding with, financing or providing arms to one or another of the political factors or terror groups from Afghanistan to Lebanon. If Iran, as a major regional actor, does what any other nation does when its immediate geostrategic interests are threatened, i.e., chooses sides and, in doing so, can be defined as engaging in a proxy war, so do all of the above states, particularly the UAE and Saudi Arabia.
To single it out is to assume that Iran is the only one of the dozen or so that 'instigates' wars, or intervenes in the region, which is nonsense. Nishidani ( talk) 14:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Others" section, I would like to add Malaysia's reaction to this peace agreement. I would like to add as written below:
Malaysian Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein said that Malaysia's position on the Israel-Palestine issue has always been the same, whereby it rejects the illegal and unilateral action by Israel to implement its plan to annex parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the West Bank.
Source: https://www.thesundaily.my/local/malaysia-firm-on-two-state-solution-for-israel-palestinian-conflict-hishammuddin-CN3492455 GinormousBuildings ( talk) 01:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
May I draw attention to a problem in the article? In the first sentence in the section Background it says, "As early as 1971, the year in which the UAE became an independent country, the first president of the UAE Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan had referred to Israel as "the enemy.
In the next section Agreement it says, "A joint statement issued by Trump, Netanyahu, and Zayed, read: "This historic diplomatic breakthrough will advance peace in the Middle East region and is a testament to the bold diplomacy and vision of the three leaders and the courage of the United Arab Emirates and Israel to chart a new path that will unlock the great potential in the region."
Now with just the usage Zayed it would be a reference to the first UAE Sheik. But it is not. Here we are talking about Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the curren Crown Prince of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi. But there is no full reference to him before the mention of "Zayed" in the agreement section.
Could this be fixed up please? Andyjourn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyjourn ( talk • contribs) 14:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
It’s not an opinion piece, it’s reporting by the NYT, perhaps the best single source for this kind of content, and the edit is simply an improvement over the edit it replaced. The edit should be restored. soibangla ( talk) 18:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I just came back to Wikipedia after nearly a year off, largely because I couldn't stand the barely-disguised personal and political biases of editors. Here, yet another thoughtful editor blanked the entire section on the United States reaction, referred to Donald Trump's spokesperson as a "sycophant" (clearly a subjective opinion), and now the section reads only a quote from Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. Unbelievable. Welcome back to Wikipedia, that great source of knowledge, written by unbiased editors, for whom I'm supposed to "assume good faith". Foreignshore ( talk) 00:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I defy anyone to show me a similar article about a foreign policy achievement by a president that cites not just one, but three members of the foreign policy apparatus of that president under “Reactions,” including the president’s son-in-law who was the primary administration participant in the talks. By contrast, this “political activist” editor added two positive reactions to the deal from uninvolved observers who would not typically be forthcoming with anything resembling praise for Trump. And anyone who thinks Trump does not surround himself with sycophants to an extraordinary degree, having repeatedly demonstrated that he values loyalty over competence by replacing career professionals with loyalists, is simply not paying attention. The reactions of his foreign policy advisors are virtually worthless. And the “courage“ of the editor to personally attack me behind an anon IP is duly noted. soibangla ( talk) 18:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
"anyone who thinks Trump does not surround himself with sycophants to an extraordinary degree, having repeatedly demonstrated that he values loyalty over competence by replacing career professionals with loyalists, is simply not paying attention."
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
I think they have no merit here and should be removed. The section should include only people outside the administration. Note: I added the Biden positive reaction. soibangla ( talk) 00:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Your diatribes and politically-motivated edits are unhelpful. Can you explain very simply and clearly why there is an issue with its inclusion? Alssa1 ( talk) 23:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
diatribes and politically-motivated editsfrom me. There are, however, several of my edits that you rolled back without explanation. Why did you do that? soibangla ( talk) 23:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Can you explain very simply and clearly why there is an issue with its inclusion?I clearly did. Kindly cut out rolling back several of my edits without explanation and still refusing to explain after three requests. soibangla ( talk) 00:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I have no interest in "picking a fight". You make an amendment, you're then told to take it to talk and seek consensus. Instead of engaging positively, you fail to explain your position and when challenged you behave passive-aggressively by responding with: "I simply cannot believe that this needs to be explained" and linking to an irrelevant google search. Your pattern of edits and way of engaging is simply not reasonable, and I would appreciate it if you would engage more positively in future. Alssa1 ( talk) 00:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Instead of engaging positively, you fail to explain your position. I removed content with explanation in the edit summary, it was reverted, I immediately took it to Talk, and in my second sentence I explained:
The section should include only people outside the administration. Then you asked for further explanation, I provided a link to extensive coverage of how Trump's cabinet members fawned over him as he basked in adulation, to show they obviously aren't going say anything to upset him. And this is why their comments shouldn't be under "Reactions." You accuse me of bias despite the two "Reactions" edits I added were from Biden and Friedman, both of whom praised the agreement. And then you went and rolled back several of my edits without explanation. soibangla ( talk) 00:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi! Uninvolved editor here, but I'd like to suggest a bit of a compromise with this. Personally, I think excluding these perspectives purely because they're Trump loyalists (I use that term in the least prejudicial way) goes directly against
WP:NPOV, however, the
WP:BALANCE of proponents and opponents with them being there is not just. Having two prominent Trump loyalists' opinions represented with larger proses each than Trump's main political opposition (and one of the most influential political figures in current-day United States) is not balanced. I think it's worth adding them back in a rewritten and shorter form (or adding more to Joe Biden's response), and seeking out any other significantly notably voices, particularly others aligned with Biden to help balance it out numerically.
ItsPugle (please use {{
ping|ItsPugle}}
on reply)
12:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Mohammad Bin Mazyad Al-Tuwaijri is a Saudi Arabian politician, a minister ranked advisor at the Royal Court when Asked about the issue during an online seminar on Monday, Saudi royal court adviser Mohammad al-Tuwaijri called the U.A.E.’s deal a “sovereign decision” and “entirely their call.” However he also said that Saudi Arabia stands behind a 2002 initiative that called for normalized relations only after Israel withdraws from territories occupied in the 1967 war and claimed by the Palestinians for a state. Dr. Mohmad ( talk) 07:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Yep, https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/saudi-fm-says-no-ties-with-israel-until-peace-with-palestinians-639205 Selfstudier ( talk) 13:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Because the article is protected, I propose here to add the image on international reaction that I have created in its corresponding paragraph. For the sources, it would be in the Catalan Wikipedia, where I usually edit. Greetings, KajenCAT ( talk) 15:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
The map needs to be updated. Mahadaalvi ( talk) 03:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Davefelmer if you look at the source, you will see it refers to economic “ collapse,” so I object to your characterization of the edit as “partisan.“
What seems partisan to me is your insistence on continuing to refer to “President” Trump long after it has been established he is president. This is not typical in any article about any person. I continue to insist that inclusion of comments by Trump foreign policy team members, especially Kushner, is inappropriate under “Reactions,” and further insisting on continuing to refer to Trump as “President” makes it even less appropriate, as it now smells like outright idolatry. There are a good number of Americans who insist that he be addressed as “President” at all times as a means of “triggering the libs.” If we’re not gonna remove the Trump team’s comments from the section, the least we can do is advise readers of their relationships to Trump.
I also believe that the reported incentive for UAE to acquire US weapons is appropriate under “Analysis.” We need to assess “what’s in it“ for the various parties. Both Trump and Bibi have domestic political motives, and UAE wants F-35s and drones. soibangla ( talk) 18:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
random speculationyou refer to is from the NYT, one of the most reliable sources on this planet, their reporters on such topics are experts, and it is sufficient to make the statement in the edit with that source alone, and I showed you a subsequent NYT story showing that the arms deals are proceeding.
I will unfortunately have to present the evidenceI look forward to that. Please remember to ping me. soibangla ( talk) 22:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Afiasengupta2020 ( talk) 06:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Please add in the first paragraph that this agreement is yet to be signed in order to make it clear.
It already says "If an agreement is signed..." Selfstudier ( talk) 09:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The image of a map under the “Reactions” subsection indicating which countries support or oppose the agreement needs to be updated. Pakistan has clarified its “opposition” stance as of August 18th, 2020. Mahadaalvi ( talk) 03:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
On the 11th September 2020, it was announced that Bahrain and Israel would establish full diplomatic relations. [1]
References
It was proposed in this section that
Israel–United Arab Emirates agreement be
renamed and moved to
Israel-United Arab Emirates normalization agreement.
result: This is template {{
subst:Requested move/end}} |
Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement → Israel-United Arab Emirates normalization agreement – WP:PRECISE Simply put, agreement or peace agreement is either somewhat incorrect or vague. While today it is clear that the Israel–United Arab Emirates (peace) agreement refers to this specific one, over time the name becomes less and less clear. We should seek precision in defining what actually happened, and what actually happened was the normalization of relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates. Also (partially) per WP:COMMONAME. See CNN, NBC, Reuters, Washington Post, and New York Times. The sources are far from unanimous, and there are plenty that say peace agreement or agreement, but this is just the most accurate and precise name. I've also proposed a similar change on the Bahrain-Israel peace agreement article, where the sources are much clearer. Zoozaz1 ( talk) 18:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "15 Spetember 2020" to "15 September 2020". 173.177.73.20 ( talk) 22:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
See also section: Bahrain–Israel normalization agreement, instead of deleted Bahrain–Israel peace agreement. 121.129.249.185 ( talk) 02:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC) 121.129.249.185 ( talk) 02:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
X= The UAE thus became the third Arab country, after Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994, to formally normalize its relationship with Israel,[1][2][3] as well as the first Persian Gulf country to do so.
Y= The UAE thus became the fourth Arab country, after Egypt in 1979 , Jordan in 1994 and Mauritania in 1999 to formally normalize its relationship with Israel, ,[1][2][3] as well as the first Persian Gulf country to do so. Alzohary6 ( talk) 20:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
According Hannu Juusola [fi] at the University of Helsinki,...
Add “to” —> According to Hannu.... Bradleybclark ( talk) 04:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please standardize abbreviation of the United States from US to U.S. or elsewhere because i found that there are inconsistencies regarding abbreviation of the country, in infobox there say "U.S." but in article body says "US". In addition this article needs to be written in American English. Thank you. 110.137.184.148 ( talk) 10:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
add Signatories in infobox: Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan Donald Trump Benjamin Netanyahu 110.77.166.77 ( talk) 11:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Done. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 15:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I added an explanatory note in the lead. It is a bit confusing, the initial tripartite statement in August re the UAE deal was called the "Abraham Accords" and is referred to as that in the recently signed agreement between the UAE and Israel. Later, Bahrain joined in, if we can say it like that, and is a signatory to a short statement entitled "The Abraham Accords Declaration:" which is undated but I assume was signed the other day. This paper does not specifically identify the four signatories but we know by inspection/comparison with the principal agreements. It seems very messy: if Oman were to agree to "normalize" tomorrow, would that then become an Abraham Accord as well? Selfstudier ( talk) 09:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
It was proposed in this section that
Israel–United Arab Emirates agreement be
renamed and moved to
Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement.
result: This is template {{
subst:Requested move/end}} |
Israel–United Arab Emirates agreement → Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement – WP:PRECISE Simply put, agreement is very vague. While today it is clear that the Israel–United Arab Emirates agreement refers to this specific one, over time the name becomes less and less clear. We should seek precision in defining what actually happened, and what actually happened was the normalization of relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates. Also (partially) per WP:COMMONAME. See CNN, NBC, Reuters, Washington Post, and New York Times. The sources are far from unanimous, and there are plenty that say peace agreement or agreement, but this is just the most accurate and precise name. Since the other one was closed on formalities, I would suggest that the closer note the opinions of those on the previous move discussion when closing this. Zoozaz1 ( talk) 12:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Israel–United Arab Emirates agreement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change all date formats that used in the article because i found the statement like this:
Because this treaty happens in America and watches by president Donald Trump, please change all formats to consistent MDY because if this treaty happened outside the USA, DMY is more correct format because used by their perspective countries. 118.96.188.179 ( talk) 08:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the infobox template
to the bottom of the page. TimeEngineer ( talk) 18:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "See also" section there should be a link to the articles:
The following relevant categories of the article should include:
The following templates at the bottom of the article should include:
72.229.44.69 ( talk) 16:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Done Shemtovca ( talk) 20:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Include Israel–Morocco normalization agreement in the "See Also" section. WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 20:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think this template is relevant as the U.S. brokered this deal:
WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 21:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are new updates about some agreements with UAE and Israel, please can I edit? There are also some grammar and spelling mistakes, I am a professional English writer! Mastereditorhacks123 ( talk) 04:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Looking at the sources for the article, no source is cited for the supposed primary title "Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement." This looks to be a made up name, and it is not referenced.
The name as cited by referenced sources is "Abraham Accords Peace Agreement: Treaty of Peace, Diplomatic Relations and Full Normalization Between the United Arab Emirates and the State of Israel." In fact, in the US Department of State that's what they call them: Abraham Accords between the UAE and I. [1]. I mean, sure, if you wanted to use a conventional shortened name, some journalists have used shorthand of one type or the other. But this wouldn't be cited on the article as the primary name, would it? Also, you still should provide referential proof of what the shortened WP:COMMONNAME is.
References
So I put a citation needed template for the made up name and this is the reversal I got from SoaringLL ( talk · contribs): "WP:BLUE. This is the article's name."
Circular thinking, much? We call "something" something because that's its title on WP? XavierItzm ( talk) 20:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Indonesia should be included in the "Reactions" Section and should be classified as "Neutral" on the reaction map. This is my source: https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2020/09/18/abraham-accords-wont-change-indonesias-position-foreign-ministry.html Dunutubble ( talk) 23:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Bashe Omar Awil to Bashe Awil Omar Jaberi20 ( talk) 15:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)